Favorite Non-Fiction?

[Black Knight]

It doesn't bother me either. It seems to me kind of like teachers who don't want children of their own. It doesn't mean they're not good teachers. Jackson's advice worked (and the problem was usually the humans, not the cats).

[OtterMommy]

On 4/13/2020 at 5:43 PM, paramitch said:

Not to be  downer, but my opinion of Jackson plummeted when he admitted on Colbert that (1) he doesn't actually like cats, (2) he doesn't personally own cats and (3) he finds them tedious to manage.

I mean, come on. Way to tank a career, there, Jackson. I fucking hate him now. It's just such a huge lie. He's the "cat guy" and owns ZERO CATS.

 

He has at least had cats in the past, though.  I follow him on Social Media and he had 3 (I think) cats for years (and a dog).  I'm not sure about the dog, but the cats lived very long lives and he seemed especially heartbroken when they died.  It could be that, with his show and book tour schedule, it just isn't possible for him to have cats now.

I may have to go see if I can find this clip--I don't doubt that he is catless and, yeah, cats can be tedious to manage (I have one of those now), but I have a hard time believing that he doesn't actually like cats.

ETA:

 Unless there he was on Stephen Colbert multiple times (I could only find one clip), I'm seeing something very different here.

 

[paramitch]

On 4/13/2020 at 5:43 PM, paramitch said:

I hope you enjoyed it! I loved it so, so much. And I agree on Unbroken (especially hearing whispers during and after that his personality never changed -- the rogue before imprisonment used all his tricks to survive --and I don't blame him, except that he allowed them to aggrandize himself). 

What was interesting to me was the insistence on painting the protagonist as a saint. It felt like Laura had almost TOO MUCH access to the family (same with Jolie), to where, God forbid we show him in a bad light. It's a failure to me as a biography although I'm glad I read it.

On 5/2/2020 at 10:02 AM, Black Knight said:

It doesn't bother me either. It seems to me kind of like teachers who don't want children of their own. It doesn't mean they're not good teachers. Jackson's advice worked (and the problem was usually the humans, not the cats).

I appreciate this. It just struck me at a very bad time. I lost a much-loved cat, Frodo, a few months earlier, and a sweeter animal never existed on this planet. He was a cat, ("only a cat," many would say) but he was funny, sweet, affectionate, loyal, and the best pet ever. Colbert (and Jackson) openly admitting "well, if you want love, dogs are better," just made me do a massive "fuck you" post that was in retrospect unfair. I cared for Frodo from his first day on earth (bottle-feeding him as a 1-day-old kitten), and despite 13 years of seizures and meds, Frodo showed unlimited mildness and patience with all sorts of medical stuff during his life and he never blamed me, never held a grudge, always walked across my desk or couch within minutes with love. His last gesture in life, in my favorite chair at home, was to raise his head to caress my cheek with mine. Purring all the while. And then he died. 

So I think part of me was horrified at this and viewed it as a sacrilege. And yes, I think Jackson does not understand cats emotionally as much as he thinks he does, given that he basically notes that they are blase and react biologically (and less emotionally than dogs).

Just, gross to me. And yes, I love dogs (and cats etc).

18 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

 Unless there he was on Stephen Colbert multiple times (I could only find one clip), I'm seeing something very different here.

 

1. I posted my post on Jackson on a bad day. I was a total jerk. I tried to edit the post (and still cannot do so), so apologize. I'm still kind of cringing that it's out there. See above, but I lost a beloved cat recently (I'd had Frodo since I rescued him day one, along with littermate Batty, and bottle-fed him, so the idea that he can't show 'real love' grosses me out).

I badly summarized the interview, and I sound like Jackson is Hitler or something, and seriously, obviously, stuff was going on with me. So apologies, the guy seems lovely and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to trash him as a phony for a few talk show comments. It was a bad week in a really bad few months. Not that that's okay.

2. But -- still -- Jackson's quotes from this interview to me don't paint him as a passionate cat advocate. He comes off as almost apologetic. And I normally love Colbert but would cheerfully throw him off a metaphorical cliff here:

COLBERT: Do you think cats are capable of loving us? 
JACKSON: Of course they are. 
COLBERT: Don't say "of course they are." They don't betray a lot of emotion. I had two cats, and I -- liked my cats. Er, I loved my cats. But I didn't always get it back from them. I always get it back from my dog.
JACKSON: Which is why I have dogs. That's exactly it.

(AUDIENCE CHEERS)

ME: EDITORIAL COMMENT: THIS IS WHERE I CHECK OUT as a cat owner. The media's foremost "cat expert" has just admitted he turns to dogs when he needs love and affection. WTF.

COLBERT: So you take care of cats but you live with dogs.
JACKSON: You need that payoff, right? I don't mind that concept of someone coming up and saying, hey, you love me a lot. But then there's sort of that zen love, the "not attached to the outcome" love... the  sort of "temporary love," and that's cats. I mean, they definitely put out love, we just don't recognize it a lot of times. We recognize dogs. 

ME: AGAIN, I hate this. How is he so tone-deaf? The subtext here is that cats love you temporarily, in spite of themselves, but hey, if you want love, turn to a dog, man (and I LOVE DOGS, just to note). Again, I hate this so much.

COLBERT: Okay, you have said, and let me make sure I've got this right, "Cats are in touch with what lies beyond the tangible." Because it really just looks like they're staring into space.
(LAUGHTER)
COLBERT: What do you mean, like, cats can perceive the spiritual realm?
JACKSON: Absolutely. No, I totally think that animals in general are in touch with an energetic place that we just either take for granted, we don't pay attention to it, our minds are too fast... 
COLBERT: You mean like, the dog whistles they can hear that we can't... or do you mean spirit realm?
JACKSON: Totally spirit realm. Absolutely spirit realm. And if you've ever seen your cat just... stare at a wall...  

ME: Colbert laughs and they banter further on it. But the point is basically, hey, cats can't love you as much as dogs, but they are fascinating.

JACKSON: But I honestly feel like they have the ability to -- not the ability, they just have the -- the presence, the presence of mind -- to be still and observe in a way that we just don't.
COLBERT: Okay, so let's get some cats out here, let's get some cats out here...

(TINY KITTENS are given out and (SURPRISE) are terrified and scared and not "loving" and "adorable" in a huge studio setting. Colbert is not happy visibly and seems prickly at the entire scenario -- unusual for him.)

(KITTEN CUTENESS ENSUES)
(COLBERT IS OPENLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH KITTEN AND MISSES DOGS. JACKSON IS SUPPORTIVE AND SYMPATHIZES)

So apologies -- I read more into the interview than I should -- I had my cat Frodo put to sleep not long before and it upset me and I personalized it.

I still find it really brutal on cats -- the entire interview hinges (per Stephen, who I normally love) on the idea that cats are inferior and unemotional, and Jackson goes along with that.

And as a cat owner who has had deeply loved and mourned cats who would have jumped down a dragon's mouth for me (no, really), this interview still hits me in a really bad place.

Jackson's statements can certainly open a dialogue that cats don't care as much as dogs in their capacity to love, and yeah, I freaking hate it. Some ARE just as open. Others simply show love differently. 

Anyway, I deserved to be called out, and no, Jackson Galaxy is not the Antichrist.

Thanks for bearing with me, all. Apologies to you and Jackson. But he still caved here. He wasn't an advocate for cats. He was an apologist who basically said, "Cats are not really truly loving, like dogs, and yeah, we aren't always sure how they feel." So shoot me.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by paramitch
fixed emphasis

[Haleth]

I'm so sorry about your kitty.  😥

[paramitch]

13 hours ago, Haleth said:

I'm so sorry about your kitty.  😥

Thanks so much, I so appreciate it. Hardest pet loss of my life (but it was worth it, and he was an awesome, hilarious, very loving little guy).

[Danny Franks]

On 5/3/2020 at 6:49 PM, paramitch said:

COLBERT: Do you think cats are capable of loving us? 
JACKSON: Of course they are. 
COLBERT: Don't say "of course they are." They don't betray a lot of emotion. I had two cats, and I -- liked my cats. Er, I loved my cats. But I didn't always get it back from them. I always get it back from my dog.
JACKSON: Which is why I have dogs. That's exactly it.

(AUDIENCE CHEERS)

ME: EDITORIAL COMMENT: THIS IS WHERE I CHECK OUT as a cat owner. The media's foremost "cat expert" has just admitted he turns to dogs when he needs love and affection. WTF.

COLBERT: So you take care of cats but you live with dogs.
JACKSON: You need that payoff, right? I don't mind that concept of someone coming up and saying, hey, you love me a lot. But then there's sort of that zen love, the "not attached to the outcome" love... the  sort of "temporary love," and that's cats. I mean, they definitely put out love, we just don't recognize it a lot of times. We recognize dogs. 

ME: AGAIN, I hate this. How is he so tone-deaf? The subtext here is that cats love you temporarily, in spite of themselves, but hey, if you want love, turn to a dog, man (and I LOVE DOGS, just to note). Again, I hate this so much.

COLBERT: Okay, you have said, and let me make sure I've got this right, "Cats are in touch with what lies beyond the tangible." Because it really just looks like they're staring into space.
(LAUGHTER)
COLBERT: What do you mean, like, cats can perceive the spiritual realm?
JACKSON: Absolutely. No, I totally think that animals in general are in touch with an energetic place that we just either take for granted, we don't pay attention to it, our minds are too fast... 
COLBERT: You mean like, the dog whistles they can hear that we can't... or do you mean spirit realm?
JACKSON: Totally spirit realm. Absolutely spirit realm. And if you've ever seen your cat just... stare at a wall...  

ME: Colbert laughs and they banter further on it. But the point is basically, hey, cats can't love you as much as dogs, but they are fascinating.

JACKSON: But I honestly feel like they have the ability to -- not the ability, they just have the -- the presence, the presence of mind -- to be still and observe in a way that we just don't.
COLBERT: Okay, so let's get some cats out here, let's get some cats out here...

 

I don't get the same things you're getting from this interview. I've seen part of it online, and was surprised that Jackson Galaxy doesn't own cats, but it does make sense when cats are his job.

I did think Colbert was a dick in this interview - it's probably the least I've ever liked him - and I think Jackson just took the position of not arguing too vociferously with 'one of those anti-cat people,' especially when the audience was chortling along with everything Colbert said. It's such an off-putting way to conduct an interview - 'so here's what you do for a living. It's weird and I don't get it.'

To me, he's trying to take the position of highlighting the differences between the way cats are and the way dogs are - that if you expect a cat to act like a dog then you're going to be disappointed. This is the point I always make when people call cats sly or creepy or whatever. They aren't, they're just cats, and cats communicate with their eyes far more than dogs do.

Jackson was saying that dogs always give the the love back obviously, so it makes sense to me that a guy who deals with problem cats would want a home life that has a different energy. He has to work to get any sort of reaction from a cat in the day, and just wants that easy payoff when he gets home.

I don't think he means that cats only love temporarily either. I'm not sure what word he was looking for, but nothing he goes on to say suggests that's what he was trying to say. It is undeniable that cats are more self-contained than dogs, and love on their own terms rather than offer up unquestioning adulation like dogs do. That's what I love about cats.

I know my cat loves me, because she shows it sometimes when she wants to. But there are also times when she wants space and to be left alone. That's something dog people don't seem to ever understand.

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Danny Franks

[OtterMommy]

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I don't get the same things you're getting from this interview. I've seen part of it online, and was surprised that Jackson Galaxy doesn't own cats, but it does make sense when cats are his job.

 

Actually, he doesn't say that he doesn't have cats.  He just says that he has dogs.  As I said in an earlier post, he had posted on social media when his older cats passed, but that doesn't mean that he didn't adopt new cats.  And, according to his 2017 books, he has (or at least had) several cats.

I get a lot of what you get from this interview.  Cats do love their humans, they just don't show it in the same way as dogs.  And, honestly, some people do want the instant gratification that a dog can give.  However (and I'm speaking as someone who has had both dogs and cats and now only has a cat because my house can't currently handle another living thing), I personally find the affection I get from my cat more rewarding because I know that it is sincere and not a trained response. 

(And, no, I'm not saying that canine affection is a trained response, but dogs are different...and that's fine!)

[andromeda331]

One of my favorite non-fiction books to read especially when life sucks or I need something more positive is the Candy Bombers by Andrei Cherny about the Berlin Airlift pilot Hal Halvorsen who dropped candy to kids during the airlift. It started mostly by accident. He noticed a few kids by the fence when they were unloading supplies and went over and gave them some gum breaking it into pieces. He didn't have enough for everyone but promised those who didn't get any if they came back the next day he'd have some for them and they returned and he gave them pieces he had and some he gotten from other pilots. From then it just grew. He gave up his candy and gum rations, other fellow pilots gave theirs up and he started making little parachutes to drop the candy. There was more and more kids coming, he brought candy with his money. When his superior heard about it he thought he was going to get in trouble but nope. It went on into this huge thing with so many people donating candy and little parachutes. Its a real nice story. They do talk about how hard it was to be German at the time since it was after WW2 and everyone pretty much hated them or really didn't care about their problems given the horrors that happened. They interview some of the kids who got candy and what it meant to them. There's letters he was set from kids mostly thank you but a few of them who hadn't received any but giving him directions to where they lived so he could drop.  

[festivus]

On 5/7/2020 at 2:13 PM, Danny Franks said:

I know my cat loves me, because she shows it sometimes when she wants to. But there are also times when she wants space and to be left alone. That's something dog people don't seem to ever understand.

Just like me! Probably why I'm a cat person. We introverts understand.

[bmasters9]

A Spanish-language graphic novel (this might be more fitting for the Comic Books section) about controversial Press Your Luck contestant Paul Michael Larson (Michael Larson, for short), who took that CBS game show for $110,237 in 1984, to the shock of Peter Tomarken, fellow competitors Ed and Janie, and all the crew, among others...

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by bmasters9

[isalicat]

I posted this in another thread in this same forum, but I love me anything Bill Bryson, and having recently finished his history of our lives in dwellings entitled At Home, I can't recommend it enough. Very interesting and also very amusing!

[RealHousewife]

The Secret by Rhonda Byrne will always hold a special place in my heart. 

[Tom Holmberg]

I read the book "Berezina" by Sylvain Tesson (ISBN 9781609455545) not too long ago.  Its a travel book about the experiences of a group of Frenchmen and Russians following the path of Napoleon's army's retreat from Moscow in WWII era motorcycles during a Russian winter. Tesson, being French, is both smart and smart-assed. 

On 3/24/2021 at 3:19 PM, isalicat said:

I posted this in another thread in this same forum, but I love me anything Bill Bryson, and having recently finished his history of our lives in dwellings entitled At Home, I can't recommend it enough. Very interesting and also very amusing!

I picked this book for a nonfiction book club.  Oddly most of the members didn't finish it.  I picked it because I thought it was very readable. ?

[Grrarrggh]

Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval/Elizabethan and Restoration England are brilliant. 

[Constant Viewer]

4 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval/Elizabethan and Restoration England are brilliant. 

I love this book. Does anyone know if there are other books that are similar?

[Tom Holmberg]

On 12/24/2021 at 7:13 PM, Constant Viewer said:

I love this book. Does anyone know if there are other books that are similar?

There's the "24 Hours in Ancient History" series (4 books) covering Rome, Athens, Egypt and China.

Also:

"What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist-the Facts of Daily Life in Nineteenth-Century England" by Daniel Pool

"Jane Austen's England: Daily Life in the Georgian and Regency Periods" by Roy Adkins 

[BlackberryJam]

Currently reading and loving Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything.

I listen to a lot of audiobooks and enjoy scientific books which give me enough to make me interested, but aren't so dense that I get lost in them. I loved Sapiens as well. 

[Tom Holmberg]

On 12/24/2021 at 2:20 PM, Grrarrggh said:

Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval/Elizabethan and Restoration England are brilliant. 

Due out in April 2022: "The Time Traveler's Guide to Regency Britain: A Handbook for Visitors to 1789–1830" by Ian Mortimer (ISBN 9781643138817)

[Tom Holmberg]

Matthew Perry has an autobiography due on in Nov.: "Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing" (ISBN: 9781250866448)

Jameela Jamil from "The Good Place" has an autobiography coming out in Aug.: "Shame" (ISBN: 9780062988584)

 

 

 

[isalicat]

55 minutes ago, Tom Holmberg said:

Matthew Perry has an autobiography due on in Nov.: "Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing" (ISBN: 9781250866448)

Jameela Jamil from "The Good Place" has an autobiography coming out in Aug.: "Shame" (ISBN: 9780062988584)

 

 

 

Jameela Jamil has been alive about ten minutes and opining for all of them on social media - what more could she possibly have to say?

[Tom Holmberg]

48 minutes ago, isalicat said:

Jameela Jamil has been alive about ten minutes and opining for all of them on social media - what more could she possibly have to say?

Shame at having written an autobiography? 

[SusanM]

Got the Vanderbilt book written by Anderson Cooper for Christmas, only a few chapters in but it's very well written and very interesting.  Highly recommended so far anyway.

[Grrarrggh]

On 1/7/2022 at 2:15 PM, isalicat said:

Jameela Jamil has been alive about ten minutes and opining for all of them on social media - what more could she possibly have to say?

I guess her 35 years on Earth mean nothing? 

[isalicat]

2 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

I guess her 35 years on Earth mean nothing? 

Clearly my own opinion, but my answer to that question would be "not yet".

Edited January 9, 2022 by isalicat
unnecessary words are unnecessary

[nodorothyparker]

It's been around for years, but I recently came across a copy of Erik Larson's In the Garden of Beasts at my neighborhood Little Free Library. It's worth the read for the close-up picture of what the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich looked like on the ground mainly through the eyes of the then U.S. ambassador to Berlin and his family, even if it sometimes relies too heavily on the love life of the ambassador's daughter, eventual infamous American turned Soviet spy Martha Dodd. It could easily be subtitled "How I Slept My Way Through 1930s Greater Berlin Until Both Hitler and the Soviets Thought I Was Too Much of an Unreliable Whore to Be of Real Use to Them."  Even knowing the dry facts of the history there, it's really quite something watching various governments of the time, including America's, contort and excuse themselves away from fully recognizing the danger as Hitler eliminated his enemies and consolidated his power.

[Tom Holmberg]

Latest memoir announced:  "Waxing On: The Karate Kid and Me" by Ralph Macchio, due out Oct. 2022. ISBN: 9780593185834

Since The Karate Kid first crane-kicked its way into the pop culture stratosphere in June 1984, there hasn’t been a week Ralph Macchio hasn’t heard friendly shouts of “Wax on, wax off” or “Sweep the leg!” Now, with Macchio reprising his role as Daniel LaRusso in the #1 ranked Netflix show Cobra Kai, he is finally ready to look back at this classic movie and give the fans something they’ve long craved.
 
The book will be Ralph Macchio’s celebratory reflection on the legacy of The Karate Kid in film, pop culture, and his own life. It will be a comprehensive look at a film that shaped him as much as it influenced the world. Macchio will share an insider's perspective of the untold story behind his starring role—the innocence of the early days, the audition process, and the filmmaking experience--as well as take readers through the birth of some of the film’s most iconic moments.

Ultimately, the book centers on the film itself, focusing on the reason that the characters and themes have endured in such a powerful way and how these personal experiences have impacted Macchio's life. It will bring readers back to the day they met Daniel LaRusso and Mr. Miyagi for the first time, but will also provide a fascinating lens into how our pasts shape all of us and how the past can come back to enrich one's life in surprising and wonderful ways.

[nodorothyparker]

Currently slogging my way through Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. It was written a couple of years before the current mess in Ukraine but it feels like seeing concrete numbers on how very very brutal Stalin's rule was to Eastern Europe/then western Soviet Union and particularly Ukraine well before the Nazis became an issue provides a certain amount of insight into Ukraine's steely resolve against Russia.

Everyone in Western culture remembers the enormous amount of death and destruction the Nazis wrought because it made it into our cultural consciousness with art and elaborate memorials and vows of "Never again" but Stalin almost likely murdered more people over a longer period of time, particularly in the decade before World War II even started. But because it was "the East" which Western media admittedly didn't care very much about and the U.S. and Britain needed the Soviets as allies against the Nazis they pegged as the bigger threat, they mostly looked the other way and waved off reports that did make it out about widescale famine and mass killings. Some it is a dry slog with pages of so many xxx nationals murdered in this purge and xxx murdered in that one and more than halfway through no heroic or rootable figures have emerged, but it does go a long way in providing some context for a conversation I saw recently about the number of elderly Ukrainians grimly saying they'd fought Stalin back in the day. Which led to the obvious conclusion of "oh, so you were Nazis." Well, maybe. But after years of famine and mass killings and deportations from their own Soviet puppet government, it becomes easier to understand why some might have initially seen the Nazis as potential liberators. It's a very eye-opening thought for someone coming from a standard Western education.

[JustHereForFood]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

Currently slogging my way through Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. It was written a couple of years before the current mess in Ukraine but it feels like seeing concrete numbers on how very very brutal Stalin's rule was to Eastern Europe/then western Soviet Union and particularly Ukraine was well before the Nazis became an issue provides a certain amount of insight into Ukraine's steely resolve against Russia.

Everyone in Western culture remembers the enormous amount of death and destruction the Nazis wrought because it made it into our cultural consciousness with art and elaborate memorials and vows of "Never again" but Stalin almost likely murdered more people over a longer period of time, particularly in the decade before World War II even started. But because it was "the East" which Western media admittedly didn't care very about and the U.S. and Britain needed the Soviets as allies against the Nazis they pegged as the bigger threat, they mostly looked the other way and waved off reports that did make it out about widescale famine and mass killings. Some it is a dry slog with pages of so many xxx nationals murdered in this purge and xxx murdered in that one and more than halfway through no heroic or rootable figures have emerged, but it does go a long way in providing some context for a conversation I saw recently about the number of elderly Ukrainians grimly saying they'd fought Stalin back in the day. Which led to the obvious conclusion of "oh, so you were Nazis." Well, maybe. But after years of famine and mass killings and deportations from their own Soviet puppet government, it becomes easier to understand why some might have initially seen the Nazis as potential liberators. It's a very eye-opening thought for someone coming from a standard Western education.

There certainly is something to it. I live in Central Europe/former Eastern bloc and I have heard or read many accounts of people from older generations saying that they were more afraid of Soviet troops going through the land than German (this from non-Jewish people, of course). Germans were generally apparently indifferent to civilians (unless they decided to burn a whole village as a revenge on some attack), while russian soldiers were raping and looting their way even through countries they were supposed to be liberating.

And it is said that Stalin is responsible for more dead russians than anyone else.

[andromeda331]

On 4/18/2022 at 5:26 AM, nodorothyparker said:

Currently slogging my way through Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. It was written a couple of years before the current mess in Ukraine but it feels like seeing concrete numbers on how very very brutal Stalin's rule was to Eastern Europe/then western Soviet Union and particularly Ukraine well before the Nazis became an issue provides a certain amount of insight into Ukraine's steely resolve against Russia.

Everyone in Western culture remembers the enormous amount of death and destruction the Nazis wrought because it made it into our cultural consciousness with art and elaborate memorials and vows of "Never again" but Stalin almost likely murdered more people over a longer period of time, particularly in the decade before World War II even started. But because it was "the East" which Western media admittedly didn't care very much about and the U.S. and Britain needed the Soviets as allies against the Nazis they pegged as the bigger threat, they mostly looked the other way and waved off reports that did make it out about widescale famine and mass killings. Some it is a dry slog with pages of so many xxx nationals murdered in this purge and xxx murdered in that one and more than halfway through no heroic or rootable figures have emerged, but it does go a long way in providing some context for a conversation I saw recently about the number of elderly Ukrainians grimly saying they'd fought Stalin back in the day. Which led to the obvious conclusion of "oh, so you were Nazis." Well, maybe. But after years of famine and mass killings and deportations from their own Soviet puppet government, it becomes easier to understand why some might have initially seen the Nazis as potential liberators. It's a very eye-opening thought for someone coming from a standard Western education.

Oh, I can definitely see that. Especially in Ukraine. What Stalin did to those people was beyond horrible. 

On 4/18/2022 at 6:43 AM, JustHereForFood said:

There certainly is something to it. I live in Central Europe/former Eastern bloc and I have heard or read many accounts of people from older generations saying that they were more afraid of Soviet troops going through the land than German (this from non-Jewish people, of course). Germans were generally apparently indifferent to civilians (unless they decided to burn a whole village as a revenge on some attack), while russian soldiers were raping and looting their way even through countries they were supposed to be liberating.

And it is said that Stalin is responsible for more dead russians than anyone else.

Oh, he definitely did. Also, the Soviet army might not have been so bad in the beginning against the Germans if Stalin hadn't purged it. He really is an asshole and deserves as much hate as Hitler. 

[Tom Holmberg]

On 4/18/2022 at 7:43 AM, JustHereForFood said:

There certainly is something to it. I live in Central Europe/former Eastern bloc and I have heard or read many accounts of people from older generations saying that they were more afraid of Soviet troops going through the land than German (this from non-Jewish people, of course). Germans were generally apparently indifferent to civilians (unless they decided to burn a whole village as a revenge on some attack), while russian soldiers were raping and looting their way even through countries they were supposed to be liberating.

And it is said that Stalin is responsible for more dead russians than anyone else.

There's the old joke about the last Polish soldier as the Germans and Russians invade Poland at the beginning of WWII.  Which one does he shoot?

The German. Business before pleasure.