Posts by wiredangler5

I’ve been away for a little while dealing with a mountain of personal and work stuff, and my bosses were already in the loop about it. Now that Antonov has finally moved that high-profile transformer—the one tied directly to my job that caused such a massive media circus because of how urgent it was—I can finally breathe again. I actually reported back to duty two days ago.

Since Nica dropped a huge pile of links for me to go through yesterday, I won't be able to get to everything right away. Please, guys, there's no need for this kind of public crucifixion; it's not like I'm Joe Biden. 😁

Sam Green73 said:😕 an officer attacked a man just because he's a veteran
I don't think it will be an issue to suspend the officer for excessive force while on duty.

Officers have a primary duty to use force when necessary.

No, I'm sure he didn't attack him just because he's a veteran. We shouldn't frame things that way, and we shouldn't portray the officer that way either.
But if the officer overstepped his authority, there's no doubt about it. Sure, the law allows for the use of force if someone resists arrest, but that's strictly limited.
I wouldn't call this kind of beating "authorized use of force." Honestly, I bet whoever wrote the police conduct laws wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that level of violence. They'd tell you right then and there that the officer went way too far and beat him senseless.

Let's be real—what happened in Memphis was an abuse of power. I believe the officers were trained well enough to handle the situation and make the arrest without leaving a man lying in the street, bleeding from serious head injuries, and then just abandoning him without medical help.

From what I've read in the news, if the reports are accurate, the officer has been suspended. To me, that says a lot about how he handled the job and whether he crossed the line.

I don't see any reason why we can't call this type of policing brutality or call the officer a thug. There are people like that in the force. Sure, they were doing what the state told them to do regarding legal duties, but they definitely had better options. At the very least, the officer involved could have called for backup from the local PP to take those three guys down peacefully if he couldn't handle it alone. They had plenty of ways to do this right.

But this specific officer shouldn't have done that, so I don't see why we can't call his actions savage.

This is also a quick response to coppermarlin13's question. Since I see the moderators haven't flagged the similar language used regarding the three veterans, I’m removing this warning. I really don't see the reason for it. Especially since, if one was issued, it wasn't applied equally in both cases.

Nicholas King said:Another debate heading down history lanes. I guess every cloud has a silver lining—no one is out there mentioning the family or anyone else affected. 😁

Would you believe that I haven't actually felt like writing about history here from the very start? To be honest, I just haven't had the heart to get into any big debates about it, for a whole bunch of different reasons.
Look, Slavko laid things out so that if I had to explain myself to admins who aren't familiar with this field, I’d have to be as brief and clear as possible. But this topic is just too complex. It's a slippery slope for so many reasons, making it hard to simplify. Before you know it, you're drifting into history—and honestly, there's nothing more tedious than getting bogged down in history.

I honestly wasn't sure if I should even bother posting about this here. But, here we are. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done. I'll just wait to see what the admins have to say.

Nicholas King said:Basically, that one supermoderator's signature opens the door to a whole mess of possible misinterpretations—and the reactions that follow.Why does he get to do it while I can't? Everyone keeps pointing fingers at me.It’s like when someone removes a signature or an avatar that really needed to go. I feel like someone else, emboldened by how your change was misinterpreted, is just going to go ahead and put that exact thing in their own signature.Jack-in-the-boxAnd then people start demanding their rights just because a supermoderator is allowed to have an opinion.

Just a simple question: do you actually need it? 🙂

It’s true, this opens up a ton of different possibilities. We've dealt with countless reports regarding disputed signatures, locations, or avatars before. Aside from the stuff that's strictly illegal under US law—where there was never any doubt—we just handled everything else on a case-by-case basis.
We handled it that way because we didn't want to open Pandora's box. If we banned one specific thing, we'd end up banning ten other similar things just to compensate, and that would make life a nightmare for everyone.
In the past, we used to handle reports by actually looking at the context—evaluating what was really being said, how offensive it truly was, and the actual message behind it.

Nicholas King said:I think I remember a line from your first post that said, "If that's an issue, no problem, I've got plenty of quotes." It might be better to... Politically savvy. Maybe I should just post one of those quotes.

I thought about that too. But here's the thing: if I decide to go all-in on something, I tend to commit fully. I stand by this because I know exactly where the quote comes from and the context behind it. It’s a tricky subject since it touches on such sensitive ground.

What do you think, Nicholas King? Is my signature—which is just these specific words pulled from the speech I explained—really a bigger issue than, say, a copy of Mein Kampf being sold legally in bookstores? Or the fact that photos taken by Adolf Hitler are sought after as art in America? My point is, we see the "Bible" of his persecutions sold openly so people can study history through a different lens.
It's complicated since we haven't really debated it, but do you think it's a larger problem that such evil is sold without issue, yet I might get crucified over this signature as if I actually wrote ?
If the admins want to handle it differently, that's fine with me. I'll respect the decision, whether they remove it or I do it myself while I'm online. I just hope they make the call by looking at both sides of the argument. I don't want it to be like what Slavko described on the first page, when an admin banned an avatar for no real reason—just to keep the peace or out of a lack of understanding.

Alex Watson said:Hey, sorry.
I've always had a bit of an aversion to reading books, especially history. They just aren't my thing.

But I made an effort to read everything you wrote here, and I see how wrong I was.

It's perfectly okay to put quotes from Nazi criminals in a signature. Even if it's someone responsible for the war, the pogrom against the Jew (and other groups), and a few other things...

Sorry again, and thanks for the history lesson. 👍

It's nice of you to come back and share your thoughts, even if you clearly didn't grasp the point. 🙂
I'll leave your post for the admins to decide how to categorize it.

bluecyclist64 said:I can't really let my guard down while you're holding all the cards, obviously. It's like we aren't at Sutjeska; you're out there driving the bus as a supermod, while I'm just some guy lost in the woods.
Regarding Michelle Alvarez8: forget her. I just happened to stumble upon this thread and decided to say something. I'm not afraid—you probably already figured that out. Honestly, I'd be happiest if I had misjudged you. But since you're calling me a troll, I can't really agree with that conclusion either.

Come on, let's not blow this drama out of proportion by involving the color of my username, which I basically use as a baton. 😁 As you can see, I haven't been acting like a supermod from the start. When I actually step into that role, the difference is obvious because of how I speak. Right now, we're just talking like two regular users. The thing is, most people here struggle to separate those two roles, but honestly, you're kind of creating that problem yourself right now. 😁
There's no power play happening here, and I don't have any upper hand. 😉 So, why be afraid to say what's on your mind? In fact, I'm just telling you straight that I won't engage in petty banter or cheap shots. Just talk to me man-to-man, and then we can really get somewhere. If we can't do that, we'll never get anywhere, and that's the bottom line.

bluecyclist64 said:Look, you've been on this forum for years, but most people haven't. If you want people to understand where you stand, you have to repeat your views from time to time.
I still don't buy your impartiality, but hey, that's just my opinion, and it doesn't prove anything.

Again: I'd really love to be wrong about you, to find out you're truly unbiased and not just trying to push one political agenda at the expense of us "reds," anti-fascists, or whatever else.

Look, I can't change the world or run around constantly fixing the impressions people have of me. I feel like I'd need to give a lecture about myself every Monday morning at 8 AM just so everyone knows who I am. 😁 People will think what they want. If someone forms an opinion—even a wrong one—so be it. Maybe eventually they'll see something they can actually relate to. If not, oh well.
But I can't stress over it, and I don't want to. Seriously. And honestly, why should I try to fix how people see me? That's your view, and that's fine. Even if you think I'm biased. Fair enough, that's your take, and that's that. 🙂

By the way, everyone you listed in that last line has received protection from me. Or a beating, depending on what they do. It's the same for the pro-German crowd. I've shut some of them down without hesitation. But I also protect those who don't promote Nazism but defend certain historical stances from being unfairly labeled. Nobody is immune to a reality check, but I'll always defend everyone. Whoever knows me, knows me. How many people that is doesn't matter to me.😉

That’s what I’m asking you, bluecyclist64. 😉 Look, I see this as a conversation I’d be happy to have without any bad blood—just talking normally even if we don't agree. I didn't think we had to stick strictly to technical discussions; we can always have an open, human chat whenever you're willing to be as candid as you are being now. That's why I didn't accept that last quoted sentence of yours; it felt a bit like quick trolling just to put me down.
I just don't feel like trading posts like that. Right now, it feels more like we've sat down for a drink and are just talking openly as people.

bluecyclist64 said:I’m definitely not passing out. In fact, I’ve said before that if I were a young, reckless German back then, I probably would have joined the Nazi Party myself. At least initially—honestly, I'm not sure if I could have escaped that breeding ground of evil later on.

Then you actually know more than most. You realize how many people don't grasp that. If you told them people fought for Germany because they believed they were reclaiming old Prussian territories, they'd just stare at you blankly. Even the military wasn't fully sold on fighting Russia, but they went in because of the Bolsheviks. In reality, there were very few true combat soldiers fighting specifically for Nazism. The real Nazis were those in the rear who committed the massive atrocities that Germany will never truly live down.
But it's hard for the average person to understand this without doing their own research. Personally, Nazism never really interested me. Honestly, the sheer scale of the evil was terrifying, which made it impossible for me to be drawn to it. But researching it? That fascinated me.

You mentioned earlier that you read me as someone with a German bias. Actually, I'm quite far from that. The only positive thing I can find regarding the Germans at that time—and I'll always say this is undeniable—is that during those first few years, the German Wehrmacht was incredibly impressive. For those early stages of the war, no one could touch them. Their discipline, organization, morale, and willpower were unmatched. They had a level of ingenuity where their technology seemed superior to all the Allies. I respect that, and I'll always admit it.

Just to clarify, for anyone who might take this the wrong way: I am talking about the military as an institution and their execution of Blitzkrieg to conquer Europe so easily. I'm not talking about the crimes. This isn't directed at you, bluecyclist64; I think you know exactly what I mean.

bluecyclist64 said:Realistically, Germany was humiliated, violated, and plundered. They weren't any worse than their opponents in WWI, and in many ways, they were far better.

Sure, but how many people actually know that? If you ask the people around you whether they know what actually fueled the Nazi rise to power or what drove ordinary Germans to war, you'll see they don't. They'll just blurt out "crazy Hitler." Yeah, he was crazy, but is that the whole story? When you start digging back through WWII and eventually hit WWI, you realize things get even messier when you trace the roots back to some short but vital conflict around 1860. That's where the struggle for dominance was born, which finally exploded in 1914. Everyone was at fault because everyone wanted a war to settle who held the most influence in Europe—it was a raw fight for supremacy by all sides.

If you ask the average person who was responsible for that war, they'll say Germany. That's just how it's taught globally. So when I see stuff like this on History—I react. As someone who studied this as history, I end up looking pro-German. I’d probably defend some silly generalizations about the Soviets, the British, or whoever else. It’s just that nothing comes out as starkly as it does for Germany. And there I go again, being pro-German. 😁

bluecyclist64 said:What’s the difference? That statement was a call to arms, one that dragged the war out and cost millions of lives. The only good thing about it is that the German people experienced a collective catharsis, seeing their lands broken and burned—but should that have been paid for with millions of lives? It’s precisely that "statement," as you call it, that is largely responsible for turning German soldiers into fanatics, the very ones whom those calling Italians cowards actually admire.
Why would any sane person admire them?

And that’s the least the Germans deserved. To be defeated completely, just as they were defeated before. There was no other way, and this time they earned it. All that catharsis. You see, that part isn't controversial for me at all.
But we disagree on the first part of the quote because I view their move to extend the war quite neutrally. As a nation at war, that was their right. Any nation would do the same in a fight for survival. And the war with the USSR was exactly that. They reached a point where the war would only end with one side crushing the other. No separate peace or truce.
What Goebbels did was expected; I’d expect it from any nation. Every other country used all sorts of propaganda to boost morale, didn't they? What if that statement had been made by Speer, who came out looking clean compared to the others (I mean in terms of how they were portrayed at the end of the war)?
He fared very well in that regard with the Allies compared to the rest. Yet, that man was a true Nazi at heart. That statement, word for word, would have been identical if Goebbels hadn't said it, and the context of boosting military morale wouldn't change.
But again, many people, and probably you too, would view it differently. Because you look at it through the lens of all the horrors associated with Germany. I just separate it into its own sector; the Germans didn't say anything different from other nations trying to rally their people. The Russians did something similar in their own way. The British had their way. The partisans in the woods had theirs.

You know what else bothers people about this statement? It was delivered in that German way that's frightening, the way they differed from all the other nations in Europe. So cold and lethally Prussian, without any hesitation that they would now fight to the bitter end as they were bound to do. The machine they turned themselves into through that rhetoric commands a certain dread, because no other European nation did anything quite like it.

A lot makes this statement controversial, but is it really? It seems the biggest issue is simply who said it. What if Rommel had said it—someone respected by Allied generals and who wasn't a Nazi?

If Goebbels had recited poetry about blue skies and green grass, then even that would be seen as morally questionable just because he was the one saying it. Personally, I don't care for that; I look at exactly what was said, which was a targeted effort to raise national military morale. For me, that's it. No emotions involved, other than thinking it sounds quite effective.

bluecyclist64 said:If they hadn't boosted morale like that, the war might have ended sooner, potentially saving more lives. But then again, without that, Germany wouldn't have gone through its partial catharsis either. It’s hard to say what would've happened if the Third Reich had collapsed any faster.

True, but it really depends on your perspective. If you're looking at it from the Allied or Russian side, yeah, that statement cost them a much longer war. From the German point of view, though, it was exactly what they needed.
I’d bet Stalin would have paid any price in gold to motivate his Russians to fight like the Germans did, instead of having commissars constantly hovering behind the troops to execute their own men, which happened all too often.
Honestly, that part really hit home. Even the Russians who fought against them gave them respect on a military level, recognizing them as true fighters.
It all depends on your perspective. There are so many different ways to look at this, and none of them are necessarily wrong. Personally, I try to stay neutral about it all. I don't get caught up in debating whether certain people said specific things to prolong the conflict; I just focus on what actually happened. You can't change the facts of the past, so that’s how I approach it.

bluecyclist64 said:As for that whole thing with the cards—honestly, I can only laugh about it. I've learned how to keep myself in check, and I think it shows.
By the way, your signature isn't just some phrase; you're quoting a Nazi ideologue whose words helped drag the war out even longer. It doesn't really matter that the guy was a Nazi—what matters is that those words cost millions of lives. But hey, your signature, your choice. I don't mind it.

When I said you were being political, I was talking about two specific habits of yours. First, there's how you tend to get caught off guard and immediately lash out without filtering yourself, which just ends up racking up penalties like they're stickers. Second, you often act like some hardcore political commissar, going full throttle against anyone on the right instead of just staying calm and taking it slow. It feels like whenever you categorize me instead of actually sitting down for a clean, honest conversation, you just decide the whole thing is settled.

So, I see you've changed how you approach things on the forum. You're trying not to label everyone by default so we can actually have a normal conversation. 🙂

bluecyclist64 said:Hey, you’re really digging yourself into a hole here. You know as well as I do that we partisans aren't afraid of a little criticism—honestly, reading the Mahabharata would be faster than getting through all my descriptions of those cards. You totally missed the mark on this one, man.

I get it, you "partisan" types can be pretty stubborn to deal with. That’s why I told you not to bother if you feel like you have to talk just to vent. Just stand your ground like a hero and face the music. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last if that's how you want to play it. 😁

bluecyclist64 said:Look, anti-fascism and socialism weren't perfect, far from it. But honestly, I still don't see any difference between your signature and "Arbeit macht Frei." To be totally blunt—and I really mean this—it's not your signature that bothers me, I don't care about that. It's just that the explanations you gave feel hollow, pathetic, and empty.

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not disputing that; I just wanted you to back up your stance with more than a few words. I'm not trying to argue with your view. I'll let the admins decide on it. 😉

bluecyclist64 said:From what I can tell, that statement just pushed the Germans to die in vain for the Führer, and you're the one who put it in the signature.
I just didn't quite get why you did that, despite all those pages of text.

If I suggested that most Germans in the Wehrmacht weren't actually fighting for the Führer, but were instead fighting for Germany—viewing the conflict as a defense of their homeland due to historical grievances from previous wars—people might lose it. The idea that everyone joined up as a die-hard Nazi has been pushed as fact for a long time, but that narrative doesn't really hold up when you look at recent, more grounded research from British and Russian historians regarding the war. Time has a way of moving past raw emotion and the subjective accounts of older authors. If anyone is interested, it’s worth looking into what modern historians from the nations that actually endured the hell of fighting against Germany think about all of this today.

Strictly speaking, that statement isn't an incitement to war on behalf of the Nazi Party; it was about Germany. They never would have achieved those results if they had called people to fight specifically for the Nazi Party. It’s similar to how Stalin was smart enough to avoid sending out proclamations to fight for the defense of communism. Instead, he motivated the Russians to fight for their homeland during the struggle for independence, which is how many Russians saw it, even while fighting in the ranks of the communist Red Army. The Germans were aware of this trap within their own ranks—most Germans weren't fighting for Nazism.

The war was already well underway back then and would have continued regardless of that statement. What really mattered was how it helped get the German army back into the fight faster and boosted morale. Why is everyone acting like it’s weird? It was simply about lifting spirits during wartime.

It’s strange how you approach everything on this forum like a politician. You tend to jump to conclusions and label people as being far-right, which usually ends up getting you flagged. I guess we just see things differently; we don't have the same perspective because you always seem to be looking at things from one biased side.

We see things differently. Studying this era of world history has been a hobby of mine for a long time, and I’ve approached it that way. Without trying to take sides, I’ve read about 70 books covering the political and military aspects of all the warring nations. I’ve made sure to read plenty of German authors too, who tend to be more restrained in their judgments compared to writers from Great Britain, the USA, or Russia. For me, it isn't about picking a side; I just want to truly understand everything that actually happened.
I'm just trying to connect all the dots from everything I've been reading.Literature from all sides of the war.I try to find a middle ground, looking at how everyone saw the whole war from their own perspective and what drove them toward certain decisions. That’s usually how people who are actually interested in history approach it. That's just how I look at things.

It’s easy to look at Germany and think everything was purely dark, but you can separate the military side from the political one. It’s the same with the American War of Independence; there was a military aspect and a political aspect that didn't always align. Things got messy when those two sides drifted apart.

You aren't going to see it because you don't want to. You're approaching this from a political standpoint, viewing everything solely through the lens of promoting Nazism. Even if you read this a hundred times, you won't grasp my point within all that text. You're being biased as a die-hard anti-fascist, and that’s where we differ. You seem too narrow-minded to see past the urge to slap a label on me—though I get the feeling you might be holding yourself back right now. If there's an issue here, just act like an adult. If the admin thinks you need a ban, then take the ban and move on. Why are we even debating what you missed in the text, especially when you clearly didn't want to see it in the first place?

To me, this is just history, and honestly, I don't care about picking sides. This specific quote is actually quite powerful as motivation. It’s not up for debate. If we followed your logic and stopped quoting anyone who ever said something bad, we wouldn't be allowed to cite anyone at all. That's just wrong. It isn't just about who is speaking; it's about what is being said and the actual meaning behind it.

Plenty of people on the anti-fascist side weren't saints either—there was plenty of messiness on that side too. Look at communism, the horrors of it, and the sheer number of victims swallowed by the USSR, not to mention anything else. But when someone quotes a figure from that system, I look at the content of the quote, not just the person behind it. Otherwise, we’d have to ban half the historical figures out there based solely on their reputations. Even beloved figures like JFK or early civil rights leaders would be off-limits. I don't see it that way; it doesn't bother me. I'm interested in the history itself. That’s where we differ, which is probably why you aren't seeing my point.

bluecyclist64 said:From what I can see—you're mistaken.

It’s a motivational slogan, much like "Arbeit macht Frei," intended to drive productivity... 🙂

And that’s it, end of discussion. It really bugs me how Michelle Alvarez8 just dropped this topic without explaining it. He presented it so superficially that he made me look like some guy spreading Nazism to anyone watching, and now I have to defend myself. Look, if he hadn't backed off, I would have demanded he explain his stance in detail, because since he started this, he owes it to us to clarify why this is a political message. I'm saying that to you, too. Either confirm that what you've noted is the same as my point and do it properly—especially since you're trolling by implying everyone should already know this—or we stop here. You're starting to troll, seriously. Sometimes reading you makes me feel like I'm talking to one of those hardcore anti-fascist fighters, honestly. 😁 No hard feelings, but this is actually making me laugh. Just relax; it feels like we're on opposite sides at the Battle of the Bulge or something. 😁

And don't get me started on Alex Watson. From his approach, I can immediately see the limit of his argument. He seems eager to keep typing away without grasping a single thing I've said, or maybe he’s just choosing not to try.
I honestly wonder how much he actually knows about this subject. Since I don't know him, I don't know if he's read a single book on the matter or if his entire knowledge base comes from two Sven Hassel novels. If I asked him if he’d read the 800 pages the NKVD wrote regarding everything involving Germany (from the start to the end of the war), he’d probably blank. He might even be surprised at how realistic the NKVD's account was regarding Germany under Stalin. We're talking about the NKVD and Stalin; I assume most of you know who they are. Those people provided a real look at Germany and clearly distinguished between the two sides. You guys just don't get it. So, why get worked up? Either present a real argument or let's just skip these petty jabs. These kinds of interactions have been the standard on this forum for years, and frankly, I'm sick of them being the primary way people talk here.

Honestly, I thought you’d see the distinction between Nazi persecution propaganda and propaganda aimed at military objectives. You seemed so set on treating them as one and the same, so I figured I'd ask you to justify that view. It feels like you're pretty good at spotting those differences on History whenever it suits your point.

Anyway, congrats Michelle Alvarez8 on wrapping this up without making the admins step in. It’s actually nice when users can just settle a debate quickly on their own. A class act, really.

I assumed everything would be settled once you gave your thanks to end the thread, which is why I was happy to weigh in one last time.

See ya. 🙂

PŽK mods, feel free to close this thread.

Brian Edwards78 said:Just the call for "total war" says enough to understand what was happening; especially since the speech explicitly mentions the "Final Solution" regarding the Jewish question. While wiredangler5 argues that this was just about boosting military morale after a series of disastrous defeats, a quick few minutes of research reveals how German war crimes in Russia escalated right around and immediately following that speech.

I think you might have mixed things up regarding the mention of Jews here. It’s a fact that those fiery speeches against Jews were delivered in 1942; he was attacking them then, and I can provide the exact quotes because they really do exist. This happened right when the German "Final Solution" was being implemented. Propaganda certainly played its part back then, but that’s a completely different conversation when it comes to Goebbels. Otherwise, there's no real debate about what he said.

This quote is from my post back in February 1943. For anyone who missed it, here's the gist: the legendary German 6th Army was considered a powerhouse back home because its divisions crushed France—which everyone thought was the world's strongest military at the time—in just a few weeks before marching triumphantly into Paris.
That famous army marched through Ukraine all the way to Stalingrad, which I guess is roughly the size of a place like Sisak—just my best guess. After three months of brutal fighting, they took almost the entire city, except for a few small areas where the Russians put up a hell of a fight. Eventually, the Soviets launched a counteroffensive and wiped that famous army out in a massive victory. Looking at the toll from those few months in that area: about 1.1 million Russian casualties and over half a million German ones, including their allies.

Damn it, Michelle Alvarez8, I feel like an idiot even having to write this just to prove you're wrong. Or maybe you're just trolling because you're bored. You could jump in and explain how the Germans reacted to this defeat so I don't have to do all the heavy lifting. But if it's just me, fine. No big deal.

That catastrophic loss hit the Germans like a total shock. And man, was it heavy. It changed Hitler so much that he went from this high-energy leader who was constantly flying around and shouting from every podium he could find, to someone having a complete nervous breakdown. He just sat there like a ghost, totally lost in his own head. Michelle Alvarez8 knows this was really the beginning of his physical decline—within just a few years, illness turned him into a frail old man.

So, the main leader and the driving force behind the nation has had a total mental breakdown, and now they’re basically trying to use speed and cocaine just to stay afloat. The entire government leadership is pulling back from the media because nobody actually knows what to say anymore. The whole country is in literal shock. It's our first major defeat after years of winning, and man, what a loss. It's become crystal clear that we're actually losing the war; the Russians are a massive problem, and things aren't nearly as great on the East as Goebbels keeps barking about in every single Zeuting newspaper out there.

It’s reached a point where, in this exact moment, nobody is actually leading the country. Everyone is just lost; there's a total vacuum at the top. Even the military—morale has completely bottomed out.
To all the soldiers on every front.

Then Goebbels steps in. He knows the weight is all on his shoulders now, realizing that propaganda is the only tool left to boost morale in a nation reeling from shock. He starts driving home that core idea we’ve been discussing: the concept of total war, designed to shake the country out of its defeatist stupor. At first, Hitler pushes back because he's feeling pretty defeated himself. But Goebbels doesn't back down.

Michelle Alvarez8 remembered correctly that Goebbels gave that speech in a hall to a carefully selected audience. He somehow missed what comes next, though—not sure how he managed that. Oh well, I'll just write it out myself.

It was clearly a calculated speech, designed to be nothing but aggressive and resolute. He spent hours rehearsing every single word and perfecting his stage presence. The whole point was to stir up pride despite the defeat by claiming they had fought honorably, throwing in some rambling remarks about the German character of the victors. It worked perfectly; that specific rhetoric electrified the crowd and reignited their will to fight. He really leaned into it, delivering this fierce message that Germany wasn't finished and that every single person would now have to fight—to victory, or until the last German fell. They were heading into total war, and the hall went into a complete frenzy. Why? Because there were plenty of high-ranking officials in attendance who needed to be jolted awake, sparking a frenzy within the leadership to drive the entire nation forward.

Imagine the scene when Michelle Alvarez8 gave that massive radio speech to the entire German nation, leaving everyone feeling absolutely electrified because they thought it was just the beginning. Do you know what he actually wrote in his diary that day about the speech?

Goebbels_PŽK said:I was so persuasive that if I’d asked people to jump off a skyscraper at the end of my speech, they probably would have done it.

He did exactly what he set out to do. He boosted the national spirit and morale to a level only the Germans ever reached, leaving you speechless when you witness it. But what was the actual goal of that victory? Was it to raise the military morale of the German army and the nation, or was it just to peacefully align the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Michelle Alvarez8, there’s no talk about Jews here. Or Russians. Or the British. The guy was talking about total war in terms of the Germans themselves. So, go ahead—translate my signature line into English and tell me exactly what's controversial about it. I’m looking for a real analysis, not just a link to Wikipedia. I know you're capable of more than that.

So, to wrap it all up. The whole German nation is waking up to this. It looks like millions of new soldiers will be stepping up in the next wave of mobilization. Every German probably had to prove they were contributing and actually serving the interests of the state.Factories tied to weapons, food, and uniforms.Honestly, if you weren't pulling your weight for the country and helping us win the war through your job, you just got handed a helmet and a rifle and sent on a one-way trip to Stalingrad.

He basically mobilized the entire nation. He even sent his own wife off to work at a factory, making her take the streetcar just to show everyone that everyone was sacrificing. He wanted people to see she wasn't driving around in a car with military escorts like some big high-society lady anymore.
So, Mrs. Goebbels would just hop on a streetcar to get to her job, basically working like a low-level grunt on the third shift, jumping into some greasy factory line to sand down artillery barrels or whatever it was.
Of course, that was just propaganda meant for the masses.He didn't actually go himself; he just lashed out at his wife. But whatever, he’s doing something else now, so she’ll be stepping up for the family. 😁).

Michelle Alvarez8, remind the admins and everyone reading this that Speer actually pulled off the "Total War" concept in his own field. He rebuilt the entire German industrial machine with that new slogan, giving it such incredible momentum. Before you know it, Germany had bounced back and was already prepping a massive military offensive by that same summer.

He completely talked the nation into a state of total war, pushing everyone to fight until the last man. It got to the point where Germans didn't care how many lives were lost; they fought with such fanaticism that even the Russians were stunned by their persistence, despite the constant defeats.
When the Russians went on the offensive in the summer of '44 and wiped out 800,000 people like it was nothing, nobody in Germany even blinked. It was as if 800 employees just got laid off from a company, rather than 800,000 lives being lost in just two months of fighting.

They fought with absolute fanaticism down to the last street in Berlin, dying at such a rate that casualties were counted by the thousands every single hour. Still, they fought until the bitter end, and that's exactly what left all their opponents with a profound sense of respect for the Germans themselves. This is the "total war" Michelle Alvarez8 is talking about. You see, for Goebbels, everything is just propaganda. Every single detail, including the things we’re discussing now. But he didn't always stick to the same script. It all depended on what he needed to pull off at the time.

Alright, go ahead and explain the whole Jewish question thing and why my signature is an issue. Since you opened this thread to discuss it properly, don't just drop superficial links without giving our local community the actual substance. It's your turn. 😁

Brian Edwards78 said:Regardless, I don't think Goebbels quotes belong in user signatures on a civilized forum.

Hmm, like I said, prove what’s actually controversial. You left out a huge part of the story when explaining things to the admins to support your point. So, here we go. I'm just hanging out in the backyard, about to grab a drink, and I feel like messing around with this until sunrise. I didn't have the energy before, but now I'm just chilling and feeling like beefing up this thin intro and your other posts. 🙂

By the way, you're mistaken again. You're forgetting that not everything someone says is inherently controversial. Did you know that in the election year Hitler came to power, he never once mentioned Jews or persecution because he didn't want to lose votes over it? Keep in mind, this was from a major antisemite. Back then, he gave some incredible speeches focused solely on the German nation getting back on its feet. Those speeches aren't controversial, even if they came from him. They don't contain a shred of hate speech.
It's the same with Goebbels. It all depends on the context of what we're talking about.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to frame my quote as Nazi propaganda, you can do better than Wikipedia. To support your argument, you handed the uninformed admins a link showing that crime rates rose in 1943. Well, yeah, because the war was scaling up. You forgot to mention that those crimes were the result of Hitler's directive to all German divisions back in 1941, which stated that every Russian and Bolshevik should be killed without being taken prisoner. That was the consequence, not the speech you're talking about, which has nothing to do with your point. Nor does the Final Solution, which stemmed from a completely different branch of German policy rather than this specific speech. 😉

So, since you started this thread about my signature, explain your stance to the admins properly so we can have a fair debate, instead of using cheap Wikipedia tricks that aren't really your style. Here we go, let's engage in some long-winded trolling since I'm in the mood, and I know how much you love being thorough. I'd love to see how a "historian" like you managed to overlook explaining all this so superficially. It's hard for me to believe you suddenly lost all that massive knowledge you used to have.

Go on, continue. I'm expecting a solid debate where you actually prove your point, especially since I personally root out Nazi nonsense on this forum—I'm allergic to it myself and know the difference very well. 😉 So, show me and the admins where I'm wrong. No big deal, no hard feelings. 🙂

Brian Edwards78 said:I'm not really enjoying this level of conversation, and honestly, I expected much more from this group.

Hey Michelle Alvarez8, I have to admit, I was expecting a lot more from you in this post that I'm replying to now. 😁 I really didn't intend to keep this debate going, but I feel like your last post was a bit superficial, especially with those links about the crimes. But alright, let's take this step by step.
I'm a bit short on time right now, so I'll give you a quick reply. I also want to clarify the context of that comment for the admins to make their decision easier, since you missed a few key details. It’s a little surprising coming from you, though, because you're usually such a great history buff and so thorough in these debates. Anyway, let's bring a bit of history into this so we can properly explain that sentence.

Brian Edwards78 said:Where wiredangler5 and I disagree is the actual nature of Goebbels' rhetoric and, by extension, that quote in his signature. While wiredangler5 sees it as something purely military and separate from Nazi ideology, I see it differently—to me, it's nothing but pure ideological propaganda.

If you define it broadly enough, that speech definitely counts as propaganda. After all, he was the Minister of Propaganda—that was literally his job. We're talking about a man who realized the power of the media back in 1934 and lived by the motto, "The media are no longer enemies of the state, but its weapons."

Tell me, when did Goebbels *not* use propaganda? That was literally his entire job. Look at the man—after just six months of fighting Russia, he actually wrote in his diary: "I fear we have overestimated Russia's military strength. Hitler is aware of this too. I am not sure if we can win this war."

Those are just his own words and opinions. But what did he actually do? He spent his time feeding information to the German nation through newspapers and cinema, using newsreels to broadcast glorious German victories at the front to make it look like everything was going perfectly and that Germany was only moving forward.
Nobody realized that hundreds of thousands of soldiers would freeze to death in -30 degree weather because they were fighting in December wearing summer uniforms. And don't even get me started on the casualties from the Soviet offensive.
He lied, and he knew it—that was just part of the job. Back home, Germans weren't even aware of the hundreds of thousands of casualties near Moscow. The media kept reporting victories instead. That was Goebbels, the master of propaganda.

Brian Edwards78 said:Even though they were facing military defeats on every single front, the speech was delivered by the Nazi propaganda minister and the second-in-command of the Reich (don't forget that Goebbels actually took over from Hitler after he committed suicide).

Well, he took over for about an hour before he ended things with a bullet to the head. If we're talking about who should have truly been Hitler's successor, it probably would have been Himmler—if paranoid Hitler hadn't been convinced he was being betrayed in his final days. He wanted it to be Speer instead, but he refused. So, by sheer luck, it fell to Goebbels. And he held that role for just a tiny moment before Dönitz stepped in. If we're being precise about Hitler's true heirs, Goebbels wasn't even in the running, but circumstances forced him onto the list because while a desperate Hitler and a morphine-addicted Goering were hiding out somewhere in Bavaria, someone had to handle the propaganda...

To be honest, though, who else would you expect to boost national morale through propaganda at a time like that? Would you want the health minister stepping up to explain why half a million people died in Stalingrad? That’s exactly what Goebbels was there for.

Now, I'll explain exactly what that sentence means and why I wrote it. It's not directed at you, but rather at the admins. I wish Tyndall were here since he really knows his history. I know Nicholas King isn't, and while I know Uncle Strile knows something, I'm not sure how deep his knowledge goes. As for Andrelon, they say he's a history master, depending on how much he actually cares, I guess. 😁

No big deal, we're just leaving that for the admins to judge anyway.

Brian Edwards78 said:I'm not kidding. I actually had an Iron Cross on my avatar once. I had to take it down after some users complained. It felt pretty baseless coming from people who didn't know any better, but the admin made his stance very clear. 😁

I added an edit to the part where you thought I was taking things personally. Like I mentioned above, I’m just typing fast as I go. 😁

Honestly, I don't know who complained, but if the admin told you to change it, he was acting on misinformation. I don't know who it was and it doesn't really matter, but whoever gave that order did so because they were pressured by users who simply didn't understand the history.
The German military still uses the Iron Cross emblem on their modern combat vehicles today. Here is a picture of a current German tank; just take a look at the symbol on it. In my opinion, the admin made a mistake when he ordered you to remove it.

Stop constantly adding edits. You’re just forcing me to work more and spend my time editing. 😁

Brian Edwards78 said:There’s no reason for drama or asking for a ban. This isn't a personal attack on you; it’s just a discussion about whether your signature is appropriate and the message it sends to patients. Better safe than sorry. 🙂

Look, I'm really not angry. 😁 I don't see this as an attack on myself. I'm just asking for a quick resolution because I don't have time to debate—I need to head out on a trip soon, so please just make a decision quickly. 😁 As for calling for a ban, I'm not doing it out of anger. If this truly is a political pamphlet, then fine, let them hand out a $500 fine. I’ve paid just as much to others regarding Nazi propaganda. That’s honestly all this is about.

Previous administrations did. But hey, back then, even posting a PM could get you punished without any debate. 😁

You're mistaken, seriously. Regarding the History PDF, they removed, say, the SS avatar that Sparrow used (if I remember the handle right), while Pinocchio has had that Iron Cross avatar for years and nobody ever took it away, nor would I ever think of doing that. There is a clear distinction here.

Brian Edwards78 said:I disagree that the sentence was meant in a military sense, as it was a typical propaganda speech delivered to a carefully selected audience. The speech itself doesn't have much to do with having war, other than being a reaction to recent defeats; it’s pure Nazi propaganda.

Oh yes, it was said specifically to boost the morale of the people and the army, because losing an entire army of 500,000 men was the first massive slap in the face for the Germans in the war, and they had to respond by raising morale. Using combat rhetoric. Just because the word Wehrmacht isn't explicitly mentioned doesn't mean the context isn't political.

Anyway, the important thing is that you've laid out what you believe to be true. I don't feel like arguing through ten pages of debate here. So, I’m asking the admins to make a call on this ASAP so we can move on.

No hard feelings, it's just my signature we're talking about, so let's have a normal discussion. Yes, I know who said that sentence and when. But as you seem to realize, that phrase was used in a military context, not as Nazi propaganda. I'm pretty good at telling the difference between those things. Personally, I've removed plenty of Nazi propaganda because I find it distasteful, and I'd never post that kind of stuff myself. As someone who studied the Germans during that era quite extensively (I'm talking about decades of military and political books regarding Germany back then), I know exactly when and in what sense things were said. Following that logic, we shouldn't mention anything related to the Germans from that period at all. We need to separate the military aspect from the political one. That's how I see it, and to me, that sentence is powerful in a military sense. It was said after the catastrophic destruction of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad to boost morale—to show the Wehrmacht hadn't fallen, but was actually preparing to return even stronger.

Brian Edwards78 said:Imagine a new member joining and immediately spotting a supermod with a signature like that. They’ll naturally assume their neo-Nazi nonsense is fine and they can just set their avatar to, I don't know, Mengele, put "Arbeit macht Frei, LOL" in their signature, list their location as "Third Reich," and start acting out. I truly believe these things need to be nipped in the bud; we shouldn't give them even an inch of breathing room. That's exactly the kind of space a signature like this gives a supermod.

So? If he's uninformed about the nature of this sentence, is that my problem or his? If that sentence triggers him to act out, that's on him. Am I supposed to sit down and educate him? Whose fault is it if he doesn't know the subject matter and ends up posting actual Nazi propaganda? If he posts something like that, the problem is already his from the start. And because his ignorance is his own issue—and because he's so quick to jump to conclusions without mercy—he essentially defaults to being labeled a Nazi sympathizer here.

The difference between using a phrase in a political vs. a military sense is like comparing a swastika to an Iron Cross, which isn't banned. I'm sure that distinction is clear to you. We've never touched avatars featuring the Iron Cross.

Honestly, I don't really care. To be blunt, I couldn't care less what they decide about my signature. If the mods think it's controversial, let them take it away and hand me a 500-point ban for spreading Nazi propaganda. There are plenty of other quotes I could use; it's not a big deal.

Brian Edwards78 said:Hey Nica and the admin team,

Since we established last week that using the term feminazi is banned here because it's offensive, and we saw how avatars featuring Nazi symbols or officials get removed, and how "Third Reich" isn't allowed as a location, can we assume that signatures containing Nazi propaganda are also prohibited?

Thanks.

If I remember correctly, we've had to change signatures in similar situations too. I don't see why there should be any doubt. None of that stuff is allowed here—whether it's an avatar, a signature, or a location.

First off, my apologies to anyone who sent me a DM and didn't get a reply. Work kept me away from Washington, D.C. and offline for a few days. I'm a bit old school—still using one of those basic phones that doesn't really handle the modern web on the go😁.

Sam Green73 said:That isn't necessary and is just cluttering the debate.

You can judge an opinion, but don't judge the person.
It's much easier to change an opinion than it is to change a person.

I noticed you don't like being lumped into a group just to be attacked for it.
So, please don't try to force others into boxes either.

cosmictinker44 said:It’s not about how people label themselves. They can do that if they want.
We are talking about labeling someone else here...

These two posts pretty much sum up what we should take away from this whole report. The user from Connecticut is right—labeling people isn't allowed and isn't okay. Some people might not mind it, as mentioned in the thread, but for others, it's an issue.
If we allow it for some because they aren't bothered, but restrict it for others, we'll end up with double standards and total chaos regarding our rules.
This kind of behavior should be avoided in discussions, and if it happens, it should result in a warning.

In these quotes, you mention there's a difference between labeling an opinion versus a person. Around here, that distinction is blurry and debatable. Because the Middle East is the Middle East—never simple, always complicated.
In this part of the world, even saying "your view is too pro-American" or "your view is too pro-Russian" (or making comments about someone being a nostalgic former communist just because they remember the good old days) can lead to trouble.
In that last case, people often end up feeling personally insulted.

That's why it's best to avoid labeling altogether whenever possible, just so "labeling an opinion" doesn't become a mask for attacking a person.

Connecticut, the posts have been moderated and we can close this discussion. John Doe, posts can be subject to a warning or action for up to 10 days after they are posted.

Actually, discussions like this really belong in the Offtopic subforum. I’d need to check with the rest of the team first to see if we could even allow a thread like this on Beautiful us.

Carol Hernandez94 said:I’m honestly just wondering why you picked such a rigid person to be an admin on Beautiful Us.
I mean, LEGO,...
I see him hanging out on the forum constantly, so okay, maybe that's one reason you chose him—the kid clearly has enough free time and energy, and he doesn't have any health issues yet, so you gave him a "job."..
But seriously, please explain to him that when we post on the San Francisco thread, we talk the way we talk and act in real life. We’re a small group, maybe ten of us, and we all know each other. Most of us only post in that specific thread, and it feels like our little corner where we meet up to grab a coffee or a beer...
LEGO doesn't get it; he just deletes posts for no reason...

briskfox65 said:Nah, he deleted them. And apparently, all those posts were "full of insults and heavy Offtopic." The guy basically thinks that because his username is highlighted in red, he’s some kind of dictator. He just keeps favoring himself and being patronizing to everyone else.

Thanks for taking the time to read our complaints.

Angelina, there wasn't really a need for those unnecessary jabs at the moderator. 🙂

First off, his red username has nothing to do with how he moderates this subforum, and comparing his actions to "dictatorship" just because of the color isn't necessary.
LEGO is a moderator for Beautiful Us, and I am currently the super-moderator in charge of this specific section. So if anyone wants to complain about "dictatorial behavior caused by a red username," you can take it up with me.

What LEGO did wasn't an act of tyranny; it was setting the direction for how this subforum will be moderated. What the moderator was trying to point out is that the casual chatter in the thread needs to scale back because it wasn't actually related to San Francisco itself. If you want a space to hang out and chat casually with a few friends, there's the Offtopic subforum where you can talk as much as you want in your own thread. Of course, chatting isn't banned entirely, and a little casual talk is fine, but it shouldn't be the main focus of the thread.

The Beautiful Us subforum isn't designed to be a social lounge like that. The goal is for threads about cities across the US to primarily serve as discussions about the city and its events among people who actually live there (and write in their respective city threads accordingly).

As far as I can tell, no one was banned. He just removed chatty posts that had nothing to do with San Francisco or local events. From what I saw, the moderator simply asked everyone to stick to this going forward. It was done in a normal tone, without threats, arrogance, or anything like that. So, I really don't see the reason for opening this discussion.

Previously, this subforum didn't have strict moderation, so people got used to threads turning into private group chats. Now, this change feels like moderator overreach or some "kid with too much time" acting out. That's incorrect. Like I said, this isn't that kind of subforum, and LEGO is just working toward the intended purpose of the board.
Besides, the administration also gave instructions to move the subforum in this direction, and that includes the San Francisco thread.

Look, honestly, there’s really no reason to go after the moderator. There's actually a specific subforum designed for chatty stuff like that. I'd just ask you all to please stick to that.

Could you share a specific link to the page where those controversial deleted posts are located?

Dennis Adams said:Hi,
I'm not sure if this is allowed, but I’d like to ask a moderator if they could please ban my account permanently. Honestly, I’ve just been getting in my own way lately; I use this forum mostly for messing around instead of actually contributing anything meaningful. It’s starting to take up too much of my time, so if it's possible, I'd appreciate being removed for good. I might still pop in once in a while to read some threads, but it'll be much easier to stay focused without an account. If you don't mind, I'd really like to make this happen.

Thanks in advance.

Dennis, logging out.

I'm pretty sure we can't fulfill requests like that anymore. Take a look at the rules here; point 2 covers exactly what you're asking for.

Since you mentioned you aren't really here for serious discussions anyway and are mostly just passing time, I figured it wouldn't be too hard to just hit the log out button. Personally, I find that's the easiest way to step away when I don't feel like being active. 😁

See? Everything gets sorted out eventually once someone finally decides to check in on the thread. There's really no need to go running around shouting "the house is on fire" right away.
So yeah, that advice from my previous post still stands for the future.