To people who wear Che Guevara shirts.

[Breezy]

Why? Do you think he was a hero or some kind of role model? It's inexplicable to me. It would be like wearing an Osama Bin Laden shirt or a Heinrich Himmler poster.

[masonanddixon]

He actually had noble intents by modern standards but the people who wear his tshirt are generally too dumb to understand the principles beyond the image.

[JohnFreeman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65BOp2dnaLw

[JtotheIzzo]

Why? Do you think he was a hero or some kind of role model? It's inexplicable to me. It would be like wearing an Osama Bin Laden shirt or a Heinrich Himmler poster.

Wow, never heard this before...really looking forward to World Cup 2002 doe, thanks for the heads up.

[Breezy]

Wow, never heard this before...really looking forward to World Cup 2002 doe, thanks for the heads up.

That's just the point. The horrible sadistic things he did and evil views he held are pretty much public knowledge at this point but I still see people wearing the shirts. Is it ignorance? Defiance? Stupidity?

[Im so nba'd out]

That's just the point. The horrible sadistic things he did and evil views he held are pretty much public knowledge at this point but I still see people wearing the shirts. Is it ignorance? Defiance? Stupidity?
This

[Nick Young]

He actually had noble intents by modern standards but the people who wear his tshirt are generally too dumb to understand the principles beyond the image.
Hitler and Goebels had 'noble intents' too.

[masonanddixon]

Hitler and Goebels had 'noble intents' too.

Except Guevara was a revolutionary fighting against imperialism and capitalism and Hitler was a sociopathic murderer of innocent Jews.

[I<3NBA]

hipsters

[lakers_forever]

That's just the point. The horrible sadistic things he did and evil views he held are pretty much public knowledge at this point but I still see people wearing the shirts. Is it ignorance? Defiance? Stupidity?

Wich evil views? Don't you think you are being anachronic and judging Guevara with today's values?

He fought agains an oppressing dictatorship* who ruled his adopted country of Cuba (he was originally from Argentina). That regime had the support of the United States (the capitalist leader of the world). He and Castro led the revolution against that regime. And later on, the US (with president Kennedy) tried to invade Cuba to put that regime back in power. Did you want Cuba to support capitalism and America after that? In those days, you basically had two choices, capitalist or communist. Cuba could not in any way be a capitalist country, it would mean giving in to the enemy. It was a different world back then.

That's why I say it's silly to judge Guevara with today's values. If we follow your reasoning, why do stupid people use shirts, honor, put faces of dollar bills, of people who were so "evil" that they owned slaves? Those "evil" men like Jefferson, Washington and Benjamin Franklin... Or someone in the future can say: "How can people honor that guy Obama, who once was against gay people getting married. What a bigot!"


* ironically, Fidel made Cuba a dictatorship again, this time under him and not Batista (the right winger who ruled the country before the revolution).

[knickballer]

The last time I've seen some one wear a Che Guevara shirt was probably 2005..

Ten years late brah

[Nick Young]

Except Guevara was a revolutionary fighting against imperialism and capitalism and Hitler was a sociopathic murderer of innocent Jews.
LOL Guevera the revolutionary murdered 50,000 of his own people by firing squad. What a noble hero and non-sociopathic revolutionary:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[casual_fan]

Wich evil views? Don't you think you are being anachronic and judging Guevara with today's values?

He fought agains an oppressing dictatorship* who ruled his adopted country of Cuba (he was originally from Argentina). That regime had the support of the United States (the capitalist leader of the world). He and Castro led the revolution against that regime. And later on, the US (with president Kennedy) tried to invade Cuba to put that regime back in power. Did you want Cuba to support capitalism and America after that? In those days, you basically had two choices, capitalist or communist. Cuba could not in any way be a capitalist country, it would mean giving in to the enemy. It was a different world back then.

That's why I say it's silly to judge Guevara with today's values. If we follow your reasoning, why do stupid people use shirts, honor, put faces of dollar bills, of people who were so "evil" that they owned slaves? Those "evil" men like Jefferson, Washington and Benjamin Franklin... Or someone in the future can say: "How can people honor that guy Obama, who once was against gay people getting married. What a bigot!"


* ironically, Fidel made Cuba a dictatorship again, this time under him and not Batista (the right winger who ruled the country before the revolution).

Its not just that he was a communist who murdered and tortured people who disagreed with him just like his idol stalin. Its not like his methods and world views were generally shared in his time, he always was an extremist and not just the usual communist.

[Freakzilla]

Abraham Lincoln killed 400 000 of his own people during the Civil War. True Story.

He was a piece of shit too. :confusedshrug:

[Dresta]

Actually Lincoln didn't have anything like the bloodlust of Guevara, and was pretty quick to pardon people (shot for cowardice etc.) if any extenuating circumstances could be found. It was Stanton that wanted to shoot everybody.


Wich evil views? Don't you think you are being anachronic and judging Guevara with today's values?

He fought agains an oppressing dictatorship* who ruled his adopted country of Cuba (he was originally from Argentina). That regime had the support of the United States (the capitalist leader of the world). He and Castro led the revolution against that regime. And later on, the US (with president Kennedy) tried to invade Cuba to put that regime back in power. Did you want Cuba to support capitalism and America after that? In those days, you basically had two choices, capitalist or communist. Cuba could not in any way be a capitalist country, it would mean giving in to the enemy. It was a different world back then.

That's why I say it's silly to judge Guevara with today's values. If we follow your reasoning, why do stupid people use shirts, honor, put faces of dollar bills, of people who were so "evil" that they owned slaves? Those "evil" men like Jefferson, Washington and Benjamin Franklin... Or someone in the future can say: "How can people honor that guy Obama, who once was against gay people getting married. What a bigot!"

Erm.. how are those comparable? Jefferson attempted to put a paragraph in the Declaration of Independence (at the behest of Paine) denouncing slavery, but he was overruled, and the paragraph was excised. Here it is:


he [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Franklin become an outspoken opponent of slavery (and freed his slaves) after observing black children being schooled and determining there was no difference in intellectual capacity between white and black. These men both broke with conventional wisdom, and were clearly before their time. Jefferson, while he didn't free his slaves (for practical reasons really), did try to condemn slavery in the US's founding document, and any support he did give slavery (like granting new states garnered through Louisiana purchase right to hold slaves) were based on political expedience alone, as he was quite the Machiavellian. But in a way it worked: his vision of the world is largely what came to pass, and he gets a lot of the credit for creating a world governed mostly by democratic peoples, free from despots and absolute monarchs. So the ends kind of justify the means with Jefferson, because chances are the world would be far more unpleasant without him. Whereas what did Che do to change the world aside from getting a bunch of people killed and turning one ruthless dictatorship into another in the process?

Washington i agree with: a terribly overrated figure, incompetent general, and honestly a bit of a royalist (he just didn't want to pay taxes, but aside from that quite revered the British system, as did his political crony Hamilton).

[Dresta]

Winston Churchill killed 4 million Indians in Bengal during World War 2. Hes still considered a hero to his own people. Che Guevara is considered a hero to the people he protected. Deal with it mate its how the world works.
I think this thread has more to do with idiot American teenagers wearing these shirts, not Cuban peasants (the only people he can possibly be deemed to have 'protected'). In fact, those peasants probs couldn't afford his shirts :roll:

[Freakzilla]

Winston Churchill killed 4 million Indians in Bengal during World War 2. Hes still considered a hero to his own people. Che Guevara is considered a hero to the people he protected. Deal with it mate its how the world works.

Churchill was a scumbag too. Saying someone else sucks doesn't make Guevara any less shitty. Besides, do you see hipsters wearing Churchill shirts?

[Marlo_Stanfield]

LOL Guevera the revolutionary murdered 50,000 of his own people by firing squad. What a noble hero and non-sociopathic revolutionary:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
shut the fukk up:biggums:

[Dresta]

Nope but I do see a whole society that protects his image. Its not just a British thing either. The French consider De Gaulle a national hero, even though he killed millions in Indochina and the Meghreb. Every country protects their own heroes image.

Anyway I actually agree with you if the point youre makin is that any murderer shouldnt be considered a hero. Sadly, war is a staple of society and war heroes are always given high regard.

Ps. Dresta. Lincoln was a tyrant who waged war on half of his own country, led the country into a war that cost 60p 000 lives, and left the Deep South struggling to survive for over 50 years. Like it or not he was the President at the time, so along with the praise he gets for ending slavery (either directly or indrectly) he should also get the dondemnation for all the murdered southereners that were killed.How can you simultaneously praise his ending of slavery and then say he must be condemned for going to war when that was the only thing that had a hope of ending slavery in the Southern states? The South's economy was dependant on slavery; they weren't giving it up without a war. What you are saying makes no sense because the two actions (war and the ending of slavery) were completely inseparable.

Not to mention once the Southern states were allowed secession, others would follow, and the US would have ended up as a bunch of sovereign states, giving rise to disputes and possibly war in the future. And America most certainly would not have become the world power it did without keeping the Union together, and the world really needed a unified US in the 20th century, or it would have been at the mercy of Nazisim or Stalinism. The question is whether a person has had a positive or negative influence on the world, not whether they killed people or not, because any responsible ruler must be willing to kill.

You can be peaceful and kind and generous and courteous as a leader like Pertinax was, but look what happened to him (killed by his own guards after 3 months rule; his successor, Severus, who restored order to the empire with an iron hand, reigned for 18 years before expiring from natural causes).

[ZenMaster]

Don't underestimate that it's considered a cool brand and holds symbolism of being a rebel yourself. Most of the people who wear these shirts or put a flag up in their room are teenagers or still young.

[Freakzilla]

How can you simultaneously praise his ending of slavery and then say he must be condemned for going to war when that was the only thing that had a hope of ending slavery in the Southern states? The South's economy was dependant on slavery; they weren't giving it up without a war. What you are saying makes no sense because the two actions (war and the ending of slavery) were completely inseparable.

Not to mention once the Southern states were allowed secession, others would follow, and the US would have ended up as a bunch of sovereign states, giving rise to disputes and possibly war in the future. And America most certainly would not have become the world power it did without keeping the Union together, and the world really needed a unified US in the 20th century, or it would have been at the mercy of Nazisim or Stalinism. The question is whether a person has had a positive or negative influence on the world, not whether they killed people or not, because any responsible ruler must be willing to kill.

You can be peaceful and kind and generous and courteous as a leader like Pertinax was, but look what happened to him (killed by his own guards after 3 months rule; his successor, Severus, who restored order to the empire with an iron hand, reigned for 18 years before expiring from natural causes).

Except for every other country on earth, who all seemed to end slavery without a civil war and half a million corpses...

[BasedTom]

The Soviet Empire wouldnt have become the Superpower it did if it wasnt for Stalins harsh policies, five year plans, etc. Thats why hes considered a hero by the majority of Russians. He took them from a crumblin Empire to one that controlled half the world and defeated Hitler. Ita no different to Lincoln.

I know you guys in America dont like to admit your own historical genocides and crimes. But they did happen. 400 000 innocent southerners were forced into war by Lincoln, ultimately losing their lives. They didnt care about slavery, they were pawns sent to battle to protect their way of life that they had lived with for over 250 years.

Like it or not, just like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Churchill etc.....Lincoln was just as bad
You're placing the entire blame for the civil war on one man? A man who had secessions and the Civil War on his plate practically right after being elected? The Civil War was a result of DECADES of turmoil and struggles between the North and South. Was Abraham Lincoln responsible for John Brown, Bleeding Kansas, or the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter? :rolleyes:

If you really want to criticize Lincoln, criticize him for how he handled the rights of those who he himself declared were his citizens once the war had started. He suspended Habeas Corpus and other rights. These actions can certainly be viewed as tyrannical. But he wasn't responsible for the Civil War, nor for the destruction that obviously happens as a result of a civil war.

Lincoln as bad as Stalin or Hitler? Give me a ****ing break.

[Freakzilla]

You're placing the entire blame for the civil war on one man? A man who had secessions and the Civil War on his plate practically right after being elected? The Civil War was a result of DECADES of turmoil and struggles between the North and South. Was Abraham Lincoln responsible for John Brown, Bleeding Kansas, or the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter? :rolleyes:

If you really want to criticize Lincoln, criticize him for how he handled the rights of those who he himself declared were his citizens once the war had started. He suspended Habeas Corpus and other rights. These actions can certainly be viewed as tyrannical. But he wasn't responsible for the Civil War, nor for the destruction that obviously happens as a result of a civil war.

Lincoln as bad as Stalin or Hitler? Give me a ****ing break.

Yes.

[tomSR.]

Despite this polarized status, a high-contrast monochrome graphic of Che's face, created in 1968 by Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick, became a universally merchandized and objectified image,[257][258] found on an endless array of items, including T-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and bikinis,[259] ironically contributing to the consumer culture Guevara despised


:oldlol:

[BasedTom]

Wtf....have you been reading the topic? Were talking about historical individuals who are praised, yet were reaponsible for countless deaths and murders. Like it or not, Abraham Lincoln declared war on the South....wether he had a moral right to do so or not is irrelevant to the topic. Were talkin about individuals who were responsible for deaths due to their political viewpoints and decisions.

Stalin never killed anyone himself. But everyone knows he was a tyrant. And he had to be. He took Russia from the embaressment of the Japanese War in 1905 and WW1 to the height of global power. He killed many jn the process, but thats how it works. Lincoln had to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans to turn America into a global power. And it worked. Napolean killed millions, Caeser killed man, Atilla, Genghis, etc

Its how the world works. Like it or not Lincoln like most great historical leaders has blood on his hands
The difference between Lincoln and Stalin, Atilla, Genghis, and the names you are listing is that upon inheriting the position, the War had already begun. Are you suddenly evil for fighting back when you are attacked?

No doubt he has blood on his hands, but he's nowhere on the same level as the people you've listed.

[Dresta]

Except for every other country on earth, who all seemed to end slavery without a civil war and half a million corpses...
Hi, Mr. i'm going to state fallacies as if they were historical fact, sorry to interrupt your delusions, but you need to be corrected on a few things:

1. Plenty of countries still ignore slavery even today despite considerable international pressure to outlaw the practice.

2. Countries did not 'end slavery' on their own, nor did they do so before the US: they did so under extreme international pressure and the extension of European power (which was industrialised, and anti-slavery), and the places that benefitted most from slavery were most reluctant to give it up. It took two wars to end the practice of the Barbary States abducting European and American seafarers and selling them into slavery (over a million of them in total), and for these states to be conquered by France to end their slave trade. Basically, European power dominated the world by force, through war and bloodshed, and THAT is what got most countries to give up slavery, so yeah, you couldn't be more wrong really.

3. Industrialised nations had no need for slavery, and turned away from it for that very reason, not for reasons of moral scruple (all the dominant religions of the time endorsed slavery). And no other country had such a divide between an industrialised North that was anti-slavery and a slave-dependant agrarian community in the South, with populations in many states comprising of even 50% slaves (if you can not see why Southerners would be opposed to such a seismic shift as would be caused by the abandonment of slavery you are a fool).

4. There are many other examples and incidences that show your comment to be utter drivel, but I don't have time to go through them with you, so i suggest you go do some reading to correct your gross historical ignorance, as it makes you look a fool.


The Soviet Empire wouldnt have become the Superpower it did if it wasnt for Stalins harsh policies, five year plans, etc. Thats why hes considered a hero by the majority of Russians. He took them from a crumblin Empire to one that controlled half the world and defeated Hitler. Ita no different to Lincoln.

I know you guys in America dont like to admit your own historical genocides and crimes. But they did happen. 400 000 innocent southerners were forced into war by Lincoln, ultimately losing their lives. They didnt care about slavery, they were pawns sent to battle to protect their way of life that they had lived with for over 250 years.

Like it or not, just like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Churchill etc.....Lincoln was just as bad
:facepalm

Utter moron, truly. Get a sense of perspective, seriously. Learn the meaning of the word genocide before you use it, it'll do you good.

Most Russians abhor Stalin and most Germans abhor Hitler, i suggest you get to know some of them because right now you strike me as a basement-dweller, completely detached from any kind of reality, and a social circle that doesn't extend outside the family.

[Oly BC]

Why? Do you think he was a hero or some kind of role model? It's inexplicable to me. It would be like wearing an Osama Bin Laden shirt or a Heinrich Himmler poster.
They usually are just as clueless as you for comparing him to Osama Bin Laden.

[Oly BC]

And you sound like a typical American detached from reality and the crimes your nation has commited on itself and other countries over the centuries.

Stalin was voted the third greatest Russian in history in 2010 by the Russian public. And he wasnt even Russian:oldlol: :oldlol: . Hitler is hated by Germans because he lost the war, Stalin won the war, the majority of Russians love him. Mao Ze Dong and Ho Chi Minh are also hated by many Chinese and Viets, but the majority love them for making their respecitve countries free and strong (never mind the lives lost). Americans truly are the dumbest people in the world: and youre living proof.



Lincoln declared war on his own countryman, and 600 000 people died as a result of it. Thats no different to the blood on any great leaders hands. He was a tyrant. A great historical figure. But also a mass murderer. Deal with it sonny.
One of things that strike me as plain odd is how the 1st of May is celebrated everywhere in the world except the US when it commemorates an event that took place there.


People from the US who are extremely unfamiliar with history (a stereotype they like to prove correct) think that every other leader is nothing but the sum of his ruthless murders whereas each and everyone of the presidents they probably memorize at some point in their school was nothing but a freedom hero.

There have been many massacres in the US for many reasons and many more outside of it with its meddling. One of the events that turned Guevara to communism was the coup in Guatemala. To this day failing countries are called "banana republics" as a result of that coup initiated by the United Fruit Company.

Historical reductionism is just boring. It always seems to me that some people who can't handle info, will just choose the simplest explanation for everything.

[Dresta]

And you sound like a typical American detached from reality and the crimes your nation has commited on itself and other countries over the centuries.Stalin was voted the third greatest Russian in history in 2008 by the Russian public. And he wasnt even Russian:oldlol: :oldlol: . I know you would like to think that Russians would have voted for Gorbachov, Baryshnikov, ***** Riot or Kasparov......but actually, the Russians are more likely to vote for strong political figures that made them proud to be called Russian and not Western Puppets like the aforementioned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm


Hitler is hated by Germans because he lost the war, Stalin won the war, the majority of Russians love him. Mao Ze Dong and Ho Chi Minh are also hated by many Chinese and Viets, but the majority love them for making their respecitve countries free and strong (never mind the lives lost). Americans truly are the dumbest people in the world: and youre living proof. Lincoln declared war on his own countryman, and 600 000 people died as a result of it. Thats no different to the blood on any great leaders hands. He was a tyrant. A great historical figure. But also a mass murderer. Deal with it sonny.
I'm not American thanks: i'm half English and half Polish, so you are wrong again. I really don't see how a BBC article on an online poll can either be accurate or relevant, but there you go. My father grew up in Soviet controlled Warsaw, and his parents lived through the war there, so i am no stranger to the knowledge of how badly the actions of powerful countries can affect the lives of people in small ones. In fact, the Polish fought with the British and Americans against the Germans, and were betrayed to Stalin and forced into decades of backwardness simply to avoid the possibility of further bloodshed or 'murder' as you put it :oldlol:. You are ignorant of the fact that sometimes a choice must be made between two options that will both result in misery and suffering for some people, and that attempting to choose the least bad option in these cases is not the same as wanton mass-murder, enslavement, and barbarism.

Your first sentence is a typical fallacy committed by literal-minded dullards like yourself: a 'nation' is not an acting being, it cannot 'commit' crimes against either itself or other countries - that is a simple anthropomorphism, and it really demonstrates your quite marked lack of intelligence. Individuals or groups of individuals can commit crimes, a 'nation' can do no such thing. You also need to look up the definition of the word 'murder' as you seem not to know what it means (again you show yourself incapable of understanding the words you use). You also call Americans 'the dumbest people in the world' (nice bigotry there), and then follow it up with a load of grammatical chaos that doesn't make any sense :facepalm. You iz dumb az bricks, SEE-RIOUSLY.

[Nick Young]

I think this thread has more to do with idiot American teenagers wearing these shirts, not Cuban peasants (the only people he can possibly be deemed to have 'protected'). In fact, those peasants probs couldn't afford his shirts :roll:
People in Cuba hate Fidel and Che

[Oly BC]

People in Cuba hate Fidel and Che
They're both huge country icons, comparable to Lincoln and Roosevelt.

[Nick Young]

They're both huge country icons, comparable to Lincoln and Roosevelt.
Cubans inside and outside Cuba hate Che and Fidel, for how shit they made Cuba. It actually used to be a nice place. Now it is a 3rd world hell hole where the secret police take you away forever if you say anything slightly against the government.

[Dresta]

Exactly. No one here is claiming that Stalin, Che, Mao, Churchill, Hitler or the like where good men. None of them were. But they were great historical leaders who helped change the course of history in a positive way for their people (Except of cors Hitler who lost).

Every year Americans cry about John F Kennedy when the reality is he was a mafia sponsored adulterer who started the war in Vietnam, leaving millions dead, and nearly led the world into a Nuclear Holocaust. Its just unbelievable how basic the average Americans grasp is on International relations, history and world politics. They honestly think the International Community is a Marvel action comic, where America is always Superman/Batman.
STRAW-MAN.

Nobody has said anything about JFK, and nobody who knows what they're talking about thinks he was a good President, but he is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. He didn't 'start the war in Vietnam' anyway - American involvement in Indo-China predated his Presidency more than a decade, but appaz all those deaths are his fault now :rolleyes:.

The only person who's committing gross reductionist fallacies in this thread is yourself (and the person you are having a conversation with, presumably also yourself, amirite?). I'm no fan of Churchill myself, but placing him on the same level as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, really demonstrates an inability to distinguish between just about anything at all. lol @ you thinking starving millions of your people and employing the most wasteful and idiotic economic policies 'changed the course of history of their people in a positive way' - any person who contradicted Stalin, or pointed out that his policies were ineffective, and proposed ways to actually help the Russian people, was killed by him. See Palchinsky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_of_the_Executed_Engineer


1. Dnieper Dam Power Plant
Many engineers, including Peter Palchinsky warned the USSR not to rush and go ahead with the building of the dam. They argued that the water flow was ultimately going to be too slow and no good studies had been made of the flow patterns of surface and underground water in the area. Ultimately, 10,000 farmers were forced out of their farmland with little or no compensation, and those who did not volunteer to work on the project were forced to do so. As the project proceeded, it fell behind on schedule and grossly exceeded the estimated costs. Worker needs were neglected and they lived and worked under unbearable conditions. Destroyed and rebuilt twice after World War II, it has been expanded several times and is still in operation today as one of six hydroelectric dams on the Dnieper River.

3. White Sea Canal
The building of the White Sea Canal was described as a complete nightmare. It ignored the engineering principles of Palchinsky and was also an obscene violation of human rights. Almost all workers were prisoners and more than 200,000 died during construction. The Canal would freeze half the year, and water was too low in the dry summers. The Canal failed to live up to its specifications from the beginning. After World War II, the entire canal was rebuilt, running parallel to the first one.

Dat positive influence on the Russian people :bowdown:

[Oly BC]

Cubans inside and outside Cuba hate Che and Fidel, for how shit they made Cuba. It actually used to be a nice place. Now it is a 3rd world hell hole where the secret police take you away forever if you say anything slightly against the government.
You're probably trolling.



I'm no fan of Churchill myself, but placing him on the same level as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, really demonstrates an inability to distinguish between just about anything at all.
Churchill was in favor of chemical warfare and was considered an out of touch nationalist before WW2
At that point Britain was an Empire, literally, and it taught its people it had some sort of divine right to rule over distant lands.




lol @ you thinking starving millions of your people and employing the most wasteful and idiotic economic policies 'changed the course of history of their people in a positive way' - any person who contradicted Stalin, or pointed out that his policies were ineffective, and proposed ways to actually help the Russian people, was killed by him.
Ended up as the 2nd largest economy in the world. Didn't start as the 2nd largest economy in the world.

[Nick Young]

You're probably trolling.

Do you know any Cubans? Have you ever been there? Two of my Great Grandparents are from there. You don't know jack shit about this.

Che is a murdering sociopath. So is Fidel. Even today people get taken away and murdered by police if they say the wrong thing to foreign tourists. Neighbors snitch eachother out because if they don't they might get in trouble too simply for living close to the guy who talked out.

Before Fidel and Che got to Cuba, it was probably the most modern country in the Caribean with the highest standard of living. Now it is a third world shit hole where everyone still drives cars from the 1950s.

[Dresta]

Churchill was in favor of chemical warfare and was considered an out of touch nationalist before WW2
At that point Britain was an Empire, literally, and it taught its people it had some sort of divine right to rule over distant lands.


Ended up as the 2nd largest economy in the world. Didn't start as the 2nd largest economy in the world.
What does that have to do with anything? All the European countries had Empires, and if Britain didn't colonise a country then a different European country would. And i assure you, British rule was certainly more benign than living under the French. The expansion of European power is also what ended worldwide barbaric practices such as slavery, which, until Europe industrialised, were the norm throughout the world. Funny that with all your berating of America in here, that it was America's growth into a dominant world power that effectively ended European colonialism. You are contradicting yourself with every post. Stop being such an ahistorical douchebag.

lol @ you accusing other people of being reductionist and then posting that idiotically simplistic and naive final paragraph there. Any idiot should know correlation doesn't equal causation, but there you are using mere correlation as the summa of your entire argument. Moron.

[zoom17]

Why do threads like this always get off topic and heated:roll:

[Dresta]

Why do threads like this always get off topic and heated:roll:
Because kids who sit around all day fapping in their Che Guevara t-shirts are getting all uppity and shit like they actually know something about the world, and using their 'expert' historical knowledge to equate Lincoln and Jefferson with Mao, Hitler and Stalin, then acting like they are some prized elite who know all about American 'crimes', as if everyone else were denying US officials and politicians ever did committed any abhorrent acts.

:confusedshrug:

[Nick Young]

Why do threads like this always get off topic and heated:roll:
because retards try to rewrite history in order to justiy their cool guy Mao and Che shirts.

There is some jackass who pranced around at my uni decked in a che star hat and a pro-Mao Zedong shirt. Mao starved 70 million of his own people to death. How can some retard kid idolize these mass murderers Che, Mao and Stalin? Sadly there are many out there who do.

[Oly BC]

lol @ you accusing other people of being reductionist and then posting that idiotically simplistic and naive final paragraph there. Any idiot should know correlation doesn't equal causation, but there you are using mere correlation as the summa of your entire argument. Moron.

employing the most wasteful and idiotic economic policies
You don't even have correlation on your side. How bad must your argument be?:oldlol:



Do you know any Cubans? Have you ever been there? Two of my Great Grandparents are from there. You don't know jack shit about this.
I know that data is not the plural of anecdotes. There is a very well known Cuban anti-government blogger Yoanni Sancez (and she's one of many). So the sensationalist "say anything and they take you away forever" drivel is nothing more than that.

Cuba had the large income disparity that is common in the area. Some people lived well, others didn't. Nowadays it's not a hellhole but still has a high standard of living when compared to other countries in the area.




But it's ok guys, some of us have no reason to feel insecure about our level of intelligence and understanding of world politics. I understand that you do so no hard feelings for those insults there.:cheers:

[zoom17]

Because kids who sit around all day fapping in their Che Guevara t-shirts are getting all uppity and shit like they actually know something about the world, and using their 'expert' historical knowledge to equate Lincoln and Jefferson with Mao, Hitler and Stalin, then acting like they are some prized elite who know all about American 'crimes', as if everyone else were denying US officials and politicians ever did committed any abhorrent acts.

:confusedshrug:

pretty much sums up this thread:cheers:

[travelingman]

Why? Do you think he was a hero or some kind of role model? It's inexplicable to me. It would be like wearing an Osama Bin Laden shirt or a Heinrich Himmler poster.

That last example would be weird anyway since nobody wears posters.

[hookul]

And you sound like a typical American detached from reality and the crimes your nation has commited on itself and other countries over the centuries.Stalin was voted the third greatest Russian in history in 2008 by the Russian public. And he wasnt even Russian:oldlol: :oldlol: . I know you would like to think that Russians would have voted for Gorbachov, Baryshnikov, ***** Riot or Kasparov......but actually, the Russians are more likely to vote for strong political figures that made them proud to be called Russian and not Western Puppets like the aforementioned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm


Hitler is hated by Germans because he lost the war, Stalin won the war, the majority of Russians love him. Mao Ze Dong and Ho Chi Minh are also hated by many Chinese and Viets, but the majority love them for making their respecitve countries free and strong (never mind the lives lost). Americans truly are the dumbest people in the world: and youre living proof. Lincoln declared war on his own countryman, and 600 000 people died as a result of it. Thats no different to the blood on any great leaders hands. He was a tyrant. A great historical figure. But also a mass murderer. Deal with it sonny.

:biggums: Are you nuts? Hitler is hated by almost all Germans because he and his regime did unspeakeable things and any educated human being - which in todays world the German population mostly consists of - can only shutter when learning about hte things that have been done.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Viva Che!

[Overdrive]

Are you nuts? The German people hate Hitler because in hindsight his actions messed up Germany. At the time he was supported by the majority of population. He was democratically elected by the German people, and many supported the war effort to reclaim Germanys past glories. The only reason they hate him now is because they LOST. If they had won, no one would even speak about the terrible crimes he commited because it wouldnt be important.

You really think Hitler was worse than any other leader in history? I hate Hitler because he put my family in concentration camps, and murdered the rest. But I understand that this shit always happens. Do you think the indigenous people of Asia, Australia, Africa , the Middle East and South America hate Hitler? No they dont give a shit. Do you know who they do hate? They have their own Hitlers. People like the Spanish conquistators, the British military who killed millions and million, the French and Portugues (And of cors British), Slave traders, The American governemnt (Vietnam, Iraq). The leaders of these countries were exactly the same as Hitler in philosophy and cruelty. Ask an Iraqi who their Hitler is and see what the answer is.

Hitler is widely blamed for killing 6 million Jews in World War 2 right? Why doesnt anyone bring up the 4 million Bengali Muslims that Winston Churchill deliberatly starved to death in India at the same time? Why are Hitlers 6 millions Jews more important than the 4 million Bengalis? Why arent the 2 million Viets that the French under De Gaulle murdered not rememebered? We dont remember them because we live in a White Euro-Centric world where we feel only the deaths of Western Europeans are important.

Why doenst anyone talk about the 20 million Russians that died in ww2? The 20 million Chinese? the 6 million Poles? The 2 million Serbs? Why do we only commemorate D-Day, the Holocaust, and American/British involvements? Its politics mate.

Hitler-Churchill-Stalin-Lincoln-Bush same same

Don't get me wrong, I hate any autocratic system or the abuse of democratic systems in order to execute genocides on any kind of people, but what seperated Nazigermany and their allies from any other regime was their implementation of a "killing industry". Never has this been done before or after in that way.

Others throughout history killed millions by not helping or stormtropping innocent people, but Hitler killed people Luke cars are built. His concentration camps were basically destruction plants.

Regarding Ch

[Overdrive]

Sorry man but were going to disagree. Theres been hundreds of instances throughout history where leaders/nations/peoples indiscriminately murdered others. We just dont like to admit that we can be monsters.

Not denying that. Actually I think the "demonization" of Hitler, which happened for decades after WWII was a hindrance to understanding the mechanism that led to Fascism in Europe and still lead to criminal leaders in a lot of countries.



PS. The British invented Concentration Camps/Destuction Plants during the Boar Wars in South Africa. They killed thousands and thousands of Afrikanaar men, woman and children in the same way Hitler killed Jews.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/women-children-white-concentration-camps-during-anglo-boer-war-1900-1902

:eek:

Will look into that at home.

[Breezy]

It's important to consider context and motive when judging the death tolls that might be laid at the feet of world leaders and revolutionaries. A major distinction that I see is Combatant death vs. Non-Combatant deaths. The Holodomor, The Holocaust, The Great Leap Forward. 3 Generations of punishment in North Korea.

Che Guevara distinguishes himself futher. He personally killed men women and children, He Personally raped servants, He Publicly begged the Soviet Union for Nuclear attack on the U.S. "We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims"

Some bias from this guy but after watching it the facts are there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMLk1nQh5o

[ace23]

I remember this dude got name dropped in Wale's "Freedom of Speech".

[Breezy]

Once again every example youve given are from Communist/Eastern nations. Why dont you at least include non-combandent and combandent deaths commited by Western European nations aswell? Both Historically and Presently.

Theres no difference between the Holodomor/Great Leap forward to the British/American rape, pillage and murder of indeginous peoples and lands in Australia/Canada/USA. All instances were tragic and resulted in millions of deaths.

I totally agree. Furthermore I don't see smaller death tolls as being acts of "lesser evil" The only reason Vlad Țepeș or Idi Amin or the Western European expansion into the New World don't have as high a body count as Mao or Stalin is because they didn't have access to that many people and/or they didn't have the means to carry it out. But you can bet that if 30 million Natives stood in the way of Spanish colonialism or 18th Century American expansion then 30 million would have been their number too.

I'm only picking on Communist nations because their recent and consistently/predictably murderous.

[Dresta]

Are you nuts? The German people hate Hitler because in hindsight his actions messed up Germany. At the time he was supported by the majority of population. He was democratically elected by the German people, and many supported the war effort to reclaim Germanys past glories. The only reason they hate him now is because they LOST. If they had won, no one would even speak about the terrible crimes he commited because it wouldnt be important.

You really think Hitler was worse than any other leader in history? I hate Hitler because he put my family in concentration camps, and murdered the rest. But I understand that this shit always happens. Do you think the indigenous people of Asia, Australia, Africa , the Middle East and South America hate Hitler? No they dont give a shit. Do you know who they do hate? They have their own Hitlers. People like the Spanish conquistators, the British military who killed millions and million, the French and Portugues (And of cors British), Slave traders, The American governemnt (Vietnam, Iraq). The leaders of these countries were exactly the same as Hitler in philosophy and cruelty. Ask an Iraqi who their Hitler is and see what the answer is.

Hitler is widely blamed for killing 6 million Jews in World War 2 right? Why doesnt anyone bring up the 4 million Bengali Muslims that Winston Churchill deliberatly starved to death in India at the same time? Why are Hitlers 6 millions Jews more important than the 4 million Bengalis? Why arent the 2 million Viets that the French under De Gaulle murdered not rememebered? We dont remember them because we live in a White Euro-Centric world where we feel only the deaths of Western Europeans are important.

Why doenst anyone talk about the 20 million Russians that died in ww2? The 20 million Chinese? the 6 million Poles? The 2 million Serbs? Why do we only commemorate D-Day, the Holocaust, and American/British involvements? Its politics mate.

Hitler-Churchill-Stalin-Lincoln-Bush same sameYes. The German people hate Hitler because he has stained their name for all of posterity with his actions, which were some of the worst in human history. How is ignoring the plight of another people who are starving the same as rounding up an ethnic group, experimenting on them, and putting them into ovens? Only in your poor, deluded mind are these two things equivalents.

It's funny how you take the worst foreign leaders and then say they are comparable to a great American leader like Lincoln, when America has plenty of figures more apt for comparison with those assholes than Lincoln. You bring up Vietnam, but then ignore the biggest American criminals such as Nixon and Kissinger. You are completely clueless.

If you want to compare de gaulle with Churchill or with Ho Chi Minh, or even Milosovic, this could be somewhat justified, but with Stalin and Hitler? No. Compare Nixon and Kissinger with Mao if you like (they certainly got on well enough), but you cannot compare these men to Lincoln, because their actions were worlds apart. By most accounts Lincoln was a humane man, whereas these others were all psychopathic criminals with zero respect for human life.


Sorry man but were going to disagree. Theres been hundreds of instances throughout history where leaders/nations/peoples indiscriminately murdered others. We just dont like to admit that we can be monsters.

PS. The British invented Concentration Camps/Destuction Plants during the Boar Wars in South Africa. They killed thousands and thousands of Afrikanaar men, woman and children in the same way Hitler killed Jews.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/women-children-white-concentration-camps-during-anglo-boer-war-1900-1902

:eek:
I think most people would agree that is abhorrent, but it certainly was nothing like the Holocaust, and it has nothing at all to do with Lincoln, and very little to do with Churchill. Your comparisons are both idiotic and ahistorical.


You don't even have correlation on your side. How bad must your argument be?:oldlol:


I don't need correlation because i have evidence and already posted multiple instances of where Stalin was hopelessly reckless with both economic resources and the lives of his citizens (economic resources too, as seen by him). I showed that he directly ignored the advice of his advisors to build expensive and life destroying projects, that were utter failures and needed to be demolished and rebuilt multiple time. Then when his advisors still protested at his wastefulness, he had them killed. A responsible leader would have had the Soviet Union in a much stronger economic position, especially internally, whereas Stalin simply heaped more misery on a people who had suffered already for too long, all to build an economic power with such weak economic policies that it would rust away and destroy itself from the inside.

You really have no idea what it was like to live in the Soviet sphere during that period, so i suggest you shut up and go read something about it. No respectable historian or economist would support your idiotic views, and they are agreed that Stalin's policies were incredibly wasteful and largely ineffective, while his citizens lived in squalor and misery. Hobsbawn was literally the last one to defend the USSR in this period, and even he has recanted. You really have no ground to stand on, at all.


+ are you two the same person on different accounts? Your arguments seem remarkably similar, and are equally delusional.

[hookul]

Are you nuts? The German people hate Hitler because in hindsight his actions messed up Germany. At the time he was supported by the majority of population. He was democratically elected by the German people, and many supported the war effort to reclaim Germanys past glories. The only reason they hate him now is because they LOST. If they had won, no one would even speak about the terrible crimes he commited because it wouldnt be important.

You really think Hitler was worse than any other leader in history? I hate Hitler because he put my family in concentration camps, and murdered the rest. But I understand that this shit always happens. Do you think the indigenous people of Asia, Australia, Africa , the Middle East and South America hate Hitler? No they dont give a shit. Do you know who they do hate? They have their own Hitlers. People like the Spanish conquistators, the British military who killed millions and million, the French and Portugues (And of cors British), Slave traders, The American governemnt (Vietnam, Iraq). The leaders of these countries were exactly the same as Hitler in philosophy and cruelty. Ask an Iraqi who their Hitler is and see what the answer is.

Hitler is widely blamed for killing 6 million Jews in World War 2 right? Why doesnt anyone bring up the 4 million Bengali Muslims that Winston Churchill deliberatly starved to death in India at the same time? Why are Hitlers 6 millions Jews more important than the 4 million Bengalis? Why arent the 2 million Viets that the French under De Gaulle murdered not rememebered? We dont remember them because we live in a White Euro-Centric world where we feel only the deaths of Western Europeans are important.

Why doenst anyone talk about the 20 million Russians that died in ww2? The 20 million Chinese? the 6 million Poles? The 2 million Serbs? Why do we only commemorate D-Day, the Holocaust, and American/British involvements? Its politics mate.

Hitler-Churchill-Stalin-Lincoln-Bush same same

You are being ridiculous on many fronts. For one, no one was speaking about the what people felt for Hitler and his plans when it happened but about the feelings now since the original point was about people still walking around with Che shirts today (!). And today (!) people in Germany are not sympathizing in any form with Hitler apart from a very small minority. Also, even at the point of Hitler's Germany becoming practically a dictatorship, the majority of German's did not vote for Hitler but for other parties. Hitler had many fortunate circumstances running for him that allowed him to rise to power. A good read is:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html


And no, it is not "politics" and for you to compare and "count deaths" is absurd. There is a difference in how and why these deaths came to be. Just like there is a difference in criminal law when it comes to murder (1st, 2nd, 4rd, 4th degree), there is a difference in magnitude in those genocides as well. And fact of the matter is that Nazi Germany for the first time ever built an organized 1st world INDUSTRY around the planned killing of a "race" (or at least what was perceived back then as a race). For you to compare UK's effect in India, Mao's death by hunger, Polish death in WW2 etc to this planned Industry is absurd. It is on another level when it comes to the intend of the action. How a dead person became a dead person does make a huge difference in everydays criminal law because we judge intend, "evilness" (if you want to call it that way) for a good reason.

[Lebron23]

They are just being hipster. And Che was a symbol of rebellion. He was also a very good looking guy.

[Nick Young]

I know that data is not the plural of anecdotes. There is a very well known Cuban anti-government blogger Yoanni Sancez (and she's one of many). So the sensationalist "say anything and they take you away forever" drivel is nothing more than that.


To me, this is the equivalent of Holocaust denial. This shit is happening right now. Simply denying a face because it is inconvenient for you to acknowledge it. I know many friends and family who have been to Cuba AND SEEN IT HAPPENING. THE PEOPLE ARE MISERABLE AND SCARED. You don't know jack shit about this! All you want to do is justify your love of murderous sociopath Che Gueverra!

Cubans have a miserable standard of living, comparable to the Haitians. I have no idea where you're getting your information from that it is 'well off compared to other nations in the region'. Probably a Michael Moore movie or some shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMLk1nQh5o
Educate yourself. You're just like those Americans and Europeans in the 30s and 40s who denied that the holocaust was happening.

[Nick Young]

Ghandi himself hated untouchables, blacks and gays, and slept naked with his niece as a form of 'meditation'

[Dresta]

You guys are crazy im not even replying to this thread. I have a Masters degree in International Relations and History and im not being paid to educate Internet dweebs about how the world works.You guys can continue learning you history to from CNN/BBC/Hollywood movies. Thank you

Ill leave you with a few articles on the "Indian Holocaust" commited by the British in the Bengal. Too say that it cant be compared to the Jewish Holocaust/The Spanish Inquisition/The Holombor is a disgusting attempt at denying the deaths of millions of innocent people. Akin to Holocaust-Denial. The Bengali Muslims were against British Rule so Churchill and his governemnt deliberately de-routed food supplies to the region to purposely start a famine, kill millions, and destroy any chance of rebellion. When told about the effects of the famine, do you know what Churchills first question was?

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

http://www.jallianwalabagh.ca/pages.php?id=4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

:roll:

A Masters degree? Oh wow: who doesn't have one of those?

Quoting from what you posted:


Estimates are that between 1.5 and 4 million people died of starvation, malnutrition and disease, out of Bengal's 60.3 million population, half of them dying from disease after food became available in December 1943.[1]

and:

[QUOTE]The food situation in India was tight from the beginning of the Second World War with a series of crop failures and localized famines which were dealt with successfully under the Indian Famine Codes.[5] In Bengal in 1940-41 there was a small scale famine although quick action by the authorities prevented widespread loss of life.[6] Food prices increased throughout India, and the Central Government was forced to undertake meetings with local government officials and release regulations of price controls[7]
The proximate cause of the famine [B]was a reduction in supply with some increase in demand. The winter 1942

[Dresta]

So Britain lay in a precocious position.......but the Soviet Union didnt? Russia hadnt been invaded by 4 million German soldiers during operation Barbarossa? This attack had nothing to do with the subsequent death of millions of Russians? Stalin is to blame for all the deaths in his country? Mao is to blame for all the deaths in China? Che is to be blamed for all the deaths in Cuba? Milosevic is to be blamed for all the deaths in Yugoslavia?

But no one should be blamed for all the deaths in British/American/Western European influenced areas? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: Yes lets blame everyone else but never look at the murders our own countries/leaders commit. Face it, Churchill was as much a tyrant as any world war 2 politician. You had never even heard of the Bengali famine until i posted that link, and now youre going to act like an expert on it :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Whats the difference between Churchill starving 4 million Indians and Stalin starving millions of Ukrainians/Russians during the Solombor? There isnt. Only in your mind there is.The difference? Several quite big ones actually:

1. One took place during a world-wide global conflict of unprecedented size and scope, the other took place during peacetime and during a period of remarkable repression and barbarism by the Soviet state, on people who were supposedly under their protection.

2. The Ukranian famine was a man-made one, deliberately instigated by Stalin, very possibly in an effort to simply eradicate Ukranian nationalism, whereas the Bengali famine was caused by natural disturbances, in an area known for famines and shortages of food.

3. It took place in his own backyard, and Churchill's actions would only be comparable had he deliberately instigated a famine in Scotland and Wales.

Paragraph 1 of your post: another STRAW-MAN, i was not blaming Stalin for the Soviet loss of life during ww2, for that very reason, despite him being far more reckless with the lives of his own citizens than any of the Western powers. Also, Britain lay in a precarious position, not a 'precocious' one (you really have a lot of trouble understanding words for somebody who's claiming to be well educated).

Paragraph 2: yet another STRAW-MAN from the master creator of straw men. Nobody has said that. Why can you no conceive there is a difference between being critical of the actions of people and saying they are the same as Hitler or Stalin. There is a HUGE difference there, but you're somehow incapable of seeing it, and instead generalise your opponents arguments into a bunch of straw-men that you can knock down despite their complete irrelevance to what i have been saying. You are basically having a discussion with only yourself right now.

[hookul]

So Britain lay in a precocious position.......but the Soviet Union didnt? Russia hadnt been invaded by 4 million German soldiers during operation Barbarossa? This attack had nothing to do with the subsequent death of millions of Russians? Stalin is to blame for all the deaths in his country? Mao is to blame for all the deaths in China? Che is to be blamed for all the deaths in Cuba? Milosevic is to be blamed for all the deaths in Yugoslavia?

But no one should be blamed for all the deaths in British/American/Western European influenced areas? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: Yes lets blame everyone else but never look at the murders our own countries/leaders commit. Face it, Churchill was as much a tyrant as any world war 2 politician. You had never even heard of the Bengali famine until i posted that link, and now youre going to act like an expert on it :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Whats the difference between Churchill starving 4 million Indians to protect the lives of Britons and Stalin starving millions of Ukrainians/Russians to save the lives of Soviet citizens during the Holodomor? There isnt. Only in your mind there is.

When you are done laughing with your funny masters degree how about addressing the issue of intent...you know the INTENT where Hitler wanted and PLANNED methodically the total annihilation of a race before he actually put the plan into motion? The INTENT where Nazi Germany planned to totally eradicate all russian influence AND people from western Russia forever for their new Reickskommissariat Moskowien? Why can't you grasp that - for very good reasons - there is a moral sliding scale when it comes to genocide just like it exists for everyday murder. We as a society think and SHOULD think differently about 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th degree murderers of individuals just like it certainly does exist for murderers of whole people.

[Dresta]

When you are done laughing with your funny masters degree how about addressing the issue of intent...you know the INTENT where Hitler wanted and PLANNED the total annihilation of a race DECADES before he actually put the plan into motion? The INTENT where Nazi Germany planned to totally eradicate all russian influence AND people from western Russia forever for their new Reickskommissariat Moskowien? Why can't you grasp that - for very good reasons - there is a moral sliding scale when it comes to genocide just like it exists for everyday murder. We as a society think and SHOULD think differently about 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th degree murderers of individuals just like it certainly does exist for murderers of whole people.
Nah bruv...

Lincoln = American Hitler

Only 'internet dweebs' think otherwise, serious Masters students know the truth.

[Nick Young]

For the record, Maksimilian has been banned from this site in the past for writing posts denying the holocaust and claiming the Jews 'exaggerated it' to 'gain sympathy'.

[Cactus-Sack]

For the record, Maksimilian has been banned from this site in the past for writing posts denying the holocaust and claiming the Jews 'exaggerated it' to 'gain sympathy'.

How was it not perma? Steve will permaban anyone who says anything that can be considered even remotely anti-semetic.

[rufuspaul]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HoJS9jQqL.jpg

[Dresta]

The British didnt intend to wipe out the entire indigenous population of Australia? The Spanish didnt in Latin America? Im not even defending Hitler here, im just saying that others deserve the same condemnation for doing similar things. You guys are the apologists claiming killing millions of blacks/savages/barbarians (what your ancestors would have called these people) is alright, but killing Jews in Europe isnt.
No one is saying it is alright, but what does it have to do with Lincoln?

No one is defending the wiping out of indigenous populations on here, you are just creating more straw-men.

[Cactus-Sack]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HoJS9jQqL.jpg

Take it off!

[Nick Young]

Nick Young is lying. If I had said anything remotely anti-semetic I would have been banned. Hes just but hurt that I schooled his ass in Balkan History when he tried to claim my ancestors werent murdered by Nazis during World War 2 and put themselves in concentration camps. Hes a moron.
nope. I just speak the truth

[nightprowler10]

Besides, do you see hipsters wearing Churchill shirts?
I want someone to start this trend :lol

[Cactus-Sack]

I want someone to start this trend :lol
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p2JcTb2Lx0o/TsWLWEm5ZmI/AAAAAAAAAFM/UxI230YriMk/s640/article-1321464414783-0EBC59B300000578-544939_466x526.jpg

[robert de niro]

https://img0.etsystatic.com/033/0/6328311/il_340x270.539221400_sfdo.jpg