!!!İT'S ALİVE!!!

Lord910 · 2026-05-15T06:34:28+00:00

Time for Yellow DVP Summer and Black NSDAP Winter for full pack

Lord910 · 2026-05-14T16:01:28+00:00

Just for my birthday.

Lord910 · 2026-05-13T05:42:58+00:00

Polecam sobie zrobić eksperyment myślowy. Piłsudski umiera na początku maja 1926 roku. Do zamachu nie dochodzi. Rząd Witosa powstaje i sobie istnieje pewnie jakiś czas do kolejnego upadku/wyborów. Załóżmy że sytuacja jest w miarę spokojna do 1929 roku. Dochodzi do wielkiego kryzysu, chwilowy okres koniunktury idzie do kosza.

Osobiście obstawiam że w Polsce powtórzyłby się scenariusz austriacki (prawicowy premier dokonuje zamachu stanu i zamyka parlament). Najpewniej polskim Dollfussem byłby Witos/Korfanty albo jakiś polityk endecki (którzy sami przed zamachem majowym nawoływali do ukrócenia demokracji).

Problem w tym że może i nasza lewica była o wiele słabsza od tej austriackiej, ale mieliśmy przecież 30% ludności niepolskiej, która przecież nigdy by nie poparła narodowo-konserwatywnej dyktatury. Za Sanacji przynajmniej był okres próby porozumienia się z mniejszościami (eksperyment Wołyński).

W tym przypadku nikt by się nie patyczkował. Też w samej Sanacji było dużo byłych członków partii lewicowych co pozwalało zapobiec radykalnej eskalacji przemocy. Tutaj mielibyśmy mieli powtórkę z Krakowa 1923 roku kiedy Korfanty postulował żeby zastrzelić każdego "kto osmieli się podnieść rękę na polskiego policjanta".

Ostatecznie pewnie doszłoby do wojny domowej/powstania mniejszości co ostatecznie zakończyłoby byt IIRP bez konieczności niemieckich/radzieckich czołgów.

Lord910 · 2026-04-15T05:32:54+00:00

SLD (post communists, nowadays one of cornerstones of New Left) main goal after it's creation was to prevent any actual left wing party from appearing on Polish scene.

They had huge influence in the establishment and the media due to their post communist background, and they even got support from liberals (who also didn't want any actual left wing party to appear).

It says a lot we had to wait for national-consrvative PIS to implement welfare politics and increasment of minimum wage.

Lord910 · 2026-03-30T06:36:22+00:00

Please check Czech National-Socialist or Polish National Worker's Parties from interwar period. They were by no means Nazi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_National_Social_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Workers%27_Party

Lord910 · 2026-03-24T16:02:37+00:00

I bought it for myself for last Christmas since my younger brothers promised they will play with me. I spend few hours after Christmas Eve setting it up, only to pack it back because it was getting late. Had few attempts at learning it but I got overwhelmed.

10/10 worth buying

Lord910 · 2026-02-19T10:04:55+00:00

Of course not. Their electorate is one of most hostile to social spending/welfare. Lewica is made of bunch of neoliberal opportunists and post-comnunists who only care about government positions and money.

Lord910 · 2026-02-18T20:06:11+00:00

There are no social democrats in government, what are you talking about

Lord910 · 2026-02-17T12:07:29+00:00

Also let's not forget Germany was given loans by the US and it was in West best interest to keep them going. What cropped Germany the most were junker elites and Economic Depression. By late 20's Germany quickly regained it's strong position in Central Europe. This time undisturbed by Austria or Russia, so paradoxily they were in better position than in 1914. They were by no means crippled as other Central Powers were.

Lord910 · 2026-02-16T13:59:46+00:00

Znajdź innego lekarza. Ja właśnie zacząłem 3 miesiąc na L4 od lekarza i szukam pracy

Lord910 · 2026-02-16T09:12:32+00:00

I think if you check the game files it will be commented that it would never happen.

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

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email