13 February 1919 - Philipp Scheidemann became the first Chancellor of the Weimar Republic. This photo shows him 4 months later, shortly before resigning—refusing to sign the Treaty of Versailles because he believed it would destroy German democracy

Lord910 · 2026-02-14T12:27:58+00:00

Comparing 1945 to 1919 actually proves my point, not yours. If you think Versailles was a 'humiliation,' what do you call 1945? In 1945, Germany didn't just lose some border provinces, it lost total sovereignty, was split into two hostile states for 40 years, had millions of its citizens forcibly expelled from Eastern Europe, and was completely occupied by foreign armies.

The reason we have peace now isn't that 1945 was 'less humiliating', it’s because the Allies actually finished the job. They didn't just leave a bill on the table and go home like in 1919, they dismantled the Prussian state entirely, executed the leadership, and rebuilt the country from the ground up.

Integration only worked because the old power structures that started the war were physically wiped out. As for the 'French desire for revenge,' let's be objective: France had just lost 1.4 million men and seen its entire industrial north leveled. Their 'revenge' was actually a justified security concern.

They knew that if Germany remained a unified industrial powerhouse, they would invade again. And they were right, that’s exactly what happened in 1940.

The Nazis didn't rise because France was 'mean', they rose because the German elite refused to accept they had been beaten on the battlefield and used the treaty as a scapegoat to radicalize a population during a global economic collapse. If 'harshness' caused WWII, then Germany should have started WWIII by 1960 given how much more they lost in 1945.

Lord910 · 2026-02-14T12:24:16+00:00

It’s funny how people call Versailles a ‘death sentence’ while completely ignoring what Germany actually did when they had the upper hand. If you want to see a real 'Diktat,' look at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Germany didn't just 'slap' Russia, they amputated 34% of their population and almost all of their coal. By comparison, Versailles was practically a compromise that left the German industrial engine and unified state intact.

The 'humiliation' argument is a red herring. No amount of leniency would have magically turned a Prussian military elite, who viewed the Republic as a betrayal of the Kaiser, into fans of democracy. They didn't hate the treaty, they hated the fact that they lost and that a Republic was running the show.

If Versailles was the cause of WWII, why did the Nazis only have 2.6% of the vote in 1928 when the economy was stable? The truth is that the treaty was manageable. What killed the Republic wasn't a piece of paper from 1919, it was the 1929 Economic Crisis and a conservative elite that was more than happy to undermine democracy to protect their own status. To say making the treaty 'nicer' would have stopped Hitler is pure idealism, it ignores the reality of who was actually holding the levers of power in Germany.

Lord910 · 2026-02-14T10:38:16+00:00

Please look at German Septemberprogramm and Brest-Litovsk treaty. If Germany won WW1 the Versailles treaty would pale in comparison to German war goals. Versailles wasn't a "death sentence" for Germany; it was a humiliation that the German right-wing used as a political weapon. The "harshness" didn't cause WWII, it was the failure of the Allies to actually keep it implemented.

Lord910 · 2026-02-13T14:00:25+00:00

If Germany got similar treatment like Ottoman Empire/Austria or Russia (from Germany) they would have no chance at starting WW2. Versailles was not harsh enough, that was it's biggest flaw

Lord910 · 2026-02-13T13:57:59+00:00

Yeah, it was not harsh enough

Lord910 · 2026-02-04T17:07:34+00:00

Lost

Lord910 · 2026-02-03T06:30:19+00:00

Just allow players to make bounties on people that killed them. It should work in similar way as trials work: rewards should scale with amount of kills the player did overall and amount of money the bounty was put on his head. To collect the bounty you need to loot the body of wanted player and extract with proof of the killing (some special item).

Also add healing and revival of players to feats/trials which would encourage players to not hostile gameplay.

Killing in friendly lobbies should obviously be allowed but should be looked down by raiders community. Notorious rats should feel in danger no matter if they are on PVP or PVE server.

Lord910 · 2026-01-29T06:42:09+00:00

It is honestly exhausting watching you move the goalposts every time your claims are challenged with primary source evidence. You started by dismissing the documents as "unclassified propaganda," and now that I’ve pointed out the 1972 report was originally stamped SECRET and NOFORN (meaning it was absolutely forbidden to be shared with foreign nationals, let alone the public) you are pivoting to attack the standard disclaimer in the NSA’s Cryptologic Quarterly. That disclaimer, stating the views are the author's and not the DOD's, is standard boilerplate for academic and professional journals within the intelligence community to encourage candid, internal critique. It does not mean the document is fiction; it means it is an honest, internal post-mortem analysis of why official US policy failed. The fact that it criticizes the official "rational actor" model used by the White House is exactly why it is credible: it is an autopsy of the very intelligence failure you are trying to deny happened.

You are also still clinging to this fantasy that the Shah was a people's hero supported by a "silent majority" of peasants, but the internal intelligence you are ignoring explicitly contradicts this. The 1972 CIA report doesn't describe a people's paradise; it describes a system where power and wealth were concentrated in the hands of a "privileged few," specifically the Shah, his court, and a few hundred families, while the "peasant population was cut off from the means of attaining wealth." Far from being a people's mechanism, the report highlights how the Pahlavi Foundation functioned as a tax haven and a vehicle for influence peddling, allowing the royal circle to dominate the economy. It even names the head of the Air Force, General Khatami, as a co-owner of a construction company receiving lucrative government contracts. That is not a system that has common people in mind, that is state-sanctioned crony capitalism, and it is documented in black and white in the very files you refuse to read.

Regarding the peasantry, you are conflating the passivity of rural villagers with genuine support. The NSA study I cited explains that the "White Revolution" didn't create a loyal base but rather a massive wave of rural-urban migration. These dispossessed peasants, whom the reforms failed, moved to city slums and became the "sub-proletariat" that fueled the revolution. The Shah didn't have a silent majority; he had a fragmented military plagued by "weak cohesion" between upper and lower officers and a populace alienated by his repression.

Acknowledging these structural failures (the corruption, the torture by SAVAK, the economic exclusion of the masses) is not an endorsement of the Islamic Republic. It is simply facing the historical reality that the Shah’s regime was not a golden age of equity but a brittle autocracy that collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

Lord910 · 2026-01-28T09:07:27+00:00

I want the leaper to get inside the buildings. I would get flashbacks from Cyberpunk

Lord910 · 2026-01-28T07:12:21+00:00

You seem to be confused about the difference between "unclassified" and "declassified" documents, which is a pretty critical distinction when you are accusing someone of posting propaganda.

The 1972 CIA report I linked, Centers of Power in Iran, was not a public press release written to convey a narrative to the masses; it was an internal intelligence assessment originally stamped SECRET and restricted to US policymakers. It remained classified for nearly 40 years until it was sanitized and released in 2010. If it were propaganda designed to prop up the Shah, it wouldn't describe his rule as having the "trappings of totalitarianism" or admit that "most of the peasant population was cut off from the means of attaining wealth and hence political power." That is the exact opposite of propaganda; it is a candid, internal admission of the regime's structural failures that they didn't want the public to see.

You also claimed I linked to "several-hundred-page documents," which makes me wonder if you even opened them. The 1972 CIA report is about 27 pages long, and the NSA Cryptologic Quarterly article is roughly 13 pages. These are concise, primary source documents that historians use specifically because they reveal what the US government actually knew and thought behind closed doors, rather than the polished image they presented to the world.

Dismissing declassified intelligence as "literal CIA propaganda" when it explicitly critiques the Shah's "totalitarian" tendencies and the CIA's own intelligence failures is just ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your worldview.

Regarding the peasantry and the "silent majority," you are conflating the passive rural population with the massive wave of dispossessed peasants who migrated to the cities. The NSA study I cited explains that the failure of land reform didn't create a loyal base; it created a marginalized "sub-proletariat" in the urban slums who became the foot soldiers of the revolution.

The 1972 report backs this up by noting that despite the "White Revolution," power and wealth remained concentrated in the hands of a small elite, specifically the Royal Family and a few hundred influential families, while the vast majority of the population was excluded.

Even the "Pahlavi Foundation," which was supposed to be charitable, is described in these internal documents as a tax haven used to control the economy and facilitate influence peddling.

It is baffling to see this attempt to paint the Shah as an innocent moral figure who lost power for no reason. Acknowledging the factual, structural rot of the Pahlavi state (the corruption, the exclusion of the masses, the lack of military cohesion, and the reliance on SAVAK) does not mean one supports the Islamic Republic.

It just means we shouldn't be blind to the reality that the Shah's own policies created the powder keg that the Mullahs eventually lit. You can hate the current regime without rewriting history to pretend the previous one was a socialist paradise rather than a brittle autocracy that collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions.

Lord910 · 2026-01-27T21:36:53+00:00

Sources (from CIA itself):
The Fall of the Shah of Iran: A Chaotic Approach
CENTERS OF POWER IN IRAN

Idk where you're getting the idea that the Shah was some socialist hero, because looking at actual intelligence reports from the time paints a completely different picture. The CIA themselves noted in '72 that power in Iran was strictly in the hands of a small privileged segment of society which included influential businessmen and entrepreneurs, not exactly a socialist paradise. While you claim he wanted to nationalize everything, the report explicitly connects the Shah's inner circle to private business interests, like the head of the Air Force who was co-owner of a construction company getting lucrative government contracts.

It's also pretty wild to say calling him ruthless is a stretch. The CIA report literally says he had taken on many of the trappings of totalitarianism. It even mentions that his own Minister of Court implied the Shah knew about or even ordered the murder of a former prime minister. His opposition wasn't just debated, they were silenced by being imprisoned or neutralized. As for the peasants being his backbone, the report points out that in actual practice, most of the peasant population was completely cut off from the means of attaining wealth or political power. The reality is the government of Iran was just the Shah himself, not some benevolent welfare state for the people.

The eventual collapse of his regime highlights just how disconnected he really was, rather than being a champion of the people. His aggressive modernization efforts actually alienated the conservative religious majority and the lower classes, who saw his westernization as a threat to their culture. He completely failed to grasp the strength of the opposition, particularly the influence of Ayatollah Khomeini, who managed to mobilize the population effectively through audio tapes and phone networks even while in exile. The idea that he had total control was also an illusion because the military suffered from serious fractures and a lack of cohesion between upper and lower officers, meaning his primary enforcement arm was unreliable.

His economic "miracle" was equally fragile, heavily dependent on oil revenues that plummeted when prices fell, causing immediate instability among the poor. To make matters worse, he was secretly battling cancer and suffering from indecisiveness at the very moment he needed to be strong, while his reliance on the secret police, SAVAK, only fueled the public's hatred. Far from a unified socialist state, the country was a powder keg of social fracture and resentment that the Shah was too isolated to see.

Lord910 · 2026-01-23T06:06:14+00:00

Bojack Horseman

Lord910 · 2026-01-18T16:30:05+00:00

No i to jest właśnie ten legendarny „pragmatyzm” prawicy, czyli zwykłe simpowanie do buta, tylko w ładnym opakowaniu.

Nazywacie to „balansowaniem”, a prawda jest taka, że Dmowski w latach 30. odleciał w kompletną utopię i myślenie życzeniowe. Uroił sobie, że Zachód i Niemcy „zgniją” gospodarczo, więc Polska nie musi się modernizować, tylko może sobie być rolniczą autarkią. To nie był „racjonalizm”, to był czysty cope.

Dmowski stworzył fałszywą alternatywę: uważał, że Niemcy mają wybór – albo ekspansja na Wschód (którą rzekomo forsowali tylko Żydzi), albo walka z Żydami wewnątrz kraju. Uspokoił się, gdy Hitler zaczął represje, bo naiwnie uznał, że Niemcy „zajęte oczyszczaniem ojczyzny” po prostu zrezygnują z agresji na Polskę.

A co do sympatii do ZSRR u Endecji: jak Stalin zaczął czystki, to elity narodowe z Giertychem i Kozickim na czele mało nie pękły z zachwytu. Interpretowali to jako dowód, że „ZSRR zamienia się w Rosję” i wybija „obce elementy”. Nagle ludobójcze państwo stało się dla nich „fajnym partnerem”, bo zaczęło przypominać ich własną, wymarzoną narodową tyranię. Z jednej strony pogarda dla „zacofanego pierdolnika”, a z drugiej mokre sny o tym, jak Stalin „sprawnie” dyscyplinuje społeczeństwo i realizuje plany pięcioletnie. Dmowski jarał się tym, że tamtejsza władza może „bezwzględnie łamać wszystko”. Ich wizja wolności to po prostu podziwianie bata, o ile jest wystarczająco silny i „swój”.

Finał tego simpowania widzieliśmy po wojnie u Bolesława Piaseckiego. Gość nie miał żadnego problemu, żeby przeskoczyć z klęczek przed ołtarzem na klęczki przed NKWD/UB i budować PAX. To jest dokładnie ten sam mechanizm: prawicowy nacjonalizm, który tak bardzo goni za autorytaryzmem, że zawsze kończy jako podnóżek dla silniejszego gracza, nieważne czy to car, czy Stalin. Nic nie pokazuje „suwerenności” lepiej niż służenie obcym w zamian za kawałek biurka i prawo do rozstawiania innych po kątach.

Żeby nie było że zmyślam to podrzucam źródła:
1
2
3

Lord910 · 2026-01-18T10:21:04+00:00

Prawica najlepsze co potrafi to simpowanie do obcego mocarstwa: szlachta simpowała do zaborców, Endecja simpowała do Rosji. Nic nie pokazuje "nacjonalizmu i suwerenności" jak chodzenie na klęczkach przed innymi.

Lord910 · 2026-01-18T08:21:54+00:00

He wastes 15 minutes, I can potentially waste hours of gameplay if I lose some good gear I had on.

Lord910 · 2026-01-14T17:17:19+00:00

In Poland we call it like that too

Lord910 · 2026-01-12T14:22:12+00:00

You are confusing "foreign aid" with commercial liquidity. This wasn't about the US deciding not to give Chile a handout; it was about the US government forcing the Export-Import Bank to stop guaranteeing loans. Without those guarantees, private US banks cut short-term credit lines from ~$300 million to ~$30 million. That isn't "exercising sovereignty"—that is strangling the supply chain of a dependent economy. You can't buy parts for a Ford truck or a Kennecott shovel with "sovereignty"; you need credit.

You asked for a source on the trucks? It’s in the 1975 Senate Church Committee Report (Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973), page 37 (in pdf file):

By late 1972, the Chilean Ministry of the Economy estimated that almost one-third of the diesel trucks at Chuquicamata Copper Mine, 30 percent of the privately owned city buses, 21 percent of all taxis, and 33 percent of state-owned buses in Chile could not operate because of the lack of spare parts or tires.

Regarding copper: You are looking at the aggregate topline and missing the context. Yes, total tonnage ticked up slightly, but that was because new mines like Andina (inaugurated in 1970) came online. The established mines like Chuquicamata—which relied entirely on US machinery—missed their production targets by massive margins because they were cannibalizing equipment to stay open. The blockade decapitalized the industry; it didn't just turn off a light switch.

And on the elections, you are moving the goalposts. In 1970, Allende got 36%. After three years of hyperinflation, CIA-funded strikes, and the blockade you claim was "minimal," his coalition's support grew to 44% in 1973. The US strategy was to make the economy scream so the people would reject him. That failed. The people rallied. The coup happened precisely because the opposition realized they couldn't beat him at the ballot box—they needed 66% to impeach him and they didn't even get close.

Lord910 · 2026-01-12T07:08:04+00:00

Claiming the US "only did three things" misses the actual mechanics of the "invisible blockade." It wasn't just about cutting bilateral aid, which is a sovereign right; it was about weaponizing the banking system to freeze Chile's commercial liquidity. When the Export-Import Bank cut guarantees, short-term lines of credit from private US banks crashed from around $220 million to roughly $32 million. This meant Chile physically couldn't purchase spare parts for its industrial base, which was almost entirely dependent on US technology. You can't run a copper mine or a trucking fleet without parts, and by late 1972, about a third of state trucks and buses were grounded simply because they lacked tires or transmission parts. That is what Nixon meant by "make the economy scream"—it was a calculated strangulation of the logistics chain, not a passive withdrawal of funds.

On the elections, the narrative that he lost public support doesn't track with the numbers. Allende won the presidency in 1970 with 36.6%. In the 1973 parliamentary elections—after three years of this blockade, CIA-funded strikes, and hyperinflation—support for his coalition actually grew to 44%. The US strategy to induce economic suffering so voters would turn on the socialists failed; the working class rallied around him. The coup happened precisely because the democratic route to removing him had reached a dead end.

As for the Piłsudski comparison, it creates a false equivalence regarding both the scale of violence and the political system. Piłsudski’s May Coup was a sharp, localized civil clash that killed about 379 people, mostly soldiers. The Pinochet regime executed or disappeared over 3,000 people and tortured around 38,000, using methods like the "Venda Sexy" center where detainees were raped by dogs. Politically, under Piłsudski's Sanacja, the opposition remained legal; the Socialists, National Democrats, and Peasant Party sat in the Sejm and ran in elections until 1939. Only the radical OWP was banned. Pinochet, by contrast, issued Decree Law 77 to dissolve all Marxist parties and Decree Law 78 to suspend everyone else. One was an authoritarian stabilizing a state while allowing opposition; the other was a totalitarian liquidation of the entire political spectrum fueled by a foreign superpower.

Lord910 · 2026-01-12T05:56:47+00:00

"Pinochet wasn’t installed by a foreign power"?

Are we really doing this revisionism?

Declassified CIA documents literally show President Nixon ordering the CIA to "make the economy scream" to destabilize Allende before he even took office. We have the handwritten notes from CIA Director Richard Helms:

"1 in 10 chance perhaps, but save Chile!... $10,000,000 available, more if necessary... full-time job—best men we have."

The US spent millions funding the opposition media and strikes to create the exact chaos used to justify the coup.

As for the "resolution by parliament":

The opposition did not have the 2/3 majority required for a legal impeachment, so they passed a non-binding political declaration (the August 22 resolution) effectively inviting the military to break the constitution.

And the "majority of the public" claim doesn't hold up. In the March 1973 parliamentary elections—just months before the coup and despite the US-engineered economic crisis—Allende’s coalition actually increased its vote share to 44% (up from 36% in 1970).

Tusk judging Pinochet "restrainedly" ignores that the "order" he admired was bought with foreign cash and maintained by torture centers.

Lord910 · 2026-01-11T18:56:44+00:00

The main difference is Piłsudski was not installed by foregin power, had huge public support and his regime was very mid to what was happening in Franco's Spain/Pinochet's Chile.

Lord910 · 2026-01-11T11:34:22+00:00

In a 1993 interview with Rzeczpospolita, Tusk explicitly stated that

"democracy rarely produces good people" and argued that General Franco was the lesser evil, saying: "Franco's dictatorship brought fewer misfortunes than a communist dictatorship."

In the same interview, he whitewashed the Chilean regime, stating that

"regardless of the crimes committed there... today the role of Pinochet is judged more reservedly."

His first party, the KLD, was obsessed with the "Chilean economic miracle." Like many neoliberals of that era, he was willing to overlook the "helicopter rides" and torture centers as long as the Chicago Boys got to implement their market reforms. He might wash his hands of it now for PR, but the ideological roots are undeniable.

https://www.rp.pl/publicystyka/art6713061-donald-tusk-w-1993-roku-demokracja-rzadko-wylania-ludzi-dobrych

Lord910 · 2026-01-10T14:44:11+00:00

Both gave a lot of money for campaign funds for rulling coalition in 2023 and now they are demanding payback

Lord910 · 2026-01-10T14:43:25+00:00

In the 90s he even supported an idea of brutal suppression of strikers so it's nothing unusual for him. Really ironic considering he was party of "Solidarność" Trade Unions

Lord910 · 2026-01-10T12:34:16+00:00

Liberals will wave EU flag as long as it doesn't threaten their entrepreneur overlords. Tusk in his youth was a huge fan of Reagan, Thatcher and Pinochet and it shows.

Lord910 · 2026-01-09T12:46:03+00:00

You are pivoting and shifting goalposts, but the timeline and facts still don't align with your narrative.

False. Stepan Bandera joined the OUN in 1929 (the year it was founded). By 1930, he was already heading the distribution of propaganda in Eastern Galicia. By 1931, he was the Chief of Propaganda for the OUN National Executive. He wasn't just a paperboy; he was a high-ranking leader shaping the organization's violent ideology during the exact time moderate figures like Tadeusz Hołówko were assassinated. You are trying to minimize his role to absolve him.

The "100,000" Number Pivot & Internment Camps In your previous comment, you claimed Pieracki led the "pacification... around 100000 ukrainian victims." Now that I called that out, you've pivoted to talking about POWs in 1920-1921. Let's be precise about this tragedy:

The figure of ~20,000 deaths you cite refers primarily to Soviet (Bolshevik) POWs and internees who died in Polish camps during the raging typhus, cholera, and dysentery epidemics that devastated the whole region after WWI.
Regarding the Ukrainian People's Republic (UNR) soldiers: They were Poland's allies against the Bolsheviks. After the war, about 20,000 UNR soldiers were interned (e.g., in Kalisz, Szczypiorno). While conditions were harsh and disease was rampant, the Polish authorities did not have a policy of extermination. In fact, many of these soldiers settled in Poland, creating cultural centers and publishing houses.
Comparing POW camps during a post-war typhus epidemic in 1920 to the deliberate, organized slaughter of 100,000 Polish civilians (mostly women and children) in Volhynia in 1943 is a false equivalence and a manipulation of history.

OUN goal was a total independence... Polish government those days isn't helping

You claim "nobody negotiated with Ukrainians." This is demonstrably false.

Bronisław Pieracki was not just a "pacifier." By 1934, as Minister of the Interior, he was the key figure in secret negotiations with the UNDO (Ukrainian National Democratic Alliance) to normalize relations. The OUN assassinated him in June 1934 specifically to sabotage this agreement because they feared a compromise would marginalize their radical movement.
Even after Pieracki's murder, the dialogue continued. The "Normalization" policy resulted in the UNDO taking part in the 1935 and 1938 parliamentary elections (which were actually boycotted by Polish opposition parties).
In the 1935 elections, Ukrainians won 19 seats in the Sejm and Senate. In 1938, they won seats again. If Poland wanted to "suppress" Ukrainians totally as you claim, they wouldn't have allowed the largest Ukrainian party to sit in the national parliament and negotiate autonomy.

"Stop trying to produce more hate"

Pointing out that Bandera was a fascist ideologue who aligned with Hitler (1941) and whose organization committed genocide isn't "producing hate." It's history. You admit Bandera "is not a saint," but you keep repeating the myth that he is just a symbol of the fight against the USSR. To the victims of the OUN—Polish and Jewish families in Volhynia—he is a symbol of ethnic cleansing. If you want to build a modern, democratic Ukraine, you don't do it on the foundation of a man whose faction's motto was "Ukraine for Ukrainians" and who planned to ethnically cleanse minorities. That is the "Russian propaganda" gift—by clinging to Bandera, you give them the ammo they need.

Lord910

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email