I’ve come to hate people asking for sources in the interwebs. If you ask me for the sources for Gleiwitz or Mainila, or anything else, it’ll be as hard to find as on this subject.
People who are ready to invest their time in writing a short comment may not be ready to do that for finding sources for you. And that’s valid and doesn’t mean you’ve won an argument or something. Arguments can’t be won or lost anyway.
And people who are really ready to find sources are mostly not the good ones, it’s, say, genocide denialist Turks\Azeris and the sources they link are trash or don’t support what they say.
So you are making it seem that the other side has no sources when they may have and not giving sources seem worse than giving garbage sources.
And on your question - the Wikipedia article has some sources which seem fine.
For me, it’s more kind of shocking that so many people feel like they can confidently comment on these events without basic knowledge of the very well known history surrounding them. Someone who has such large gaps in their knowledge probably isn’t worth debating further, and simply highlighting those gaps should provide pretty good view to anyone else reading this conversation about what level they are operating on.
This is especially notable when you see accounts which literally do nothing besides comment on this conflict.
I think you are putting unneeded conditions where there should be only one - whether you want to participate for your amusement.
Arguments do not expose truth. Arguments are not won or lost. If the arguing sides are trying to impose some position, to win some fight, then the argument is garbage.
Nothing shocking here either. They do what they want with their time.
It’s worth noting that the ones who rejected that mandatory Palestine map were the Arab Palestinians.
If it’s worth noting, you should cite sources.
I’ve come to hate people asking for sources in the interwebs. If you ask me for the sources for Gleiwitz or Mainila, or anything else, it’ll be as hard to find as on this subject.
People who are ready to invest their time in writing a short comment may not be ready to do that for finding sources for you. And that’s valid and doesn’t mean you’ve won an argument or something. Arguments can’t be won or lost anyway.
And people who are really ready to find sources are mostly not the good ones, it’s, say, genocide denialist Turks\Azeris and the sources they link are trash or don’t support what they say.
So you are making it seem that the other side has no sources when they may have and not giving sources seem worse than giving garbage sources.
And on your question - the Wikipedia article has some sources which seem fine.
Flaky… understood.
For me, it’s more kind of shocking that so many people feel like they can confidently comment on these events without basic knowledge of the very well known history surrounding them. Someone who has such large gaps in their knowledge probably isn’t worth debating further, and simply highlighting those gaps should provide pretty good view to anyone else reading this conversation about what level they are operating on.
This is especially notable when you see accounts which literally do nothing besides comment on this conflict.
I think you are putting unneeded conditions where there should be only one - whether you want to participate for your amusement.
Arguments do not expose truth. Arguments are not won or lost. If the arguing sides are trying to impose some position, to win some fight, then the argument is garbage.
Nothing shocking here either. They do what they want with their time.