Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Crispin]

Yes, there is one truth - Germans did it; and then there is political convenience that obscures it and forces people to claim black is white.

You go all in on the german ammunition? Did it ever occur to you that countries did export/import before WW2 aswell? noone but conspiracy theorists like yourself pushes that edition, not even the country (yours) guilty of the massacre.

[Cerilis]

Still letting the thread be derailed by bullshit? Come on, he isnt even trying to provide sources or anything.

[Shalcker]

You go all in on the german ammunition? Did it ever occur to you that countries did export/import before WW2 aswell? noone but conspiracy theorists like yourself pushes that edition, not even the country (yours) guilty of the massacre.

Not just German ammunition.

Several thousands of captive Poles were really executed by NKVD.

But Katyn specifically still was German act, disposing of Polish labor camp prisoners they captured in their offensive (and there are USSR documents asking for transporation to evacuate them that couldn't be arranged).

Current Trump administration and West in general simply loves to support Polish right-wingers that latch on "Everything was USSR fault" because it's convenient to them.

[Poopymonster]

Wait... are you serious right now? Is that the way they teach History in Russia? The Soviet Union was Hitler's ally in the invasion of Poland. The Soviet Union invaded at the same time as Germany. What sort of revisionist nonsense are you trying to push?

I first learned about "The War Of Northern Aggression" and how it wasn't about slavery, when I was in elementary school in Greensboro NC, circa 1987ish. Moving to Michigan a year or so later had a different version. Including such hits as Civil War, free the slaves, and the confederacy surrendered.

Rewriting history is unsurprising and not new.

[Skroe]

Well, the groundwork is being laid to call China a National Security threat.

First of all, besides what's in that Axios article, a reminder: Trump ordered US companies to stop doing business with China. Used the actual word "order" and cited a very specific law to do so. Problem was, at the time, he couldn't. The President can make such orders, but only when it pertains to time of war or, you guessed it, threats to national security. Trump hadn't declared it yet, therefore, his order was as ineffective as his penis.

But.

Once China is so declared, Trump could actually do it, penalizing companies that do business with China. Based on what the stock market did when goods from China got 5% more expensive again, a flat-out "cannot do business with China at all" would almost certainly lead to a massive market crash, not to mention the drop in GDP and the mandatory layoffs. "Sorry, but hiring you would be against the law."

And then, of course, China would react to this label. Hell, they'll probably even react to this story about maybe being labeled. I don't even want to guess how that ends. But I know where it would start: the immediate end of any trade discussions until Trump is out of office or dead from a Whopper of a heart attack. I don't think they care which.

The United States should take a strong stance against violations of human rights. It's what we're supposed to stand for. The problem is, if Trump does this, he destroys the economy, breaks campaign promises, and limps towards 2020 having personally started a new cold war with the strongest superpower on Earth (yeah I said it @Skroe come at me).

- - - Updated - - -



The President of the United States went out of his way to address the American people, about the hurricane, and said something that was objectively false about the hurricane.

He did so because he was either incompetent, or intentionally ill-informed. There is no third option.

There is no way this is "blown out of proportion".

So I'm going to need to explain something. Hopefully take it to heart.

If you're calling China the earth's "strongest superpower" for shock value, then you can disregard. But if you're sincere, you need to udnerstand there are implications to what you're saying I'm not certain you fully grasp that make it a factually incorrect thing to say.

First, the word "superpower" is a creation of mid 20th century political science / international relations theory that at one time meant a very specific thing and over the time got dliuted to mean something quite different. The model of international relations in the 19th and first 40 years of the 20th century was based around the "Great Powers". At various points it largely comprised of (but not all at once) of the British Empire, Germany (Imperial and Nazi), Austria-Hungary, France, The Russian Empire / USSR, Italy, the United States, and the Empire of Japan. The great powers were broadly equal and their shifting alliances (see: before World War I and after it) kept a balance between them. Most of them were colonial in nature, or attempted to be. But none was hegemonic in their principle domains. Where they were hegemonic was mostly hinterland colonies.

"Superpower" arose after World War II to describe the new situation where the principal victors of the war - the US, Soviet Union and United Kingdom - would become dominant and hegemonic in a vast swathe of industries, areas of interests, technologies, and places on the map. The many great powers would to some degree still exist, but they would become junior partners to the superpowers that built blocs. US educaitonal history glosses over this point, but in the years after 1945, United Kingdom / the British Empire, was a potential third global superpower. It still had the greatest amount of colonial territory. It was bankrupt but industrially and militarily highly capable. It was still internationally ambitious. It had not seen the ruin that had befallen continental Europe. But the UK spend the decade after World War II seeing its empire dismantled. They tried to halt the decline and give a new lease on life in the Suez Crisis, but in a rare act, the US and USSR together were on the same side in that. The US was not interested in a rival Western superpower, and our own colonial history gave impetus for us to see the British Empire dismantled. So the three superpowers became the two, the United Kingdom firmly settled as a Great Power in US orbit.

And that is what defines more than anything else, a Superpower. That a number other great powers bind themselves politically, militarily, economically and to a degree even culturally, to the greater power. The USSR did this in its near abroad, and the US did it in everywhere it could, today enjoying 54 treaty allies, including all the great powers in the present world, except China and Russia.

In the Cold War, the word became highly political and only associated with the United States and Soviet Union. So when the Soviet Union fell, a new phrase was coined: hyperpower... a short hand to describe the US at the height of the unipolar moment. The last man standing, now free to spread its superpower influences to the vast swathes of the world formerly under Soviet or Non-Aligned control.

Except hyperpower is a kind of bullshit phrase.

"Superpower" is relational. It defines something in relation to something else, specifically it defines two powerful countries in relation to each other, where one country is vastly more multi-spectrum capable than the other. A superpower comes about when the realms it is hegemonic in, including dominance of its sphere of influence, is such that other great powers enter its orbit and align with it. A Hyperpower doesn't describe anything of the sort. It is not relational. It does nothing to further the definition of what a country is or isn't because a US that is hegemonic over the entire world doesn't necessarily see all countries enter its orbit. Indeed, Russia did not. That's why "the world's only superpower" is and remains the most descriptive and accurate phrase to describe the United States from 1992 to the present. It rides the back of nearly 50 years (from 1945 to 1992) of defining what a superpower is, and is still grounded in its relational aspect. The fact it had no rival superpower is besides the point.

THe problem is, this is an educated definition, and the world is dumb. And it's also highly political.

So what did we see? "Superpower" defined down.

Did you know that Scotland is a superpower? Yep. It's a fisheries superpower.
Did you know India is a superpower? Indeed, it is an IT superpower. It also defines itself as a "space superpower". It and it's one trip to Mars on a budget.
Did you know the EU is a "human rights superpower"?
Or how about Turkey... self described as a "regional superpower".
China loves calling itself a "renewable energy superpower".
Germany is "the superpower of the European union"
And lastly South Korea, with the spread of K-Pop and professional gaming, now is described as a "cultural superpower".

Do you see the problem?

"Superpower" meant one specific thing: a bundle of broad spectrumed hegemonic statuses in industrial, cultural, political, territorial, technological and mlitary. A country could only be a superpower if it, in short, collected the whole set. If it collected some, it was just a "great power" or a "power". But there is almost never an adjective in front of "superpower"... certainly not as descriptive as "human rights superpower" and "space superpower". The only acceptable adjective is to describe alignment, again relational... i.e the US as the "Western Superpower" (as in, Western world) versus the USSR was the "Communist Superpower" (as in, part of the second world). But there is no such thing besides that as a <insert adjective> Superpower.

But leaders do it. Politicians do it. Journalists do it. Leaders do it to hype themselves and justify their policies. Modi called India a Space Superpower recently. It's not. It's come a long way. But it's still a minnow in Space, and the most notable thing about India in space is that India is doing space things. But calling his country a Space Superpower is essentially propagandizing policies.

This has gone on for years. I've been personally aware of it since the early 2000s when the United States, the world's only superpower, first pissed off a lot of people (the Iraq War), and out of sheer spite people looked to redefine superpower to give the US a black eye they thought it had coming to it. It was messaging warfare, nothing more.

Definitionally, China is not a superpower. China has come very, very far since 1980, and one day will probably be a rival superpower. But right now, they are a great power, undergoing what has been a historically impressive (until recently) rise that's become very uneven. China has no real allies. Nominally, North Korea is in its orbit, but North Korea often goes rogue on it. China is not technologically, industrially, politically, culturally or militarily dominant in its region, let alone a large swath of the earth. China may be these things and more one day, but it is not today. Not even close. The bar for superpowerhood is high. It got lowered because you had sloppy journalists and politicians throwing adjective after adjective at "superpower" for 20 years.

Let me offer an example as to why China is not a superpower. I talk a lot about the Chinese threat. But a lot of that is about what they will do one day, and how we have to be ready for them.

Today, the most dangerous threat to the United States by far remains Russia. It's not even close. China is by far the greater future threat, but the gulf between Russia's current military threat and China is incalcuably hard.

There is basically nothing China can do to beat us in a military or economic conflict if we truly threw down the gauntlet. They don't have the resources, the wealth or the technology. They could make it expensive. But make no mistake, we'd prevail in every outcome.

That is not the case with Russia.

The US could take Russia under most scenarios. We've examined this over the years from many angles. But Russia also has 1550 strategic nuclear weapons and ~2500 tactical nuclear weapons. China could inflict serious damage, but not utterly decimate a large US military force. Russia could, under certain scenarios, wipe the US's ability to hurt it out. It may be by far economically weaker, conventionally militarily weaker, and with a far dimmer political future. But Russia remains the only country that could effectively devastate the United States. China could not. China's nuclear Arsenal is small enough it could, at worst, destroy sections of several west coast cities. There would still be a United States.

Furthermore China isn't close to risking a collapse into warlordism. Russia is basically one Vladimir Putin fatal heart attack away from that. Don't believe that will happen? It did with the USSR. All those defacto Presidents for life in the former Soviet Union? They are Warlords by another name. Warlords who were either convinced to give up their nuclear weapons or never had them. There is no telling for sure that'll be the case next time Russia fragments. And there will be a next time.

If there is a nuclear catastrophe on Earth, it will come from Russia. Either some warlord will launch a missile, or trade away the technology, or there will be a nuclear exchange. Russia is a long-term deeply unstable country, with artificial colonial borders and an imperial-delusion complex. It is a risk to all life on Earth they have nuclear weapons and many people will die one day (probably people in or near Russia) because such a country with such a unstable status cannot be trusted with it.

This has all made Russia long designated as the US's top security threat by the Joint Chiefs, because nothing I said in the above describes China. China's ship building, one belt one road, spying schemes and so forth are all extraordinarily dangerous. But not existential. Not yet. One day? If CHina grows its arsenal sure. But we aren't there yet.

So how can China be, as you call it "the world's strongest superpower", if it completely lacks the ability to, through it's military power, unilaterally set conditions and define out comes? The US can do that today. The USSR could do that. To a degree, even Russia can do that better than modern China, for all China's advances. China can't even "define reality" in its near abroad. It's tried for years. And it's found the tighter it tried to grip its region, the more everyone looked to the US to offset it. China's entire regional power-building history since 2010 has been screw up after screw up.

Meanwhile, the collective human race's disgust at Trump, and perennial global frustration with US policies has, once again, made large portions of the world forget how powerful the US compared to everyone else. We've been here before. We'll be here again. We are again in the latest cycle of everyone forgets, the US reminds everyone who runs the show, and then everyone remembers for a while, before they forget.

Do we really need to invade some dirt poor third world country again to prove it? Or shoot down a satellite by applying a software patch to a missile? Or crack the whip on some global financial instrument we control? Because this is what we do. People and countries run their mouth, then the sleeping giant gifts in its sleep, and the delusions of grandeur by the little people of the Earth are crushed by it. We just have to look at the response to the Huawei episode a couple of months back. Huawei is about to enjoy a nice future as mostly a domestic supplier to the Chinese market. THe US couldn't get governments to play ball, so it twisted the arms of companies, and down went Huawei's latest scheme. And also down went a few forum posters, who completely lost their shit at their world view being fatally undermined.

But this is how America works. We're passive as a superpower, rather than truly activist, so the little people of the Earth forget. And then we become actvist and the difference in power becomes clear. No one else, not even China, can do what the US does on these fronts. And China has tried.

Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe we're seeing a new international system being born as we speak. China is far more powerful than it was 20 years ago. It is easily the second most powerful country in the world. The US has suffered relative decline compared to China, but is also far more powerful than it was even a decade ago. A large part of that is because the US made a few smart decisions, utilized its power very innovatively in a few places, and most of all, the EU, Russia and rest of the Non-China BRICs completely blew their moment. 15 years ago, people couldn't shut up about the EU displacing the US as the western superpower. Nowdays, there is even money on the EU even existing in 15 or 20 years (and I say that as an ardent believer in the EU). The EU is a great thing... and also completely enveloped within the US sphere that it will never escape from.

The situation I'm describing is that the US and China will pull away from the pack, as superpowers. There will be the US sphere and the China sphere. And between them will be a weak international system and great powers that are aligned to one or the other, but mostly try and play between both during peaceful times. And this will go on for decades.

But we are not there yet. As the saying goes, the past is dead, but the future is yet to be born. The US Unipolar moment is over. It ended in the financial crisis. This is the long moment of transition as what comes next emerges... and we'll probably be in this position for another decade.

The gap between the US and China will continue to close in the decade ahead, but both are going to continue to rocket away from everyone else as the geopolitical conflict that defines the century comes into view. The things we, somewhat laughably from a historical standpoint, think are important today - ISIS, Afghanistan, the rise of far right extremism, healthcare - will not matter as what began as an economic and political conflict morphs into a renewal of the ideological conflict between liberal democratic-capitalism and the authoritarian-capitalist alternative.

But were are not there yet. THere is much that needs to happen.

We need to keep our eye on Hong Kong. It may be nothing. It may also be Berlin 1948.

We also need to be on the watch for the "1950s". The 1950s, roughly defined as (in historical terms), 1948-late 1961, began with the Berlin Blockade and ended with the conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is the first third of the Cold War and is defined as what amounts to a full scale retreat by the US and Western powers, as what was by far the world's most powerful country in 1946 was pushed to the fringes of Eurasia, lost access to most regions in Eurasia, lost many allies and relationships, and saw capitalist (proto-democracies) fall to communism. The 1950s were the worst decade for foreign policy in US history. The "domino theory" that informed Vietnam war policy was born in the prior decade of something very much like that ripping across the world, a combination of pull back from World War II, Soviet machinations, and de-colonization. But regardless of the causes, the outcome was clear: the US started 1948 far more powerful than the USSR and ended in 1961 as clearly on the defensive in the Cold War and having lost significant ground.

There is probably a 1950s lurking out there for us. Somewhere in the future. There is a decade, and it's not here yet, where the gap between the US and its rival China, snaps shut and we find ourselves in a full scale reteat as China's power displaces our own (which it has not yet). And no, I'm not talking about some Fareed Zakaria-esque Davos Men lamenting that the US isn't playing by global integration rules they consider important anymore. I'm talking about actual serious power shifts - as in, the US is told to leave a bunch of countries completely by the governments of them, and they turn around and invite China in to set up shop at the same bases. I'm talking about Chinese Carrier Strike Groups in the Atlantic, with bases in Africa and South America.

Before China is a true peer... much less "the world's strongest superpower" that has to happen or stuff like it. This definition - "superpower" - matters because the relationship between China and the United States is the most important in the world and will define the course of human civilization for the entirety of the 21st century. And it's outcome will likely ripple deep into the 22nd century as well.

Definitng down "superpower", if sincerely meant, just feeds into the China hype machine that both skips all the work of achievement, and ignores all the responsibility with having, that designation. If we're going to do that, we should define Germany, Japan and Russia as superpowers too. In that case, superpower just means "great power" again, as the relation, thus the phrase, is meaningless.

I also want to address something. Something I've seen a bit in this thread. I've written more original content against Trump in this forum than almost anybody. My position on Trump is quite clear. The day will come when he will be brought to justice for his crimes against this country and it's principles, and his supporters will have to live with their deep moral violation of this country for the rest of their lives.

But if we intend to weaponize China against Trump in any way, count me out of everything. I sincerely mean it. I want to part of it, or anything, if that's where we're going.

The challenge the US faces from China has never happened before in the world at the scale we're describing it. It could seriously define what human freedom's limits are, if any, for the next 300 years. Don't snicker as if that's fantastical and sci-fi, because to a great degree the order of the world we know was birthed in Westphalia, 1648, that ended the Thirty Years War (and the European Wars of Religion as a whole).

This New Cold War we are in is too important to botch the start of (and we have largely not botched it, against all odds), just to stick a finger in the eye of Donald Trump and his supporters - people who will be dead, forgotten and not matter, while the implications of how we start this terrifying new era, drag on for decades or more.

Take the Trade War. By all means, point out Trump's epic stupidity on the things he says. But make no mistake, getting America off its addiction to cheap Chinese money, easy growth in China, and cheap Chinese goods is essential to our own economic and national security, and our ability to isolate ourselves from economic threats in the New Cold War. For progressives, consider, defining new "post-growth" economics will not happen in a world where US businesses use China as a booster in the face of flat growth in the US and Europe. The end of relying on China to inflate the bottom line means that a new post-growth model arrives sooner.

The US needs to begin the process of defining the two spheres I described earlier - the US and the Chinese one. And that means cleaving ourselves from them. Even if it is bad for Americans in the short term. That statement made by someone the other day to that effect was callous, but also entirely correct.

Fucking with Donald Trump, only to lose ground the the war that matters far more in the longer term, is insanity. I'm not sure how many more aggressive steps China has to take before the people who are in outright denial about what China's agenda is, get the picture. I mean don't get me wrong, I know full well why the denial is there. The world where the US spends $1 trillion a year on defense, economic growth is slower, and international affairs are again at the forefront (like during the Cold War), means a US where medicare for all isn't a thing, where social spending is cut, and where progressive priorities on nuclear weapons and international peace never happen. So to progressives of a certain stripe... this is the catastrophe of a life time, because the world we're moving in to will probably long outlive them, and make a left wing foreign policy an impossibility.

Words matter. Donald Trump abuses words. We need to be better than that in defining words, especially in this case, where the word being described herein, carries implications for the world's most significant relationship. We can revisit the relative ranking between the US and China to ascertain the accuracy of your statement when "the 1950s" finally arrive.

[Crispin]

Not just German ammunition.

Several thousands of captive Poles were really executed by NKVD.

But Katyn specifically still was German act, disposing of Polish labor camp prisoners they captured in their offensive (and there are USSR documents asking for transporation to evacuate them that couldn't be arranged).

Current Trump administration and West in general simply loves to support Polish right-wingers that latch on "Everything was USSR fault" because it's convenient to them.

Hey so who occupied the teritory where the massacres took place when they took place? Germany?

And the fact that the soviets commited the massacre has nothing to do with Trump

[Shalcker]

Hey so who occupied the teritory where the massacres took place when they took place? Germany?

And the fact that the soviets commited the massacre has nothing to do with Trump

It has everything to do with US/West re-painting everything as Russian fault, from elections to WW2, and supporting those sharing this view, like Polish right-wingers.

[Felya]

It has everything to do with US/West re-painting everything as Russian fault, from elections to WW2, and supporting those sharing this view, like Polish right-wingers.

The Polish blame USSR as well, while USSR has been disbanded for nearly 2 decades.

[ati87]

It has everything to do with US/West re-painting everything as Russian fault, from elections to WW2, and supporting those sharing this view, like Polish right-wingers.

The US/West does not need to put in allot of effort to make Russia look like the bad guy, Russia does a fine job on it's own.

[Crispin]

It has everything to do with US/West re-painting everything as Russian fault, from elections to WW2, and supporting those sharing this view, like Polish right-wingers.

Own up to the mistakes your country have made and move on, this childish "WASNT US!" attitude is tiresome, not sure how an entire country managed to turn itself into the 6 year old of the world.

The soviets were responsible for the Katyn massace, you're not personally to blame, big fucking deal. The worst thing you could do is ignore or rewrite history with far fetched conspiracy theories like you're doing.

[Paranoid Android]

https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/statu...652772865?s=19

This is corruption. This is a person deliberately putting money in the pocket of another politician.

So from the report/tweet below Pence is saying he personally paid for his family. Again, is this being sly meaning we the tax payers paid for Pence and staff.

Pence chief @marcshort45 on whether Trump asked Pence to stay at his property in Doonbeg, Ireland — via @costareports, who is doing a terrific job pooling the VP’s trip to Europe https://t.co/utkQ56X6RB

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/stat...133526529?s=19

Get this. Attached above is a transcript from Pence chief of staff.

When asken if Pence was commanded to stay at the Trump property.

The reply was 'no', but it was suggested .

WTF! So the corruption angle is still strong.

[Breccia]

Once again it's ti--

We are doing very well in our negotiations with China

Ah fuck it, too obvious.

Trump, in a tweet I won't dignify with a citation, also warned China that the deal would be MUCH TOUGHER! if they didn't cave to his demands and also he won re-election.

Since "Guess the Speaker" wasn't very challenging today, how about we have a multiple choice quiz? Since we're talking about Trump, a #2 pencil seems completely appropriate.

A) "Don't you have a hurricane to deal with?"
B) "How's that DOW opening for you?"
C) "Hah hah, re-elections. That's funny."
D) "If"

[Thekri]

Own up to the mistakes your country have made and move on, this childish "WASNT US!" attitude is tiresome, not sure how an entire country managed to turn itself into the 6 year old of the world.

The soviets were responsible for the Katyn massace, you're not personally to blame, big fucking deal. The worst thing you could do is ignore or rewrite history with far fetched conspiracy theories like you're doing.

Guys, it isn't worth trying to convince him his warped version of history isn't true. He probably already knows that. I was just trying to get him to paint his conspiratorial bullshit in clear terms rather then vague hinting at it. His argument was the official soviet party line for the entire cold war, but the Russian federation has never followed it.

He doesn't care about the mountains of evidence, I just wanted him to say the silly thing so I could have a chuckle at his expense.

[Flarelaine]

Debunked conspiracy theories that Trump is demonstrably innocent of hardly belong in this thread.

[Fahrenheit]

I'd like to remind you that all this outrage you display is over a mere mention of Alabama in the phrase that talks about Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas.

All those "MY GOD" caps are over that.

- - - Updated - - -



I would pay to peek into the alternative reality where the media expressed the same vitriol towards, say, Obama. I wonder what that would do to the whole idea of diversity being good because it's diversity and Obama being one of the biggest examples of its "success".

Don't make this about race. Trump lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago due to his being a fucking moron that lies consistently. Obama didn't. Trump deserves all the shit he gets.

[rda]

So I'm going to need to explain something. Hopefully take it to heart. ...

I'd like add a bit to this perspective on US vs China.

While it is true that China's military power are currently not a match for the US, and in fact Russia can do way more damage than China (believe me, I am not thrilled to be saying this), I'll offer that Skroe's views in the post lack the most important thing - perspective. Skroe is laying it out well regarding the past, somewhat less well about the current, but then says pretty much nothing about what is actually important - the future.

And the future is this: same as nuclear weapons were the game changer in the 20th century, there will likely be a game changer in the 21st century. The Chinese believe this game changer is going to be technologies, particularly, robotics, and they are tailoring their military doctrine around that. Over the last years they reinvented their army, reducing numbers in traditional land forces and growing numbers in all technologically-intensive areas. They added space forces and cyber forces. And they are working like hell on robotics.

When it comes to cyber warfare potential, for example, the current split is believed to be roughly this: US > China > Russia >> everybody else. That Huawei spying? It was not alleged. It was real. It was rampant up until at least 2018. And it is peanuts to some other Chinese cases. Heck, the Chinese were the entire reason the US started taking cyber warfare seriously - it was not Russia who made them think about it, it was China who managed to hack into the US military facilities in 2007 (IIRC).

So, in some sense it is even worse than Skroe paints it. Now, I am not subscribing to the idea that the US should act fast and hit China with whatever it can so it can remain a superpower - this is where my views are obviously different from those of self-proclaimed US hawks. But this kind of puts things into perspective.

Trump not letting China get a free ride on trade is important.

[Shalcker]

There are also ussr docs proposing and approving the massacre.

And USSR docs investigating Katyn incident in detail.

Why do you trust one USSR document over another? Actual evidence from exhumed remains, chain of events, German units participating in operation vs "supposedly Beria ordered it"?

There are a lot of details that do not match up with "USSR did it in 1939".

They had their military insignias; yet those were banned in labor camps until 1941 (everyone was supposed to be equal as prisoner).
They had their hands tied with paper ropes; yet USSR never produced those.
They were killed with German arms - 6.35 and 7.65 mm (produced by German firms GECO and RWS)
Only half of those exhumed by Germans had documents with them, which is inconsistent with NKVD approach (which would be either all or none).
Supposed execution spot was just 700 meters from main intercity road, in well-traveled recreation spot with summer camps all around which was never closed until Germans occupied it.
There are no supporting documents that "they ordered it" was ever actually enacted.
The supposed "troika" approach that ordered their execution was already discontinued in 1938.

And a lot more.

Germans already killed thousands of Poles and had no qualms about it.

- - - Updated - - -

He doesn't care about the mountains of evidence, I just wanted him to say the silly thing so I could have a chuckle at his expense.

You have no idea of actual mountain of evidence; you're just appealing to authority.

[Infraction]

[Shalcker]

I’ve read up on this and you’re promoting conspiracy theories. Fucking sad.

What is your supporting evidence? I've given some of mine, show your work "reading up".

And there is no "conspiracy theory" about it. It's just usual politics.

For 40+ years it was politically expedient to say "Germans did it", and then later it became more politically expedient (including from USSR/Russian side) to say "Stalin did it".

History flip-flops like that all the time.

Either way, if you wish to prove your point rather then virtue-signal, we can take it to PM.

[rda]

For the record, I disagree with Shalcker on Katyn, but I have zero doubt that Shalcker knows 10x more on Katyn than, say, Thekri and Vegas82 do combined.

This is a good illustration:

Wait... are you serious right now? Is that the way they teach History in Russia? The Soviet Union was Hitler's ally in the invasion of Poland. The Soviet Union invaded at the same time as Germany. What sort of revisionist nonsense are you trying to push?

The bolded is nonsense.

Let's get back to talking about Trump.

[Edge-]

So...are we already all over the fact that Trump just tweeted out unapproved classified photo's from quite possibly our most secret spy satellite for all of our adversaries to review to get more details on our capabilities?

Because I'm still wondering if anything will come of that or if Republicans will continue to defend it because, "He has the legal authority to do so.", completely ignoring the question of whether it's right or he should have.

I mean, he could just "declassify" everything from our nuclear program for the world to see. He has the legal authority, I believe, so why not give North Korea and other countries working on nuclear weapons a leg up?