Jump to content
Robert E Lee

[DOE] The White Army

Recommended Posts

On 10/2/2019 at 1:12 AM, Lord Valleo said:

Nation Name + Leader Name + Alliance Name = an obvious ideology.  I mean if 1+1+1=3, but hey I'm old and maybe this is that new core math crap which is as delusional your attempts to defend hate and ignorance. 

Now now, let's give the benefit of the doubt here.

Mr. Lee, a confederate general, one of the most recognized names associated with the rebellious Southern States in their fight to retain the right to own people... wait.

Well he probably just liked Robert E Lee, he was on the record as being "kind of" against slavery "in a very general sense, but not so far as to warrant political action to free them." So maybe he's just a fan of military history! Let's check the nation name... Oh. "Confederate Arkansas"... Well maybe he is a fan of the Confederacy but it's not like the Confederacy had explicit legal protections of slavery in its constitution!... Oh wait...

 

Well his flag is just... uh... He's a fan of history, you see... and his alliance name is, uh, it's entirely a reference to something in Russia in the 1900's... Yeah... I forgot the point I was making.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2019 at 8:25 PM, Mad Max said:

 its 2019 and its racist to be white

This, but unironically.

Disenfranchised groups show solidarity to undermine oppression.

Dominant groups show solidarity to reinforce it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, durmij said:

Again, this is completely false and you have no idea what you are talking about. You can't just say things that are easily proven false and then expect no opposition ever.

You need to do more research as well. This is getting off topic. The area was partially occupied by the white army as well. But this is beside the point and honestly I don't care who's wrong and who's right because this conversation is getting out of hand and would be better for in discord or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Now now, let's give the benefit of the doubt here.

Mr. Lee, a confederate general, one of the most recognized names associated with the rebellious Southern States in their fight to retain the right to own people... wait.

Well he probably just liked Robert E Lee, he was on the record as being "kind of" against slavery "in a very general sense, but not so far as to warrant political action to free them." So maybe he's just a fan of military history! Let's check the nation name... Oh. "Confederate Arkansas"... Well maybe he is a fan of the Confederacy but it's not like the Confederacy had explicit legal protections of slavery in its constitution!... Oh wait...

 

Well his flag is just... uh... He's a fan of history, you see... and his alliance name is, uh, it's entirely a reference to something in Russia in the 1900's... Yeah... I forgot the point I was making.

What a lot of people don't realize is that the Confederacy had ways to amend the constitution as well, meaning that slavery eventually would have been banned. There would have likely been a lot less hate towards African Americans in the south had the south won, due to the fact that blacks were the scapegoats because people in the south wanted to lash out at someone. So slavery might have lasted another decade or two, but there wouldn't be as much hate afterwards.

 

And a lot of people don't realize it but the Union was just as bad as the Confederacy. There were no good guys and bad guys. A lot of what both did would be considered war crimes today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tymeier said:

What a lot of people don't realize is that the Confederacy had ways to amend the constitution as well, meaning that slavery eventually would have been banned. There would have likely been a lot less hate towards African Americans in the south had the south won, due to the fact that blacks were the scapegoats because people in the south wanted to lash out at someone. So slavery might have lasted another decade or two, but there wouldn't be as much hate afterwards.

 

And a lot of people don't realize it but the Union was just as bad as the Confederacy. There were no good guys and bad guys. A lot of what both did would be considered war crimes today.

The explicit protections of slavery and the fundamental economic motivations behind remaining a slavocracy undercut your supposition by miles. And sure, ultimately both sides were... fighting a war. That's not a neat and clean affair by any stretch of the imagination. Strictly speaking, waging war at all is against the laws of war, so anyone the UN security council does an intervention against is a war criminal if they attempt to maintain their sovereignty. All wars are crimes, unless you win. That's the norm.

TL;DR: None of what you said constitutes a defense of the Confederacy at all.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The explicit protections of slavery and the fundamental economic motivations behind remaining a slavocracy undercut your supposition by miles. And sure, ultimately both sides were... fighting a war. That's not a neat and clean affair by any stretch of the imagination. Strictly speaking, waging war at all is against the laws of war, so anyone the UN security council does an intervention against is a war criminal if they attempt to maintain their sovereignty. All wars are crimes, unless you win. That's the norm.

TL;DR: None of what you said constitutes a defense of the Confederacy at all.

You assume economical and other factors couldn't and wouldn't change and forget to mention that they were already being pressured to get rid of slavery. It is basic logic that eventually, and they would be forced to get rid of slavery even if they kept it.

3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The explicit protections of slavery and the fundamental economic motivations behind remaining a slavocracy undercut your supposition by miles. And sure, ultimately both sides were... fighting a war. That's not a neat and clean affair by any stretch of the imagination. Strictly speaking, waging war at all is against the laws of war, so anyone the UN security council does an intervention against is a war criminal if they attempt to maintain their sovereignty. All wars are crimes, unless you win. That's the norm.

TL;DR: None of what you said constitutes a defense of the Confederacy at all.

Also, by war crimes I mean actions like burning everything for fifty miles whether they supported you or not (Union) or poor treatment of POWs (Confederacy)

Poor being an understatement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tymeier said:

What a lot of people don't realize is that the Confederacy had ways to amend the constitution as well, meaning that slavery eventually would have been banned. There would have likely been a lot less hate towards African Americans in the south had the south won, due to the fact that blacks were the scapegoats because people in the south wanted to lash out at someone. So slavery might have lasted another decade or two, but there wouldn't be as much hate afterwards.

 

And a lot of people don't realize it but the Union was just as bad as the Confederacy. There were no good guys and bad guys. A lot of what both did would be considered war crimes today.

Having a way to amend a constitution does not negate the statutes in said constitution. Similarly, there is a way to amend the speed limit of a street. You'll still get a ticket for exceeding the current one (if caught).

I doubt it would've been a decade or two. The South seceded because they thought Lincoln would outlaw slavery. Half of a country went into open revolt over the matter - the same matter which supported the majority of their economy. That does not scream "well give it another few years."

Furthermore, "eventually" is not an acceptable timeline for the emancipation of literal human beings from institutional slavery.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say the words I would like to say on this forum(referring to the poor treatment part)

1 minute ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Having a way to amend a constitution does not negate the statutes in said constitution. Similarly, there is a way to amend the speed limit of a street. You'll still get a ticket for exceeding the current one (if caught).

I doubt it would've been a decade or two. The South seceded because they thought Lincoln would outlaw slavery. Half of a country went into open revolt over the matter - the same matter which supported the majority of their economy. That does not scream "well give it another few years.".

Ummm that is highly incorrect.

Edited by Tymeier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rossiya lends our full political support to this endeavor. To those who find the name itself racist, read up on Rossiyan history - the White Army were the good guys fighting the contemptible, godless, plebian, communist filth Red Army. Unfortunately the lowlife rabble won, leading to decades of starvation, military incompetence and disaster, and abject poverty and corruption that Rosiya is still trying to recover from today. Long live the White Army! Death to Communists and Social Democrats!

Or... are these guys Confederates?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rossiya said:

Rossiya lends our full political support to this endeavor. To those who find the name itself racist, read up on Rossiyan history - the White Army were the good guys fighting the contemptible, godless, plebian, communist filth Red Army. Unfortunately the lowlife rabble won, leading to decades of starvation, military incompetence and disaster, and abject poverty and corruption that Rosiya is still trying to recover from today. Long live the White Army! Death to Communists and Social Democrats!

photo-2017-11-15-14-12-27.jpg

Sucks to suck, comrade.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had some confederate alliance with you before, and now "The White Army". I'm beginning to see a trend, mate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Josh of Clan Mason said:

We had some confederate alliance with you before, and now "The White Army". I'm beginning to see a trend, mate.

Russian civil war. White army fought the Red army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tymeier said:

You need to do more research as well. This is getting off topic. The area was partially occupied by the white army as well. But this is beside the point and honestly I don't care who's wrong and who's right because this conversation is getting out of hand and would be better for in discord or something like that.

This is a text book example of moving the goal posts. And each time you move the goal posts, you're still wrong. Your first claim was that libcoms were in the White Army. When I cracked a joke about the Black Army, you had no idea what I was talking about, as evidenced by your response, which doesn't even work as a joke. Then, you claimed that the Black Army was part of the White Army. When I pointed out that, no this wasn't true, you now claim that it's true because "they occupied the same area?" What does that even mean? Two options, ideology or geography. Ideologically, having a  nonzero amount of libcoms somewhere in the White Army doesn't not negate that the vast, vast, vast majority were in the Black Army, which was never allied with the Whites. Geographically is the weaker and more bizarre of the arguments, but I have to cover it because your statement is so poorly structured. That fact that both the Blacks and the Whites held similar territories at different times and fought the Reds at different timed doesn't make them allied.

Telling me to take it to discord after "doing my research" when you're making baseless statements that aren't backed up by any historical accounts is intellectual cowardice. As is your equal baseless opinion that "the Union was just as bad" in the civil war. And the implication that the South wouldn't hate African Americans so much if they had just remained slaves until the South decided to let them go is so far beyond red herring victim blaming that it boggles the mind. It's pretty clear that you are emotionally invested in numerous of histories losers and trot out the canned talking points that make them seem like the morally wronged noble side, but these points don't hold up to any analysis if you have even a passing knowledge of the situations.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, durmij said:

This is a text book example of moving the goal posts. And each time you move the goal posts, you're still wrong. Your first claim was that libcoms were in the White Army. When I cracked a joke about the Black Army, you had no idea what I was talking about, as evidenced by your response, which doesn't even work as a joke. Then, you claimed that the Black Army was part of the White Army. When I pointed out that, no this wasn't true, you now claim that it's true because "they occupied the same area?" What does that even mean? Two options, ideology or geography. Ideologically, having a  nonzero amount of libcoms somewhere in the White Army doesn't not negate that the vast, vast, vast majority were in the Black Army, which was never allied with the Whites. Geographically is the weaker and more bizarre of the arguments, but I have to cover it because your statement is so poorly structured. That fact that both the Blacks and the Whites held similar territories at different times and fought the Reds at different timed doesn't make them allied.

Telling me to take it to discord after "doing my research" when you're making baseless statements that aren't backed up by any historical accounts is intellectual cowardice. As is your equal baseless opinion that "the Union was just as bad" in the civil war. And the implication that the South wouldn't hate African Americans so much if they had just remained slaves until the South decided to let them go is so far beyond red herring victim blaming that it boggles the mind. It's pretty clear that you are emotionally invested in numerous of histories losers and trot out the canned talking points that make them seem like the morally wronged noble side, but these points don't hold up to any analysis if you have even a passing knowledge of the situations.

My god you didn't understand a thing I said about the south. I said slavery would last a little longer then get abolished. But since you refuse to actually READ, the conversation is over.

 

The point is that is was a dying practice that would have been killed off extremely quick. You aren't reading my stuff and I am done talking to someone who is not willing to listen to others opinions or takes someone's words and twists them around.

I suggested discord because I'm sure all the mods on here don't want to have to read a political argument and eventually get to the point where insults fly.

 

You should re read what I said. Now, I'm sure the mods are sick of reading this so conversation done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, it’s not durmij’s fault that you’re historically illiterate. Don’t blame him for your gross misconceptions about the antebellum South and (I assume) Ukraine circa 1920.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The south would definitely have totally rethought that slavery thing just a few years after spending hundreds of thousands of livees on it.

 

You know, because slavery was purely about economic practicality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2019 at 8:31 PM, Robert E Lee said:

How is it racist? Russian Revolution 

69OT1EE.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/1/2019 at 7:31 PM, Robert E Lee said:

How is it racist? Russian Revolution 

Oh hey it's that insanely fashy movement that, had they won the Russian revolution, would have likely started the holocaust a decade or two early. Cool alliance name bro. 

What's your inevitable reboot going to be called? The 11th Panzers? Afrika Korps? Maybe an italian gimmick named the PNFriends? Some kind of Rhodesian name?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 9:27 PM, Tymeier said:

You assume economical and other factors couldn't and wouldn't change and forget to mention that they were already being pressured to get rid of slavery. It is basic logic that eventually, and they would be forced to get rid of slavery even if they kept it.

Also, by war crimes I mean actions like burning everything for fifty miles whether they supported you or not (Union) or poor treatment of POWs (Confederacy)

Poor being an understatement

Are you one of those extremely normal lost cause types

 

TStYAql.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2019 at 10:46 PM, Tymeier said:

The point is that is was a dying practice that would have been killed off extremely quick. You aren't reading my stuff and I am done talking to someone who is not willing to listen to others opinions or takes someone's words and twists them around.

1860: 3,521,110 slaves / 9,103,332 total population

 

Yeahhh. About that reading comprehension thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest San Fortunado

Let's see, what did I miss while I was avoiding this thread.

On 10/5/2019 at 5:46 PM, Tymeier said:

My god you didn't understand a thing I said about the south. I said slavery would last a little longer then get abolished. But since you refuse to actually READ, the conversation is over.

 

The point is that is was a dying practice that would have been killed off extremely quick. You aren't reading my stuff and I am done talking to someone who is not willing to listen to others opinions or takes someone's words and twists them around.

I suggested discord because I'm sure all the mods on here don't want to have to read a political argument and eventually get to the point where insults fly.

 

You should re read what I said. Now, I'm sure the mods are sick of reading this so conversation done

0eku9s97qto21.jpg?auto=webp&s=415901c121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.