kingloptr

kingloptr:

191811110:

thetrickstergoddess:

191811110:

I have recently watched Thor, Avengers and Thor: the Dark World.

I find the Thor ones triggery as heck. The world-building of Asgard operating on some very skewed morality - which is understandable for a world where part of Norse mythology…

Thank you for your answer. It make me think about something I haven’t considered and I really appreciate that. It seems that I a) interpret the whole thing from a very different cultural background, b) look at those cells from a personal standpoint.

Loki is a vile person: committing murders without any sort of feeling, refusing to take moral responsibility for his actions, manipulative, arrogant, childish.

The problem is, there are tropes within the plot which set me off the typical light-fantasy interpretation. Some are surely unintentional, for I’ve never seen them used in the English-language artworks.

- the Overlord - from my cultural standing, one person having as much power as Odin and not sharing it - is evil, period. (Has to do with never having an absolute monarchy, but fighting some of those off, during the course of history.) So I have a very hard time seeing him by anything other than tyrant. Especially as there weren’t any scenes that would counteract that trope for me.

- the Invaders - even though now there is a certain code of conduct for the soldiers invading foreign country, there still are too many instances of unbecoming behaviour from those, and in the previous centuries - things like Geneva Convention were yet to be written. Ergo: a negative trope for fantasy. Thor, the Hot Warrior Goddess Lady Sif and the Warrior Three just do some lighter things associated with this trope (like gloat,) but I can’t help but attribute the rest - after all, that’s how tropes work: until we see evidence otherwise, we assume.

- the Outcast - when dubbing the Lion King in my language, the translators intentionally deleted every word that could support that trope, least the audience would cheer for Scar. The Outcast is an archetype of a social reject who is too resigned to even try to counteract that rejection (but privately is very bitter about it) and just quietly survives until there is a need for a heroic deed… Sounds partially familiar? Exactly. The vile criminal Loki shares key characteristics with what I’ve learn’t about what the mightiest heroes are - one hell of a cognitive dissonance, dude :).

To think that I decided to watch the stuff, ‘cause I hoped for some light-hearted sci-fi with lots of explosions, good guys punching bad guys, and maybe some skilfully animated aliens… Heh.

The torture thing - of course Loki wouldn’t be tortured! That would make no sense - they needed no information from him, or anything. They didn’t even ask. It was just some personal thoughts on how that prison looked like - as the Overlord trope made me to analyse this thing from a perspective of a political prisoner (as in: someone too important to be killed, but still doomed by the Overlord for just disagreeing with said Overlord. Tropes, tropes, eh.)

From your answer I can see that you were going by rather different tropes, so thank you for feedback that gave me an occasion to learn something.

Ok, here is the thing.

I get that we come from different backgrounds and that’s legit (I still don’t know your background but I am a minority who hates America myself). But I personally think that Loki’s story and identity is both complicated, and also very uncomplicated (because it is a fantasy trope, and the writers definitely did not think about it as deeply as the fans have). It wasn’t going to be light-hearted completely because when you need a good story and decent plot, especially when tied in with a whole string of movies, you need complications and hard issues and stuff to make people talk. It wouldn’t be good without that. 

But, these tropes are used all the time in all kinds of movies. Yes the villain has a background where you’re supposed to sympathize. And Loki was definitely treated like he didn’t have much of a voice (at least from what we can see in the movie. But we can’t forget that by nature he is a Trickster and has little to no moral compass to go on by himself). But he was still loved. He chose to ignore it because he didn’t know how to rationally handle what he was going through. He chose to try to kill and/or rule entire groups and societies to quell his own needs for validation, control, and pride.

As for Odin, he’s a complicated character too. Rule a place like Asgard for like 3000 years or so and see if it doesn’t get tiresome and hard. As someone trying to do that and save face, yeah he made some awful decisions regarding Loki. Personally I think he didn’t mean half the stuff he said to Loki during his ‘trial’ speech at the beginning of Thor 2. Doesn’t excuse him, and it was awful parenting, but there’s still no overlord-aspect going on here. Odin then refuses to speak with Thor about Thor’s GOOD IDEA TO DEAL WITH THE AETHER IN THE LEAST VIOLENT WAY. So insulting Thor is….idk where that was coming from on your part. And Odin, the guy just lost his wife and queen. He is old and tired, I’d wanna slaughter everything too. He was unfit to make a wise decision as ruler at that moment, and that was the point. The point was that Thor was right, Odin was wrong. So. I think that speaks for itself about what the plot was trying to say.

As for Loki, he didn’t ‘quietly survive’ anything. He made a fuss, plotted against everything done in his direction to make peace, and he is obviously hurting but he’s also trying to cover up and conquer his hurt with all the wrong methods. He lashes out, reacting in ways that are the same or worse than what he’s been dealt. Everyone in the movie except Frigga is kinda bad at personal communication, and that is ALSO sort of the point. Loki doesn’t TALK about what he needs, none of them do. This is a dysfunctional family that really needed a long sit-down to talk about and include Loki’s neglected issues. Thor managed to become his own person and trust himself to do good no matter what Odin said. Loki didn’t. But that’s the POINT we are supposed to see. 

We aren’t going by different tropes. We’re seeing things completely differently but there are intentions and facts to be looked at when going through the movies.

I’ve written a really long answer, and then my computer crashed… Nevermind.

(Let’s get one thing clear, first - what I feel for America is a deep rooted curiosity about a foreign country and its nation. I’d much prefer to learn of your opinion on Marvel movies than discuss one of foreign governments. We may muse on how much or how little a government defines a country, but not in this post, please.)

Right, back to the subject. You say that we use the same tropes, but I disagree. Let’s see - in Thor, before we even got to really know the character, Thor is made likeable by a Superhero trope. I intellectually know of that one, but I don’t have it internalised. Thor is more like an Alien Fallen From the Sky for me - a being we know next to nothing about, apart from that he’s bound to be in some ways different than the humans. So I go by what little we had seen on the screen (the movies need to use the tropes, because they’re too short to show everything about the characters,) 

At that point, there is no trope for me to follow about Loki, either. Seeing that he’s manipulative is makes him unsympathetic, but then the same goes for seeing Thor being needlessly aggressive and rude. Moreover, I was bound to be prejudiced about the characters differently, as I haven’t read the Marvel comics about them, but I was familiar with series The Liar / Kłamca by Jakub Ćwiek, in which Loki is a protagonist. (A different version of Loki - compared to the Marvel’s movie version: a bit closer to the myths, more mature - but a bit more of a Trickster, more experienced, a bit less proud, less physically capable in an open fight, co-working with the other people more - well, he made too many enemies to protest to someone else covering his back; and by the way more blonde and sometimes bearded; but his methods of solving complicated situations were distinctly similar too Loki from Thor.)

For the most of the Thor movie I was unsure of who the protagonist was. The title was suggestive, but it could mean either Dr Foster or Thor being the protagonist - and for a time it felt like Loki could be a protagonist, when he was put in a situation of an Outcast - up until the Destroyer.

The Avengers were interesting (it’d be nice to watch them battle Thanos instead of his underling one day, so I appreciate the movie’s open ending), but they didn’t add much to the tropes.

Then came Thor: the Dark World, where a familiar pattern of the Outcast versus the Overlord appeared, but in a different way that I am used to.

I don’t think I explained clearly enough how important is the Outcast trope in the Polish fantasy and sci-fi works. I don’t remember a single instance where the protagonist (or the protagonist group) either wasn’t one before the plot or didn’t become one at the plot’s beginning (there’s very little of it available in English, but you can google The Witcher / Wiedźmin if you want an example - and even looking at witcher Geralt’s tendency to slaughter the people who try to physically push him around, versus how you understood my words, maybe “quietly surviving” wasn’t my best choice for quickly saying “they let the hurtful words pass by and don’t actively try to overthrow the whole social system that discriminates them,” my bad). In the English-language works, there are outcasts who are typical bad guys. That’s not a case in the Polish language works. Typically, it’s enough to present a character as an outcast to make the people cheer for that character (that’s why any suggestion of Scar being an outcast is carefully removed from the dub in The Lion King, they use the Traitor trope on Scar, instead.) The Outcasts there often struggle against the various authorities misusing power, though it’s rarely the crux of the story - Polish fantasy tends to be a lot more chaotic than that. Yet when there is an Overlord trope - though the trope-name I’ve used may be misleading, as the Overlord doesn’t need to be a person, just has to be a completely identifiable entity that has a power over the fantasy/sci-fi world or a part of it, and grossly missuses it. When there is a conflict Outcast vs Overlord, it’s an equivalent of English-language-culture’s Hero vs Villain. With just as strong pull on reader’s/viewer’s imagination. So that’s why I see Thor: the Dark World's narrative as interestingly reversed (with the Outcast in question somewhat overstepping the Outcast trope's boundaries, because the plot doesn’t hold him as the “good guy.”)

You suggest I should acknowledge Thor doing a good thing in Thor: the Dark World. My guess that you think it’s needed because you look at him through the American Hero trope. I guess that through this trope’s aye Thor was the only person courageous enough to defy the authority when the authority was wrong in an important and urgent (world saving/crushing) matter, so he deserves recognition for that? I look at the same situation through the Resistance trope (it codes: “it’s a human moral obligation to defend one’s country to the extent of one’s capability”) - it tells me that Thor just did his duty that came with being an Aesir, an Aesir prince at that. Looking through that trope, what Thor did was the least to be expected, and doesn’t need to be specifically acknowledged. We don’t go around praising people for glorious deed of doing their jobs, after all. In fact, having the knowledge of the situation and capabilities needed to act, not acting accordingly would make the character “evil” no matter their intentions -> Odin.

From my POV, I’d give Thor more credit for befriending the group of weirdos (on Asgard,) even though as a crown prince and could probably choose his friends however he wanted. So that’s a good thing he did even though he wasn’t obliged to.

So, tropes. They do matter after all, what do you think?

But he was still loved." Due to my line of duty, that oversimplification gives me creeps. Oversimplifying it like that is what helps the dysfunctional families stay dysfunctional. So, let’s take it apart.

Imagined slights." Thor expects Loki to try to manipulate him, so Thor naturally has a certain doubt about the things Loki says. It’s never easy to recognise what is the truth, but people generally try to do it by comparing what they hear to what they expect to be the truth. It lead to a situation when Thor build an image of what Loki is, in his head - during they time they were growing up together. That image surely wasn’t perfect, because it never is when there are communication issues, but it let Thor guess what Loki would do at least half of the time. (If the image wouldn’t allow that, Thor would keep changing it until it would.) This image is what Thor got to know as Loki. This image is what Thor came to love dearly. The problem is, a lot has changed for Loki since he and Thor got separated. Loki is not the same person he used to be, and Thor wasn’t there to adjust the image on-scene, as Thor surely would if he got to understand the changes by their causes and effects. He couldn’t do that by talking either, because he doesn’t believe Loki to tell him the truth. So, Thor ended up in a situation when he doesn’t recognize his brother anymore. Thor loves the image he believes to be the core of what Loki is dearly, but sometimes it is as if a stranger took Loki’s place - that’s how the image differs from what Loki became. Sometimes Thor sees the old traits that he recognises because they are a part of the image - the hope that the imaged Loki is there somewhere in the real-life Loki must be bordering on painful. Yet, Thor won’t change the image in his head for what he can observe now, because Thor is afraid he wouldn’t be able to love the new Loki - it would feel like loosing Loki forever, then. Of course it’s all subconscious. The effect is that Thor loves dearly, but Loki can’t receive that love because it’s not directed at what he is now.

Your birthright was to die!" ("…Laufreyson.”) From that moment on, it doesn’t matter how Odin feels about Loki. Loki won’t ever feel safe in Odin’s vicinity again. (If you insist on looking at that relationship trough the context of love - I generally find that “what you wouldn’t tell your mother in any circumstances for reasons other than it containing sexual innuendo?" as a good indicator of where the line is.)

Your father…" "He is not my father!" "Am I not your mother?" While Frigga sees Loki for what and who Loki is, and loves him - it’s a limited love. She was there during Odin’s little speech, yet she pushed Loki to try to restore his love-and-trust (what is required of son in a bond with a father) to Odin. Basically, Frigga disregarded Loki’s need for safety as unimportant. She may had thought that she just wanted it all to be all as it used to be - but that’s what it meant in the end. Yet she indeed was one that loved him. It’s still important to realize the shades of love.

kingloptr

thetrickstergoddess:

191811110:

I have recently watched Thor, Avengers and Thor: the Dark World.

I find the Thor ones triggery as heck. The world-building of Asgard operating on some very skewed morality - which is understandable for a world where part of Norse mythology…

Thank you for your answer. It make me think about something I haven’t considered and I really appreciate that. It seems that I a) interpret the whole thing from a very different cultural background, b) look at those cells from a personal standpoint.

Loki is a vile person: committing murders without any sort of feeling, refusing to take moral responsibility for his actions, manipulative, arrogant, childish.

The problem is, there are tropes within the plot which set me off the typical light-fantasy interpretation. Some are surely unintentional, for I’ve never seen them used in the English-language artworks.

- the Overlord - from my cultural standing, one person having as much power as Odin and not sharing it - is evil, period. (Has to do with never having an absolute monarchy, but fighting some of those off, during the course of history.) So I have a very hard time seeing him by anything other than tyrant. Especially as there weren’t any scenes that would counteract that trope for me.

- the Invaders - even though now there is a certain code of conduct for the soldiers invading foreign country, there still are too many instances of unbecoming behaviour from those, and in the previous centuries - things like Geneva Convention were yet to be written. Ergo: a negative trope for fantasy. Thor, the Hot Warrior Goddess Lady Sif and the Warrior Three just do some lighter things associated with this trope (like gloat,) but I can’t help but attribute the rest - after all, that’s how tropes work: until we see evidence otherwise, we assume.

- the Outcast - when dubbing the Lion King in my language, the translators intentionally deleted every word that could support that trope, least the audience would cheer for Scar. The Outcast is an archetype of a social reject who is too resigned to even try to counteract that rejection (but privately is very bitter about it) and just quietly survives until there is a need for a heroic deed… Sounds partially familiar? Exactly. The vile criminal Loki shares key characteristics with what I’ve learn’t about what the mightiest heroes are - one hell of a cognitive dissonance, dude :).

To think that I decided to watch the stuff, ‘cause I hoped for some light-hearted sci-fi with lots of explosions, good guys punching bad guys, and maybe some skilfully animated aliens… Heh.

The torture thing - of course Loki wouldn’t be tortured! That would make no sense - they needed no information from him, or anything. They didn’t even ask. It was just some personal thoughts on how that prison looked like - as the Overlord trope made me to analyse this thing from a perspective of a political prisoner (as in: someone too important to be killed, but still doomed by the Overlord for just disagreeing with said Overlord. Tropes, tropes, eh.)

From your answer I can see that you were going by rather different tropes, so thank you for feedback that gave me an occasion to learn something.

mosellegreen

acciobenedictcumberbatch:

cedricdigory:

it kind of bothers me that after all this time people still dont understand how sorting works in harry potter

its not necessarily based on the characteristics you possess, its the ones you value, and that my friends is completely different. that is why the sorting hat considers your choice, otherwise why would he bother with your opinion

primary examples would be hermione, wormtail and lockhart

see also: neville

I have recently watched ThorAvengers and Thor: the Dark World.

I find the Thor ones triggery as heck. The world-building of Asgard operating on some very skewed morality - which is understandable for a world where part of Norse mythology applies. Those myths are disturbing enough on their own.

It’s the fact that the whole thing is narrated from a tyrant-overlord’s perspective (or a perspective close to it) that makes it extraordinarily creepy. Moral ambiguity about genocide? All there. After all, not all acts of mass murder (it’s not a fight if it’s that level of unequal - and the Asgardian warriors have entirely too much fun killing people, by the Earth’s standards) in the plot bring the characters committing them to the (one-person!) tribunal. In fact, the plot suggest that it’s not the genocide that gets punished then - but daring to challenge the overlord. It wouldn’t be that bad of a narrative, if it wasn’t for the protagonist himself learning a lesson about obedience (humility), and then going back to attacking those unfit to defy him - but in the service to the tyrannical overlord, (and against not very Asgardian/human-looking aliens,) so acceptable! Brillant role-model for children :/! Why couldn’t be Dr Jane Foster a protagonist instead, again? She at least would operate on human morals…

Second go the triggers. Asgard’s ruling family dynamics perfectly emulate an abusive family dynamics (though it seems that most of it goes on psychological and emotional level.) Many of the Thor’s family situations portrayed are nearly exactly what members of abusive families encounter every “calm” day. And then, in the movie one of the members of such family gets labelled “villain.” Worse, it’s one filling the scapegoat role - which basically sends a message to the viewers that there indeed may be something “wrong" with the scapegoat kids in Real Life, so it confirms that the abusive families are “right" to treat them like sh*t on that accord. And it’s an all-audiences movie, right?

Read More

opalescentnanomachines
aika-chan01:

natalie-as-herself:

qelato:

anniecrestadair:

orangeninjadan:

hickitty:

clarkkftw:





I’ve seen a lot of posts on my dash tonight about users who are threatening suicide, with other Tumblr members posting in effort to try to get ahold of them. I think you all should see this:
IF THERE IS EVER A TUMBLR USER WHO HAS POSTED A GOOD-BYE MESSAGE, SUICIDE NOTE, VIDEO, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT, PLEASE FOLLOW THIS POST.
1. Scroll to the top of your dashboard.
2. See the circular question mark icon at the top? It’s the third one over from your home symbol. Click on that, and a screen similar to the one in the picture will come up.
3. Where you can type in questions, the box with the magnifying glass at the top, type in the word “suicide.”
4. Click on the first link that shows up. It should say, “Pass the URL of the blog on to us.”
5. Type in the user’s URL and tell Tumblr admin that the user is contemplating suicide and has posted a message indicating that they are going through with it or will be attempting. Hit send! Tumblr administration will perform a number of actions to contact the user and take the necessary steps to prevent the suicide.
TUMBLR: THIS COULD SAVE A USER’S LIFE. PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE SUICIDE THREATS.
Reblog this to keep other users aware. Suicide isn’t a joke, and neither is someone’s life. If you didn’t know this, someone else may not, either. Pass it on.




why on earth doesn’t this have more notes

I actually had to do this once. She lived.

if you scroll past this on your dash you are absolutely heartless.

Reblog this!! This can save somebody’s life!

reblog.
help.
do not scroll down.

aika-chan01:

natalie-as-herself:

qelato:

anniecrestadair:

orangeninjadan:

hickitty:

clarkkftw:

I’ve seen a lot of posts on my dash tonight about users who are threatening suicide, with other Tumblr members posting in effort to try to get ahold of them. I think you all should see this:

IF THERE IS EVER A TUMBLR USER WHO HAS POSTED A GOOD-BYE MESSAGE, SUICIDE NOTE, VIDEO, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT, PLEASE FOLLOW THIS POST.

1. Scroll to the top of your dashboard.

2. See the circular question mark icon at the top? It’s the third one over from your home symbol. Click on that, and a screen similar to the one in the picture will come up.

3. Where you can type in questions, the box with the magnifying glass at the top, type in the word “suicide.”

4. Click on the first link that shows up. It should say, “Pass the URL of the blog on to us.”

5. Type in the user’s URL and tell Tumblr admin that the user is contemplating suicide and has posted a message indicating that they are going through with it or will be attempting. Hit send! Tumblr administration will perform a number of actions to contact the user and take the necessary steps to prevent the suicide.

TUMBLR: THIS COULD SAVE A USER’S LIFE. PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE SUICIDE THREATS.

Reblog this to keep other users aware. Suicide isn’t a joke, and neither is someone’s life. If you didn’t know this, someone else may not, either. Pass it on.

why on earth doesn’t this have more notes

I actually had to do this once. She lived.

if you scroll past this on your dash you are absolutely heartless.

Reblog this!! This can save somebody’s life!

reblog.

help.

do not scroll down.

staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaark
jaythenerdkid:

undeadseanbean:

nonhoration:

earthlydreams:

This is so cool! But what country are they from? “Africa” is really vague.

Their names are Duro-Aina Adebola, Akindele Abiola, Faleke Oluwatoyin, and Bello Eniola and they’re from Lagos, Nigeria. There’s a neat video about them here.

#when will people start giving names to young non-white scientists??#bc that shit is getting old

boost the fuck out of this, and make sure you include their goddamn names and country of origin.

jaythenerdkid:

undeadseanbean:

nonhoration:

earthlydreams:

This is so cool! But what country are they from? “Africa” is really vague.

Their names are Duro-Aina Adebola, Akindele Abiola, Faleke Oluwatoyin, and Bello Eniola and they’re from Lagos, Nigeria. There’s a neat video about them here.

boost the fuck out of this, and make sure you include their goddamn names and country of origin.

staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaark
the-snow:

avraham-chaim:

clarityfairy:

peeerfectt:

retroluminati:

ideasunknown:

This is how the solar system is actually moving as it traverses the galaxy.

omfg

So beAutiful

Wait

Yeah it’s not circular as you’ve been taught. It does revolve around the sun, but like every other star, the sun travels, and pulls us too. Fih-boe-nah-chi

Just makes it all the more amazing that this all came to exist, being flung through space.

the-snow:

avraham-chaim:

clarityfairy:

peeerfectt:

retroluminati:

ideasunknown:

This is how the solar system is actually moving as it traverses the galaxy.

omfg

So beAutiful

Wait

Yeah it’s not circular as you’ve been taught. It does revolve around the sun, but like every other star, the sun travels, and pulls us too. Fih-boe-nah-chi

Just makes it all the more amazing that this all came to exist, being flung through space.

September 17th, 1939the day Soviet Russia attacked Poland

September 1st, 1939 is the day on which - Poland and Germany agree - World War 2 started. The Polish call it September Campaign, the Germans - Fall White.

Poland was a militarily strong country for one that was coming out of a deep economical crisis. At first Hitler wanted to ally with Poland before attacking France. Yet, when Nazi German minister Ribbentrop tried to sign a military pact with Poland, Polish minister Beck replied that there is no way in hell Poland would be co-working with a monster.

That’s when Ribbentrop went to sign a secret pact with Soviet minister Molotov, instead - Nazi Germany alone was too weak to deal with Poland. Polish intelligence was one of the best ones in the world, too, so the secret pact was reported - but the head of intelligence laid it on the pile with diversion attempts, for he deemed an idea of those two set-against-each-other ideologies co-operating absurd.

Poland was a formidable enemy, but Hitler was arrogant. Originally, he planned to win Fall White after four days, and didn’t count on having to send reinforcements. (To compare: the rest of countries of continental Europe lasted from few hours to four days.) At first, the German army could barely move into the Polish borders by land, even though the cities were bombarded from the air. On September the 3rd Hitler send a telegram to Stalin to “hurry, and move already.” On the 5th Stalin send an answer “we aren’t ready yet.” It’s said that Hitler had a fit.

Fall White was planned by military doctrine only and it failed to take into account both human factor and the nature. Many Polish military posts were keeping defence for longer that it was theoretically possible. The Poles were blowing out the bridges. German tanks couldn’t move through the rivers, between the trees of thick forests, and were getting stuck in the mud (the Polish tanks were much better suited for that kind of terrain) - the German soldiers had to steal (or rather - catch from the wild, as the land-owner freed them upon the news of war) specially trained small horses (looking like ponies, really) to move those tanks anywhere.

Polish military knew the terrain. The Germans repeatedly reported higher numbers of the Polish units than existed, for horses could swiftly transport the soldiers between one battle and another through the terrain that was inaccessible to mechanical vehicles. Once Germans accidentally caught such a transport-column mid-way, so they recorded it and made a propaganda movie of “the Poles attacking German tanks with swords.” In reality, such an attack happened once - the Polish unit won enough of place to pass through due to a sheer astonishment of the Germans. In reality, commander of one of the Polish units that was forced to surrender due to running out of ammunition - had learnt from his German counterpart that 10 days more, and the Germans would be forced to back off because… they would run out of ammunition.

Speaking of horses, there was a horse-riding unit send from Prussia, probably as a challenge to rematch after the Grunwald battle (1410) - it didn’t make it to Nazi propaganda, because when the Poles took the challenge, the Prussian horse unit was trashed by the Polish horse unit.

From where the Polish army moved out due to strategical reasons, the volunteer Polish Scouts and civilians took their place and held the Germans back for as long as they could. Even single rooms were bastions worth defending. Also, they were army volunteers who single-handedly held German units back, by using the smoke and noise to create an illusion of Polish units being there. (All the people mentioned in this paragraph were aware that those were suicidal missions.)

It is said that the German intelligence messed with the Air Force strategy, for the communication was scrambled and they had trouble coordinating the strategy; it’s theorised that if not for some counter-productive messages, the Air Force could have been able to push Nazi Germany not only back to its borders, but even a bit farther.

All that time everyone was waiting for the promised help of the other Allied countries. All the Polish strategy was centred around receiving reinforcement from France and Britain. All that time it seemed that France and Britain will come to fight within a day or two.

On September 17th, Soviet Russia attacked. Russia entered the terrain where the strategic stuff was moved for safety from the Nazis… The Polish high command came up with that crazy plan of setting the Soviets against the Nazis. They issued an order to “not fight the Russians unless attacked.” The Russians were also given an order to not make a mess (they were to make an impression of heroes coming to help,) but they attacked many places non-the-less, plundering and raping - and so the people fought back in those places. (The Poles tend to lynch unconvinced rapists.)

The Poles described the Red Army as so dirty that they didn’t look like soldiers (it was customary for Polish soldiers to polish their shoes and equipment excessively), but coming in uncountable numbers. They also kept explaining to the Poles in very simplified terms things like what sugar is (it was like explaining to an American what coffee is) - for the shops were closed because of the war.

Straight away, the Russians sorted out the Polish intellectual class (all the Polish officers were intellectuals) by their soft hands -if your skin wasn’t hard from repetitive physical work, you would qualify - made a show of arresting them as “Nazi spies,” and sent them to the East some time later. The Poles complied, taking a guess that a war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was bound to soon become a reality - and that the Soviet Russia would be desperate for good strategists, then. But before it happened, the Poles were all executed, about 200 000 of them. The Nazis targeted the elite in a similarly genocidal manner, though they looked that elite up by documents, not hands.

Poland never surrendered.