< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Mouth-frothing alleged


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Mouth-frothing alleged

'Philosophically Made' has created a post using my pseudonym as its title (a dubious honour). Apparently I am a "mouth-frother" who regularly posts at Hide and Farrars blogs. Its true, I do post comments regularly, as do many other people. I'm unaware of the mouth-frothing though... except for the time local troll 'phul' called me racist (phul later said muslims use their left hands to clean their arses or some such thing). Phul got a rather nasty reaction from me (I was pissed off), and I notice her troll comments have been largely missing from Farrar's blog since then.

So what evidence does PM use to justify calling me a mouth-frother? None at all it seems, merely the fact I disagree with them on the Iraq invasion issue is justification enough to label me a "mouth frother".

I can assure PM I do not regularly foam or froth at the mouth.

Charming people.

UPDATE: As The Prophet points out in the comments, phul has apparently banned itself from Sir Farrar's blog. Isn't this the best day ever?

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 4/04/2005 06:38:00 PM


Blogger ZenTiger said...

Just had a quick read.

PM says:
What did the US ever do for me? Well, a lot. Frankly, it does deserve some credit it never really got for the many good things it has done."

That kind of acknowledgment is very rare from the left. And the moment one tries to balance out the criticisms you are tagged with the label of "apologist"

PM then goes on to say:

But did Russia get credit for its enormous sacrifice and courage in WW2?

PM seems to have read entirely different history books than me. Might be worth comparing sources. I don't have access to the english version of Pravda, the NZ Communist manifesto or Cuba Times.

4/04/2005 08:06:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Yes I'm sure the Red Army appreciated those political commissars appointed to each unit to expose ideological miscreants. And Stalins regular purges of popular Generals must have really raised efficiency. And then there were the prisoner battalions used to clear minefields....


The USA supplied many arms to the USSR in the early years of the Eastern Front. If they had not, there would not have been an eastern front. As simple as that.

More ignorant garbage. Do you think he realises he's the one who is ideologically driven?

4/04/2005 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Not to mention that if the Soviets had not invaded Poland on 17 September 1939, then maybe WW2 may not have been a world war. The German invasion may not have even happened.

4/04/2005 08:58:00 PM  
Anonymous TheProphet said...

Phul has banned HIMSELF from Sir Davids blog.What a complete dickhead.

Allah protect us

4/04/2005 10:10:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Allah has protected us.

4/04/2005 10:12:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Point noted Prophet. Its Christmas AND my birthday, all rolled in to one!

4/04/2005 10:14:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Lucyna - but I think Hitler planned for a while to attack the Sovs. Certainly the book I have suggests the preparations were planned well-ahead of the German attack.

4/04/2005 10:16:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...


Do you know the one of the funniest things I've read is that Stalin was absolutely devastated by Hitler's betrayal. He didn't trust anyone, except for Hitler. And then Hitler attacked him.

I also wonder what would have happened had Churchill not immediately offered to help the Soviets as soon as they were attacked by Germany. Maybe they would have annihilated each other?

4/04/2005 10:24:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Stalin went out of his way to remove threatening Soviet forces from the edge of Soviet-occupied Poland, and the attack was a complete surprise.

Ze Germans rigger some tanks up with submarine fittings, and then drove them under the rivers to that they could take the bridges without damaging them.

4/04/2005 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...


4/04/2005 10:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Churchill had waited for Germany to wipe out Russia (which they originally planned to let him do when he first came to power, which is why they didn't counter him earlier) then Germany would have taken over Russia relatively comfortably.

It was the fact that Hitler already had a massive occupation force in France that lead to his stalled campaign in Russia, which later turned to disaster as the US and British Air forces bombed Germany into submission.

Nazi Germany was taken down because it was fighting on four fronts against the US, Britain (including the empire), Russia and also local resistance, the French, the Serbians, the Italians and even from within Germany.

If Russia had given up and surrendered, it is entirely concievable that the Nazi war machine could have beaten the Allies back on the western front, and the world would then be a very different place.

Nazi Germany was only months from developing several key technologies, including the V2 rocket system (which was taken and used by both the US and the USSR to create their Space Programs) Advanced Fighter Rockets with tailless design (not jets) able to travel significantly faster than anything before, with a very long range. These could have delievered bombs from Germany to Britain with ease. (These are the basis for the American "stealth bomber") and also Germany was about six months from developing the Nuclear Bomb.

These and other technologies (jet engines) would have ensured a nuclear war, which would have cost Europe (and potentially the US) millions more, and possibly almost all life.

The deal Stalin made with Hitler (the non-agression pact) was a desperate attempt to save Russia from the vastly superior German armed forces. Stalin had spent his time as Soviet Leader investing in capital ifrastructure, and the army was almost unequipped. This of course became reversed.

Russia was offered half of Poland by Germany, and 10 years peace. They took it, but less than four years later, with Operation Sealion failing to materilise, Hitler made the first significant blunder in his time as Chancellor - invading Russia. Despite an armoured advance that has only been exlpised in speed in the recent Iraq war, the German army stalled in the freezing winter, outside Moscow. The Russian people lost 22 million people defending their "motherland" in WW2, including Nazi soldiers gutting pregnant women and staking their corpses by railroads, and when the tide turned and Russia moved back into Eastern Europe, those who had collaborated with the Nazis were unmercifully executed en masse.

Russian commanders lost control of their troops, though did not try very hard to reign them in, as they took revenge on countrymen of the soldiers who invaded their nation.

Russia also looted those countries of almost all wealth, even to the extent of taking power polls in Hungary and Romania.

The USSR comitted many heinous acts in WW2, but they have to be understood in the context of the times - almost everyone in Russia had had their family and friends wiped out, everyone had enured hardship as bad as any in human history - simply put, madness and despair were what haunted every Russian.

I think the lesson is don't start wars unless they are the absolute last resort, and that is why people are very nervous about the American intervention in Iraq. War is hell, and almost always causes more problems than it solves.

4/05/2005 01:18:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

anon said ...Russia moved back into Eastern Europe, those who had collaborated with the Nazis were unmercifully executed en masse.

I don't have time to get into all the details right now, but I have to say, if you mean Poland when you say Eastern Europe, then I know you know shit. There was NO COLLABORATION BY THE POLES. Any Pole that did collaborate was executed by the Polish Home Army.

4/05/2005 09:41:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home