Soviet Union is not taught in schools!

[Bleipriester]

I know it was wrong and don´t need a daily reminder.

If you still think tolerance is a negative value, I think you need a thrice-daily reminder.

Why would you think tolerance of others is a bad thing?

Of course, except for the Holocaust, the topics were deemed good.
The big question is why we need that shit stuff and the actual subjects fall short.
Of course you don´t need tolerance for a Turk among hundred Germans. You need tolerance for a German among hundred Turks. It was brainwashing.
In my small town people got robbed on daylight by Russians and Turks. Shot and beaten the kneecaps, ect. Do you think it is good when a student naively approaches them just to get beaten and robbed?
At the funfair we heard shots in our small town. Once, on the funfair, a Turk drove his baby buggy over my foot and I laughed. This started a turmoil. The Turk, a person between 30 and 45 probably, just pulled his shirt off and got ready to fight me little boy. Luckily the people came to help me. I have more examples for why "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" don´t exist the way they try to teach us.

When the Nazis saw a Jew doing something they didn't like, they saw 'the Jew' , not the person doing it. When you see someone doing something you don't like, you see 'the Turk' not the person doing it.

It sounds like you need MORE Holocaust education, not less.

And, this time, pay attention.

You read that just out of my experiences? The prejudgment is on your side. There is no "the Turk" or "the Jew" for me.

Sure of course, until let your guard off...

if the Jews didn´t betray Germany for the desert and stayed in Germany, we´d have won WWI and everything would be fine.

Are you and sunni are taking acting classes together?

It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.

"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."

Balfour Declaration letter written

On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter

www.history.com

.

And?

Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.

No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".

Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:

There is no "the Turk" or "the Jew" for me.

and its the same old rotten stench.

Enemies everywhere

I like mine dumb and predictable.

But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.

I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.

If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.

So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?

How does it work?

No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?

Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.

Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.

We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.

You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.

It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.

And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?

There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.

Germany was also the quickest to go down.

Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.

And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.

That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".

Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.

No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".

Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.

No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.

That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.

Glad we cleared that out.

For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?

Give me some context.
What year is this?

WWI. See the helmet.

The American entry into World War I came on April 6, 1917, after a year long effort by President Woodrow Wilson to get the United States into the war. Apart from an Anglophile element urging early support for the British, American public opinion sentiment for neutrality was particularly strong among Irish Americans, German Americans and Scandinavian Americans,[3] as well as among church leaders and among women in general. On the other hand, even before World War I had broken out, American opinion had been more negative toward Germany than towards any other country in Europe.[4] Over time, especially after reports of atrocities in Belgium in 1914 and following the sinking of the passenger liner RMS Lusitania in 1915, the American people increasingly came to see Germany as the aggressor.

As U.S. President, it was Wilson who made the key policy decisions over foreign affairs: while the country was at peace, the domestic economy ran on a laissez-faire basis, with American banks making huge loans to Britain and France — funds that were in large part used to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Until 1917, Wilson made minimal preparations for a land war and kept the United States Army on a small peacetime footing, despite increasing demands for enhanced preparedness. He did, however, expand the United States Navy.

In 1917, with the Russian Revolution and widespread disillusionment over the war, and with Britain and France low on credit, Germany appeared to have the upper hand in Europe,[5] while the Ottoman Empire clung to its possessions in the Middle East. In the same year, Germany decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare against any vessel approaching British waters; this attempt to starve Britain into surrender was balanced against the knowledge that it would almost certainly bring the United States into the war. Germany also made a secret offer to help Mexico regain territories lost in the Mexican–American War in an encoded telegram known as the Zimmermann Telegram, which was intercepted by British Intelligence. Publication of that communique outraged Americans just as German U-boats started sinking American merchant ships in the North Atlantic. Wilson then asked Congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and Congress voted to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.[6] On December 7, 1917, the U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary.[7][8] U.S. troops began arriving on the Western Front in large numbers in 1918.

United States in World War I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The funny thing that the Germany embassy placed "ads" in many US newspapers that warned of traveling in ships like the Lusitania, which travel through the war zone, but only two of them printed it.

Ok and?
I don't think it's anywhere serious to focus on "ads" as cause of war.
Life is much more complicated than that, especially developments leading to such events.

Germans were one of the most integral communities of the Russian society,
their decline started with the reforms of Alexander II.

I know the Germans in Russia, once invited by the tsar, were oppressed, their language forbidden. But that has nothing to do with WWI at all.

 

[rylah]

...Not really. ....

Yes, REALLY. Your illogical, idiotic, conspiracy-nut mental defect fear of "da jooos!" doesn't exist anywhere but in your tiny, diseased brain.

Debate me on the facts...What part do you dispute?

The Polish and Lithuanians went into the Revolution seeking national self determination,
on the other hand the Jews who became revolutionist did so abandoning their nationality,
the faith of the forefathers and the traditions of the nation. They've received Nobel prizes and fought in the revolution not as Jews, but as proud Russians.

Jews were as well the most outstanding dissidents in the Soviet Union.

But tell me, frankly, do you really want to discuss facts, or regurgitate propaganda
as an excuse to your infatuated mental impotency?

The TRUTH of the matter is that Jews loathed Catholic Russia then, as they do now. They loathed Catholic Poland (despite rights of usury, not permitted to Christian Poles) then, and today.
Now...does this apply to EVERY Jew? Of course not...that would be absurd.
However, the fact remains, whether MOST Jews were this, or that is immaterial.
Did most Jews oppose the overthrow of the Czar? Maybe.
Were most Jews patriotic Russians? Maybe.
We cannot debate feeeeeeelings. We can only debate facts. The FACT is that the Bolshevik revolution was fomented, and led, mostly by Jews.
Not only that but the influence and leadership of the new Soviet Union was primarily Jewish.

View attachment 356317
(2) The Jew M. Cohen, writing in “The Communist,” Kharkoff, 12th April, 1919:—“Without exaggeration, it may be said that the great Russian revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of Jews——It is true that there are no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as Privates are concerned, but in the committees and in the Soviet organisations, as Commissars, the Jews are gallantly leading the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory—the symbol of Jewry has become also the symbol of the Russian proletariat which can be seen in the fact of the adoption of the Red five‑pointed star, which in former times was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry.”

BOLSHEVISM IS JEWISH

Some of the greatest mass murderers of Communism, were Jews.
People like Genrikh Yaghoda were responsible for the rape, torture, exile and murder of millions of Christians.
No, they were alone..they were not statistical outliers...they were two of MANY.
My God man...even MAO had a Jew advisor!

Primarily Jewish?
Like German royalty ruling Russia,
and Jewish persecutions under Stalin and Beriya?

You do realize that Jews in Russia composed the most famous Russian songs,
painted the most iconic Russian works, and that it were Jews who fought to revive the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union? A Soviet Jew who converted to Christianity himself and droves of other Jews, Russians and pretty much most of the dissidents who were thirsty for re-connection with the G-dly.

I know your propaganda, have been fed by it myself, I know the point you're going to make about KGB and NKVD, but the fact is although being over-represented, they did it as Russians, and in the name of a Russian revolution, a class war, alll ethnicities were involved and all suffered alike. A Georgian would jail fellow Georgian, a Jew fellow his fellow Jew and vice verca. Fact is, in most cases of horrific conduct you'll point out, there were as much other ethnicities occupying no less high positions of execution and ideology. And they did it following seeking national self determination, Lithuanians, Polish, Jews on the other hand by abandoning their nationality for the ideological promise of a chance them becoming fully equal, once assimilated into the Russian society by joining the revolution.

To say the Russian Revolution was primarily influenced by Jews, is an insult to intelligence.
A convenient simplistic view to appeal to prejudice, but facts show otherwise.

Jews have a distinct ability to accept no blame.
You gloss over everything in an emotional ball...of nothing. Good talk.

Emotional ball?
Kinda like your resorting to irrational gibbetish to excuse your mental deficiency.

Same way the Russian pogroms started,
appeal to prejudice with typical Passover blood libel,
the court investigation later found the main suspect wasn't even a Jew,
but that didn't bother the hot headed village folk to start with him before pillow feathers started flying in the air... so if you want to start blame games, you'll find it very easy to slip into the answering end of the argument, I'm ready to play - but don't whine later.

We are not talking Czarist Russian pogroms, (once gain, lack of introspection) we are talking about the Soviet Union. We are talking about THAT union and the role that Jews played in the mass murder and imprisoning of millions of Christian Russians.
You are a 'tribe' are you not? You are bound by a common blood, are you not? Then take responsibility for the blood you let.

You really wanna play ethnic blood blame games?
Not a single flag or monument would left standing if Jews were to bring down the symbols of their oppressors. You start these games you end without pants. And it is exactly this attitude you demonstrate that was the instigator of atrocities.

Russian folks would kill their own for mere rumors, when some petty Russian thieve mother caught her son's friend discover their hiding place, and tried to blame "da Jooo", who ended up being a Christian Russian man, just to clear her footprints over the murder of the boy.

You cannot isolate and ignore the preceding pogroms leading to the events.
Selective vision not gonna help you here, demonstrate your arrogance yes,
but the facts don't fit your narrative.

 

[rylah]

I know it was wrong and don´t need a daily reminder.

If you still think tolerance is a negative value, I think you need a thrice-daily reminder.

Why would you think tolerance of others is a bad thing?

Of course, except for the Holocaust, the topics were deemed good.
The big question is why we need that shit stuff and the actual subjects fall short.
Of course you don´t need tolerance for a Turk among hundred Germans. You need tolerance for a German among hundred Turks. It was brainwashing.
In my small town people got robbed on daylight by Russians and Turks. Shot and beaten the kneecaps, ect. Do you think it is good when a student naively approaches them just to get beaten and robbed?
At the funfair we heard shots in our small town. Once, on the funfair, a Turk drove his baby buggy over my foot and I laughed. This started a turmoil. The Turk, a person between 30 and 45 probably, just pulled his shirt off and got ready to fight me little boy. Luckily the people came to help me. I have more examples for why "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" don´t exist the way they try to teach us.

When the Nazis saw a Jew doing something they didn't like, they saw 'the Jew' , not the person doing it. When you see someone doing something you don't like, you see 'the Turk' not the person doing it.

It sounds like you need MORE Holocaust education, not less.

And, this time, pay attention.

You read that just out of my experiences? The prejudgment is on your side. There is no "the Turk" or "the Jew" for me.

Sure of course, until let your guard off...

if the Jews didn´t betray Germany for the desert and stayed in Germany, we´d have won WWI and everything would be fine.

Are you and sunni are taking acting classes together?

It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.

"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."

Balfour Declaration letter written

On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter

www.history.com

.

And?

Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.

No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".

Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:

There is no "the Turk" or "the Jew" for me.

and its the same old rotten stench.

Enemies everywhere

I like mine dumb and predictable.

But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.

I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.

If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.

So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?

How does it work?

No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?

Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.

Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.

We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.

You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.

It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.

And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?

There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.

Germany was also the quickest to go down.

Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.

And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.

That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".

Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.

No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".

Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.

No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.

That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.

Glad we cleared that out.

For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?

Give me some context.
What year is this?

WWI. See the helmet.

The American entry into World War I came on April 6, 1917, after a year long effort by President Woodrow Wilson to get the United States into the war. Apart from an Anglophile element urging early support for the British, American public opinion sentiment for neutrality was particularly strong among Irish Americans, German Americans and Scandinavian Americans,[3] as well as among church leaders and among women in general. On the other hand, even before World War I had broken out, American opinion had been more negative toward Germany than towards any other country in Europe.[4] Over time, especially after reports of atrocities in Belgium in 1914 and following the sinking of the passenger liner RMS Lusitania in 1915, the American people increasingly came to see Germany as the aggressor.

As U.S. President, it was Wilson who made the key policy decisions over foreign affairs: while the country was at peace, the domestic economy ran on a laissez-faire basis, with American banks making huge loans to Britain and France — funds that were in large part used to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Until 1917, Wilson made minimal preparations for a land war and kept the United States Army on a small peacetime footing, despite increasing demands for enhanced preparedness. He did, however, expand the United States Navy.

In 1917, with the Russian Revolution and widespread disillusionment over the war, and with Britain and France low on credit, Germany appeared to have the upper hand in Europe,[5] while the Ottoman Empire clung to its possessions in the Middle East. In the same year, Germany decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare against any vessel approaching British waters; this attempt to starve Britain into surrender was balanced against the knowledge that it would almost certainly bring the United States into the war. Germany also made a secret offer to help Mexico regain territories lost in the Mexican–American War in an encoded telegram known as the Zimmermann Telegram, which was intercepted by British Intelligence. Publication of that communique outraged Americans just as German U-boats started sinking American merchant ships in the North Atlantic. Wilson then asked Congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and Congress voted to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.[6] On December 7, 1917, the U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary.[7][8] U.S. troops began arriving on the Western Front in large numbers in 1918.

United States in World War I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The funny thing that the Germany embassy placed "ads" in many US newspapers that warned of traveling in ships like the Lusitania, which travel through the war zone, but only two of them printed it.

Ok and?
I don't think it's anywhere serious to focus on "ads" as cause of war.
Life is much more complicated than that, especially developments leading to such events.

Germans were one of the most integral communities of the Russian society,
their decline started with the reforms of Alexander II.

I know the Germans in Russia, once invited by the tsar, were oppressed, their language forbidden. But that has nothing to do with WWI at all.

I know Stalin banned the Lutheran Church, as all religious denominations,
but allowed Germans have autonomous linguistic institutions.

You really think royalty had nothing to do with the events?
Russia had German royalty, isn't UK royalty still German?

 

[Bleipriester]

I know it was wrong and don´t need a daily reminder.

If you still think tolerance is a negative value, I think you need a thrice-daily reminder.

Why would you think tolerance of others is a bad thing?

Of course, except for the Holocaust, the topics were deemed good.
The big question is why we need that shit stuff and the actual subjects fall short.
Of course you don´t need tolerance for a Turk among hundred Germans. You need tolerance for a German among hundred Turks. It was brainwashing.
In my small town people got robbed on daylight by Russians and Turks. Shot and beaten the kneecaps, ect. Do you think it is good when a student naively approaches them just to get beaten and robbed?
At the funfair we heard shots in our small town. Once, on the funfair, a Turk drove his baby buggy over my foot and I laughed. This started a turmoil. The Turk, a person between 30 and 45 probably, just pulled his shirt off and got ready to fight me little boy. Luckily the people came to help me. I have more examples for why "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" don´t exist the way they try to teach us.

When the Nazis saw a Jew doing something they didn't like, they saw 'the Jew' , not the person doing it. When you see someone doing something you don't like, you see 'the Turk' not the person doing it.

It sounds like you need MORE Holocaust education, not less.

And, this time, pay attention.

You read that just out of my experiences? The prejudgment is on your side. There is no "the Turk" or "the Jew" for me.

Sure of course, until let your guard off...

if the Jews didn´t betray Germany for the desert and stayed in Germany, we´d have won WWI and everything would be fine.

Are you and sunni are taking acting classes together?

It is easy tu bun that flag tofay.

"Britain’s support for the Zionist movement came from its concerns regarding the direction of the First World War. Aside from a genuine belief in the righteousness of Zionism, held by Lloyd George among others, Britain’s leaders hoped that a statement supporting Zionism would help gain Jewish support for the Allies."

Balfour Declaration letter written

On November 2, 1917, Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour writes an important letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter

www.history.com

.

And?

Kinda proves my point don't you think?
You don't until you do, in the same breath.

No, you just create another nazism. It is about history. People say "the Americans", "the Germans", ect. This is how I meant "the Jews".

Oh so now I create another nazism?
Yeah, just scratch your:

There is no "the Turk" or "the Jew" for me.

and its the same old rotten stench.

Enemies everywhere

I like mine dumb and predictable.

But I merely demonstrated your self contradiction.
Wouldn't be needed if you were sincere and consistent.

I have explained what I meant. Accept it or not.

If by explained, you mean demonstrated how quickly you look for excuses,
to totally contradict whatever you said, then I accept.

So maybe try explain again,
there're supposedly no "the Turks", there're supposedly no "the Jews" for you,
are there no "the Germans" as well?

How does it work?

No you turn it around and I deny the existence of Turks and Jews?

Yes, no "the Germans" as well. For example: The Germans started the world wars.

Don't weasel, we were not talking about existence of Turks and Jews,
but the singling out and broad brushing of people.

We can make interesting arguments about historic events, like adults,
but it's impossible to be in anyway serious when you play games.

You kinda mean exactly the opposite of what you say.

It means, when a Turk does something bad, I won´t blame all Turks for it and declare it behavior of the Turks.

And you don't see the hypocrisy
in collectively blaming the Jews for Germany's defeat?

There's truth to that of course, only not the way you think,
blaming the Jews was instrumental to sealing Germany's fate,
every nation who went against Jews faced a humiliating defeat, no exception.

Germany was also the quickest to go down.

Germany didn´t went against Jews, Jews went against Germany, greedy with Dollars in the eyes to gain their own cheerless desert.
So then when the WWI war parties were exhausted to the maximum (Russia already dropped out due to communist revoluion), the Americans came and claimed big victory. They did not even have an air force back then and got French planes.
However, no hostile soldier has entered Germany in WWI, it was defeated by its own communist revolution.

And you slip right back into it.
Turks are judged by personal acts, Jews as a collective.

That's why you prefer singling out Jews, who I don't argue may have acted abhorrently,
fact that I admit unlike your playing around, and prefer to ignore everyone else,
or you know pretentious "when Turk does bad I don't blame all the Turks".

Jews in Germany, of all diaspora communities in Europe were the most assimilated folk,
they went to great length for that, to be accepted as equals in the German society,
and they of all were considered traitors for that.

No mention that the events leading to the WWI had to large extent to do with German
royalty ruling over not only Germany but as well Russia...but of course "da Jooos".

Germany went against one of the most literate and well read communities,
which was prosecuted for too long, and in Russia, you know same German royalty...
And thought that would go smooth for you. So was in Russia after the infamous pogroms,
you folks encouraged that.

No and I don´t want to explain it again as you would just find some anti-Semitism again.
No, Germany didn´t govern Russia.
No, the Jews are no responsible for WWI (as far as I know).
No, I do not apply kin liability.

That is a starting point from which a serious discussion or argument about these events can be conducted. All that thing about "if not the Jews betraying Germany" is just a non starter,
reminds me of the Dreyfus affair.

Glad we cleared that out.

For example why that disgusting propaganda against Germany in the US?

Give me some context.
What year is this?

WWI. See the helmet.

The American entry into World War I came on April 6, 1917, after a year long effort by President Woodrow Wilson to get the United States into the war. Apart from an Anglophile element urging early support for the British, American public opinion sentiment for neutrality was particularly strong among Irish Americans, German Americans and Scandinavian Americans,[3] as well as among church leaders and among women in general. On the other hand, even before World War I had broken out, American opinion had been more negative toward Germany than towards any other country in Europe.[4] Over time, especially after reports of atrocities in Belgium in 1914 and following the sinking of the passenger liner RMS Lusitania in 1915, the American people increasingly came to see Germany as the aggressor.

As U.S. President, it was Wilson who made the key policy decisions over foreign affairs: while the country was at peace, the domestic economy ran on a laissez-faire basis, with American banks making huge loans to Britain and France — funds that were in large part used to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Until 1917, Wilson made minimal preparations for a land war and kept the United States Army on a small peacetime footing, despite increasing demands for enhanced preparedness. He did, however, expand the United States Navy.

In 1917, with the Russian Revolution and widespread disillusionment over the war, and with Britain and France low on credit, Germany appeared to have the upper hand in Europe,[5] while the Ottoman Empire clung to its possessions in the Middle East. In the same year, Germany decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare against any vessel approaching British waters; this attempt to starve Britain into surrender was balanced against the knowledge that it would almost certainly bring the United States into the war. Germany also made a secret offer to help Mexico regain territories lost in the Mexican–American War in an encoded telegram known as the Zimmermann Telegram, which was intercepted by British Intelligence. Publication of that communique outraged Americans just as German U-boats started sinking American merchant ships in the North Atlantic. Wilson then asked Congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and Congress voted to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.[6] On December 7, 1917, the U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary.[7][8] U.S. troops began arriving on the Western Front in large numbers in 1918.

United States in World War I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The funny thing that the Germany embassy placed "ads" in many US newspapers that warned of traveling in ships like the Lusitania, which travel through the war zone, but only two of them printed it.

Ok and?
I don't think it's anywhere serious to focus on "ads" as cause of war.
Life is much more complicated than that, especially developments leading to such events.

Germans were one of the most integral communities of the Russian society,
their decline started with the reforms of Alexander II.

I know the Germans in Russia, once invited by the tsar, were oppressed, their language forbidden. But that has nothing to do with WWI at all.

I know Stalin banned the Lutheran Church, as all religious denominations,
but allowed Germans have autonomous linguistic institutions.

You really think royalty had nothing to do with the events?
Russia had German royalty, isn't UK royalty still German?

The royals tend to marry each other, so the ruler families are a colored mix of Europeans.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Soviet Union is not taught in schools any more. Why is this? Whose interest is it that nobody remembers the lessons of that establishment? Do they want then that we too become a Soviet Union, as soon as students grow up?

You answered your own question.

 

[Unkotare]

The Soviet Union is not taught in schools any more. Why is this? Whose interest is it that nobody remembers the lessons of that establishment? Do they want then that we too become a Soviet Union, as soon as students grow up?

You answered your own question.

The real answer is that it IS taught in school.

 

[mgh80]

The Soviet Union is not taught in schools any more. Why is this? Whose interest is it that nobody remembers the lessons of that establishment? Do they want then that we too become a Soviet Union, as soon as students grow up?

You answered your own question.

The burden of proof is on the ones making statements. I posted this earlier in the thread (not sure if it was to you or not), but this would actually be a VERY simple thing to prove.

Cite your local district's curriculum (you should be able to easily find this) for the appropriate class and demonstrate where the Soviets aren't being covered.

I don't teach Social Studies so I wouldn't know for sure which class/level it is but I do know that my students have learned about the Soviets and at the very least the Cold War due to activities covered in my class.

The schools (at least pre-college/university) aren't these brain washing centers that the right sometimes believe where we never cover anything controversial about the left.

For example, to get my students ready for arguments I have them write about gun control and what their opinions on guns are. They have 3 options: laws should be more restrictive, laws should remain as they are now, laws should be less restrictive. It's up to them to do their research and form an argument. I don't care what their conclusion is as long as they provide evidence, include their argumentative elements, structure their arguments well, etc.

I also have them write about the Japanese Internment Camps we had here in the US (under a Democratic president obviously) and they have to argue whether it was justifiable or not. Most of them say it was not...but once again I don't give my opinion on any political views and when kids ask me what I vote for I tell them "I write myself in"...they get confused and ask really, I respond with "of course, who else would I trust more?" and it gets a laugh.

Now colleges/universities is a different ball game but I think those on the right have really allowed that to skew their view of education across the board.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

My opinion arises from how students (K-12) answer my questions about what they know, not what teachers claim they are teaching them.

I won't identify my district for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say it's considered one of the most successful programs in the nation. In looking over their curriculum, it appears the rise of Communism is dealt with in a somewhat cursory manner, as is Nazism, lumped in with general World History. Considering the influence both movements had on 20th Century history, and the death tolls that mounted due to their influence, one would think teaching future generations of the dangers of such totalitarian movements would be a priority, especially since such forces are hard at work bending public opinion here, and have been for decades.

When you question those at the university level, Answers run the gamut from "What?" to "They didn't do Communism right. We will." to "Socialism Now!" reflecting the shallowness of their previous contact with the matter.

 

[Unkotare]

My opinion arises from how students (K-12) answer my questions about what they know, not what teachers claim they are teaching them.

...

Does that really make sense to you? YOU don't remember everything you were taught in school. Does that mean not only were YOU never taught it but that NO ONE is today? Go get the jumper cables and get the brain started.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

My opinion arises from how students (K-12) answer my questions about what they know, not what teachers claim they are teaching them.

...

Does that really make sense to you? YOU don't remember everything you were taught in school.

Nonsense. I was in school 1957-1974. I entered first grade a year earlier than the other kids. I remember very well what I was taught. I was drilled on the evils of Communist totalitarianism all through elementary school. I still have books and study manuals dating from high school dealing with Soviet and Nazi history and the differences between Capitalism and Communism, as well as contemporary materials from outside the curriculum. My US Government teacher in my senior year was an avowed anarchist. I grew up in the middle of the counterculture and political uprisings of the 1960s. I continue observing these things to this day.

This is all repeat for me.

 

[Unkotare]

My opinion arises from how students (K-12) answer my questions about what they know, not what teachers claim they are teaching them.

...

Does that really make sense to you? YOU don't remember everything you were taught in school.

Nonsense. I was in school 1957-1974. I entered first grade a year earlier than the other kids. I remember very well what I was taught. I was drilled on the evils of Communist totalitarianism all through elementary school. I still have books and study manuals dating from high school dealing with Soviet and Nazi history and the differences between Capitalism and Communism, as well as contemporary materials from outside the curriculum. My US Government teacher in my senior year was an avowed anarchist. I grew up in the middle of the counterculture and political uprisings of the 1960s. I continue observing these things to this day.

This is all repeat for me.

Are you really not getting this? Because you claim to remember every single thing you were ever taught in History class from the first grade on, that is proof to you that if someone else doesn't they were therefore never taught it? And you remember every single detail of every math, science, and English class from first grade on as well? I'd be more inclined to believe one of Jitler's stories.

Instead of this supposed stroll down photographic memory lane, how about asking people who are actually teaching the subject today about what is being taught on the subject today?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

My opinion arises from how students (K-12) answer my questions about what they know, not what teachers claim they are teaching them.

...

Does that really make sense to you? YOU don't remember everything you were taught in school.

Nonsense. I was in school 1957-1974. I entered first grade a year earlier than the other kids. I remember very well what I was taught. I was drilled on the evils of Communist totalitarianism all through elementary school. I still have books and study manuals dating from high school dealing with Soviet and Nazi history and the differences between Capitalism and Communism, as well as contemporary materials from outside the curriculum. My US Government teacher in my senior year was an avowed anarchist. I grew up in the middle of the counterculture and political uprisings of the 1960s. I continue observing these things to this day.

This is all repeat for me.

Are you really not getting this? Because you claim to remember every single thing you were ever taught in History class from the first grade on, that is proof to you that if someone else doesn't they were therefore never taught it?

Are you not really getting this? I ask a variety of students various level classes. Surely SOMEONE SOMEWHERE would remember SOMETHING. Few students (exceptions found in private programs) understand the nature of totalitarian systems and the danger presented by them.

The evil of those systems is not taught. Students are more likely to echo the Zinn nonsense and state that America is the real evil in the world.

I have also talked with teachers. After all my wife was in the industry for years.

Where our public system was once top rated, we were at last peek twenty-fourth.

I always find this loyal and oddly-medieval defense of a failing system amusing.

 

[Unkotare]

My opinion arises from how students (K-12) answer my questions about what they know, not what teachers claim they are teaching them.

...

Does that really make sense to you? YOU don't remember everything you were taught in school.

Nonsense. I was in school 1957-1974. I entered first grade a year earlier than the other kids. I remember very well what I was taught. I was drilled on the evils of Communist totalitarianism all through elementary school. I still have books and study manuals dating from high school dealing with Soviet and Nazi history and the differences between Capitalism and Communism, as well as contemporary materials from outside the curriculum. My US Government teacher in my senior year was an avowed anarchist. I grew up in the middle of the counterculture and political uprisings of the 1960s. I continue observing these things to this day.

This is all repeat for me.

Are you really not getting this? Because you claim to remember every single thing you were ever taught in History class from the first grade on, that is proof to you that if someone else doesn't they were therefore never taught it?

Are you not really getting this? I ask a variety of students various level classes. ....

If you ever studied logic, you don't seem to have as strong a memory of that material.

 

[Unkotare]

...I have also talked with teachers. ....

But you won't listen to the ones here.

 

[Unkotare]

...The evil of those systems is not taught. ....

Good and evil are for Philosophy or Theology class.

 

[Unkotare]

... Students are more likely to echo the Zinn nonsense .
....

Find one high school that uses Zinn nonsense as a primary text for a US History course.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Where our public system was once top rated, we were at last peek twenty-fourth.
....

In comparing ALL American students to a carefully selected segment of students from other countries? Imagine that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

My opinion arises from how students (K-12) answer my questions about what they know, not what teachers claim they are teaching them.

...

Does that really make sense to you? YOU don't remember everything you were taught in school.

Nonsense. I was in school 1957-1974. I entered first grade a year earlier than the other kids. I remember very well what I was taught. I was drilled on the evils of Communist totalitarianism all through elementary school. I still have books and study manuals dating from high school dealing with Soviet and Nazi history and the differences between Capitalism and Communism, as well as contemporary materials from outside the curriculum. My US Government teacher in my senior year was an avowed anarchist. I grew up in the middle of the counterculture and political uprisings of the 1960s. I continue observing these things to this day.

This is all repeat for me.

Are you really not getting this? Because you claim to remember every single thing you were ever taught in History class from the first grade on, that is proof to you that if someone else doesn't they were therefore never taught it?

Are you not really getting this? I ask a variety of students various level classes. ....

If you ever studied logic, you don't seem to have as strong a memory of that material.

Explain the illogic of noting the move from 1st to 24th.

Your logic appears to contain Alice.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

... Students are more likely to echo the Zinn nonsense .
....

Find one high school that uses Zinn nonsense as a primary text for a US History course.

They don't use the text, just the philosophy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

...The evil of those systems is not taught. ....

Good and evil are for Philosophy or Theology class.

Wrong. To make good and evil relative is mis-education.