SpankyMcFarland

Those personal associations don't immunize Trump. 'Has friends who are black people' is even weaker than 'many of my friends are black', the classic, clumsy defence of racist behaviour. Trump isn't just a guy on the street free to mouth off as he likes. As President he's supposed to set an example and bring the nation together. He does not 'embody everything evil' - he's too empty for that. He's simply an unprincipled chancer who saw a way to the White House by mobilizing the alt right.

Do nothing, stay indoors, keep your head down and you'll probably be OK.

Trump should simply have condemned the alt right this week without equivocation. He's not the ref here, or a journalist, he's the President, one who was loudly supported by the alt right during the campaign. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/charles-krauthammer-trump-a-moral-disgrace-fox-news_us_5993c9f1e4b04b19336176fe

Trump is supported by these racists for crying out loud. He has a duty to condemn them unequivocally instead of muddying the waters. Even in the press conference, you can see how he gets much more excited about the sins of the alt left than those of his own people, the alt right. Most reasonable people get that - deal with your own sins first. Hence the justifiable outrage.

One person resorted to murder and he may be mentally ill. I am more concerned about the gradual ramping up of these white nationalist demos and their support online. The slogans 'blood and soil' and 'Jews will not replace us' are difficult to misconstrue.

The problem is that Trump courted the alt right and is supported by them. White nationalists see him as their man. It's not up to him to be impartial on the subject but to show clearly that he distances himself from racists in speech after speech and tweet after tweet. He hasn't done that. Instead he keeps on wavering back and forth, sending a message to these people that he's just going through the motions and is really with them. By far the most deadly war in US history was partly about race. The marches of the Klan in the Twenties and the resistance to reform in the Sixties show how such forces persisted. White nationalism still has the capacity to tear America apart.

The Soviets did have winter on their side but they also outwitted the Germans. They figured out how to counter blitzkrieg with such things as defence in depth. Zhukov may have been the most talented general of the war, certainly up there with the top Nazis, and Stalin turned out to be sharper than Hitler.

Once more, this homicide has a mental health angle: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/08/14/james-alex-fields-jr-man-accused-of-ramming-car-into-charlottesville-protesters-denied-bail.html I'm more spooked by the torchlight procession and the chanting they were doing. Not too many 'good people' there by the looks of things, Donald. This movement is gathering steam.

The two US fronts together were nothing like the Eastern Front in terms of casualties. Sure, the US supplied the Soviets with equipment but they did not do much fighting with the Germans in either war. Like the British in many conflicts, the American fought WWII in other people's countries which gives the whole thing an air of unreality to them. The Russians understand WWII far more intimately. They were fighting for their survival against the best trained army in the world; they had to sacrifice everything they could and they did so brilliantly. The US army could not have withstood a similar assault by the Wehrmacht.

The Soviet Union did most of the fighting on land against Germany. Its soldiers suffered by far the most casualties. The US and Britain waited until the tide had turned decisively in the east before invading Europe. Their losses were tiny by comparison and their contribution has been greatly exaggerated in popular culture. Every ally was important, right down to Greece, but one carried the lion's share of the burden.

I do not intend to insult you; rather, I'm just telling you how you sound some times.

Are you sure about that? I think I've detected spittle on occasion.

The OP would have more credibility if he weren't so riled up himself all the time.

The left-right split on immigration will evolve as the issue becomes a more pressing one and immigrants in Europe begin to threaten the welfare state and social cohesion. The FN in France is not right wing on all economic issues and has many working class supporters. As an immigrant, I believe immigrants should be chosen on their merit and our needs.

Coverage for drugs and dental care are two big failings of our system.

I think I have seen both the German one and the recent Russian one with subtitles.

Possibly the most famous foreign language scene of recent decades? I wish I knew German but one can get the gist even without the subtitles: Here's one of countless spoofs:

I think the accents should be regional English-language ones appropriate to the character. The BBC adaptation of War and Peace was one of the first places I heard Cockney accents from Russian serfs and it worked. There should be no trace of the country of origin there. One big mistake English language actors like Alec Guinness and Co. made with Hitler was making his accent and dialect too upper class. Enemy at the Gates was an excellent film that captured the madness of war in general and the Mad Max feel of Stalingrad in particular but it got panned by many critics for some reason. This is my favourite bit - "I have to report to the Boss. Perhaps you would prefer to avoid the red tape" (although I am not sure Hoskins pronounces his character's name quite right):

So English language movies should only describe Anglosphere events? Nothing more about ancient empires, for example? No foreign novels should get their stories on the screen in our language? That's really going to cage us in even more.

The problem is we've been fed so many stories about the Western Front we have ended up with a mistaken impression of the war and where it was really fought.

The enormity of leaving the EU is finally dawning on the Brexiteers. Those who said no deal was better than a bad deal aren't so loud now.

A film about Britain's involvement in WWII has to be very good to be worth watching. The ground has been well trodden already compared to all those other wars that never get a look in. Even WWII itself gets uneven coverage: when was the last English language film about Kursk? I see there's one out soon about the submarine of that name.

Most countries can't bear to lose any territory irrespective of their constitutional arrangements. Look at the US, Spain, India, China, Turkey, Nigeria, Georgia, Ukraine etc. It's all but impossible for a state to leave the US and they still talk of 'secession' down there when it is brought up.

Nationalism doomed it and the war finished the job. I'd say the nearest thing to it is the EU.

If such a choice existed I would choose safe drinking water.