Hitler Reacts to Putin Annexing Crimea

[uhnope]

[jakeXT]

1. The Berlin pocket looks more like Debaltseve

[happyslug]

2. I hate that portrayal of Hitler, how can anyone follow that person with complete commitment?

Hitler should be shown to be someone like Reagan, JFK or Obama, a happy cheerful leader that takes charge of things AND get people to do what HE wants them to do. You may HATE such a Portrayal but it would be closer to how Hitler was and how any future Hitler will look act like.

Yes, I know movie goers do NOT like their bad guys good looking and actually likable, but that what most are. Churchill had an opportunity to meet Hitler before the War, but decline do he, Churchill, had to go somewhere else (They were in the same hotel). Churchill always said he was lucky, for if he had meet Hitler, he may have grown to like Hitler, like most people who had meet Hitler.

[freshwest]

3. 'Gazing at topless Putin.' (Don't forget that Putin is a 'Slav' and Hitler hated them.)

Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:39 AM - Edit history (1)

And that 'Better of a 'knobhead dictator' than I am.'

[newthinking]

4. What you do not hear in the news: Crimea has fought for independence (from Ukraine) continually

since the breakup of the Soviet Union. It always was closer to Russia.

In a past referendum Crimea voted for more independence at a rate of 93%. So all the bullshit from the media is just that, there has always been support and closeness to Russia.

There was a compromise constitution that was overruled by the Ukrainian Parliament and Judicial, several fights over the crimean constitution.

How is this not part of the narrative? Because it is extremely important.

Because if people know the truth and the history it becomes obvious and turns the narrative on it's head.


From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea

Evolution of status of Crimea and Sevastopol within independent Ukraine
Autonomous Republic of Crimea

After the Crimean referendum of 1991, which asked whether Crimea should be elevated to a signatory of the New Union Treaty (that is, became a union republic on its own), Ukraine restored Crimea's autonomous status, but confirmed that autonomy restored as a part of the Ukrainian SSR. The Crimean Oblast council became Supreme Council of Crimea and, on 4 September 1991, passed the Declaration of state sovereignty of Crimea.[1]

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the autonomy renamed itself the Republic of Crimea.[2] The Ukrainian government initially accepted its name, but not its claims to be a state. According to Ukrainian law "On status of the autonomous Republic of Crimea", passed on 29 April 1992, "Republic of Crimea is an autonomous part of the Ukraine and independently decides on matters, which are delegated to it by the Constitution and laws of the Ukraine" (art. 1).[3] The Regional Supreme Council, on the contrary, insisted that "Republic of Crimea is a legal democratic state", which "has supremacy in respect to natural, material, cultural and spiritual heritage" and "exercises its sovereign rights and full power" on its territory (art. 1 of the May 1992 Constitution), but also a "part of the Ukraine and establishes relations in it on a basis of the treaty and agreements" (art. 9).[4] Both Ukrainian law on autonomy status[5] and the 1992 Constitution of the Crimea[6] were amended later that year, putting the Republic's status in between what was proposed in the initial revision of the 1992 Constitution and what was proposed in April 1992 Ukrainian law on the status of the Republic.

On 21 May 1992 the Supreme Soviet of Russia declared 1954 transfer of Crimea as having "no legal force", because it was adopted "in violation of the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Russian SFSR and legislative process", but because subsequent legislation and the 1990 Russo-Ukrainian treaty constituted that fact, parliament considered it necessary to resolve the Crimean question in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia and on the basis of the popular will of the inhabitants of Crimea.[7] A similar resolution was adopted for Sevastopol a year later. Both moves were condemned by Ukraine[8][9][10] and resulted in no changes to the Russian Constitution (neither 1978 nor 1993 documents enumerated Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects).

In 1994, after parliamentary and presidential elections in the Republic, the Supreme Council and the executive became dominated by the Russian Bloc (which had won 57 seats in the Supreme Council of Crimea and Presidency for its member, Yuri Meshkov).[11] Following a referendum, held in same year, the Supreme Council of Crimea restored the 1992 Constitution to its original revision,[12] but a year later this constitution, along with the presidency and regional citizenship, was declared null and void by the Ukrainian Parliament, which by that time, had renamed the autonomy from "Republic of Crimea" to Autonomous Republic of Crimea.[13] Another Constitution was passed by Crimean parliament in 1995,[14] but many parts of it were rejected by the Ukrainian parliament; among them were Republic's name (which was to remain "Republic of Crimea&quot and citizenship.[15] Meanwhile, during drafting of the new Ukrainain Constiution, the question of autonomy was much debated: some legislators proposed abolishing it altogether (downgrading back to oblast status or to autonomy but not autonomous republic),[16][17] while other legislators proposed legalising the 1992 Constitution of Crimea provisions (original May revision) in the new Ukrainian Constitution.[16] Ultimately, the new Constitution of Ukraine adopted neither extreme and reiterated the autonomous status of the republic, while downgrading some of its powers (such as regional Supreme Council's powers to enact legislation in form of laws ("zakoni&quot ). The Republic was declared to be the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea", but also an "inseparable constituent part of Ukraine".[18] A new Crimean constitution, complying with provisions of the Ukrainian one, was adopted in 1998.

[BainsBane]

8. Don't you ever get tired of carrying the water for a murderous, thieving autocrat?

Cut the shit. This is about Russia restoring itself as an imperial power and recapturing the former territory and strength of the former Soviet Union. It's about might, raw power. Russia has controlled Ukraine since the 17th century, and they feel entitled to rule a people they see as inferior. This regurgitation of Putin propaganda is unseemly. You want to support Russian power in the region and the regrowth of Russia as a major power that can challenge the West, just say so. No one who isn't a complete imbecile is going to believe the pretense that there is something humanitarian about Putin's annexation of the Ukraine. It's a power struggle about empire and Putin's desire to create a strong Russia. He felt threatened by the expansion of NATO and the growth of Western economic and political influence in the Ukraine and the rest of the Baltic states. He would not tolerate a Ukraine that he did not control, so he has made sure he can. There is an argument to be made that the West knew they were eclipsing his power by expanding NATO and should have treated more lightly. There are cogent analyses that can be made about Russia's sphere of influence, but this bullshit that it was all about self determination and humanitarian concern is inane. He doesn't give a shit about that within Russia. He certainly isn't concerned about it within the Ukraine. You talk about Independence from the Ukraine as though you haven't the first clue about the history of the region. I really hope you know you're spinning bullshit because the alternative is just too pathetic.

Please don't patronize us with that crap. It is insulting to the intelligence of people here.

[newthinking]

9. I hate the poisoned tabloid msm and don't care for innacurate narratives

Can you refute the information in my post? You can follow the link to the information on Wikipedia.

You need to learn a little more about Crimean history. My point was not Russia's part, but that the msm narrative distorts what happened. It was actually the Crimean Legislature that initiated the vote. It was local militia that first secured roads in and out.

The people there wanted this. And I tend to favor self determination. Not "support" the what advantage Russia sees in it.

[BainsBane]

10. I can see why you are so frightened of media influence

You think everyone as gullible as yourself. You are regurgitating Putin's excuses verbatim, excuses he knows are not true but you can't figure out the obvious. The irony of your constant muttering MSM to every point you find inconvenient is that it is you who uncritically repeats what you read in MSM, only it's the Russian MSM.

By your argument, the Iraq War was justified because the Kurds wanted independence and the Shia were treated as second-class citizens. If that is a basis for invasion, there are hundreds of places on earth that an invasion could be justified. And spare me Putin's racist shit about ethnic Russians.

Pretending like Ukraine is a dominating power is as ridiculous as it gets. They have been struggling for independence from Russia for centuries. Crimea is a crucial economic and strategic location because of the black sea and oil. How is something that fucking obvious beyond your comprehension? This isn't just about Crimea. Crimea alone doesn't explain why Putin paid men to go into Kiev to fight with Ukranian nationalists there. It doesn't explain why Russia continues to shell across the border or pays and arms pro-Russian rebels to fight the East. It doesn't explain Georgia.

My information doesn't come from MSM. I don't even watch television news. I have no TV service so I don't even know what the cable narrative on Ukraine is. Nor do I care. I read and view sources I find credible and informative. Frontline was the first TV I had watched in several months, and I got it over the internet. I read and listen to historians and other academics, people who don't try to use events in 1996 in Moscow to explain away activities in St. Petersburg five years earlier. When I tried to explore actual points in the Frontline piece, you ran away. You point to distraction rather than deal with issues. You tried to deny all allegations of a kleptocracy made by Karen Diwisha because you claimed she was upset she was cut out of the money. You didn't even bother to find out she is a Russia expert with dozens of academic books that date back to the Soviet era. You never did explain how bankers going to Moscow in 1996 meant Putin couldn't possibly have pilfered profits from selling public property and industry in St. Petersburg five years earlier. In fact, after preaching about stereotyping "other cultures," you couldn't tell one city from the other. Then you have the audacity to preach to others when you can't think your way out of a propaganda machine. I wouldn't take your word on a vote at the local PTA.

Certain points are universal. Foreign policy and war are based on a nation's perception of its national interests. Governments always give justifications, like Putin does for the Ukraine and Americans drone on endlessly about freedom, but they are not the actual reason for their actions. They have concrete geopolitical goals, and that is as true for Putin as the US. How do you not know that?

[newthinking]

11. You are confusing my points with apparently others

or misunderstanding them.

I will just have to disagree with you.

[ND-Dem]

12. that person isn't confused and doesn't misunderstand. you're very polite, however.

[BainsBane]

13. No, you linked to an article about Harvard economists and bankers visiting Moscow

in 1996 and explained that was some sort of explanation for Putin's pocketing of proceeds from the sale of public lands and industry in St. Petersburg just before the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s. Rather than engaging with the points in the Frontline documentary, you linked to an article that you pretended explained everything away. You claimed the entire argument about Putin's Kleptocracy was on the part of people who lost their gravy train. You made those charges with absolutely no knowledge of events, places, or identities of those featured in the documentary.This is the link. I addressed the issues with it in response to your post. Now you don't even remember it, it seems because details are far less important than excuses.

Certainly we disagree. And what we disagree about concern points of fact, facts you want to ignore because they don't feed into an image you have of Putin and Russia as good and the US as bad. There are no good and bad guys in foreign relations. Their are states and non-state actors with differing perceptions of their national interests. You uncritically repeat Putin's excuses and refuse to engage with any points of substance. The only way to critically evaluate media or source of any kind is to examine subject matter, to examine the evidence. You choose to justify empire, war, and Russian oppression of Ukrainians, yet you portray a colonized people as the oppressor. Imagine if someone claimed England had a right to invade India because English-speaking peoples remained from their days of empire. That is what you are doing. You champion colonialism and oppression of Ukrainians, who have for centuries lived under Russian domination. You don't engage because your arguments can't bear scrutiny.

[newthinking]

14. Your assessment of my points is way off

I don't know how I can even dialog with you since you stereotype my intentions "image you have of Putin and Russia as good and US as bad".

There is no reason to bother because while you want to tell me how my mind is made up you need to look in a mirror. But at least I am not going around telling you that personally you are full of shit (as you are trying to imply with me).

It won't work, and certainly others see through it as well (as the other responder mentioned). Buh-bye.

[betsuni]

5. That's a good one!

[freshwest]

7. It's the best dialog I've seen yet on that meme. Oh, the drama!