PDA

View Full Version : What if...Russia had invaded Germany in August 1939??



MB_Avro_UK
12-06-2005, 06:36 PM
hi all,

Another 'what if'... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Russia and Germany were opposing ideologies. Neither trusted each other.

What would have been the result if Stalin for whatever reason had decided to attack Germany in 1939 before WW2 was declared in September 1939?

Stalin was not predictable and perceived circustances could have provoked him.

What would have been the reaction of Britain ,France,the rest of western Europe and the USA?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

neural_dream
12-06-2005, 07:17 PM
Germany would probably repel the attack and all would be happy.
If Stalin managed to take the upper hand alarmingly quickly, then France and Britain would help Germany, beat Stalin and then move on with a little reordering of the affiliations in Eastern Europe.
The States would never take part except if Japan were somehow involved.

If you're interested in whatif scenarios you'll want to play Hearts of Iron 2.
http://images.strategyinformer.com/screenshots/00005129.jpg

darkhorizon11
12-06-2005, 09:07 PM
Thats way too "what if" for me. Only because attacking and starting a war takes a lot. Look what it took Germany to get to that point in 1939? The USSR although building up its military was in no position in 39 to throw an all out assualt at the Germans. Things would be wayyyy different than they are now if the Soviets had attacked Germany first. The cold war would have started much sooner...

jarink
12-06-2005, 09:18 PM
I think it's more plausible to imagine the USSR attacking germany in May, 1940. By then, they shared a much larger common border and Germany was fully occupied with France, Britain and the Low Countries. There would have been very little to stop the Red Army from overruning East Prussia.

Tater-SW-
12-06-2005, 09:23 PM
They were opposing nations, their ideologies were closer together than they were different to the western democracies, frankly.

As for invading in 1939, at least they would have saved themselves from their (largely forgotten) cobeligerant status in the invasion of Poland. People seem to forget that WW2 started with the Germans invading Poland from the West and the USSR from the east.

tater

Pirschjaeger
12-06-2005, 09:50 PM
If Russia had attacked Germany before 39, Poland would have still been the first victim of WW2.

Either way, the Pols have always been, geographically, in a bad spot. Besides, Polish women are a good enough reason to invade. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Fritz

ABC_1982
12-06-2005, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
They were opposing nations, their ideologies were closer together than they were different to the western democracies, frankly.

As for invading in 1939, at least they would have saved themselves from their (largely forgotten) cobeligerant status in the invasion of Poland. People seem to forget that WW2 started with the Germans invading Poland from the West and the USSR from the east.

tater
In 1939 the reorganization of our military forces was on it's high point. No possibilities of attacking Germany at that moment. And don't forget about war with Finland and Japan... Civil war in Spain... We had lots of wars for 1939...
Stalin had a hard breaking logic, so he was predictable. You don't know a thing on the West about our history I suppose... Just some stereotypes...
As for ideology, Hitler himself supposed that he has much in common with Britain and nothing common with communsist. And communist supposed the superiority of WORKING CLASS PEOPLE not one NATION as nazis did... Proletary revolution on the whole world was a dream for communists. And the WWII showed Hitler was right by the way... The so called democratic and civilized nations showed their nature.

alert_1
12-07-2005, 05:46 AM
Salin's USSR in1939 was not in position to attacke west Europe. But in 1942 it would had been much better time, Red Army/VVS would ahd been armed to the teeth with relatively modern weaponry (Yaks, Il2, T34). But Hitler was somewhat faster..(and dont forget we have access to Hitlers's Germany archives but none to USSR ones).

Estocade85
12-07-2005, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Besides, Polish women are a good enough reason to invade. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif
Fritz

Got track?

Sturm_Williger
12-07-2005, 06:23 AM
I've often wondered how Russia escaped the declarations of war the Germany received when invading Poland. They took a right big chunk of Poland, but Polands "allies" only declared war on Germany ?

Or do I lack sufficient scholarly input on the subject ?

Deadmeat313
12-07-2005, 06:25 AM
Heh. This reminds me of a HOI II game where I invaded Finland in 1936, not realising that Germany had guaranteed their independence. Germany then immediately declared war on me.

But this was no Barbarossa. To start with this was a Germany that had not been given much chance to re-arm. Secondly, Poland was still very much in existence so we did not share a border at all. Initially, Germany could only offer pinprick aerial attacks launched from bases in East Prussia. Then the Kreigsmarine trounced my Baltic Fleet in a series of one-sided naval battles. German troops started to launch coastal raids on my (historically inept) war in Finland - The highlight of which was a pitched tank battle between Zuzkov and Guderian outside Helsinki in 1936. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

At that point I realised that Germany was fighting a 'noble war' against me. I had opened hostilities and was therefore the Aggressor in the coming World War. Germany was sending troops to aid the Finns in their valiant defence of their homeland. If Britain and France et al get involved, it will most likely be on the side of Germany against me!

"Oooh crumbs!" says Stalin. Badly outmaneuvered.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

T.

AndyHigh
12-07-2005, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
And the WWII showed Hitler was right by the way... The so called democratic and civilized nations showed their nature.

Hmm. I'd like to know what nature and which countries you mean with this comment.

Although communist propaganda called for united proletariaty and peace between all peoples and nations, in reality Soviet Union treated it's minorities ruthlessly, favoring Russian people over others. And socialists in the west believed all the hype.

If you compatere the true nature of Third Reich and Soviet Union, similarities can certainly be found.

Kocur_
12-07-2005, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Salin's USSR in1939 was not in position to attacke west Europe. But in 1942 it would had been much better time, Red Army/VVS would ahd been armed to the teeth with relatively modern weaponry (Yaks, Il2, T34). But Hitler was somewhat faster..(and dont forget we have access to Hitlers's Germany archives but none to USSR ones).

Victor Suvorov's "Icebraker" and "M Day". VERY good read.

Lets not hope to see any soviet archives opened. Putin's Russia is different from Yeltsin's in treating Soviet Union history. In current close-to-offical version of it you wont find Ribbentropp-Molotov pact secret addition, 17 september 1939 (day of soviet attack on Poland) is just humanitarian operation to save Ukrainians and Belorussians from evil fascists opression, and its not all that sure about Katy"...

IAFS_Painter
12-07-2005, 06:55 AM
I'd take a lot of convincing to believe the USSR was ever in a position to launch a major attack on the west.
Not that they didn't want to, or didn't want everybody to believe it, but there were too many internal problems to make that a practical proposition.

AndyHigh
12-07-2005, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by IAFS_Painter:
I'd take a lot of convincing to believe the USSR was ever in a position to launch a major attack on the west.


You mean which by standards of the USSR means an attack with a lot more forces than 60 divisions (over 1 million men), 2700 airplanes, 3000 tanks etc.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MLudner
12-07-2005, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
They were opposing nations, their ideologies were closer together than they were different to the western democracies, frankly.

As for invading in 1939, at least they would have saved themselves from their (largely forgotten) cobeligerant status in the invasion of Poland. People seem to forget that WW2 started with the Germans invading Poland from the West and the USSR from the east.

tater
In 1939 the reorganization of our military forces was on it's high point. No possibilities of attacking Germany at that moment. And don't forget about war with Finland and Japan... Civil war in Spain... We had lots of wars for 1939...
Stalin had a hard breaking logic, so he was predictable. You don't know a thing on the West about our history I suppose... Just some stereotypes...
As for ideology, Hitler himself supposed that he has much in common with Britain and nothing common with communsist. And communist supposed the superiority of WORKING CLASS PEOPLE not one NATION as nazis did... Proletary revolution on the whole world was a dream for communists. And the WWII showed Hitler was right by the way... The so called democratic and civilized nations showed their nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hitler supposed many stupid and ludicrous things, that not the least among them. But, methinks he was smarter than thee...

MLudner
12-07-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IAFS_Painter:
I'd take a lot of convincing to believe the USSR was ever in a position to launch a major attack on the west.


You mean which by standards of the USSR means an attack with a lot more forces than 60 divisions (over 1 million men), 2700 airplanes, 3000 tanks etc.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, sure; they had a lot of stuff - so did the French in 1940. Problem was, the only army worse at mechanized warfare than they at the time were the Japanese .... though it helped the Soviets immensely that Zhukov was in command in the Khalkin Gol; if he had not been there the Japanese probably would have man-handled the Soviet Army at least as badly as the Finns did a few months later. If the Soviets had attacked Germany in '39 it would have been an unmitigated disaster for them. Really, the Soviet Army was in even worse shape in '39 than it was in '41, and operation Barbarossa was nearly the end of the USSR.
I have said it before, and I will say it again:
I'm not sure just whose side Hitler was on, but it certainly was not his own, fortuitously.

tigertalon
12-07-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Besides, Polish women are a good enough reason to invade. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Fritz

My toughts EXACTLY! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Deadmeat313
12-07-2005, 11:48 AM
In August 1939 they would have had to fight through Poland first.

I think the 1939 war in Finland would be a good guide to the state of the Soviet military of the time. They had the numbers then, but thats all they had. They were disorganised, demoralised and outmaneuvered for most of the fight. Their military hierarchy were still stuck in WWI - those who had somehow survived the epic purges of the 1930s.

For example, I read recently that in the late 1930s the commander in charge of artillery was pressing to have the production of anti-tank guns ceased entirely as "they only make a pathetic little hole, not a big crater." The commander in chief at the time was (IIRC) Budyenny - an old-school cavalryman with an AMAZING moustache - who could simply not percieve the value of tanks in modern war.

When Stalin demanded to know why the army was doing so badly in Finland, his generals told him "we had no idea the country was so heavily forested". He jibed back at their quality of reconnaisance: "Catherine the Great found Finland to be full of trees. Every Russian invasion of Finland has shown it to be full of trees..."
(I wish I had the book to hand but I don't, so paraphrasing will have to do.)

My belief is that if the Russians had attacked Germany in 1940 (after the fall of Poland) then the Germans would probably have done what they did on WWI and held off their clumsy attacks with one hand while their main fighting force batters the Western Allies. Once France has fallen and the British have been driven offshore then they could shift the panzers over to the Eastern Front for some decisive warfare. The riposte would be far less powerful and considered than Barbarossa, but would still send the Russians reeling and bring about the encirclement of large numbers of wrongfooted Soviet troops. Both countries would probably by this point be looking for a way out, as Stalin knows his army is far too disorganised to take on the Wermacht - and Hitler would need to rest and resupply his exhausted panzer forces. Peace would return. For now.

The war would probably convince the Germans of their superiority against the Russian rabble, and they would feel confident of victory whenever Barbarossa is declared - they have not yet experienced the state of the terrain in the Russian heartland. Their supply lines have not yet been stretched etc etc. The Russians might well have learned some valuable lessons from this war and would likely have made an even harder fight of it for the Germans when they next invade. They will have had a sneak preview of Wermacht tactics and lived to tell the tale. Some of their officers in Barbarossa will have fought the Germans "the first time round" and will be better prepared to deal with them.

Anyway. This post is now FAAR too long. And its all supposition anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

T.

jugent
12-07-2005, 02:21 PM
Thats typical a contrafactual what if...

This is how it is. Quting sorted articels from Red Star, Pravda and speaches of Vladimir Zhirinovsky

" Who would came to the thought that Uncle Joe (original it says Stalin but I like Uncle Joy because it tells what Roosevelt thought of him)would start a war?
The Soviet Union never started war, we liberated people if we wher´nt attack by our warlowing neighbours.

During the last 250 years Russia have been invaded three times, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Adolf the Hit(Adolf the Hit was a nick found out by Lenny Bruce).

We lived under constant treat of beeing attacked by by countries that couldnt stand that we should build the paradise for workers and farmers.
We where forced to join a arms-race to protect ourself.
Because of the sacrifice we did during the great patriotic war, our economy was drained, and the Soviet Union fell apart.

Let talk about the future instead. (This comes from Vladimir Zhirinovsky)

In a couple of years russia will became a super-power again. All republics that separatet from us, Estonia, Ucraine etc will come back and join us.

What for the oil-crize to raise, what country has the biggest reserves?

The rest of the industrialized world will fall apart becuse of the lack of oil.

Kocur_
12-07-2005, 02:51 PM
Thinking that Red Army was in bad general condition because they did not well in Finland it a mistake. No army would do better - most of them would stop trying having such losses OTOH...
Is Barbarossa a proof? Not really either, if only you dare to get out of thinking, that Red Army was then in defence positions. On the contrary - there are too many indications, they were just about to attack themselves - and army in such strategical stance is very vulnerable to attack. In fact the Red Army was NEVER prepared to defence. There was NOTHING on defence in soviet combat regulations!
Purges? It happened indeed, but who was liquidated? Best commanders? Not really! Those were worse ones, army prosecutors, army secret police etc. For in 1939, 41, and 45 those were the same people in highest positions. The same generals invaded Poland in 39, counterattacked in 41 and attacked in 43-45: Vasilevski, Rokossovski, Malinovski, Zhukov, etc.

Its is very 'pleasant' to imagine Red Army equippment was outdatet. Was it? 7,62 SVT self-loading rifle, 120mm mortar M38, 76,2mm F-39 anti-tank/field cannon, etc. - I mention those three only, because those were copied/used by Germans widely. In fact no country in the world spent such a sums on developement of modern arms in 1930s. That is not known widely, because all of those projects, which didnt enter service till june 1941 were dropped immidietly in the sake of increacing quantity.
Problem was low technical culture of common soldiers. So low, that SVT rifles were considered too prone to jamming in RKKA. But whenever Germans operated captures examples, they worked just fine!
Red Army equippment was outdated in two, most technical areas: navy and air force. But land warfare equippment was at least fine. In fact soviet artillery was technically best in the world, and most powerful too.

jurinko
12-07-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by jugent:

The Soviet Union never started war, we liberated people if we wher´nt attack by our warlowing neighbours.

Finland, Bessarabia, Poland - you were also attacked?

We lived under constant treat of beeing attacked by by countries that couldnt stand that we should build the paradise for workers and farmers.

- Paradise you say? The biggest starvation in modern history, caused by you regime in early 30ties, when parents ate own kids, was the paradise? Millions in camps, thousands shot by Cheka?


Let talk about the future instead.
In a couple of years russia will became a super-power again. All republics that separatet from us, Estonia, Ucraine etc will come back and join us.

- You did not read the Frederick Forsyth´s book "The Icon", did you?

ImpStarDuece
12-07-2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IAFS_Painter:
I'd take a lot of convincing to believe the USSR was ever in a position to launch a major attack on the west.


You mean which by standards of the USSR means an attack with a lot more forces than 60 divisions (over 1 million men), 2700 airplanes, 3000 tanks etc.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, sure; they had a lot of stuff - so did the French in 1940. Problem was, the only army worse at mechanized warfare than they at the time were the Japanese .... though it helped the Soviets immensely that Zhukov was in command in the Khalkin Gol; if he had not been there the Japanese probably would have man-handled the Soviet Army at least as badly as the Finns did a few months later. If the Soviets had attacked Germany in '39 it would have been an unmitigated disaster for them. Really, the Soviet Army was in even worse shape in '39 than it was in '41, and operation Barbarossa was nearly the end of the USSR.
I have said it before, and I will say it again:
I'm not sure just whose side Hitler was on, but it certainly was not his own, fortuitously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Soviets had better armoured doctrine and equipment than most European armies in 1940. After studying the use of armour in the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets compiled a very modern and foward looking theories of armoured warfare.

The problem was, as usual with the Soviet Union, the lag between doctrine, training and implementation. All the theory in the world doese no good if it can't be put into practice. So, while doctrine may well have been quite advanced, implementing it into an army with several million men and armoured formations who were busily refitting took time, money and effort, something that the Soviets seemed reluctant to spend on the training of their armed forces in the late 1930's and early 1940's.

Soviet armour in 1940 was generally better than equavilent British, French, Polish or American equipment. Tanks like the BT-7, T-26E and the new T-34s and KV-1s were significantly better than most other tanks made in Europe or America at the time, the only possbile exceptions being the Pz-III and Pz-IV. Even then the T-34s and Kv-1s gave the Germans a nasty shock when first encountered.

Similarly, their doctrine wasn't based around post-WW1 notions infantry support as in most European countries but more focused on the independence and mobility of armour and its ability to perform large scale encirclements and deep penetrations. In terms of armoured thinking the only nation that the Soviet Union lagged behind was Germnay, and only then because the Germans had implemented a doctrine of co-ordination between the infantry-air-artillery and armour forces that was the best in the world at the time.

ABC_1982
12-07-2005, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Hmm. I'd like to know what nature and which countries you mean with this comment.

Although communist propaganda called for united proletariaty and peace between all peoples and nations, in reality Soviet Union treated it's minorities ruthlessly, favoring Russian people over others. And socialists in the west believed all the hype.

If you compatere the true nature of Third Reich and Soviet Union, similarities can certainly be found.
First of all: bombing the cities. These bombings killed thousands of people (women, childern, but not factories). Then: breaking Dresden to ruins in the end of war: was it neccessary to destroy a city in the May 1945 (and Dresden was captured by Soviet forces, that was a reall reason to bomb it)?! Is it wat's called civilized actions? I guess so, as we've seen it later in Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraque...
Then the PQ17 caravan: do you remember your (I mean western) people have been traited by their commanders? Coward behavior...
Then The Second Front itself. When was it opened? Should I remind you? The war was ending in fact for that moment.
And that's not all.
In fact we saved your front during Arden operation by beginning massive assault on German positions weeks earlier of planned... The Soviet Union never traited Allies during WWII (as far as I know, prove me if I'm wrong) but Allies did...

As for "propaganda". I was born in Soviet Union. I am living in Russian Federation. Not in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but in a relatively small city far form them. I've been abroad, in the Eastern Europe. They were and are living much more better than we did and do actually. Your thoughts are born by western propaganda and Soviet propaganda themself. I'm sure you've never been in Russia if you say so.

ABC_1982
12-07-2005, 10:49 PM
Oh! I forgot about GB's and France's behavior before WWII. What about Chehoslovakia, Austria and all Eastern Europe? They've been captured by nazis without a word have been said from "civilized" "protectors of the world"... In fact Hitler did not anticipate that GB will announce a war against them if he capture Poland (Russian women are much more better btw).
It was a major shock for him.
As for Finland - we accomplished the major tasks of that war. The border has been thrown out of Leningrad (St. Petersburg nowadays).
As for V.Suvorov (Rezun) - do not believe in everything he writes. Be more suspicious for some facts. BT-7 i.e. is not a good tank at all. Christie's sunspension is a bad technical decision. Su-2 is not either is a secrete weapon of attack. And so on... But he gives some reasonable answers on some uncovered questions. Maybe he is right, but he lies too much frankly speaking...

polak5
12-07-2005, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Besides, Polish women are a good enough reason to invade. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Fritz
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

jurinko
12-07-2005, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:

First of all: bombing the cities. These bombings killed thousands of people (women, childern, but not factories). Then: breaking Dresden to ruins in the end of war: was it neccessary to destroy a city in the May 1945 (and Dresden was captured by Soviet forces, that was a reall reason to bomb it)?! Is it wat's called civilized actions?



USSR bombed Berlin as well in the outbreak of war. Be sure, if not the Allied strategic offensive, all those 88mm Flak guns instead of pointing to the sky should be tracking your T-34s, with million of theirs crew as well.

Dresden was bombed in February, not May 1945. It was bombed per Stalin´s request, as it was the main logistical crossing of German supply lines for the Odra front. The civilian casualties were horrible.. but not worse as your regime did to your own people. Red Army come to my country and NKVD took 5,000 civilians and took them to the Siberia, only negligible part coming back after years. In that time, we were Allied nation by the way.

Hearing the Russians complaining like you, it resembles me Germans defending their concentration camps by saying "British did the same in Bur War before us.

carguy_
12-08-2005, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by jugent:
This is how it is.
Who would came to the thought that Oncle Joe would start a war?



I`ll happily bite.
Uncle Joe had a menace that ran the country -Lenin- and then it had an even greater menace - Stalin-.Communists happily wanted to inveade the rest of the Europe in 1920 but IIRespublica stopped it all.Your former USSR republics all pacted with Poland against USSR in 1919 because everyone knew the threat USSR created.A menace that killed thousands of his own ppl(including the royal family sic!) now wanted to kill more for an ideal that was a classic utopia.
Right from the start communist regime had been a menace and a danger for the whole old continent.



The Soviet Union never started war, we liberated people if we wher´nt attack by our warlowing neighbours.

First,the Soviet Union was in a war with its own people,killing those who didn`t support communist regime.
In 1919 "someone" thought he could just tell anyone that his regime is the only one to be.In the year 1920 USSR was beaten by forming nations with little but no structures,no modern army but certainly the will to fight the slavery of communism - Czechs,Poles,Ukrainians,Slovenians gave their life to stop USSR.
The powerful nation made of best ideals lost just on the outside of Warsaw in 1920 and went back to its own pot.



We lived under constant treat of beeing attacked by by countries that couldnt stand that we should build the paradise for workers and farmers.

I understand you take communism utopia as a paradise?The head of Russian nation understood clearly that communism cannot be created exactly according to Marx` instructions.Lenin and Stalin concentrated all their will to make all the nation work for one party - its comfort and ambition to conquer everyone and everything.

The paradise looked like this.If you were a farmer,the party sent few guys to make you give them all the food you grow and give you a small amount back in return.Objection meant death for treason of USSR nation.Mass famine and milions of your own people killed.

The only thing other countries couldn`t stand is that somehow Lenin was forcing them to share the same utopia.


We where forced to join a arms-race to protect ourself.

From whom were you protecting yourselves from the start of 17th IX 1939???


Because of the sacrifice we did during the great patriotic war, our economy was drained, and the Soviet Union fell apart

The USSR fell apart because the party had chosen someone with a piece of mind in his head.Someone who was not able to continue killing thousands of his own people for an ideal,someone who came to a conclusion that peace with others will be more fruitful.


In a couple of years russia will became a super-power again. All republics that separatet from us, Estonia, Ucraine etc will come back and join us.

Western Ukraine doesn`t want your sick regime,Estonia doesn`t want to be your shoe cleaning boy anymore.



What for the oil-crize to raise, what country has the biggest reserves?

The rest of the industrialized world will fall apart becuse of the lack of oil.

I guess this is what they teach you in school.Everyone needs former USSR and former USSR doesn`t need anyone.
There`s always a substitute.Most highly industrialised countries had made their diversification of resourses by now.

joeap
12-08-2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:

First of all: bombing the cities. These bombings killed thousands of people (women, childern, but not factories). Then: breaking Dresden to ruins in the end of war: was it neccessary to destroy a city in the May 1945 (and Dresden was captured by Soviet forces, that was a reall reason to bomb it)?! Is it wat's called civilized actions? I guess so, as we've seen it later in Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraque...
Then the PQ17 caravan: do you remember your (I mean western) people have been traited by their commanders? Coward behavior...
Then The Second Front itself. When was it opened? Should I remind you? The war was ending in fact for that moment.
And that's not all.
In fact we saved your front during Arden operation by beginning massive assault on German positions weeks earlier of planned... The Soviet Union never traited Allies during WWII (as far as I know, prove me if I'm wrong) but Allies did...

As for "propaganda". I was born in Soviet Union. I am living in Russian Federation. Not in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but in a relatively small city far form them. I've been abroad, in the Eastern Europe. They were and are living much more better than we did and do actually. Your thoughts are born by western propaganda and Soviet propaganda themself. I'm sure you've never been in Russia if you say so.

As someone else pointed out, the USSR had no scruples against bombing cities (and harming civilians) it just by necessity had to concentrate on tactical air support. Also, a great portion of the Luftwaffe's strength was pullled out off the Ostfront to deal with this and the threat in the Med. If production did not go down, at least new weapons were delayed...and fuel and rail transport was delayed and disrutped.

Second front, the old Russian whine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif There already was a combined second front if you talk into accoutn the Med and North Africa, the bombing campaign and the naval war. How much did the USSr contribute to the naval war? Germany invested in over 1000 u-boats, and 50000 elite (well equivalent to panzer divisions I suppose more than infantry) naval crew which were resources not availble for the East. Lastly, the USA and to a lesser extent the UK and Commonwealth had to fight two separate wars in the Pacific and Europe. Even little expeditions like the liberation of Ethiopia are forgotten now.

As for post war, well I think both sides did some stupid things. I disagree with your list, you might not know Korea and Afghanistan (1980 version not 2001) were Communist aggresion, agree Vietnam and Iraq were stupid wars for the US to get involved in (though I am Canuck so maybe an American would disagree).

ABC_1982
12-08-2005, 06:57 AM
Yes, we've bombed Berlin (in fact since summer 1941). I mean the other point. Not bombing cities by itself is awfull (it's awfull but it's a war), but bombing generaly cities, not factories etc. Cover bombing by itself. The tactic of burned land... That what I ment talking about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Balcans (and I forgot about how Israel was founded).
Destroying the major logistical knot/centre(station) is not the same as destroying the whole city (Dresden). Soviet aviation completed such tasks during WWII with less losts of civils.
As for Naval War - see Baltics fleet operations, and Soviet's fleet operations in general. Pacific and Atlantic is not all...
As for 'poor polish', don't be ridiculous. They were enemies with us for centuries. Remember one of our national heroes: Ivan Susanin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Their (or our, as I'm quater a Polish myself) ambitions hit themselves. They wouldn't lose a chance to conquer Russia, it's a fact.
NKVD destroyed much more people in Soviet Union than somewhere else. And SS destroyed even more, but someone forgets about it, calling Estonian and Latvian SS veterans even heroes, fighters for freedom (interesting opinion - fighting on the side of invaders is fighting for freedom) while NKVD is still something of devil inside...
As for Stalin - the man who led his people to the win is not a man with 'a piece of mind'.
As for Second Front. It is not a favourite whine. But when you build up your strategy, you must know the plans of your Allies. But all Allies say is that: 'we will open the second front as soon as we can'. You can but you don't open it. If you say 'sorry pal, no possibilites there' it's another question. Flaks would be there afterall, despite bombings. None of the commanders will leave his territory without defense.

I'm not saying that USSR is ideal, but it is just as others, and GB, USA and others are just the same. In fact GB agressed much more than USSR (I mean it's colonies).
We've learnt their commanders - it's our fault.
But in the end it's USSR who stopped the nazis with the help of Allies, that's the fact. But not the contrary, not Allies won the WWII themselves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I admire them all, who fought against nazism and fascism, my grandfathers and grandmothers especially.
Sorry for my English.

Kocur_
12-08-2005, 08:04 AM
ABC_1982! Are these thoughts popular among your friends or, more generally, is it the way most of Russians think?

Pirschjaeger
12-08-2005, 10:35 AM
ABC, my "better-half" comes from the former DDR. She has told me a lot of what it was like to live under communism. She said it's not so bad when you a child because you don't know much more than what you can see. But as she got older she started realizing things were not as they seemed. When the wall finally came down and she crossed into West Germany, she could believe the difference. After a short time she felt she was so ignorant as to common knowledge.

I've been living in a communist country for 5.5 years now. I see the same thing with the people here. All to often they are so ignorant in regards to common knowledge. There's little or no ambition either.

I used to room with a gentleman from Azerbijan(spelling?)in Canada. He told me that when the USSR collapsed, under it's own weight, the change was difficult, but better.

I can tell you are proud to be Russian and there's nothing wrong with that. The Russians have great culture, history, and food. (Did I mention women?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But Russia, like many nations, also has a black past regarding humanity. You seem to be a little in denial about that. Just to mention a few of many issues, there's the Ukraine, Poland, The Katyn Forest, the raping and killing of East German civilians after the war, and the starvation and torture of prisonors of war 10 years after the end of the war.

As for the arms-race, no matter who won WW2, Germany or the allies, Russia would have been in the arms-race. It was the nature of the Russian leaders.

Russia is changing for the better. The damage done to the people, their minds, the land in the last century will take a long time to fix. Trust me, I live in China and have seen the damage Mao has done first hand, and everyday. Change takes time and is not always easy. Denying the past will only make positive change more difficult.

Fritz

MLudner
12-08-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IAFS_Painter:
I'd take a lot of convincing to believe the USSR was ever in a position to launch a major attack on the west.


You mean which by standards of the USSR means an attack with a lot more forces than 60 divisions (over 1 million men), 2700 airplanes, 3000 tanks etc.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, sure; they had a lot of stuff - so did the French in 1940. Problem was, the only army worse at mechanized warfare than they at the time were the Japanese .... though it helped the Soviets immensely that Zhukov was in command in the Khalkin Gol; if he had not been there the Japanese probably would have man-handled the Soviet Army at least as badly as the Finns did a few months later. If the Soviets had attacked Germany in '39 it would have been an unmitigated disaster for them. Really, the Soviet Army was in even worse shape in '39 than it was in '41, and operation Barbarossa was nearly the end of the USSR.
I have said it before, and I will say it again:
I'm not sure just whose side Hitler was on, but it certainly was not his own, fortuitously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the Soviets had better armoured doctrine and equipment than most European armies in 1940. After studying the use of armour in the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets compiled a very modern and foward looking theories of armoured warfare.

The problem was, as usual with the Soviet Union, the lag between doctrine, training and implementation. All the theory in the world doese no good if it can't be put into practice. So, while doctrine may well have been quite advanced, implementing it into an army with several million men and armoured formations who were busily refitting took time, money and effort, something that the Soviets seemed reluctant to spend on the training of their armed forces in the late 1930's and early 1940's.

Soviet armour in 1940 was generally better than equavilent British, French, Polish or American equipment. Tanks like the BT-7, T-26E and the new T-34s and KV-1s were significantly better than most other tanks made in Europe or America at the time, the only possbile exceptions being the Pz-III and Pz-IV. Even then the T-34s and Kv-1s gave the Germans a nasty shock when first encountered.

Similarly, their doctrine wasn't based around post-WW1 notions infantry support as in most European countries but more focused on the independence and mobility of armour and its ability to perform large scale encirclements and deep penetrations. In terms of armoured thinking the only nation that the Soviet Union lagged behind was Germnay, and only then because the Germans had implemented a doctrine of co-ordination between the infantry-air-artillery and armour forces that was the best in the world at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mayhaps my post was not specific enough. You are not contradicting me, Friend. Soviet armor was about the best in the world at the time and no German tanks were on par with theirs in '41. Miniature wargames in the early days of Operation Barbarossa are a pain in the butt when you're commanding the Germans! The Soviets had good doctrine, but poor execution - as you say - and that was why they were so bad at it. Zhukov made up for their deficiencies, though.

Understanding the theory of war is wholly different from executing a real war. As a long-time student of warfare I well aware of that. While I am able to routinely butcher my opposition in miniature wargames and nation running games I well understand that would not necessarily translate into real life success. I am under no pressure in a game. The Soviets had the basic theory right, but they could not execute it. The Germans could. That was the difference.

neural_dream
12-08-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
ABC_1982! Are these thoughts popular among your friends or, more generally, is it the way most of Russians think?

ABC_1982 exaggerates a lot and looks hostile in an "Anglo-american"-dominated forum like this one, where bashing France is ok and not a reason to lock the thread. He's trying to say that it's unfair to condemn communism and Stalin and Lenin and Russia and USSR and whatever isn't anglo-american, for everything. He's a young Russian (I suppose 23) and doesn't speak English very well. So, I suggest we all try to understand his point and leave our anti-leftist preaching for another time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


And yes, that's true about the Chinese, Fritz, and Mao (of course you should know even better than I do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), but it's dangerous to say such names in that kind of forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Leave the guy alone, he said what he had to say. Now let's go watch a movie. I hear that Enemy at the Gates is a good one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

SeaFireLIV
12-08-2005, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:


As for "propaganda". I was born in Soviet Union. I am living in Russian Federation. Not in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but in a relatively small city far form them. I've been abroad, in the Eastern Europe. They were and are living much more better than we did and do actually. Your thoughts are born by western propaganda and Soviet propaganda themself. I'm sure you've never been in Russia if you say so.

For me, this is fascinating stuff. It`s interesting to see someone stand his ground for his country and accusing the west of believing propaganda - which is indeed true. I for one have discovered how little I knew about Russia in general and in WWII. A lot of this of course, due to the cold war. A lot of us has also discovered that the West is not the perfect society or even ahs the perfect system... at the same time, neither has the East.

In my view both sides (the West and East) are guilty of this. Fascinating.

MLudner
12-08-2005, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
ABC_1982! Are these thoughts popular among your friends or, more generally, is it the way most of Russians think?

ABC_1982 exaggerates a lot and looks hostile in an "Anglo-american"-dominated forum like this one, where bashing France is ok and not a reason to lock the thread. He's trying to say that it's unfair to condemn communism and Stalin and Lenin and Russia and USSR and whatever isn't anglo-american, for everything. He's a young Russian (I suppose 23) and doesn't speak English very well. So, I suggest we all try to understand his point and leave our anti-leftist preaching for another time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


And yes, that's true about the Chinese, Fritz, and Mao (of course you should know even better than I do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), but it's dangerous to say such names in that kind of forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Leave the guy alone, he said what he had to say. Now let's go watch a movie. I hear that Enemy at the Gates is a good one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to point out I have - by and large - not said much of anything to him. Least of all, about anything leftist. I do object to much of what he has said for its patent falsehoods. He and you do not, likely, understand the sympathetic view I hold of the Russians as a people. In fact, I have had the pleasure of meeting a Soviet Army vet who fought in Afghanistan. I met him at a truckstop back when I was a truck driver in Tonopah, Arizona and we got to talking. He showed me the scar he took from and Afghani grenade fragment. He was a fine fellow and an interesting conversation.
When it comes to the Russians I take the same attitude Grant took toward the Mexicans in that now that the fighting - such as it was - is over I hope we can all be friends.
You also don't understand that both Airmail and myself were being mostly facetious in what we were saying about the French. People need a better sense of humor about these things. I love the movie "A Fish Called Wanda" because it has some good spoofs on Americans done in good-natured humor. I love how they had Kevin Kline's character constantly pulling out right in front of people, cutting them off, then giving them the bird and yelling, "***hoooooooole!" at them afterward. It was hilarious!

Pirschjaeger
12-08-2005, 11:44 AM
It's important to keep in mind the a nation's leaders normally do not represent the nation's peoples, be it Russia, Germany, or the US.

Fritz

Kocur_
12-08-2005, 11:45 AM
Fascinating indeed.

Originally posted by ABC_1982:
As for 'poor polish', don't be ridiculous. They were enemies with us for centuries. Remember one of our national heroes: Ivan Susanin . Their (or our, as I'm quater a Polish myself) ambitions hit themselves. They wouldn't lose a chance to conquer Russia, it's a fact. Attempt to make a Polish prince a tzar with support of part of Russian gentry in the beginning of 17th century is, if I understand correctly, justification for murdering ~million Poles during and right after WW2. Just imagine a German saying something like that about Jews or Gypsies...



Originally posted by ABC_1982:
And SS destroyed even more, but someone forgets about it, calling Estonian and Latvian SS veterans even heroes, fighters for freedom (interesting opinion - fighting on the side of invaders is fighting for freedom) while NKVD is still something of devil inside...
There were Baltic countries volunteers to serve in German-formed units, so it happened that such vulunteer front units from all over Europe, were under Waffen-SS. Fact that one can think that Baltic countries citizens should have had ANY kind of loyalty for Soviet Union, which invaded, occupied and sloughtered their nations in fascinationg too.



Originally posted by ABC_1982:
NKVD destroyed much more people in Soviet Union than somewhere else.
But the most "fascinating" thing is that double thinking: ABC_1982 obviously is aware of communists crimes against nations within Soviet Union, Russians and Ukrainians as the most severely harmed and wants us to think about Russians as victims, but at the same time he is proud of SU, and willing to defend it, even when it comes to crimes done by that communist state to other nations.

AndyHigh
12-08-2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
As for Finland - we accomplished the major tasks of that war. The border has been thrown out of Leningrad (St. Petersburg nowadays).


Man you are funny. First, the border was not IN Leningrad. It was about 30km out of it and it was agreed in 1920 peacy treaty between Finland and USSR. Second, USSR's real mission was to conquer whole Finland. There lot of evidences for that, and anyone saying otherwise is a fool or liar. "Protection of Leningrad" was just a poor excuse bacause why would USSR be afraid of such a small country...

For example, documents found in remains of a division destroyed in northern Karelia showed clearly its main objectives. Which in that case was to attack town of Oulu and cut Finland in half. Already in the 30's Red Army had published an instructional book called something like "Marching guide into Finland".

Why the worlds largest nation by land area has always been so greedy for the land of its smaller neighbours is beyond me. Finns had been living in Karelia for ages, regardless of where the border between Sweden and Russia was. Not anymore. How about tens of thousand executed Karelians under Soviet rule just because they were Finns and considered "unreliable"?

Btw. St. Petersburg was grounded on area where at that time was Finnish related population, and many of its builders and habitants at first were in fact Finns. Just to remind you of the fact how Russia has expanded to west through centuries.

You claim that we europeans don't know about Russia's history. I can't say about the rest but I'm perfectly sure that Finns know about Russia much much more than vice versa.

neural_dream
12-08-2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
It's important to keep in mind the a nation's leaders normally do not represent the nation's peoples, be it Russia, Germany, or the US.

Maybe not always, maybe not everywhere, but generally they do.
Especially in the democratic nations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Germany wouldn't have a Bush, France wouldn't have a Blair and USA wouldn't have a Chirac. Would they? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif In places where the leaders are not elected I can't comment. Difficult to say, but even then there's the option of the revolution http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

This got too heavy.

Let's reply to the original question. If USSR invaded they would lose Leningrad by the Finns and maybe gain Poland. I'm not saying they wouldn't get their hair mussed up, but 10-20 million tops, depending on the breaks.

Pirschjaeger
12-08-2005, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
Germany wouldn't have a Bush, .

I can't comment since I have no idea if Merkel shaves. Maybe Germany now has a bush. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

See you in a week. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

neural_dream
12-08-2005, 12:20 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

p1ngu666
12-08-2005, 01:32 PM
curiously the campaigns in the north have been from my reading, rather static or slow

like murmansk was only 60miles/km from the german/finn jump off point, but they never took the port

Aaron_GT
12-08-2005, 03:25 PM
Kocur wrote:

Its is very 'pleasant' to imagine Red Army equippment was outdatet. Was it? 7,62 SVT self-loading rifle,

Whilst it was the inspiration for the Gewehr and Kar 43s from Germany it wasn't that successful in Soviet service. About a million were made in 1940-45 but that's only a fraction of rifles issued. 17 million Moisin-Nagants 1891/30s were made by 1945 - not all still in service during WW2 of course, but quite possibly most, probably 10 times as many as SVT-40s.

Kocur_
12-08-2005, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Kocur wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its is very 'pleasant' to imagine Red Army equippment was outdatet. Was it? 7,62 SVT self-loading rifle,

Whilst it was the inspiration for the Gewehr and Kar 43s from Germany it wasn't that successful in Soviet service. About a million were made in 1940-45 but that's only a fraction of rifles issued. 17 million Moisin-Nagants 1891/30s were made by 1945 - not all still in service during WW2 of course, but quite possibly most, probably 10 times as many as SVT-40s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like it said, problem was low technical culture. Self-loading weapon required at least basic maintenance, i.e. knowledge, time and interest in it among troops. No chance for that in case of entire regiments with few days training before entering the battle... But the rifle was a well designed and well produced weapon - its failure was not of technical nature (unlike AWS-36...). Later in war, when RKKA had more time to train troops, self-loading weapon issue returned, but with 7,62mm x 39 M43 intermediate cartridge and first weapon to use it, i.e. SKS, but thats OT already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
SVT wasnt inspiration for "entire" G43. G43 was in fact G41(W) but with SVT-like gas mechanism, i.e. regular short-stroke piston instead of that lousy muzzle cap piston.

MB_Avro_UK
12-08-2005, 05:29 PM
Excellent but controversial replies so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

If Russia had invaded Poland to protect herself against Nazi Germany....and somehow an incident (genuine or otherwise) had later provoked war between Nazi Germany and Russia...where would the West have stood?

Would Britain,France,Holland,Denmark,Belgium etc. have supported Nazi Germany?

If so,would the Holocaust never had happened??

Ok only a what if...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

Pirschjaeger
12-08-2005, 10:22 PM
The war was about defense and offense, about resources and land. The war was not about the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a seperate issue on the same timeline. The Holocaust only really became the knowledge of the public at the end and after the war.

The Allies were fighting in defense of themselves.

The only way the Holocaust could have been avoided is if Hitler had been killed very early, before he took power. WW2 would have seen Germany on the Allied side and Russia as the axis. Poland would have still been the first victim since Russia would have gone straight for Germany.

Fritz

joeap
12-09-2005, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
Yes, we've bombed Berlin (in fact since summer 1941). I mean the other point. Not bombing cities by itself is awfull (it's awfull but it's a war), but bombing generaly cities, not factories etc.
Destroying the major logistical knot/centre(station) is not the same as destroying the whole city (Dresden). Soviet aviation completed such tasks during WWII with less losts of civils.

As someone said, it (Dresden) was done in response to a Russian request. Anyway, do you have any figures concerning number of civlians killed by Soviet bombing you say was less? Furthermore, if not killing civilians was a prioirity, why did the Soviets expulse millions of German civilians from Eastern Prussia, provoking many 100s of thousands of deaths, which was German territory before the war? It's funny because I know many Russians and ex-Soviets who think the Germans deserved the bombing (and the expulsions), they are coherent (though I can't say I agree).


As for Naval War - see Baltics fleet operations, and Soviet's fleet operations in general. Pacific and Atlantic is not all...
Don't mean to be rude but so what? If the Western Allies had lost say in North Africa, would the war have been lost? Heck a landing in France could still have occured, and even Italy "perhaps". If the USSR did not have a fleet would the war (a land war) have been lost? No not true either. The Allied troops in North Africa fought as bravely as the Soviet sailors in the Baltic or Black seas (yes I know a bit about the Red Navy's operations). The Atlantic and Pacific were more important strategically, and just as most of the German army was in russia, most of the German navy was in the Atlantic (or even the Med). I believe the Germans dominated the Baltic until 1945.



And SS destroyed even more, but someone forgets about it, calling Estonian and Latvian SS veterans even heroes, fighters for freedom (interesting opinion - fighting on the side of invaders is fighting for freedom) while NKVD is still something of devil inside...

I agree with you, I still think the USSR was wrong to annex the Baltic republics, in no way do I consider SS men as heros. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


As for Second Front. It is not a favourite whine. But when you build up your strategy, you must know the plans of your Allies. But all Allies say is that: 'we will open the second front as soon as we can'. You can but you don't open it. If you say 'sorry pal, no possibilites there' it's another question. Flaks would be there afterall, despite bombings. None of the commanders will leave his territory without defense.
Well we still misunderstand each other then. I agree flak guns would be there, but many more were there because of the RAF/USAAF bombing, it is alos a fact most of the LW fighters were pulled to Germany...and a huge part in any case transferred into the Med the LW is one branch that was always being moved around. The Western Allies knocked Italy out of the war (no jokes about Italians please, they were not that stupid cowardly) my point was the cumalative effect of the other fronts was a "Second Front." The other thing, I don't know if we should pay attention to what politicians promise , Western or Soviet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif IMO neither Stalin nor Churchill/Roosevelt were completely open with each other. I think the problem also came from Hollywood...


I'm not saying that USSR is ideal, but it is just as others, and GB, USA and others are just the same. In fact GB agressed much more than USSR (I mean it's colonies).

You are correct tovarish, no country has lived up to its ideals...the USSR did launch the first satellire, the first human (Gagarin) in space, had a very good public transport for its time, great educational system (as long as you didn't study history or religion but say science).


But in the end it's USSR who stopped the nazis with the help of Allies, that's the fact. But not the contrary, not Allies won the WWII themselves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I admire them all, who fought against nazism and fascism, my grandfathers and grandmothers especially.
Sorry for my English.

Dont worry my friend, я ³?²?рю ¿о руссºÑƒ ¿лоÑ...?. I hope that was spelled right took one year of Russian. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Look you are right the Allies helped the USSR. I am Canadian, I could never think we won WWII ourselves. I also think your grandparents were heros (mine were Greeks living in Egpyt, one Great Grandmother lived through the occupation) I just sometimes think some Russians don't respect what Allied soldiers as individuals did.

Anyway glad to talk, thank goodness the wall came down anyway and for the internet so we can discuss this stuff.

AndyHigh
12-09-2005, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
First,the Soviet Union was in a war with its own people,killing those who didn`t support communist regime.


This was the case during the years of the USSR.
Paradoxically, communists got their share very much too under Stalin's regime. Of the about 30,000 Finnish communists (including many emigrants from Canada and USA) that went to Russian Karelia to build new better world, about 10,000 were executed during 30's by NKVD more or less randomly. Latter rigure is from Soviet archives itself.

AndyHigh
12-09-2005, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
If Russia had invaded Poland to protect herself against Nazi Germany....and somehow an incident (genuine or otherwise) had later provoked war between Nazi Germany and Russia...where would the West have stood?


Well, they DID attack Poland (twice actually) and there was war between Germany and Russia. Anyway the western allies really needed two fronts like in WWI so USSR would be their ally agaist Germany whatever they did against their neighbours. I don't think western allies worried too much about the so called "buffer" countries.

ABC_1982
12-09-2005, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
ABC_1982! Are these thoughts popular among your friends or, more generally, is it the way most of Russians think?

ABC_1982 exaggerates a lot and looks hostile in an "Anglo-american"-dominated forum like this one, where bashing France is ok and not a reason to lock the thread. He's trying to say that it's unfair to condemn communism and Stalin and Lenin and Russia and USSR and whatever isn't anglo-american, for everything. He's a young Russian (I suppose 23) and doesn't speak English very well. So, I suggest we all try to understand his point and leave our anti-leftist preaching for another time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


And yes, that's true about the Chinese, Fritz, and Mao (of course you should know even better than I do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), but it's dangerous to say such names in that kind of forum http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Leave the guy alone, he said what he had to say. Now let's go watch a movie. I hear that Enemy at the Gates is a good one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Everything said here about me is true (even age) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thanks a lot for explaining my thoughts! And don't believe in everything that you read. For example: i've read douzens of Soviet pilots memories, but never met the fact of ours shooting the enemy bailed out pilots. There are only describes of how nazis killed our bail out men. I don't suppose it all truth. And if you read about Hartmane (The blond knight...) - its amazing how people could believe this book... It's pure anticommunist propaganda full of lie. My grandfather was in gulag (as a prisoner, just after WWII) - it was a tough life expirience, but not as much by his memos as described by western authors.
Yes, btw, I'm not communist, so leave your anti-leftism alone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. In fact I think that Lenin and his comrades were criminals against humanity and terrorists. But I am not the democrate (in western mode) either... I am just a patriot of my country.

JuniorUK
12-09-2005, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
ABC, €¦€¦.

I've been living in a communist country for 5.5 years now. I see the same thing with the people here. All to often they are so ignorant in regards to common knowledge. There's little or no ambition either.
€¦€¦€¦€¦€¦€¦€¦€¦..
I can tell you are proud to be Russian and there's nothing wrong with that. The Russians have great culture, history, and food. (Did I mention women?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But Russia, like many nations, also has a black past regarding humanity. You seem to be a little in denial about that. Just to mention a few of many issues, there's the Ukraine, Poland, The Katyn Forest, the raping and killing of East German civilians after the war, and the starvation and torture of prisonors of war 10 years after the end of the war. €¦€¦€¦€¦.
Fritz

Pirschjaeger, as well as yourself I€ve been living outside my country for many years now. I my case it is a €œcapitalistic€ one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, though. Been old enough I know and remember life in USSR very well, and I can compare €œbefore€ and €œafter€, €œWest€ and €œEast€. To be honest with you I would not say that people here are less ignorant in regards to history and indeed common knowledge. It is not so obvious if you just visit a country as a tourist, but it becomes apparent after a while. Well, of course not many of us are honest enough to admit it€¦
I agree with you that ABC_1982 is a bit in denial about some facts in Russian history. It becomes more and more common in Russia nowadays. However, I have to admit that the same can be said about other nations and their history. Not only Russia is trying to alter history.

To ABC_1982€¦

Originally posted by ABC_1982:
€¦.. My grandfather was in gulag (as a prisoner, just after WWII) - it was a tough life expirience, but not as much by his memos as described by western authors.

My grandmother€s family would not agree with this. As well as some other people I happened to know. You grandfather was just lucky, but some people weren€t. Such simplification and generalization are common mistakes on both sides of the Russian border.
Besides, sometimes it is better to exaggerate a little bit to be on a safe side.


Originally posted by ABC_1982:
Yes, btw, I'm not communist, so leave your anti-leftism alone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. In fact I think that Lenin and his comrades were criminals against humanity and terrorists. But I am not the democrate (in western mode) either... I am just a patriot of my country.

Patriot? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Well, can you explain what it means in you terms? As well I would be happy to listen to your definition of democracy.

AndyHigh
12-09-2005, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
and terrorists. But I am not the democrate (in western mode) either... I am just a patriot of my country.

Thats fine. But if you really believe that Russia didn't attack other countries, have concentration camps and perform large scale genocides, you have something to learn about your country's history. It would make you to understand better some things happening in your country at the moment. Many of the western documentarias dealing with for example gulag have infact Russian sources, either individuals who were there, or Soviet time archives. You think they/these are treitors of your country?

Your current way of dealing with the past mistakes isn't gonna make you many friends among your neighbours.

Pirschjaeger
12-09-2005, 08:56 AM
I agree 110% with you Junior. In general, people know very little about history. They tend to have the notion it is to difficult and boring. Same with science. Personally, I've found science and history to be much more amazing than fiction. Mind you, it wasn't always this way. I only became interested in history about 10 years ago.

Fritz

JuniorUK
12-09-2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:

Thats fine. But if you really believe that Russia didn't attack other countries, have concentration camps and perform large scale genocides, you have something to learn about your country's history. It would make you to understand better some things happening in your country at the moment. Many of the western documentarias dealing with for example gulag have infact Russian sources, either individuals who were there, or Soviet time archives. You think they/these are treitors of your country?

Your current way of dealing with the past mistakes isn't gonna make you many friends among your neighbours.

Unfortunately it is very often not only sources of information used, but interpretation of the information itself. Over a period of time and after a couple of generations many facts and events tend to be seen from a different angle depending on current circumstances. Sometimes you don€t have to wait for so long. For instance ( more oil to burn here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif),I can remind you that an idea of executing fellow countrymen for their political believes or ethnic origin was picked up from Soviets pretty quickly by eastern Europeans. Do not tell me that they were forced to do so by Soviets and in fact they were Russians. They were Germans squealing on Germans, or Czechs, or Poles etc Take your pick€¦ As Pirschjaeger said many nations have black past€¦.
I am lucky to have a chance to observe this effect on both sides of the Russian border. Well€¦. Lucky, but not exactly happy with what I see.

Aimosika
12-09-2005, 03:26 PM
ABC_1982 Could you verify from YOUR books of VVS pilots how many Finnish pilots were downed by your airforce?

This comparison could be very funny 'cos Russian pilots claimed about 1000 kills in Finnish front while Finland had about 150 fighter planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
12-09-2005, 03:46 PM
Do not tell me that they were forced to do so by Soviets and in fact they were Russians. They were Germans squealing on Germans, or Czechs, or Poles etc
Well, you have a clear example what communist propaganda can do...
And it can do a lot with simple-minded people! Just convince uneducated peasant, that his family was always poor because of certain group of his fellow [insert nationality]s, and that right now they are a threat to all the positive changes, the 'social justice' , which is just being introduced by soviet allies...
What it takes is killing society leaders, its intelectual elite for instance - what else do you think soviets did in Katy" forest (and other places) in case of Poland... What else happened in Hue stadium during Tet offensive...

carguy_
12-09-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Unfortunately it is very often not only sources of information used, but interpretation of the information itself.

You are right.Everyone of us has his interpretation of the facts.For example I think you`re mad or plain stupid.That is,if you really mean what you`re saying.



For instance ( more oil to burn here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif),I can remind you that an idea of executing fellow countrymen for their political believes or ethnic origin was picked up from Soviets pretty quickly by eastern Europeans. Do not tell me that they were forced to do so by Soviets and in fact they were Russians. They were Germans squealing on Germans, or Czechs, or Poles etc Take your pick€¦ As Pirschjaeger said many nations have black past€¦.

Yeah,many nations have a black past.You say that killing 20milion ppl in XXcentury for their believes compares to few thousand killed.I disagree.USSR,GBR,Germany,Turkey or USA killed more ppl for their believes than other nations summed up in their whole history.But I`m going OT here.

Hmmmmm let me see where oh where did Poles kill for believes,aaaaah here we are.May 1926,the attack on perfectly legal government in Warsaw.3 days of killing - 370 killed,over 900wounded.
Now lets see changes in USSR made in years 1935-1938.Aaaah here we are - over 35 thousand officers killed for what?Suspicions?

Both do not compare.

Newly selected "Polish" communists by Stalin himself built a party in Poland that sent over 500thousand people to their death by bullet in the head,Siberia or gulag in 1943-1956 period.Communists have never been seen as Poles.More like Lenin`s or Stalin`s puppets.Yes,they weren`t forced to do it by communist party in USSR.They were trained by them to do it.

All nations have black pages in their history.How many nations killed milions of ppl for their believes in the 20th century?




I am lucky to have a chance to observe this effect on both sides of the Russian border. Well€¦. Lucky, but not exactly happy with what I see.

Do you travel through your mother Russia to west and east borders?I was just asking because it is widely known that Russia does not have free media.

Kocur_
12-09-2005, 04:18 PM
Hmmmmm let me see where oh where did Poles kill for believes,aaaaah here we are.May 1926,the attack on perfectly legal government in Warsaw.3 days of killing - 370 killed,over 900wounded.

Lets make it clearer: those were victims of fighting between Polish Army units which remained loyal to the government and those, which joinded the coup, plus minor number of civilians, who were killed accidentaly. That was not a political sloughter!

JuniorUK
12-09-2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do not tell me that they were forced to do so by Soviets and in fact they were Russians. They were Germans squealing on Germans, or Czechs, or Poles etc
Well, you have a clear example what communist propaganda can do...
And it can do a lot with simple-minded people! Just convince uneducated peasant, that his family was always poor because of certain group of his fellow [insert nationality]s, and that right now they are a threat to all the positive changes, the 'social justice' , which is just being introduced by soviet allies... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good try, Kocur_, everything works like you€ve said, but €¦ in theory. In practice there were many and many who was far from been just simple-minded peasants. And farther west from the Russian border you go, the less such poor fellows you can find. Unfortunately, the real life was and is quite different from your simplified model. There was a fare amount of stupidity mixed with propaganda, but you are quite wrong assuming that it was the only ground people in Poland for instance supported Soviet regime. Didn€t they? Do not tell me there were Russians everywhere in Poland, DDR etc. All Eastern European (as well as some other countries) countries managed to grow up their own resources who managed in turn to keep them under control for quite a while. The same can be said about a period when Europe was under Nazi. There is always someone. Or it was happier time?
Don€t get me wrong. I am not trying to find excuses for all atrocities.



Now to you, Carguy€¦.

Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Unfortunately it is very often not only sources of information used, but interpretation of the information itself.

You are right.Everyone of us has his interpretation of the facts.For example I think you`re mad or plain stupid.That is,if you really mean what you`re saying.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, you should learn to be polite. It helps a lot



Originally posted by carguy_:
Yeah,many nations have a black past.You say that killing 20milion ppl in XXcentury for their believes compares to few thousand killed.I disagree.USSR,GBR,Germany,Turkey or USA killed more ppl for their believes than other nations summed up in their whole history.But I`m going OT here.


Secondly, I did not say anything like that. It would help if you read before typing.


Originally posted by carguy_:
Hmmmmm let me see where oh where did Poles kill for believes,aaaaah here we are.May 1926,the attack on perfectly legal government in Warsaw.3 days of killing - 370 killed,over 900wounded.
Now lets see changes in USSR made in years 1935-1938.Aaaah here we are - over 35 thousand officers killed for what?Suspicions?
Both do not compare.



The very fact you are trying to compare such things explains a lot. How many people vanished in Holocaust? 1m? 2m? 5m? Any way less than 20 million you mentioned. So it was less painful, wasn€t it? Is it what you are trying to say?



Originally posted by carguy_:
Newly selected "Polish" communists by Stalin himself built a party in Poland that sent over 500thousand people to their death by bullet in the head,Siberia or gulag in 1943-1956 period.Communists have never been seen as Poles.More like Lenin`s or Stalin`s puppets.Yes,they weren`t forced to do it by communist party in USSR.They were trained by them to do it.


Very convenient explanation: Something happened, but we are not responsible for that. Lets blame Russians (Americans in Russian case, or German, French or whoever) for everything. We did not do this or that. It€s all them, them€¦




Originally posted by carguy_:

All nations have black pages in their history.How many nations killed milions of ppl for their believes in the 20th century?



So, what is your guilt threshold, mate? Less than 1 mil, I000 or 100 and you can slip well. Tell us.

AndyHigh
12-10-2005, 04:39 AM
That's not the point here. Point is that this particular country still doesn't really want to officially admit what they did and nowadays tries actively to hide it. For example it took them over 50 years to admit they attacked Finland in 1939 (Jeltsin), and now they seem to be taking back these words (Putin's regime). Its quite depressing and insulting that a country can attack other country and take their lands, and at the end accuse the country they attacked of being fascist war mongerer and quilty for the war etc., plus on top of that make them pay war compensations worth of billions.

Look at how Germans have dealt with these thing. They have to study their black history in school for many years to learn what their nazis and grand fathers did. Its surprising that while some of you admit that communist regime was bad, they still don't want to hear or discuss how bad it really was.


Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Very convenient explanation: Something happened, but we are not responsible for that. Lets blame Russians (Americans in Russian case, or German, French or whoever) for everything. We did not do this or that. It€s all them, them€¦

Kocur_
12-10-2005, 04:40 AM
Good try, Kocur_, everything works like you€ve said, but €¦ in theory. In practice there were many and many who was far from been just simple-minded peasants. And farther west from the Russian border you go, the less such poor fellows you can find. Unfortunately, the real life was and is quite different from your simplified model. There was a fare amount of stupidity mixed with propaganda, but you are quite wrong assuming that it was the only ground people in Poland for instance supported Soviet regime. Didn€t they? Do not tell me there were Russians everywhere in Poland, DDR etc. All Eastern European (as well as some other countries) countries managed to grow up their own resources who managed in turn to keep them under control for quite a while. The same can be said about a period when Europe was under Nazi. There is always someone. Or it was happier time?
Don€t get me wrong. I am not trying to find excuses for all atrocities.

Naa! Of course what I wrote is not everything. But before we go deeper we must make it clear: there are different stages if implementing communist rule in a country: they differ in methods used, in who does most of things, in level of opposition.

I simply meant to describe way in which soviet induced regime managed to get followers who were not communists for lowest duties, in the first period. For I agree with communists at least in one part: the only homeland of all communists is The Homeland of World's Working Class, i.e. Soviet Union. As much as, say, Feliks Dzierży"ski was a Pole by blood, he choosed to be communist instead of a Pole. For nationality is not really question of where one is born, but what he chooses (and that works also in case of 'regular' nationalities)!

As history shows communst rule was never implemented without communist military support, which came from outside (with exception of course of Russia in 1917-20). First period first objective is gaining control over territory and liquidating all institutions of former state. Second main objective of that first period is killing all of those who are patriotic, intelligent, educated etc., i.e. all of people who could (or do) oppose to the new regime. That can not happen without military/secret police presence of outside force. Dont underestimate role of soviets, i.e. Red Army and NKVD in that in Poland in 1944-1953(56) period. That doesnt mean there was no 'Polish' part of that - there was of course Urz...d Bezpiecze"stwa (Security Office) and Informacja Wojskowa (Military Intelligence), which were civilian and military secret police organisations, similar to NKVD. But they were controlled either by soviet officers or 'Polish' communists who came in with Red Army. Remember 1920, i.e. first time Poland was invaded by communists - support for them was zero. First guys must come from outside.
After all of those who would actively oppose are dead or in Siberia (which in most cases is the same), the new regime has it much easier. People are tired of violence and want nothing else but to live in a more or less normal way. They want to work, earn money, have a home, etc. In a way society trades possible opposition for some stability in their livies. And new elite grows! Sudenly ther are directors, chiefs, and all kinds of officials, who lead life better than others, and owe their better status entirely to communist state. They may have no real interst in Marks , Lenin or whoever, even though they show it outside of course. Their only real interst is their career and personal position. The become loyal of course - and so local, non-soviet anymore governing class emerges. The new elite will use any methods to protect what they have. Shooting hungry, poor workers marching on the streets in nothing thay would not do...(East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1956, 1970, 1976, 1981). At the same time society has ZERO access to any kind of free media. Anything they read in papers, hear in radio (later: see in TV) is propaganda, to make them belive thir life is quite good, and the wordl outside communst state is far, far worse (apart form Free Europe, Voice of America, Svoboda etc - but listening those radio stations was a crime!). And the rest is our lives...I mean we saw it happening, didnt we...

Pirschjaeger
12-10-2005, 04:57 AM
Everything you just said, or atleast the results, can be seen in China today. Read the current news involving land and dead villagers. In Beijing there is no sign of it. It's not even in the papers and if it was, no one in Beijing would care. Life is best in Beijing and the government makes sure of that. The people don't realize they are simply a buffer zone between the power and possible rioting farmers and villagers.

The government openly admits to 70,000 riots last year, but no one here has even heard of it.

Communism, in theory, is perfect but when we people ever perfect or even remotely equal with each other in general? Smething else to mention is that communism has never exsisted. No nation has ever achieved communism by Marx's standards. They rewrite Marx in their own language and modify it to suit their goals.

The worst damage I've seen done by communism in it's different forms is social development and environmental.

Fritz

AndyHigh
12-10-2005, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Communism, in theory, is perfect but when we people ever perfect or even remotely equal with each other in general? Smething else to

These kind of words are often heard and said...but a theory which doesn't work in field experiments is a faulty theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If it's principles requires killing people(s) it's even more faulty.

Kocur_
12-10-2005, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Communism, in theory, is perfect but when we people ever perfect or even remotely equal with each other in general? Smething else to

These kind of words are often heard and said...but a theory which doesn't work in field experiments is a faulty theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If it's principles requires killing people(s) it's even more faulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup!

Also anyone can prove that communism is impossible with a simple thinking-experiment: who will clean sewers in communism http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif?

AndyHigh
12-10-2005, 05:30 AM
Which one do you believe more? A labor camp prisoner of 30's who among other extreme things says they had to eat beefs made of human flesh, or a communist party member with bunch of medals and decorations who says that everything was nice and fine and there was plenty of food to eat... Both were Russians btw.

Both may be right, but the latter kind of people weren't propably so happy when USSR died. They lost their elite status.


Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Unfortunately it is very often not only sources of information used, but interpretation of the information itself. Over a period of time and after a couple of generations many facts and events tend to be seen from a different angle depending on current circumstances. Sometimes

AndyHigh
12-10-2005, 05:43 AM
Something I forgot. What was even more paradoxical was the fact that many of these people didn't want to believe executions and disappearings were Stalin's or the system's fault. They thought that some evil local leaders or counter revolutionary people were behind this, not Stalin who would surely help them if only He knew.


Originally posted by AndyHigh:
That was the case during the first years of the USSR. Paradoxically, communists got their share very much too under Stalin's regime. Of the about 30,000 Finnish communists (including many emigrants from Canada and USA) that went to Russian Karelia to build new better world, about 10,000 were executed during 30's by NKVD more or less randomly. Latter figure is from Soviet archives itself.

neural_dream
12-10-2005, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Communism, in theory, is perfect but when we people ever perfect or even remotely equal with each other in general? Smething else to

These kind of words are often heard and said...but a theory which doesn't work in field experiments is a faulty theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If it's principles requires killing people(s) it's even more faulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cuban communism works fine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Fire away Americans http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

JuniorUK
12-10-2005, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Naa! Of course what I wrote is not everything.
Good. I had no doubts you don€t think so simple.


As history shows communst rule was never implemented without communist military support, which came from outside (with exception of course of Russia in 1917-20). First period first objective is gaining control over territory and liquidating all institutions of former state. Second main objective of that first period is killing all of those who are patriotic, intelligent, educated etc., i.e. all of people who could (or do) oppose to the new regime. That can not happen without military/secret police presence of outside force. Dont underestimate role of soviets, i.e. Red Army and NKVD in that in Poland in 1944-1953(56) period.

I hope you know that an idea of communism didn€t originate from Russia. So I think it is better to stop blaming foreigners in everything. It is a dead end. There is always someone local http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You miss one very vital bit. Nothing happens without a reason. There is always a prerequisite for a change. Russia itself wasn€t the only country in 1920s where communists gain significant support. As well as they were supported in some other countries after WWII. Italy, France. Just ask yourself why Nazism flourished in Germany but not in Poland or France or Britain. The answer is it happened because that prerequisite bit was missing in these countries. The same is for the end of the communist believes. USSR has been on a map for years to support commi regimes, but there are still China, Cuba, North Korea. Why?

Originally posted by Kocur_:
That doesnt mean there was no 'Polish' part of that - there was of course Urz...d Bezpiecze"stwa (Security Office) and Informacja Wojskowa (Military Intelligence), which were civilian and military secret police organisations, similar to NKVD. But they were controlled either by soviet officers or 'Polish' communists who came in with Red Army. Remember 1920, i.e. first time Poland was invaded by communists - support for them was zero. First guys must come from outside

And again, it is very easy explanation- an outsider is responsible for everything. But you do admit that there was a polish element in all that mess.

Originally posted by Kocur_:
After all of those who would actively oppose are dead or in Siberia (which in most cases is the same), the new regime has it much easier. People are tired of violence and want nothing else but to live in a more or less normal way. They want to work, earn money, have a home, etc. In a way society trades possible opposition for some stability in their livies. And new elite grows! Sudenly ther are directors, chiefs, and all kinds of officials, who lead life better than others, and owe their better status entirely to communist state. They may have no real interst in Marks , Lenin or whoever, even though they show it outside of course. Their only real interst is their career and personal position. The become loyal of course - and so local, non-soviet anymore governing class emerges. The new elite will use any methods to protect what they have. Shooting hungry, poor workers marching on the streets in nothing thay would not do...(East Germany 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1956, 1970, 1976, 1981). At the same time society has ZERO access to any kind of free media. Anything they read in papers, hear in radio (later: see in TV) is propaganda, to make them belive thir life is quite good, and the wordl outside communst state is far, far worse (apart form Free Europe, Voice of America, Svoboda etc - but listening those radio stations was a crime!). And the rest is our lives...I mean we saw it happening, didnt we...
Very well , It appears from your explanation that there should not have been anyone left in all these countries capable of any kind of intellectual effort and opposition. And still they managed to throw away the Soviets and liberate themselves and they have been living happily ever after€¦. Just remind me what happened with all these former communist leaders of different ranks or people who used to work in government or other state organizations, companies etc in Poland for instance. Have they disappeared, or they still around you? Or do you really think that waiving orange (for example) flags, how it was in Ukraine recently, is something of a sort of magic wand? People had been Soviets and next day they became true Europeans?
Ok, I will stop here. I€m not trying to protect the curse or justify killing of millions as I was apparently accused by Carguy. My point is that for every your argument there is more or less plausible counterargument. Mind you, not the justification of any kind of atrocities etc., but merely explanation what was a driving force behind a historical event.
Just a recent example explaining what i mean is the war in Iraq. Is it a war against terror (official version) or just securing oil resources (very common €œbelieve€)? Argument can be found to support both version. Which one is right one? (lets do not discussed it here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
I think Pirschjaeger will agree with me that the longer you study modern history the less certain you became, and definitely worlds €œbelieve€, €œright€, €œwrong€ takes different shape for you.
ABC_1982 presented a variant of such counterarguments, or , to be correct, another view on the same historical event. What answer did he get? €œYou are wrong because Russia killed millions€ , even he did not try to justify it anyhow. This is not a way to seek the truth. By the way IMO there was a fare amount of correct questions in what he said.

Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Which one do you believe more? A labor camp prisoner of 30's who among other extreme things says they had to eat beefs made of human flesh, or a communist party member with bunch of medals and decorations who says that everything was nice and fine and there was plenty of food to eat... Both were Russians btw.

If you ask me, Andy, I will answer you that I believe both of them. It is another example of such historical contradiction I already mentioned above. It might be difficult for you to accept , but they both are right. For me personally there isn't even question about believe here. I just know the answer. It comes from my own experience and experience of my family.

JuniorUK
12-10-2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
That's not the point here. Point is that this particular country still doesn't really want to officially admit what they did and nowadays tries actively to hide it. For example it took them over 50 years to admit they attacked Finland in 1939 (Jeltsin), and now they seem to be taking back these words (Putin's regime). Its quite depressing and insulting that a country can attack other country and take their lands, and at the end accuse the country they attacked of being fascist war mongerer and quilty for the war etc., plus on top of that make them pay war compensations worth of billions.

This is exactly what my Iraqi friend told me a couple of years ago. Obviously time, place and names were different http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
12-10-2005, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:

I hope you know that an idea of communism didn€t originate from Russia. So I think it is better to stop blaming foreigners in everything. It is a dead end. There is always someone local http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Your hope is fulfilled. Still the first communist state was established on the Russian territory.


Originally posted by JuniorUK:
You miss one very vital bit. Nothing happens without a reason. There is always a prerequisite for a change. Russia itself wasn€t the only country in 1920s where communists gain significant support. As well as they were supported in some other countries after WWII. Italy, France. Just ask yourself why Nazism flourished in Germany but not in Poland or France or Britain. The answer is it happened because that prerequisite bit was missing in these countries. The same is for the end of the communist believes. USSR has been on a map for years to support commi regimes, but there are still China, Cuba, North Korea. Why?

Support for communist parties is very far from establishing communist rule, a communist state. The prerequisite for the latter, with exception for uniqe cases like Cuba, is outside support. Despite support for communists in France or Italy it didnt happen there. Despite lack of any support for communists in Poland - it happened after WW2. The difference was in presence of Red Army. How can it not be obvious?

China is a country with capitalistic economy. Cuba is in worm climate, which eliminates problems with food, not to mention fact that tourist industry brings serious income. North Korea is STARVING and using plain blackmail - nuclear one - to get outside support (food, CONVENTIONAL fuel).


Originally posted by JuniorUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
That doesnt mean there was no 'Polish' part of that - there was of course Urz...d Bezpiecze"stwa (Security Office) and Informacja Wojskowa (Military Intelligence), which were civilian and military secret police organisations, similar to NKVD. But they were controlled either by soviet officers or 'Polish' communists who came in with Red Army. Remember 1920, i.e. first time Poland was invaded by communists - support for them was zero. First guys must come from outside

And again, it is very easy explanation- an outsider is responsible for everything. But you do admit that there was a polish element in all that mess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not EASY EXPLANATION! Its simply true. Or show me a case of establishing communist rule in a country without support coming from another one, communist already. Its not about Russia mind you - or any specific nation. Not at all.

JuniorUK
12-10-2005, 05:33 PM
If you want to carry on...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Originally posted by Kocur_:
Support for communist parties is very far from establishing communist rule, a communist state. The prerequisite for the latter, with exception for uniqe cases like Cuba, is outside support. Despite support for communists in France or Italy it didnt happen there. Despite lack of any support for communists in Poland - it happened after WW2. The difference was in presence of Red Army. How can it not be obvious?
Nope. The prerequisite is not in the outside support. It is in the lack of power capable to protect itself and its regime, as well as a country citizens from whoever. In case of Poland - from Russia or Germany. They managed to resolve this issue in France and Italy after the war, but not in Poland. Poland was bond to be concurred well before WWII like you this or not.
In case of Russia there was the same paten. Firstly, the complete lack of power capable to keep the country under control, and after that - everything else. As for the outside support, well, here comes German help in transferring Lenin through its territory under German guard straight to St-Petersburg in 1917. Did you know about that?

Originally posted by Kocur_:
Its not EASY EXPLANATION! Its simply true. Or show me a case of establishing communist rule in a country without support coming from another one, communist already. Its not about Russia mind you - or any specific nation. Not at all.

The truth is that Germans managed to cultivate Nazism themselves, and in every country they occupied, including Poland, they promptly established local administration happily helping them to send Jews and others to gas cameras. Exactly as it was 5 years later under Soviets. Gas cameras were replaced with Siberia, though. Russians in general do not speak Polish, Czech, German, Bulgarian, Slovakian, Rumanian, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese etc. USSR did not managed to hold for long in all these countries in 1980s -90s without local support and acceptance from local population it had enjoined for quite a while. Chinese managed to set it straight and show Soviets their place, though.

AndyHigh
12-10-2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
This is exactly what my Iraqi friend told me a couple of years ago. Obviously time, place and names were different http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I don't exactly get the analogy, but mayby you could explain? Maybe something to do with Kuwait and its past presence as part of Iraq? Or do you mean USSR didn't start the 1939-40 war after all but Finland did? Why do you try to confuse this discussion with irrelevant facts?

BfHeFwMe
12-10-2005, 06:40 PM
Back in topic, whew.........

Why would the Soviets want to invade Germany? Historically they had an excellent basis to trust the Fascist swine. After all it was Lenin who presented an offer that gave them the very lifeblood to get their party rolling. Treaty of Brest Litovsk, the German empire honored it and the Reds could concentrate in peace on killing their own.

Obviously Stalin believed Hitler could be trusted, he danced all over the place grabbing up several land bargains in East. Even mounting joint operations in Poland. Of course he trusted the Germans, how else can one explain these excursions and complete lack of readiness on the German front.

When the attack came, he was frozen and unable to cope for several days. Some historians make the case he believed his own people were going to oust or kill him.

As for a second front, yeah, where were you guys when France was falling, how about the attack on Britian, battle of Norway????????? They could have used a little help too you know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

polak5
12-10-2005, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Thats way too "what if" for me. Only because attacking and starting a war takes a lot. Look what it took Germany to get to that point in 1939? The USSR although building up its military was in no position in 39 to throw an all out assualt at the Germans. Things would be wayyyy different than they are now if the Soviets had attacked Germany first. The cold war would have started much sooner...

what this guy said: Attack with what?

JuniorUK
12-11-2005, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
I don't exactly get the analogy, but mayby you could explain? ...

Sorry, I won't do it here. The discussion is already off its original track. No need to drag it further in that direction. If you want to know my opinion about historical parallels than start a new discussion please.

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
If you want to carry on...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Support for communist parties is very far from establishing communist rule, a communist state. The prerequisite for the latter, with exception for uniqe cases like Cuba, is outside support. Despite support for communists in France or Italy it didnt happen there. Despite lack of any support for communists in Poland - it happened after WW2. The difference was in presence of Red Army. How can it not be obvious?
Nope. The prerequisite is not in the outside support. It is in the lack of power capable to protect itself and its regime, as well as a country citizens from whoever. In case of Poland - from Russia or Germany. They managed to resolve this issue in France and Italy after the war, but not in Poland. Poland was bond to be concurred well before WWII like you this or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Lack of power"? Original logic! Did Baltic coutries ever in 1918-1940 period had power to protect themselves form SU or they lacked that power, huh? Either Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were ever able to win war agaist SU or you are wrong. The prerequisite is not POTENTIAL situation but what happenes in reality! That reality was actual presence of Red Army in, say, baltic countries or Poland or, more generally: presence of military support from a communist country.

In case of Russia there was the same paten. Firstly, the complete lack of power capable to keep the country under control, and after that - everything else. As for the outside support, well, here comes German help in transferring Lenin through its territory under German guard straight to St-Petersburg in 1917. Did you know about that?
So there was outside support! And get rid of that patronising tone - yes I and most people around know, that Arthur Zimmermann of German MoFA got that idea of using Lenin as secret weapon against imperial Russia.


The truth is that Germans managed to cultivate Nazism themselves, and in every country they occupied, including Poland, they promptly established local administration happily helping them to send Jews and others to gas cameras.
Cultivate nazism? What is that? Asked all Poles to join NSDAP? Are you nuts? They murdered ~3 million ethnic Poles (and ~3 million Polish Jews). That was OCCUPATION by nazis - they did not "cultivate nazism" outside themselves. I hope you do not suggest there was any "local administration happily helping them to send Jews and others to gas cameras" in Poland.


Exactly as it was 5 years later under Soviets. Gas cameras were replaced with Siberia, though. Russians in general do not speak Polish, Czech, German, Bulgarian, Slovakian, Rumanian, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese etc.
Dont confuse the first, most brutal period of establishing communist rule, with what happenes in next years. There were communists from all European countries you mentioned in soviet service who were there. It doesnt take all Russians to speak those languages, to do that. Btw: why do you keep mentioning Russians only? As if Ukarainins, Belarurians and people from all other nations inside Soviet Union were not among soviet officials, officers etc.

USSR did not managed to hold for long in all these countries in 1980s -90s without local support and acceptance from local population it had enjoined for quite a while. Chinese managed to set it straight and show Soviets their place, though.

Did I not say that already? But in the beginning presence of military support from outside, i.e. from an already communist state is sine qua non for establishing communist rule in a country. It is necessary to pacify that country. Then local elite takes local power.

Pirschjaeger
12-11-2005, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Communism, in theory, is perfect but when we people ever perfect or even remotely equal with each other in general? Smething else to

These kind of words are often heard and said...but a theory which doesn't work in field experiments is a faulty theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If it's principles requires killing people(s) it's even more faulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but communism, by Marx's standards, has never really been fully tried. It has been attempted a few times but the leader was killed in the early stages. It's still just an untested theory. The man said we needed apples in the recipe but so far everyone has used lemons.

Fritz

JuniorUK
12-11-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
These kind of words are often heard and said...but a theory which doesn't work in field experiments is a faulty theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If it's principles requires killing people(s) it's even more faulty.
True, but communism, by Marx's standards, has never really been fully tried. It has been attempted a few times but the leader was killed in the early stages. It's still just an untested theory. The man said we needed apples in the recipe but so far everyone has used lemons.
Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good one.
I would agree that Marx's theory has never been applied as he intended it to be. By the way I don't want to sound patronizing, (I am sorry, Kocur_ if it sounded like that. I merely wanted to understand depth of your knowledge. Didn't want to offend you), but I don't think many people here have ever bowered to read Marx themselves. Actual €œCapital€ for instance. Not what other people said about it.

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Communism, in theory, is perfect but when we people ever perfect or even remotely equal with each other in general? Smething else to

These kind of words are often heard and said...but a theory which doesn't work in field experiments is a faulty theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If it's principles requires killing people(s) it's even more faulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but communism, by Marx's standards, has never really been fully tried. It has been attempted a few times but the leader was killed in the early stages. It's still just an untested theory. The man said we needed apples in the recipe but so far everyone has used lemons.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Fritz, its not like that! Communism by Marx is not supposed to be tried anywhere! Revolution to lead to creation of communist state was supposed to occur in the most developed capitalistic state - according to universal "laws" of history, Marx belived he had discovered ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif). It did not happen, as we know. So if Lenin was to try that in Russia - not the most advanced capitalistic state - he had to modify Marx theory, to even be able to mention him as his 'mentor'. The same goes to Mao - as there was almost no industrial working class in China, he modified the theory replacing them with peasants. And so it goes - it has ZERO relation to RL - in any version, i.e. its nothing but blah-blah unless violence is used. Not to mention even in original Marx communism, it was all supposed to begin with murdering anyone to oppose. Marx theory is not beautiful, joyful vision of common happiness - its a bloody vision.

Aaron_GT
12-11-2005, 09:38 AM
Marx's vision of a socialist utopia is in some ways laudable but so fantastically unrealistic it belongs to fantasy land. It's an interesting philosophical construct for the purposes of debate, but unworkable in practice. I am not even convinced Marx and Engels meant it to be anything more than something to provoke debate about the nature of power, capital, class, etc.

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 09:41 AM
JuniorUK! Nphttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AndyHigh
12-11-2005, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
USSR did not managed to hold for long in all these countries in 1980s -90s without local support and acceptance from local population it had enjoined for quite a while.

That's an interesting view. With all the uprisings in Hungary, East-Germany, Tsechoslovakia and Poland, you still think people paved Red Army with roses? I don't think fe. baltic countries had much choice but formally accept occupation during the cold war period. That is far from accepting it in their minds, or in moral level.

Freedom has a bad habit...if you try to depress it, it will eventually pop up somewhere, uncontrollably. If not with good, then with bad.

As what comes to baltic men fighting in German colors (or Finnish). Keep in mind these countries got their freedom after WWI by separating from Russia only to be occupied by Soviet Union in 1940. Its not surprise german army took advantage of this during Barbarossa. Like it or not, these men tought they fought for freedom of their countries in 1944 when they were reoccupied by USSR.

JuniorUK
12-11-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
And get rid of that patronising tone.....
.............
Are you nuts?....


I've already apologized for my tone if it sounded that way. It wasn't intentional at all.

As for my IQ I hope I'm not so hard as you might think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif In fact I agree with nearly everything (but not everything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) you've said, but it doesn't stop me from asking myself, you and others questions. It doesn't hurt, does it? But it helps a lot with better understanding of the subject. Otherwise, if we all agree, what will be left to discuss?
Even it might appear that points we have been discussing for the last couple of days are quite far from the original subject €œWhat if....€, personally I don't think so. I think the answer is not only in counting a number of troops and planes and figuring out whose armour was thicker. That €œWhat if ... €œ could have rolled over real people and counties and my guess some of them wouldn't have existed at all on maps, if... I hope you understand what I mean.
Somebody said that there are no wrong questions, but there are wrong answers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's time for me to take a brake here. I would love to continue, but I am not able to do so at the moment due to some other commitment in RL. I might join the discussion later if it continues to be on the forum's front page. Please, don't think I am running away from answers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Good luck, Gentlemen.

Kocur_
12-11-2005, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
And get rid of that patronising tone.....
.............
Are you nuts?....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh! Clearly now I need to apologize, which hereby I do!

ABC_1982
12-11-2005, 10:47 PM
I'll try to explain what I mean. As someone said already I'm not exagregating facts of Russians history. All I say, that any nations has something it should shame about. Every nation had killed her own people, and people of other countries. Such is life. And Poland with Finland is not the exclusion. GB, USA, Poland, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany... all of them attacked Russia or Soviet Union on some stages of history. So why should not SU do so? What is the reason of it? Before blaiming someone look at the mirror - you are not the better perhaps. Pitty, but true. As for propaganda - Soviets did not believe in it commonly. Just because we've heard one thing and saw just the opposite. We are not just so naive as you probably think... And media in Russia is free enough. At least we have enough information from abroad. We know the official postions of many countries on the main political questions. And do you have them all? What do you know about modern history? Just something that your authors wrote. I.e. did you read Pokrishkin's, Kozhedub's, Arkhipenko's, Mariinski's or Kaberov's memories? Some others? These are the people who fought in the air against fascist, against Hartman's group, against Rudel. It's very interesting to read them and compare it with the memos of Hartman or Rudel for example... Or even with the memos of Normandie-Neman pilot, or with Clostermans memos about Western front...
As for 1939 - USSR had no reasons (not reasons, somenone translate the word '¿о²о´' please) or possibilities of attacking Germany, that's the fact.

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 03:53 AM
I can only offer my viewpoint as someone who travals and lives, not only internationally, but also intercontinentally.

No matter where you are, you will get some of the facts while other will get the rest of the facts. The first country I lived in, outside of Canada, was Egypt. It was a real eye-opener. I realized all my life I had been living in a protective media bubble.

Just imagine, the world has around 5,000 languages. Imagine there are 100 languages with good news sources. Who speaks 100 languages? When I see English language news in various countries, I find many conflicting facts.

ABC has a good point. Russia is not the closed society it once was. It's become quite international, especially in the big cities. They are hearing news about you that you will never here, just as you will hear news about them.

I currently live in Beijing and get a different news from yours or Russia's. I see Chinese WW2 documentaries that will baffle most in the west. Since there is no reason for propaganda, you'll see things about the Western front and the Nazis that you wouldn't have imagined.

That's life. We tend to think that with modern transportation and communication, the barriers are down. Not at all. I profit from this lack of contact and communication. My business is based on this and very lucrative. In many ways, we are still in the dark ages. In many cases, Chinese is much further advanced in certain technologies but your media will not share that with you.

To be honest, and this is not meant to be offensive in the least, but N.Americans are most in the dark. Two vast bodies of water support a thick protective bubble.

Fritz

JuniorUK
12-12-2005, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
€¦I see Chinese WW2 documentaries that will baffle most in the west. Since there is no reason for propaganda, you'll see things about the Western front and the Nazis that you wouldn't have imagined.
Fritz

Can you, please, give us some examples of such differences, Fritz? If you have time of course.

AndyHigh
12-12-2005, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
is not the exclusion. GB, USA, Poland, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany... all of them attacked Russia or Soviet Union on some stages of history. So why should not SU do so? What is the reason of it? Before blaiming someone look at


Should this be read so that you accept Soviet attack on Finland, Poland and Baltic countries in 1939?

Yes, everyone knows there's been countless wars through centuries. Finland wasn't independent before 1917, so all wars that we were part of were between Sweden and Russia, or as part of Russian empire. Sweden started some of these, and so did Russia, like the 1700-21 and 1808-1809 wars which weakened Sweden's status a lot and after which Finland came under Russian control.

Finland and USSR made Tartu pact 1920, which basicly confirmed the borders Alexander I & II had ordered in 1812 and 1833 for Autonomic Grand Dutchy of Finland as the official status was, plus gave Petsamo area to Finland which was already promised by Alexander II in 1860's. Besides that, Russian part of Karelia was agreed to receive status of automic state (which never really happened). Non aggression pact was made in 1932, which USSR canceled in 29.11.1939 before attacking Finland the following day.

It is quite clear that SU didn't care for agreements it had made with other countries. Trying to belittle this by blaming others, and by presenting confusing facts will not do much good.

Btw. You say you have a free press. If so, do you know about border violations Russian airforce has made in Finnish and Baltic airspace during this year? One Russian fighter jet made even crashlanding in Lithuanian soil. I'd like to know if there's been any information about these as Russia mostly denies the violations ever happened.

neural_dream
12-12-2005, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I can only offer my viewpoint as someone who travals and lives, not only internationally, but also intercontinentally.

No matter where you are, you will get some of the facts while other will get the rest of the facts. The first country I lived in, outside of Canada, was Egypt. It was a real eye-opener. I realized all my life I had been living in a protective media bubble.

Just imagine, the world has around 5,000 languages. Imagine there are 100 languages with good news sources. Who speaks 100 languages? When I see English language news in various countries, I find many conflicting facts.

ABC has a good point. Russia is not the closed society it once was. It's become quite international, especially in the big cities. They are hearing news about you that you will never here, just as you will hear news about them.

I currently live in Beijing and get a different news from yours or Russia's. I see Chinese WW2 documentaries that will baffle most in the west. Since there is no reason for propaganda, you'll see things about the Western front and the Nazis that you wouldn't have imagined.

That's life. We tend to think that with modern transportation and communication, the barriers are down. Not at all. I profit from this lack of contact and communication. My business is based on this and very lucrative. In many ways, we are still in the dark ages. In many cases, Chinese is much further advanced in certain technologies but your media will not share that with you.

To be honest, and this is not meant to be offensive in the least, but N.Americans are most in the dark. Two vast bodies of water support a thick protective bubble.

My smaller-scale experience about the world says the same.

JuniorUK
12-12-2005, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Btw. You say you have a free press. If so, do you know about border violations Russian airforce has made in Finnish and Baltic airspace during this year? One Russian fighter jet made even crashlanding in Lithuanian soil. I'd like to know if there's been any information about these as Russia mostly denies the violations ever happened.

As far as I can judge by Russian language electronic media these fact have been reported quite extensively. Definitely the crash-landing incident. ABC_1982 can probably give you more information regarding media coverage, though. Obviously stresses in the story were put differently, but they are always different in such situations.

JuniorUK
12-12-2005, 06:35 AM
As Finland was mentioned many times here€¦ You might find it interesting.
http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/article/Bringing...o+date/1101981879323 (http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/article/Bringing+Finnish+history+up+to+date/1101981879323)

"The old fact that every age writes its own history and its interpretations came true again€¦.€

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Can you, please, give us some examples of such differences, Fritz? If you have time of course.

Well, a couple of things that come to mind, and this also showed footage, was Nazi influence in China. This confuses me a bit since they were allied with Japan. I saw footage of Chinese soldiers being trained, wearing German uniforms, and helmets.

I can't remember his name right now, but one of the China's heros was a Nazi. He was stationed in ShangHai. He stayed to help the Chinese during the Japanese invasion. He used his swastika to stop the Japanese from touring and killing. They feared him. At the end of the war he was sent to face charges in Germany for being a nazi. I don't know the outcome.

Before this time, the nazis were building schools, hospitals, and housing for the Chinese, in the poorer areas.

I have nice footage of d-fights between Japanese and Chinese planes. The Chinese were flying biplanes and not doing to well.

The Chinese(30,000,000) walked 2500 miles inland to get away from the Japanese. They carried their machinery and tools by hand and wagon. They tore up the railraod tracks behind them to stop the Japanese from following. They got to ChangChun(spelling?) and build factories under the mountains. It was all the Japanese could do just to reach and bomb them, of course, having no effect.

The Allies couldn't get supplies and ammo to the Chinese anymore. The Japanese had control of all the routes. American, Canadian, French, and British engineers came up with a 5 year plan to build a road from Burma. This was all with modern equipment. The Chinese went ahead and did it by hand, literally, in just over a year. The mountains were treacherous. People sat all day baging rocks together to make gravel. Even the Children. I have footage.

Interestingly, the Chinese no very little about how their people worked hard during the war. Mao rewrote history. It's understandable why the oldest Chinese hate Mao more than anything. They know he kidnapped and raped China, setting it backwards in time buy hundreds of years. These documentaries I have are underground stuff.

Everyone has heard of what the Japanese did in China. But, you have to wonder how it was possible. The Japanese had special help. So many Chinese sold out their people to the Japanese.

I know a Chinese gentlemen who used to work in the Chinese "CIA". He is a historian by hobby. He showed me documents, copies of telegrams between the Chinese government and the American government. During the 8 nation invasion, the Americans were here but they did not participate in the actual violence. Their hands were tied. They refused to join the attack but also had to refuse to defend. But, Mao's rewritten history teaches the Chinese that the Americans were the leaders.

From what my friend taught me, and from other things I've read, it seems to me that the Japanese were the instigators. The Boxers started out as being supported by the emperor but I have reason to believe they were, and possibly unknowingly, supported and guided by the Japanese.

There were plans written by the Japanese 20 years before this. These were plans for the invasion of China.

Sorry, there are just too many things and in what I just wrote, I left out many details.

BTW, 91 P-51s in China today. Not far from my home, there is a complete P-61 Blackwidow. There's a U2 spyplane in the museum I've visited here a few times.

I've seen many interesting things here that just don't jive with what we were taught in Canada.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
12-12-2005, 08:06 AM
Just another interesting tidbit, during WW2, Dr. Hao, from the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, was accepting Jews who were fleeing from the Nazis. The Chinese knew all about the concentration camps, as did the Allied governments. The difference was, China was the only country in the world that would accept Jews without visas. If you were a Jew, you were free to come to China to escape the Nazis.

Dr. Hao was responsible for saving 10's of thousands of Jewish lives.

The western Allies preferred to keep things secret.

Fritz

Kocur_
12-12-2005, 08:39 AM
The difference was, China was the only country in the world that would accept Jews without visas.
So there were two such countries (before 1939). The second was Poland.

JuniorUK
12-12-2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Just another interesting tidbit, during WW2, Dr. Hao, from the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, was accepting Jews who were fleeing from the Nazis. The Chinese knew all about the concentration camps, as did the Allied governments. The difference was, China was the only country in the world that would accept Jews without visas. If you were a Jew, you were free to come to China to escape the Nazis.
Dr. Hao was responsible for saving 10's of thousands of Jewish lives.
The western Allies preferred to keep things secret.
Fritz

I€ve actually come across information about this. These people, Jews, got in a very difficult situation when PLA started rolling forward. Some of them didn€t have proper passports to join westerners evacuating from China and had to stay in the country. I recon it wasn€t happy time for them.

ABC_1982
12-12-2005, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Btw. You say you have a free press. If so, do you know about border violations Russian airforce has made in Finnish and Baltic airspace during this year? One Russian fighter jet made even crashlanding in Lithuanian soil. I'd like to know if there's been any information about these as Russia mostly denies the violations ever happened.

As far as I can judge by Russian language electronic media these fact have been reported quite extensively. Definitely the crash-landing incident. ABC_1982 can probably give you more information regarding media coverage, though. Obviously stresses in the story were put differently, but they are always different in such situations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I didn't. Just because I wasn't looking for them. If you give me some facts, I'll look for them in media. I should say that there are too many violations by NATO's planes of our border even now. Did you hear about them? I suppose no. Such things are usually not confirmed by violators.
As for accident in Lithuania (This case was broadly covered by Russian media.) - it was navigation instruments fail what led to orientation lost and crash in Lithuania during a usual rebase flight (as far as I remember). Even Lithuanian goverment came to that decision, despite their russofobia. All that 'documentation mess' is just an ordinary thing in this case. It's usuall not to give all docs in one time for any army of the world. The behavior of Lithuanians is awfull here BTW.

ABC_1982
12-12-2005, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ABC_1982:
is not the exclusion. GB, USA, Poland, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany... all of them attacked Russia or Soviet Union on some stages of history. So why should not SU do so? What is the reason of it?

Should this be read so that you accept Soviet attack on Finland, Poland and Baltic countries in 1939?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't speak English well, so what do you mean by the word 'accept'? In Russian it has at least 2 meanings: 'confirm' and 'agree it was good'. I'll say about 'confirm'.
Yes I accept them, just because it's a historical fact. As well as I accept the fact of Finn's attacks in 1941 (and I don't blame them for an attack).
As for being good for USSR - as history showed it would be better to stay on prepared defensive lines for us, not to 'move states borders farther to the west'. But I'm living now, not in the 30-s, so do you...

Allow me ask you a question: Do you accept english invasion in USSR/Russia during Civil war? Do you accept swedish/france/german's(not finn's)/turkish/polish agressions against Russia/USSR. Do you accept methods that GB/Spain/France used to build their's empires?
You do accept (in case of Finland) force methods of getting something you think is yours, or should be yours... While other nations, perhaps, think its theirs territory. That's the war is about...

ABC_1982
12-12-2005, 11:24 PM
As I was one of those who is quilty in borning all this flood and offtopic, I suggest to close the theme or return discussion in its borders. I said all I wanted to say. I hope it will help you to open your eyes a bit about Russia/USSR. To make up a decision on a history fact one should read at least two POVs. One of a defender, one of an agressor. These are desired too: POV of a defender's allies, one of an agressor's allies and one of neutral side. Then make up your own (usually it will differ from official ones).

Pirschjaeger
12-13-2005, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The difference was, China was the only country in the world that would accept Jews without visas.
So there were two such countries (before 1939). The second was Poland. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before 39' there were many. After this time Poland had too much to deal with on it's own. But, there is no excuse for the more western countries. No excuse.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
12-13-2005, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Just another interesting tidbit, during WW2, Dr. Hao, from the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, was accepting Jews who were fleeing from the Nazis. The Chinese knew all about the concentration camps, as did the Allied governments. The difference was, China was the only country in the world that would accept Jews without visas. If you were a Jew, you were free to come to China to escape the Nazis.
Dr. Hao was responsible for saving 10's of thousands of Jewish lives.
The western Allies preferred to keep things secret.
Fritz

I€ve actually come across information about this. These people, Jews, got in a very difficult situation when PLA started rolling forward. Some of them didn€t have proper passports to join westerners evacuating from China and had to stay in the country. I recon it wasn€t happy time for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Today, the only Jewish left from that time are Chinese Jews, and there are very few. They live in ShangHai.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
12-13-2005, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
is not the exclusion. GB, USA, Poland, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany... all of them attacked Russia or Soviet Union on some stages of history. So why should not SU do so? What is the reason of it? Before blaiming someone look at


Sorry ABC, but that's not logical when dealing in politics. Nations defend when being attacked. Nations attack other nations out of necessity(land, resources, technology). At the end of most of these attacks is usually a treaty, or peace agreement.

Beating someone simply because they beat you many years ago is for the playground.

Fritz

ABC_1982
12-13-2005, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Sorry ABC, but that's not logical when dealing in politics. Nations defend when being attacked. Nations attack other nations out of necessity(land, resources, technology). At the end of most of these attacks is usually a treaty, or peace agreement.

Beating someone simply because they beat you many years ago is for the playground.

Fritz
Would you please read before writing?! It's just what I said before. Every agression has a reason for it.
The problem is: Why when USSR attacked Finland it was more awful than when England attacked Russia i.e.? The western politic of double standarts in action? Or something else. Explain me please.
Why when Poland/Sweden/Russia/Nazis invaded in Russia it's OK, but when USSR attacks Poland/Finland it should be called the 'empire of evil'?
Why didn't the 'civilized society' threatened the USSR in 1939, as USSR did when Israel with NATO was about to attack Egypt/Syria in 70-s (don't have time to refresh memories for more exact facts).
Why did Europe allowed nazis to slaughter jews and then allowed jews to slaughter arabs? Is it some kind of reparations for them?
Why everything wrote by me should be refused (without even carefull reading)? Just because it's wrote by russian? If I'm wrong, give me some objective facts (or sources). I'll be glad to see them. But read my posts carefully before and try to understand what I write. It's not so hard, as some people did it already here...
Excuses for my English...

Pirschjaeger
12-13-2005, 07:49 AM
To be honest ABC, I just took your quote from another post, rather than yours. Sorry, I'm a little short on time these days but when I saw your quoted words I simply replied to them. Maybe you were quoted only partially and by doing so changed the context of your post. If so, then my apologies.

ABC, I won't bother quoting from you last post but give my opinionated answer to a question that could summarize what you were asking.

"Why the double standards?"

First, you are very correct in implying that there are double standards. It's undeniable. It's also politics. It's in every nation.

Think about it. We are still in the last death throws of the Cold War. For generations, both sides have been pointing fingers, rewriting history, and "educating" society. Both sides have used the other to control what their peoples see.

It's a never ending smear campaign. If you can't make yourself look good, make the other guy look bad then you'll look good relative to him. I've heard women say they choose to hang with ugly women so they themselves will look good. Same thing, it's all politics.

You are Russian on a "western" forum. Imagine an American writing in Russian on a Russian forum. He'd be asking the same questions as you. Look at the bright side, so far everyone has continued to discuss politics and history with you, a lone Russian, in a "western" forum, with good English.

Truth is, it's pretty interesting and obviously everyone is curious about your views.

Dude, I'm German and have had many interesting discussions in here. I'm used to seeing double standards when it comes to a discussion about war.

Go with the flow, post your honest thoughts, back it up with proof when you can, and enjoy the conversation. Works for me. And when the name-calling starts, ignore it. It means you've won.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Kocur_
12-13-2005, 08:11 AM
Every agression has a reason for it.

Why when Poland/Sweden/Russia/Nazis invaded in Russia it's OK, but when USSR attacks Poland/Finland it should be called the 'empire of evil'?

So when did Finland's or Poland's attacks against Russia take place, which if I understand correctly, you make a "reason" for Soviet Union's invasion of Poland in september 1939 and attack on Finland in december of that year? A simple question, so I kindly ask for a simple answer: a date of that Polish attack against Russia, and a date that Finnish attack against Russia.

Kocur_
12-13-2005, 12:22 PM
Oh, and while you ABC_1982 work on that, check also for some dates of Estonian or Latvian attacks on Russia or Soviet Union.
(I dont mention Lithuania because Lithuania was in union with Poland: Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narod³w or Republic of Both Nations until 1795...)

JuniorUK
12-13-2005, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Today, the only Jewish left from that time are Chinese Jews, and there are very few. They live in ShangHai.

Fritz

That's right, it was ShangHai mentioned in a book where I came across that information.

Have you come across any interesting information regarding relationship between China and USSR/Russia? Something you were surprised to find out.

JuniorUK
12-13-2005, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

"Why the double standards?"

First, you are very correct in implying that there are double standards. It's undeniable. It's also politics. It's in every nation.

Think about it. We are still in the last death throws of the Cold War. For generations, both sides have been pointing fingers, rewriting history, and "educating" society. Both sides have used the other to control what their peoples see.

It's a never ending smear campaign. If you can't make yourself look good, make the other guy look bad then you'll look good relative to him. I've heard women say they choose to hang with ugly women so they themselves will look good. Same thing, it's all politics.

100% agree with you. The link I've posted somewhere above is a good example of such €œchanges€ (http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/article/Bringing...o+date/1101981879323 ). Similar can be found in any country.


Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Truth is, it's pretty interesting and obviously everyone is curious about your views.

Dude, I'm German and have had many interesting discussions in here. I'm used to seeing double standards when it comes to a discussion about war.

Go with the flow, post your honest thoughts, back it up with proof when you can, and enjoy the conversation. Works for me. And when the name-calling starts, ignore it. It means you've won.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Another thing I've noticed living in England for several years now is that people here generally avoid any serious face to face discussions about the country (I mean GB of course ) role in recent historical events such as WWII . Sometimes they have very little knowledge about a subject, but mostly, I think, it's a sign of political correctness. Sometimes it doesn't help if you are seeking for the truth, though.

bazzaah2
12-13-2005, 03:25 PM
I'm English and I've had some fascinating talks about both wars, Empire and so on with friends and family. And my views are far from being politically correct. But a lot of people are falling prey to that condition, I'm afraid.

MLudner
12-13-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Communism, in theory, is perfect but when we people ever perfect or even remotely equal with each other in general? Smething else to

These kind of words are often heard and said...but a theory which doesn't work in field experiments is a faulty theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If it's principles requires killing people(s) it's even more faulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but communism, by Marx's standards, has never really been fully tried. It has been attempted a few times but the leader was killed in the early stages. It's still just an untested theory. The man said we needed apples in the recipe but so far everyone has used lemons.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, yes it has. Vladimir Ul'ianov, Lev Bronstein, and - yes - even Joseph Dzhugashvili were all trying to impliment it in its pure form. That was the disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Mensheviks wanted pure Marxism as well, but wanted a gradual approach, believing that there would have to be a "burgeois capitalist" phase before true Marxism could be established. The Bolsheviks wanted to jump straight in, and that is just what they did since they defeated the Mensheviks.
The problem is that the Soviet Union is exactly what you get when you try to create a communist state. Make no mistake: the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were true disciples of Marx and Engels and they were doing everything within their power to get there.

MLudner
12-13-2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
I'll try to explain what I mean. As someone said already I'm not exagregating facts of Russians history. All I say, that any nations has something it should shame about. Every nation had killed her own people, and people of other countries. Such is life. And Poland with Finland is not the exclusion. GB, USA, Poland, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany... all of them attacked Russia or Soviet Union on some stages of history. So why should not SU do so? What is the reason of it? Before blaiming someone look at the mirror - you are not the better perhaps. Pitty, but true. As for propaganda - Soviets did not believe in it commonly. Just because we've heard one thing and saw just the opposite. We are not just so naive as you probably think... And media in Russia is free enough. At least we have enough information from abroad. We know the official postions of many countries on the main political questions. And do you have them all? What do you know about modern history? Just something that your authors wrote. I.e. did you read Pokrishkin's, Kozhedub's, Arkhipenko's, Mariinski's or Kaberov's memories? Some others? These are the people who fought in the air against fascist, against Hartman's group, against Rudel. It's very interesting to read them and compare it with the memos of Hartman or Rudel for example... Or even with the memos of Normandie-Neman pilot, or with Clostermans memos about Western front...
As for 1939 - USSR had no reasons (not reasons, somenone translate the word '¿о²о´' please) or possibilities of attacking Germany, that's the fact.

Russia might not have .... but Dzhugashvili did. He was planning for it.

bazzaah2
12-13-2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Communism, in theory, is perfect but when we people ever perfect or even remotely equal with each other in general? Smething else to

These kind of words are often heard and said...but a theory which doesn't work in field experiments is a faulty theory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. If it's principles requires killing people(s) it's even more faulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but communism, by Marx's standards, has never really been fully tried. It has been attempted a few times but the leader was killed in the early stages. It's still just an untested theory. The man said we needed apples in the recipe but so far everyone has used lemons.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, yes it has. Vladimir Ul'ianov, Lev Bronstein, and - yes - even Joseph Dzhugashvili were all trying to impliment it in its pure form. That was the disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Mensheviks wanted pure Marxism as well, but wanted a gradual approach, believing that there would have to be a "burgeois capitalist" phase before true Marxism could be established. The Bolsheviks wanted to jump straight in, and that is just what they did since they defeated the Mensheviks.
The problem is that the Soviet Union is exactly what you get when you try to create a communist state. Make no mistake: the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were true disciples of Marx and Engels and they were doing everything within their power to get there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it's not without irony that the revolution occured in the country least likely in Marx's view to have the revolution.

But you're right of course. But you could read Gladkov's 'Cement' to get a perspective on how radical the first few years after the Revoultion really were.

MLudner
12-13-2005, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AndyHigh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Actually, yes it has. Vladimir Ul'ianov, Lev Bronstein, and - yes - even Joseph Dzhugashvili were all trying to impliment it in its pure form. That was the disagreement between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Mensheviks wanted pure Marxism as well, but wanted a gradual approach, believing that there would have to be a "burgeois capitalist" phase before true Marxism could be established. The Bolsheviks wanted to jump straight in, and that is just what they did since they defeated the Mensheviks.
The problem is that the Soviet Union is exactly what you get when you try to create a communist state. Make no mistake: the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were true disciples of Marx and Engels and they were doing everything within their power to get there.

And it's not without irony that the revolution occured in the country least likely in Marx's view to have the revolution.

But you're right of course. But you could read Gladkov's 'Cement' to get a perspective on how radical the first few years after the Revoultion really were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed! That is quite amusing, isn't it?

Have not read Gladkov yet, I will at some point, though. I would recommend "A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891 - 1924" by Orlando Figes. It is an excellent work with much detail and I greatly enjoyed reading it.

ABC_1982
12-13-2005, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
...
As for 1939 - USSR had no reasons (not reasons, somenone translate the word '¿о²о´' please) or possibilities of attacking Germany, that's the fact.

Russia might not have .... but Dzhugashvili did. He was planning for it.[/QUOTE]

Not in 1939 I said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Later perhaps it would be possible, but not in 1939 - we were not strong enough to come through all Europe. BTW Stalin is a Georgian, not Russian. Why Georgia is a friend then, while Russia should blame for him? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LAST TIME: I DON'T MAKE PREVIOUS ATTACKS A REASON FOR LATER ATTACKS OF USSR!!! I SAY THAT EVERY STATE HAD AGRESSED THE OTHERS! PLEASE, READ CAREFULLY! THE AGRESSION DOESN'T MAKE A STATE AN 'EMPIRE OF EVIL', OR THERE WILL BE HUNDREDS OF 'EMPIRES' AND ONLY FEW GOODIES, THAT ARE SO SMALL THAT THEIR AGRESSIONS ARE FORGOTTEN.

As far as I know Rzeczpospolita does not mean a 'republic'. Maybe I'm wrong.
Poland (Rzeczpospolita) invaded to Russia after Ivan IV death. Later we had lots of border conflicts with them. Read some kazaks history. From the baltic region there were attacks also in Medievil (knights orders, i don't remember their names, something like Latvian or Lithuanian knigt orders (some kind of tampliers)). Correct me please, I'm on work and don't have possibilities to look through books...
Finns attacked USSR in 1941 (may be you didn't know it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). They wanted to return their lands lost in 1939 (while USSR wanted to have this territory in 1939 when it attacked Finland). Same reason in fact - territory.

Kocur_
12-14-2005, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ABC_1982:
As for 1939 - USSR had no reasons (not reasons, somenone translate the word '¿о²о´' please) or possibilities of attacking Germany, that's the fact.

Russia might not have .... but Dzhugashvili did. He was planning for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in 1939 I said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Later perhaps it would be possible, but not in 1939 - we were not strong enough to come through all Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm... "We" you say...

BTW Stalin is a Georgian, not Russian. Why Georgia is a friend then, while Russia should blame for him? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its not us, its you. We make a difference between todays Russia and Soviet Union, you think of both as the same thing.

LAST TIME: I DON'T MAKE PREVIOUS ATTACKS A REASON FOR LATER ATTACKS OF USSR!!! I SAY THAT EVERY STATE HAD AGRESSED THE OTHERS! PLEASE, READ CAREFULLY! THE AGRESSION DOESN'T MAKE A STATE AN 'EMPIRE OF EVIL', OR THERE WILL BE HUNDREDS OF 'EMPIRES' AND ONLY FEW GOODIES, THAT ARE SO SMALL THAT THEIR AGRESSIONS ARE FORGOTTEN.
Ok, not reasons, but making them JUSTIFICATION is even worse.


As far as I know Rzeczpospolita does not mean a 'republic'. Maybe I'm wrong.
"Rzeczpospolita" is simply direct translation of Latin "res publica" instead of using word being "import", i.e. "republic", although there is also Polish word "republika" of the same meaning. "Rzeczpospolita" is highly traditional and used only in name of the Polish state.

Poland (Rzeczpospolita) invaded to Russia after Ivan IV death. Later we had lots of border conflicts with them.
After Ivan's death a guy who claimed to be his miraculously saved son appeared at, hm, court of a 'magnat', i.e. a VERY reach noble, who gathered a private army, to help Ivan become tzar, he also made his doughter marry Ivan. That private enterprise was succesful and Ivan was crowned as tzar. Uprising of Vasyl Shuyski threw Ivan off the trone (and killed too). Later on a group of Rusian nobles approached Polish king to make his son, prince W"adys"aw next tzar. So Polish army entered Russia, which at the time was in the state of civil war in fact, with suport of part of Russian nobles. Vasyl Shuyski army (with Swedish contingent) was defeated at Klushyn in 1610 and Poles entered Moscow. Later on a different party of Russians attacked Polish crew in Kremlin, defeated them and idea of "tzar W"ays"aw" was gone. Funny that recently they have new holiday in Russia - to replace anniversary of communist revolution in 1917 - the closest date was defeating of Polish crew in Kremlin in 1612...

Read some kazaks history.
Excuse me? Since when cossacks, i.e. pre-Ukrainians (not in meaning of cavalary formation) are Russians??

From the baltic region there were attacks also in Medievil (knights orders, i don't remember their names, something like Latvian or Lithuanian knigt orders (some kind of tampliers)).
Both of orders you mean (Teutonic Knights and Sword Brethren or Livonian Order) were German, so it happened their states were, where todays Baltic coutries are. Funny you made them Latvian and Lithuanian. If it is not seeking justification for occupying Baltic coutries by SU since 1940, what it is?


Finns attacked USSR in 1941 (may be you didn't know it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). They wanted to return their lands lost in 1939 (while USSR wanted to have this territory in 1939 when it attacked Finland). Same reason in fact - territory.

Same reason?? SU wanted to gain territory, so attacked its so very weaker neighbour. Later Finlands struggle to REgain its occupied by SU territory is "the same"? SU's attack against Finland and Finnnish attack back on SU are equal?

ABC_1982
12-14-2005, 03:22 AM
Its not us, its you. We make a difference between todays Russia and Soviet Union, you think of both as the same thing.
May be you do, but Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland do not. They still ask for apologises and reparations for occupation (not all of them). Ukrania, Georgia paint us out as agressors on their territory. While Georgia came to Empire by its will and Ukrania was a part and a nest of Empire. And historicaly, Russian Federation became an ascentor of USSR. We are paying out all the depts of USSR, in the eyes of the most 'western' people Russia is an USSR which lost some weight.

Ok, not reasons, but making them JUSTIFICATION is even worse.
Read again what I wrote plz, I'm tired of explaining simple things.


Excuse me? Since when cossacks, i.e. pre-Ukrainians (not in meaning of cavalary formation) are Russians??
Since history times my friend, since history times. Cossaks were in general peasants who flew away from their masters or desertires/criminals. The freedom was given to them in exchange of obligation to protect west borders or exploring Siberia i.e. They served the emperor defending their freedom and religion.
There are some significant cossaks organizations in west regions of Russia nowadays. They don't consider themselves as ukranian, but as russian. But they are purely cossacks, that's for sure.
Ukraina means 'place aside of centre', 'on the edge'. BTW the first signifant state of Russia was Kiev's Rus' (with a capital in Kiev as you might guess).
There were not dealings on ukranians, russian, belorus as nations for a long time in history. There've been 'rosses' or russian, slavyan brothers, united by one language basis, religion. Your nickname sounds like an ukranian sirname, aren't you ukranian btw? I can't understand you then...

Both of orders you mean (Teutonic Knights and Sword Brethren or Livonian Order) were German, so it happened their states were, where todays Baltic coutries are. Funny you made them Latvian and Lithuanian. If it is not seeking justification for occupying Baltic coutries by SU since 1940, what it is?

Just because in Russian they sound similar. I didn't made them latvian, I've said that there were attacks from Baltic, two big differences as some ukranians say. BTW Germans are not only in Germany, perhaps you didn't know it... Who are latvinians and lithuanians? Scandinavs?
I don't look for justifications for agressions, I'm looking for one standart for all. What then the justification for GB agressions, France agressions, what about Germany, Japan, USA, Israel, Spain? There is no justifications in politic, just reasons.



Same reason?? SU wanted to gain territory, so attacked its so very weaker neighbour. Later Finlands struggle to REgain its occupied by SU territory is "the same"? SU's attack against Finland and Finnnish attack back on SU are equal?
Yes, absolutely. The reason is one. Both sides considered these lands as their property. If you'll look at the map of Russian Empire you'll understand. BTW: how about foundation of Israel then? But in one standarts as for Finns and USSR, OK? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JuniorUK
12-14-2005, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Excuse me? Since when cossacks, i.e. pre-Ukrainians (not in meaning of cavalary formation) are Russians??
Since history times my friend, since history times. Cossaks were in general peasants who flew away from their masters or desertires/criminals. The freedom was given to them in exchange of obligation to protect west borders or exploring Siberia i.e. They served the emperor defending their freedom and religion.
There are some significant cossaks organizations in west regions of Russia nowadays. They don't consider themselves as ukranian, but as russian. But they are purely cossacks, that's for sure.
Ukraina means 'place aside of centre', 'on the edge'. BTW the first signifant state of Russia was Kiev's Rus' (with a capital in Kiev as you might guess).
There were not dealings on ukranians, russian, belorus as nations for a long time in history. There've been 'rosses' or russian, slavyan brothers, united by one language basis, religion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can back ABC up here. In historical retrospective cossacks themselves as well as their military service can€t be separated from Russia as a state. They were in a very privileged position comparing to other Russian citizens in regards to their personal freedom and, how it is called now, civil rights. But in return they paid back to Russia in a form of their military service to the state. Unavoidable assimilation with a local population took place over a period of time, but the common language and region ground always existed.




Originally posted by ABC_1982:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Same reason?? SU wanted to gain territory, so attacked its so very weaker neighbour. Later Finlands struggle to REgain its occupied by SU territory is "the same"? SU's attack against Finland and Finnnish attack back on SU are equal?

Yes, absolutely. The reason is one. Both sides considered these lands as their property. If you'll look at the map of Russian Empire you'll understand. BTW: how about foundation of Israel then? But in one standarts as for Finns and USSR, OK? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you, ABC, again. Many questions become less obscure if we try to look at not only ideological differences, but firstly at economic reasons behind a country politics. Very broadly speaking all stats disregarding their ideological background can be spitted into several groups at a given moment of history.
1) Countries having significant natural recourses, such as oil, coal, gas etc (sometimes a territory itself can be considered as a resource), and capable to protect them from others. Russia/USSR is a good example of such country as well as USA , China nowadays. It is always in interests of the country to move its borders as far as possible from sources of these resources. In this respect USA is a unique example, but they still have to have significant remote naval presents. Having said that one can look at the map and it becomes more or less clear why Russia has always tried to extend its borders. A lack of good access to seashore has always played very significant roll in Russian policy. It explains its very acute interest in Baltic region. That includes territorial claims toward Finland as well as Russian territorial claim in Arctic region.
2) Countries lacking significant natural recourses, but capable to assemble significant military power to find them elsewhere. Germany is an example of such state in 20th century. Hitler was bond to invade Russia at some stage as whatever he had found in Europe before 1941 wasn€t enough. Nowadays USA is in a very similar situation €" whatever resources they have it is (or will be soon) not enough. What€s why Iraq, Iran and others.
3) Countries lacking both significant resources and power to protect them. They usually fall pray to number 1 or 2 and have to ever accept direct or indirect foreign control, become a part of a conqueror state or seek cooperation with other countries in the same situation trying to protect itself (it usually fails). Examples in 1930-1940s are all countries between Germany and SU to the east and Germany and Atlantic cost to the west.

AndyHigh
12-14-2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
Yes, absolutely. The reason is one. Both sides considered these lands as their property. If you'll look at the map of Russian Empire you'll understand. BTW: how about foundation of Israel then? But in one standarts as for Finns and USSR, OK? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You forgot something. Finnish people had been living in that area for over a thousand year, at least. Only a very few Russians lived there. Second, Winter War was not about the control of Karelia, because USSR clearly wanted to conguer whole Finland. That's a fact. It attacked on all fronts from the northest tip of Petsamo to the southest part of Finland. VVS bombed almost all towns and regions in Finland killing civilians it blamed to liberate and destroyed a lot of property and buildings. The "heroic" VVS strafed civilians trying to escape bombings. They even disregarded geneve conventions by using exploding bullets, which were forbidden. USSR grounded a puppet goverment which was to be the new goverment of the "liberated" Finland. Their objectives were NOT just some border areas.

There's difference between destroying a democratic country and getting back areas that were lost to such militaristic and colonialistic empire. Why its still so hard to admit that USSR/Russia made something wrong? Don't you have any moral? I know that Mr. Putin said that the break up of the SU was the worst geographical disaster in 20th century. Obviously he/russians long after the lost empire that was made together by brute force during a long time frame.

JuniorUK
12-14-2005, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:

Why its still so hard to admit that USSR/Russia made something wrong? Don't you have any moral? I know that Mr. Putin said that the break up of the SU was the worst geographical disaster in 20th century. Obviously he/russians long after the lost empire that was made together by brute force during a long time frame.


As for a moral bit€¦ Why are you pressing so hard to get the chap to admit something you want? Firstly, been Russian doesn€t mean to be responsible for everything the state did. Besides, I think he stated more or less clearly that he is not in favour of any kind of atrocities, but this position doesn€t mean that he has to change his views on reasoning behind historical processes. Accepting these reasons doesn€t automatically mean accepting ideology or, more over, responsibility.
It seams to me that you are confused somehow over a difference between people personal positions and a state policy. As far as I know people in Finland for example are not entirely united in their views on WWII and following history. And the same can be said about nearly any country.

SnapdLikeAMutha
12-14-2005, 09:15 AM
I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but bear in mind that in Sep 1939 the USSR would have had at least a few more high level officers in all levels of the armed forces - even as it was I believe Zhukov was destined for a firing squad when Barbarossa commenced

AndyHigh
12-14-2005, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
As for a moral bit€¦ Why are you pressing so hard to get the chap to admit something you want? Firstly, been Russian doesn€t mean to be responsible for everything the state did.


Huh? Did you read what he wrote? He's opinion was that there was not much difference in 1939 attack on Finland and 1941 Finnish attack on USSR. I think there's a difference and I have the right to express it. He also wrote that because somebody attacked Russia several hundreds years ago (not that they didn't themselves), means that USSR has right to start a war against fe. Poland in 20th century. I think he's stretching things a bit here.

There's different opinions about WWII and especially about Continuation War 1941-44 here (we actually have a free press), but about the only one who really think that Finland may have been guilty for starting the wars are hard headed extreme leftist communists. Finnish Communist Party (grounded in 1918 in Moscow btw.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) got under 1% of votes in 2003 parliament elections.

MLudner
12-14-2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its not us, its you. We make a difference between todays Russia and Soviet Union, you think of both as the same thing.
May be you do, but Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland do not. They still ask for apologises and reparations for occupation (not all of them). Ukrania, Georgia paint us out as agressors on their territory. While Georgia came to Empire by its will and Ukrania was a part and a nest of Empire. And historicaly, Russian Federation became an ascentor of USSR. We are paying out all the depts of USSR, in the eyes of the most 'western' people Russia is an USSR which lost some weight.

Ok, not reasons, but making them JUSTIFICATION is even worse.
Read again what I wrote plz, I'm tired of explaining simple things.


Excuse me? Since when cossacks, i.e. pre-Ukrainians (not in meaning of cavalary formation) are Russians??
Since history times my friend, since history times. Cossaks were in general peasants who flew away from their masters or desertires/criminals. The freedom was given to them in exchange of obligation to protect west borders or exploring Siberia i.e. They served the emperor defending their freedom and religion.
There are some significant cossaks organizations in west regions of Russia nowadays. They don't consider themselves as ukranian, but as russian. But they are purely cossacks, that's for sure.
Ukraina means 'place aside of centre', 'on the edge'. BTW the first signifant state of Russia was Kiev's Rus' (with a capital in Kiev as you might guess).
There were not dealings on ukranians, russian, belorus as nations for a long time in history. There've been 'rosses' or russian, slavyan brothers, united by one language basis, religion. Your nickname sounds like an ukranian sirname, aren't you ukranian btw? I can't understand you then...

Both of orders you mean (Teutonic Knights and Sword Brethren or Livonian Order) were German, so it happened their states were, where todays Baltic coutries are. Funny you made them Latvian and Lithuanian. If it is not seeking justification for occupying Baltic coutries by SU since 1940, what it is?

Just because in Russian they sound similar. I didn't made them latvian, I've said that there were attacks from Baltic, two big differences as some ukranians say. BTW Germans are not only in Germany, perhaps you didn't know it... Who are latvinians and lithuanians? Scandinavs?
I don't look for justifications for agressions, I'm looking for one standart for all. What then the justification for GB agressions, France agressions, what about Germany, Japan, USA, Israel, Spain? There is no justifications in politic, just reasons.



Same reason?? SU wanted to gain territory, so attacked its so very weaker neighbour. Later Finlands struggle to REgain its occupied by SU territory is "the same"? SU's attack against Finland and Finnnish attack back on SU are equal?
Yes, absolutely. The reason is one. Both sides considered these lands as their property. If you'll look at the map of Russian Empire you'll understand. BTW: how about foundation of Israel then? But in one standarts as for Finns and USSR, OK? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I can sympathize. We here have have people calling for reparations for slavery. This, despite the fact that no one alive in the Republic today has either ever been a slave or owned a slave and the fact that we have already paid the wages born of that disease in blood; 630,000 Americans died as result of it during the War of Secession.

The USSR was not going to invade in 1939, you are right. Dzhugashvili was waiting until his army was ready. It probably would have happened in '43 or '44 had not Almost Schickelgruber struck first.

I know Dzhugashvili was Georgian, I even know the town he was born in. His father was a drunk who abused both him and his mother. He was studying in a seminary for a time, but dropped out. He was also a bandit and bank robber and an anarchist in his earlier days. He was still the leader of the USSR, though.

Russians of today - save for those still surviving from back in the day who participated in them, not just anyone Russian from back then - are not to blame for what was done before. You can take that chip off your shoulder, Friend; no one is saying otherwise. I am a sympathizer of the Russian people and I regard them very favorably and I am pleased to see you guys finally getting the opportunity that Ul'ianov, Bronstein, Dzhugashvili, Kollontai ET ALII took from you all those years ago when they over-threw the incipient Russian Republic.

Kocur_
12-14-2005, 02:28 PM
Ukrania was a part and a nest of Empire.

Since history times my friend, since history times. Cossaks were in general peasants who flew away from their masters or desertires/criminals. The freedom was given to them in exchange of obligation to protect west borders or exploring Siberia i.e. They served the emperor defending their freedom and religion.
There are some significant cossaks organizations in west regions of Russia nowadays. They don't consider themselves as ukranian, but as russian. But they are purely cossacks, that's for sure.
Ukraina means 'place aside of centre', 'on the edge'. BTW the first signifant state of Russia was Kiev's Rus' (with a capital in Kiev as you might guess).

I can back ABC up here. In historical retrospective cossacks themselves as well as their military service can€t be separated from Russia as a state. They were in a very privileged position comparing to other Russian citizens in regards to their personal freedom and, how it is called now, civil rights. But in return they paid back to Russia in a form of their military service to the state. Unavoidable assimilation with a local population took place over a period of time, but the common language and region ground always existed.



Khem...,is that what you leanrt in schools? Is that all?

FYI history of what was to become todays Ukraine DID NOT BEGIN when it was incorporated into Russia in XVII (partially) and XVIII cent.!!
Kiev Rus' (for non-slavs: proununced "roosh", but "oo" and "sh" are short) of IX - XII was a great state, advanced culturally and rich from trade. After Mstislav the Great's death in 1125 it was split by his will between his sons, creating several principalities. One of them, partially where todays Ukraine is, was conquerred by Lithuania, and later, in XIV cent. it came into Poland. Then it came into Polish-Lithuanian Union as part of Great Lithuanian Duchy, but finally came under Polish administration. It had nothing to do with what was to become todays Russia, which origins are one of Rus' principalities, i.e. Moscow Duchy.
While upper classes of Ukraine polonizet theirselves quickly, local peasants remained with their Rus' culture. Ukraine, which means something close to 'frontier' was indeed a refuge for people who wanted to dissapear from eyes of any kind of masters. Soon those refugees created semi-independent military entity, Sich Zapotozhska, calling themselves Cossacks. Still it was WITHIN borders of Poland, and Moscow Duchy had zero influence on what was happening in the Ukraine, being busy first with Mongols, then unifying smaller and weaker Rus' prinicipalities, including such unique states as Novogrod the Great - a trade republic, surprisingly similar to Venetia!
Considerable part of Cossacks were in fact in Polish service, being paid for military duties and fighting against Tatars coming from Ottoman Empire almost every year. Others, who were not in Polish service attacked Turks on their own, which btw. lead to long lasting Polish-Ottoman conflict.
Fact that not all Cossacs were being paid, along with oppression of peasants by local gentry lead to uprising in the Ukraine in mid-XVII cent. Its leader, Bohdan Khmielnicki, who btw always considered himself a Rzeczpospilita's nobleman (its kind of complicated: noblemen of any national origin were equal by the right in the Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narod³w, regardless also of wealth; in fact nobles were up to 10% of Rzeczpospolita population!), wanted equal rights for Ukraine - equal to those Poland and Lithuania enjoyed within the Rzeczpospolita. Sadly local gentry, in fact of local Rus' roots too, refused that. After long and bloody war Ukraine was partitioned between Poland and Moscow Duchy, which with time had become Russia already, by a peace treaty in 1667. Part of Ukraine which remained in Poland was elected into status equal of Poland (the Crown) and Lithuania, under Hetman Wykhovski, and so Rzeczpospolita Trojga Narod³w, or Republic of Three Nations was formed, but it was all too little and too late (so terribly, terribly sadly!!). And thats the first time ANY part of Ukraine was within Russia. What you wrote about Cossac status within Russia is true, but for Gods sake: Cossac's and Ukrainian history DID NOT BEGIN in 1667! And Cossacs military service for Russia or exploring Siberia happened AFTER that date!

Kiev Rus' is not equal to Russia! It was a state from which three nations evolved: Belarus, Ukraine and last but not least Russia! It can be roughly said, that part of early-medieval Rus' which found itself under Lithuanian rule, later evolved into Belarus, one which finally was under Polish rule later evolved into Ukraine, and the most eastern part became Russia. Those three nation are not the same, having separate languages, although have common roots. Its very, very roughly like "Franks - France and Germany" situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine


Todays cossac organisation in Russia refer to cossacs as cavalry formation of Russian army, which originally, i.e. back in XVIII was formed of Cossacs, i.e. people from Ukraine. Of course later in history soldiers in cossac formations were of all nations, including Russians. You confuse: 'Cossacs', as a nationality later to become Ukraine and 'cossacs' as military formation.


.................

Just because in Russian they sound similar. I didn't made them latvian, I've said that there were attacks from Baltic, two big differences as some ukranians say. BTW Germans are not only in Germany, perhaps you didn't know it... Who are latvinians and lithuanians? Scandinavs?


You didnt? So you say I misunderstood yours:

From the baltic region there were attacks also in Medievil (knights orders, i don't remember their names, something like Latvian or Lithuanian knigt orders (some kind of tampliers)). ?
.................

Originally posted by JuniorUK :
Firstly, been Russian doesn€t mean to be responsible for everything the state did.

Sure not! And similarly to nazis and Germans, I make clrar difference between Soviet Union and Russians. But tell us, what do we do with following statement:


Originally posted by ABC_1982:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ABC_1982:
As for 1939 - USSR had no reasons (not reasons, somenone translate the word '¿о²о´' please) or possibilities of attacking Germany, that's the fact.

Russia might not have .... but Dzhugashvili did. He was planning for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not in 1939 I said . Later perhaps it would be possible, but not in 1939 - we were not strong enough to come through all Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is those WE according to ABC_1982? Is it WE: Russians? Is it WE: "the Soviet People"? Or is it WE: Soviet Union? Either way ABC_1982 makes himself related, close to, and, seemingly, proud of Soviet Union: a state which invaded so many states in its history, occupied their territories and is guilty of enslaving and killing tens of million of people of different nations, including those under its rule since beginning! And ABC_1982 says WE when Soviet Union readiness to attack Germany in the very year it attacked both Poland and Finland, which lead in both cases to attrocities, is discussed. So attacking other countries is, I dont know: attractive enough, to say WE, but when it comes to attocities its not US, but THEM?


I symphatise with Russians! In fact no other nation was harmed by communists and Soviet Union more then you! Not only in meaning of killing so many Russians in Soviet Union, but also by harming minds of so many generations. THEY, i.e. those who were soviet oppressors of all nations within Soviet Union, including Russians, achieved making you guys confused and ready to identify with THEM. ABC_1982 says he does not justify any attrocities by Soviet Union and is familiar with fact that NKVD and soviet secret police whatever their name was at the time, had murdered so many Russians - and I belive him. But OTOH he says WE meaning Soviet Union, a state which opressed so terribly Russian nation! I find that very sad... Nothing even remotely close to de-nazification of Germany after WW2 happened in Russia, and looking at things today - I dont think ever will, sadly.

JuniorUK
12-14-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JuniorUK:
As for a moral bit€¦ Why are you pressing so hard to get the chap to admit something you want? Firstly, been Russian doesn€t mean to be responsible for everything the state did.


Huh? Did you read what he wrote? He's opinion was that there was not much difference in 1939 attack on Finland and 1941 Finnish attack on USSR. I think there's a difference and I have the right to express it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest with you, Andy, I think you misrepresent what he said before. ABC merely said that there is no difference in reason behind both attacks in 1939 and 1941. In both cases it was a territorial claim. If I am wrong here, i am sure ABC will correct me.
Another thing is reasoning behind the claims. Obviously it was different.
Generally speaking it is very difficult to find two countries living side by side without any territorial friction between them, and obviously Russia can not be excluded from the list. But here I will refer to my previous post.

JuniorUK
12-14-2005, 04:03 PM
Very good post, Kocur_



Originally posted by Kocur_:

Khem...,is that what you leanrt in schools? Is that all?


No, It is not, and I am aware of everything you said further (partly because a half of my family came from Ukraine and some of my relatives still live there ). It is just a little bit difficult to foresee all turns of our indeed interesting discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So, please don't be ironic? Besides I personally see our discussion as a way to fill in gaps in our education, I am sure we all have.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
FYI history of what was to become todays Ukraine DID NOT BEGIN when it was incorporated into Russia in XVII (partially) and XVIII cent.!!........
Todays cossac organisation in Russia refer to cossacs as cavalry formation of Russian army, which originally, i.e. back in XVIII was formed of Cossacs, i.e. people from Ukraine. Of course later in history soldiers in cossac formations were of all nations, including Russians. You confuse: 'Cossacs', as a nationality later to become Ukraine and 'cossacs' as military formation.


Not sure abut ABC, but I don't confuse at all as I said. My comments here is that the end of XVII- beginning of XVIII cent was the time when the Russian empire was born in, well, more or less present shape in terms of territory and its territorial claims. Ukraine was strategically a vital territory for the empire and the state did everything possible to secure it. One of the impotent action that time and later on was eliminating any Polish political and religions influence. I guess that time taking €œon board€ Cossacs (people from Ukraine) was seen as an appropriate step. As well as keeping them under Russian influence by all means later on.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JuniorUK :
Firstly, been Russian doesn€t mean to be responsible for everything the state did.

Sure not! And similarly to nazis and Germans, I make clrar difference between Soviet Union and Russians.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed



Originally posted by Kocur_:
Who is those WE according to ABC_1982? Is it WE: Russians? Is it WE: "the Soviet People"? Or is it WE: Soviet Union? Either way ABC_1982 makes himself related, close to, and, seemingly, proud of Soviet Union: a state which invaded so many states in its history, occupied their territories and is guilty of enslaving and killing tens of million of people of different nations, including those under its rule since beginning! And ABC_1982 says WE when Soviet Union readiness to attack Germany in the very year it attacked both Poland and Finland, which lead in both cases to attrocities, is discussed. So attacking other countries is, I dont know: attractive enough, to say WE, but when it comes to attocities its not US, but THEM?


I symphatise with Russians! In fact no other nation was harmed by communists and Soviet Union more then you! Not only in meaning of killing so many Russians in Soviet Union, but also by harming minds of so many generations. THEY, i.e. those who were soviet oppressors of all nations within Soviet Union, including Russians, achieved making you guys confused and ready to identify with THEM.

I think you are quite broad in you statement aligning all Russians.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
ABC_1982 says he does not justify any attrocities by Soviet Union and is familiar with fact that NKVD and soviet secret police whatever their name was at the time, had murdered so many Russians - and I belive him. But OTOH he says WE meaning Soviet Union, a state which opressed so terribly Russian nation! I find that very sad... Nothing even remotely close to de-nazification of Germany after WW2 happened in Russia, and looking at things today - I dont think ever will, sadly.

Well, I have to agree with you here. In fact it was one of my first question to ABC_1982 as he identified himself as a patriot. He has not bothered to clarify his statement, though.

As for de-sovietization of Russia today, i understand you desire to see Russia admitting one way or another everything you mentioned , but as yourself I doubt it will ever happen. I see to polar reasons here. One is what you have mentioned- there are still too many people identifying themselves, as you said, with THEM. Another is that there is an equally large number of people who has nothing to do with USSR and/ or what it did. I am not sure they have to be responsible and curry on all the blame.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 12:35 AM
I'll try to explain what I mean being patriot. Today I see, that the so called democracy is just another form of battle for power. Almost no one on the top has a prime interest in the future of the state. Not only in Russia, but also in USA, GB, Ukraine, Georgia... Corrupsy scandals, lobbist, politician interests. For me it would be better if professionals would rule the country while population/citizens would choose in what directions country should move. That's the democracy should do, but it doesn't. What kind of professional one will be, if (she) even doesn't read well (Bush Jr. i.e), or drinks a lot (Chirchil, Yeltsyn), or uses drugs... I know that there are the well-paid professionals behind them, but they follow thier own interests...
I know it's utopia, it's impossible, but I don't like modern democracy, it looks like anarchy and lie.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 01:55 AM
About morality - I haven't said a word about moral part, only about reasons. No justifications, but asking for one standart in judjing attacks of USSR and other countries (not Finnland, ok?). Why are you trying me to admit the USSR was wrong? I didn't say it was right, I said it had its OWN reasons, that's all. Just as Finnland had it's OWN reasons to attack USSR later. If to throw away moral part, the main reason is one - territory. If to take a moral part, then I ask you only to judge USSR by one standarts with GB, France, USA, Germany, Israel. Why is USSR is worse than these countries? Explain me please.
Why I don't ask germans to admit they were wrong at last?
About 'we'. A have 3 families i can call 'grands' (such is life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). In WWII one of my grandfathers was a tankist (took participation in Kursk battle among others), the second was a fighter pilot (a quite resultative one), the third was a war reporter. Two of my grandmothers were front nurses, the third worked on the factory all days long. They were 17-23 years old in 1941. I have no moral rights to say 'they' about that time, as they fought for their future,thier children, their grandchildren (that's me among others). They were eager to help mongolians then spanish, then Eastern Europe. They were eager to destroy nazis even before 1941. It wasn't a surprise for them that there will be a war against faschist's Germany. They don't like to say about it, because for a long time their memories differed much from an official POV. That's my past and I don't have right to forget about it. That's why 'we'.
Kocur_, I don't understand you. First of all: I din't say Lithuianian, I've said 'something like... ... correct me please because I don't remember clearly...' A big difference, don't you find? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Don't you agree that Kiev's Rus was a nest for future Ukranians, Beloruses, Russians as you said in your post? And that means for future Russian Empire also.
About cossack: if I will say "Mig-15 was a jet fighter", you will say in that case the following: "No you are wrong because Mig-3 was a prop fighter. Mig-3 was designed by genius ukranians with polands (and finns were helping around, while jews built up the craft),it was a best fighter of its time and Mig-15 is a poor example of a jet built by poor beloruses under the control of evil russians"... I hope you've got the idea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

AndyHigh
12-15-2005, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Generally speaking it is very difficult to find two countries living side by side without any territorial friction between them, and obviously Russia can not be excluded from the list. But here I will refer to my previous post.

This is getting quite pointless and besides there's many countries living peacefully together without any issues. What I'd like to know is the general opinion of THIS war in Russia at the moment. Does Russians in general believe that USSR didn't want to completely occupy and annex Finland to SU in 1939, just like it did for baltic countries? Do they think it was just about the security of Leningrad against aggressive/fascist (in their opinion) neighbours? Do they/you think it was right thing to start this war in moral level?

If some people can't honestly answer their opinion to these simple questions, I think there's no point in continueing this debate.

AndyHigh
12-15-2005, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
I know it's utopia, it's impossible, but I don't like modern democracy, it looks like anarchy and lie.

Don't be so pessimistic, democracy is the only working system in the long term. I definitely wouldn't call Russia a modern democracy yet. Not at the moment. And USA, they basically have only two parties. What can I say.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ABC_1982:
I know it's utopia, it's impossible, but I don't like modern democracy, it looks like anarchy and lie.

Don't be so pessimistic, democracy is the only working system in the long term. I definitely wouldn't call Russia a modern democracy yet. Not at the moment. And USA, they basically have only two parties. What can I say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do like democracy, but not the modern one, not the modern western model. In fact Swedish (and Scandinavs in general) model of state design attracts me more.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Who is those WE according to ABC_1982? Is it WE: Russians? Is it WE: "the Soviet People"? Or is it WE: Soviet Union? Either way ABC_1982 makes himself related, close to, and, seemingly, proud of Soviet Union: a state which invaded so many states in its history, occupied their territories and is guilty of enslaving and killing tens of million of people of different nations, including those under its rule since beginning! And ABC_1982 says WE when Soviet Union readiness to attack Germany in the very year it attacked both Poland and Finland, which lead in both cases to attrocities, is discussed. So attacking other countries is, I dont know: attractive enough, to say WE, but when it comes to attocities its not US, but THEM?


Originally posted by Kocur_:
ABC_1982 says he does not justify any attrocities by Soviet Union and is familiar with fact that NKVD and soviet secret police whatever their name was at the time, had murdered so many Russians - and I belive him. But OTOH he says WE meaning Soviet Union, a state which opressed so terribly Russian nation! I find that very sad... Nothing even remotely close to de-nazification of Germany after WW2 happened in Russia, and looking at things today - I dont think ever will, sadly.
Listen, I don't say WE meaning I'm proud of terrors Soviet Union did. While some Britains are proud of their Empire, while it's killed millions, attacked other nations. Why don't you blame them at all? I'm proud of my country played significant role in destroying fascism. I'm not proud of NKVD's (why secret police BTW? Kocur_ aren't you ukranian?) actions as someone trying to say. But it's my history and I say 'we'. I will not reject the facts as some others. For example: take the Banderas bands. The official position of Ukraine, it was a movement for free Ukraine. Ok, maybe it was. But:
1)they applied the same methods of terror on soviet army troops and civil population (which they were 'freeing up'). Are they better in this way than NKVD? No.
2) they had help from nazi's Germany. In fact they were the servants of nazis. Would Germany gave the slavyan's to found free state? No, slavyans were not humans but slaves for nazis, they didn't made a secrete of it.

The official POV, or maybe not official, but prevailing, that USSR did agressed Finland in 1939, as well as Poland. Sorrowfully it's usual politic for strong states to conquer weak ones. Peacelovers don't live too long. I'm not "proud" of that, but I will not give any excuses for humans nature.
Maybe it was horrible (without maybe, it was), but it was. No one can change past. So we should take some expirience of it and move further, not to stay on some point. To ask for excuses, especially after a long time, is useless and is a sign of weakness.
BTW I'm not of pure russian nationality. I'm about a quater polish, a 1/8 ukranian, a 1/8 a jew, about a half russian.
So (once again, the real last one), when I say 'we', I mean my family, and sometimes I mean USSR (when the official POV was just the same as honest POV of my family in that time). I don't mean Stalin, Lenin, NKVD, Zhukov or someone else.

JuniorUK
12-15-2005, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
What I'd like to know is the general opinion of THIS war in Russia at the moment. Does Russians in general believe that USSR didn't want to completely occupy and annex Finland to SU in 1939, just like it did for baltic countries? Do they think it was just about the security of Leningrad against aggressive/fascist (in their opinion) neighbours? Do they/you think it was right thing to start this war in moral level?

If some people can't honestly answer their opinion to these simple questions, I think there's no point in continueing this debate.

Yes, indeed we are going in cycles. If you want GENERAL Russian opinion, you€d better write to the Russian government and ask them for a poll. It might give you some idea of what people there think. However I really doubt that you would be satisfied with the result.
I€ve tried to explain my private view here, however I think that Russia as a state more likely is not going to fell on its knees and start crying over what SU did. As for its people I doubt that they want to do it too due to reasons I already explained in my previous post.
As for the moral bit and honest answer, I can say only for myself, however I thought it was clear enough by now. Any way€¦I do not think that there is any morality in a war. It is always innocent people who suffer most disregarding their language, colour, shape of their eyes etc. including a political system in a country. Dropping bombs or a bomb on civilians can have a reason and an explanation but have no excuse.
Are you satisfied with this answer, Andy?

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 06:21 AM
Are you satisfied with this answer, Andy?
No, of course, he is not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif First of all: he doesn't care what happened with soviet population during Germans attack or i.e. indian/chinize during British Empire attacks - they took what they deserved! You should differ progressive civilized West and wild Russia and East! How can you say that every dropped bomb is a crime. Of course, NATO's/Allie's ones are not, they are bringers of democracy and justice for all! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif War has morality. It's when you drop tonns of lies about a country and then attack it even it is going to accomplish all your reqs (bustards they are, because your reqs are not acceptable at all by anyone with a piece of honour). You can say you was wrong after all, but did everything right (Bush in action).
This is what is called double standarts.
If to be serious I can sign under each of your words. Great speach! It's really nice to see people who are not shored by western or eastern propaganda but finds his own opinion based on rational thinking not emotions!

JuniorUK
12-15-2005, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Are you satisfied with this answer, Andy?
No, of course, he is not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif First of all: he doesn't care what happened with soviet population during Germans attack or i.e. indian/chinize during British Empire attacks - they took what they deserved! You should differ progressive civilized West and wild Russia and East! How can you say that every dropped bomb is a crime. Of course, NATO's/Allie's ones are not, they are bringers of democracy and justice for all! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif War has morality. It's when you drop tonns of lies about a country and then attack it even it is going to accomplish all your reqs (bustards they are, because your reqs are not acceptable at all by anyone with a piece of honour). You can say you was wrong after all, but did everything right (Bush in action).
This is what is called double standarts.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry ABC, but I am not going to align everyone and everything. And I am not going to put words in someone€s mouth.


Originally posted by ABC_1982:
If to be serious I can sign under each of your words. Great speach! It's really nice to see people who are not shored by western or eastern propaganda but finds his own opinion based on rational thinking not emotions!

Well, you are wrong here about me. Quite contrary I often apply my emotions in such situation. I found it helps a lot to try to imagine myself in someone€s shoes or whatever they wear up there. Choose the most vulnerable side and think what people could feel and think. It is not as I want to be someone else. Just for better understanding. It doesn€t mean, though, I have to be deaf to logic and reasoning. But, as I said, there is explanation for everything, but often there is no excuse.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Sorry ABC, but I am not going to align everyone and everything. And I am not going to put words in someone€s mouth.

That was a joke. Only a joke, nothing more. Sorry for keeping someone misunderstood http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I thought that a smile would make it clear. Sorry once again, bad humour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.


Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Well, you are wrong here about me. Quite contrary I often apply my emotions in such situation. I found it helps a lot to try to imagine myself in someone€s shoes or whatever they wear up there. Choose the most vulnerable side and think what people could feel and think. It is not as I want to be someone else. Just for better understanding. It doesn€t mean, though, I have to be deaf to logic and reasoning. But, as I said, there is explanation for everything, but often there is no excuse.

Logic for me is not to keep emotions away, but try to imagine what BOTH sides were feeling, what are their reasons, thoughts etc. Perhaps logic is not the right word, but its closest of known to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Being objective, perhaps, not an interested side, being neutral...
Pure emotions for me are something a bit onesided feelings. This is good and this is bad. Nothing common with reality.
I do understand i.e. why Finland attacked USSR. I accept it. If to take moral part: it was a "positive" reason. They had that reason. USSR should espect that.
I do understand why Germany attacked USSR. I accept it. I do understand why USSR attacked Finland. I accept it. If to take moral part: I don't think it was positive reason, but it was some logical reason. But they also had that reason. No excuces but there are explanations.

I do understand why France insisted on such shamefull peace treaty for Germany after WW the FIRST. I do accept it. I think it was negative reason. I don't think it was an objective reason. No excuses, and I can't find any logical explanation, just emotions...

Perhaps my English is good enough to understand what you write, but bad enough not to allow myself explain my thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. So make some corrections in mind due to that fact. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MLudner
12-15-2005, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
About morality - I haven't said a word about moral part, only about reasons. No justifications, but asking for one standart in judjing attacks of USSR and other countries (not Finnland, ok?). Why are you trying me to admit the USSR was wrong? I didn't say it was right, I said it had its OWN reasons, that's all. Just as Finnland had it's OWN reasons to attack USSR later. If to throw away moral part, the main reason is one - territory. If to take a moral part, then I ask you only to judge USSR by one standarts with GB, France, USA, Germany, Israel. Why is USSR is worse than these countries? Explain me please.
Why I don't ask germans to admit they were wrong at last?
About 'we'. A have 3 families i can call 'grands' (such is life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). In WWII one of my grandfathers was a tankist (took participation in Kursk battle among others), the second was a fighter pilot (a quite resultative one), the third was a war reporter. Two of my grandmothers were front nurses, the third worked on the factory all days long. They were 17-23 years old in 1941. I have no moral rights to say 'they' about that time, as they fought for their future,thier children, their grandchildren (that's me among others). They were eager to help mongolians then spanish, then Eastern Europe. They were eager to destroy nazis even before 1941. It wasn't a surprise for them that there will be a war against faschist's Germany. They don't like to say about it, because for a long time their memories differed much from an official POV. That's my past and I don't have right to forget about it. That's why 'we'.
Kocur_, I don't understand you. First of all: I din't say Lithuianian, I've said 'something like... ... correct me please because I don't remember clearly...' A big difference, don't you find? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Don't you agree that Kiev's Rus was a nest for future Ukranians, Beloruses, Russians as you said in your post? And that means for future Russian Empire also.
About cossack: if I will say "Mig-15 was a jet fighter", you will say in that case the following: "No you are wrong because Mig-3 was a prop fighter. Mig-3 was designed by genius ukranians with polands (and finns were helping around, while jews built up the craft),it was a best fighter of its time and Mig-15 is a poor example of a jet built by poor beloruses under the control of evil russians"... I hope you've got the idea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.


It's elementary, my dear Watson:
Neither the US, nor Britain, nor France has ever massacred 20 to 30 million of their own citizens. In fact, even Nazi Germany did not kill as many.
Israel must exist, whether you like it or not. 2,000 years of history has shown us this simple truth. Do you know what has happened to them since the Diaspora? Are you aware of the pogroms, massacres, expulsions, 10th class citizenships and more horrors they have suffered through since they were driven from their homeland? Have you ever heard of the Holocast? That was the final proof. This might surprise you, but that is their home country, the Arabs seized it by FORCE OF ARMS in 633 AD. Israel has not been the aggressor and it is not colonialism; it is their country. The 1948 UN Mandate was an attempt to compromise with the Arab population of the area by giving the Jews rule over those areas predominantly Jewish and the Arabs rule over those areas predominantly Arabic in population. 53% of the land would go to the Arabs, 47% to the Jews. The Jews were perfectly willing to accept the compromise; the Arabs were not. The Arabs attacked. I can understand why, for if I were them I would not have been particularly pleased with the idea. The decision to resort to arms, however, is attendant with risks should you lose. They lost. The price was the Jews gained control of most of the area and the Arabs there residing who had fled the area as directed by the Arab powers - Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, et alii - lost their homes. The Arab states have refused ever since to take them in as their own and have kept them on a status of foreigners and the PLO's own behavior has not been helpful (Attempted assassination of King Hussein of Jordan, attempted to over-throw same; throwing Lebanon into utter chaos and drawing Israel into two invasions of that hapless country, et cetera). In fact, everywhere the PLO has ever gone they brought exactly two things: Death and Chaos.
The history of American and Indian relations are far more complex than the propogandists would have you believe. While, yes, the US was in the wrong at times (The Nez Perce War, for example) and did break some treaties with some of the tribes, the Indians themselves broke just as many treaties and were just as often in the wrong themselves. In fact, the primary difference when it comes to massacres is that if you were an Indian getting massacred by the US you would be dispatched instantaneously by a bullet or saber, but if you're an American on the receiving end of an Indian massacre you can expect to be brutally tortured in as imaginative and agonizing a manner as you're tormentors can devise ..... and they could be very, very creative about it. It went both ways. The very idea that there was a genocide is ludicrous. There was never even a thought on the part of the US of wiping out the Indians. (Someone will doubtless reply by quoting the FICTION that Phil Sheridan said "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Sorry, Sheridan denied having ever said any such thing. In fact, he was adamant on it. If you know about his behavior toward Indians, however, it would be obvious that he never said it.) First off, there were far too many people who sympathized with the Indians to ever have allowed the US to engage in a genocide against them. Ever hear about Major Baker? He was a cavalry Troop commander sent to intercept a hostile band of Piegan Indians who had crossed into US terriotry despite having been told not to. The other four Piegan bands were granted permission, as they had never engaged in hostile acts, but this one had and so was denied permission. The first encampment Baker came upon was of a friendly band. However, he was uncertain of who they were. He positioned his troop on high ground over-looking the encampment and crouched near the center of the troop, observing the Piegan below as he tried to determine if these were the hostiles or not.
The tragic part is that one of the civilian scouts with Baker's men, named Joe Cobell, was married to the daughter of the Chief of the hostile band. This man was positioned on the left end of Baker's troop.
The troopers were soon spotted by the Piegan, who informed their chief, Heavy Runner, of their presence. The Heavy Runner immediately grabbed his safe-conduct papers and left his teepee, waving them as he walked up the hill.
Baker rose and watched the man coming. Cobell, seeking to protect his wife and her band, fired and killed the Piegan chief.
The troopers, thinking the order to fire had been given, opened fire on the encampment. Major Baker at first was baffled, demanding to know who had issued the order. He then immediately began running back and forth down the line shouting for his men to cease fire. By the time the firing ceased a number of innocent Piegan had been killed or wounded.
Baker led his men into the encampment and immediately began to see to the wounded. He then looked at the papers the chief had been carrying and was horrified by the entire affair.
Sadly, it was not the idiot civilian scout, Cobell, who paid for this; it was Major Baker. His career was ruined ... along with his life. There was a massive out-cry from one end of the country to the other against Major Baker.
Cobell should have been hung, but Baker was the one who paid. The whole affair was sad, as Mountain Chief had been there, but had departed before Baker arrived and he and his band were the ones Baker had been sent to intercept.

ABC_1982
12-15-2005, 10:24 PM
First of all: I said INDIA not INDIAN, India and China. I should suppose americans don't even know where are these countries?!
But: MLunder, it was then INDIAN land by your logic (they lived there centuries ago not in 663 but much more later BTW), why not USA, Mexica and so on get out of their lands and go back to England and Spain? Or at least give indians 57% of their own land?! Europeans were conquistadors, agressors, slaughters and robbers (and slave traders later). Why should I have any treaties with men who took my land, robbed my property and raped my wife and daughters?! Death for all of them!
No one will give their land to others willingly! Neither indians, neither arabs (they have been living there for centuries already, while jews were not), neither finns...
You judge Israel is innocent because they lived there centuries ago, and later were 10th class people (why so, maybe because the are humans (jews)and 'goys' (non jews) for them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), while Indians are wrong, because they dared to protect their land, their property, their lifes at last.

I don't understand you. Let's return all lands to thier owners at last then. But what age will we take as a basement?! 663? 1600? 1905 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif? Come on guys from Finland, Ukraine, Georgia go back to Russia! LOL. They don't need us as 'masters', we don't need them as 'servants' (just some of them pay us for gas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Have you heard about indian states? Indian culture was great, but now is not. In latin america they mainly assimilated with europeans, while in USA are dying in reservations (because they were too weak to be slaves)... But it is not politicaly correct to take conversations about reservations, I suppose...
About massacring millions. France, Spain and GB killed not their own, but peoples of other countries in millions (which they considered to be their property). It doesn't count I suppose... In USA there were slaves (not only from Africa, but also so called 'dissidents' from Europe) (not citizen, so it doesn't count again I suppose) dying in great numbers. In words there is no racism in USA nowerdays, in fact there is... But this theme is prohibited also...
I hope you've got the idea... You are crying about sins of others, while keep silince about yours. And call it politcorrectness...

MLudner
12-16-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
First of all: I said INDIA not INDIAN, India and China. I should suppose americans don't even know where are these countries?!
But: MLunder, it was then INDIAN land by your logic (they lived there centuries ago not in 663 but much more later BTW), why not USA, Mexica and so on get out of their lands and go back to England and Spain? Or at least give indians 57% of their own land?! Europeans were conquistadors, agressors, slaughters and robbers (and slave traders later). Why should I have any treaties with men who took my land, robbed my property and raped my wife and daughters?! Death for all of them!
No one will give their land to others willingly! Neither indians, neither arabs (they have been living there for centuries already, while jews were not), neither finns...
You judge Israel is innocent because they lived there centuries ago, and later were 10th class people (why so, maybe because the are humans (jews)and 'goys' (non jews) for them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), while Indians are wrong, because they dared to protect their land, their property, their lifes at last.

I don't understand you. Let's return all lands to thier owners at last then. But what age will we take as a basement?! 663? 1600? 1905 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif? Come on guys from Finland, Ukraine, Georgia go back to Russia! LOL. They don't need us as 'masters', we don't need them as 'servants' (just some of them pay us for gas http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Have you heard about indian states? Indian culture was great, but now is not. In latin america they mainly assimilated with europeans, while in USA are dying in reservations (because they were too weak to be slaves)... But it is not politicaly correct to take conversations about reservations, I suppose...
About massacring millions. France, Spain and GB killed not their own, but peoples of other countries in millions (which they considered to be their property). It doesn't count I suppose... In USA there were slaves (not only from Africa, but also so called 'dissidents' from Europe) (not citizen, so it doesn't count again I suppose) dying in great numbers. In words there is no racism in USA nowerdays, in fact there is... But this theme is prohibited also...
I hope you've got the idea... You are crying about sins of others, while keep silince about yours. And call it politcorrectness...

I was making no reference to any statement of yours about India or China, and - frankly - I have no idea why you are mentioning it as I made absolutely no reference to either nation or people. The US has never been a state of War with India, in fact.
Israel should be returned to the Jews because of the horrors they have been on the receiving end of. The Arabs that had taken their land from the Romans could live in any state in the Middle East without a problem would the other Arabs allow it. They speak the same language, worship the same religion, and follow the same culture. The same is not true of the Jews and history has fully displayed this. Your antisemitism does not impress me as a sound argument, sorry.

I did not say the Indians were wrong. I did not say the US was always right. I said the relations between the two were more complex than the propogandists would have you believe. The US, incidentally, has nothing to do with anything that went on before 1776 when the US came into existence. Before that the British were in charge and the Colonies could not even so much as out-law the African Slave Trade as so many desired to do because the English would not allow them to. In fact, in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence one of the complaints Thomas Jefferson made against England was about the fact that the English King and Parliament had refused to allow any Colony to end the slave trade.

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivatng and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.]"

That is what Jefferson had to say on the subject, verbatim. Unfortunately, several Southern representatives objected to this passage and it was struck at their request, foreshadowing the future difficulties we would have over this issue.

White slavery was never legal in the US, or in the colonies previous under British rule. You must, therefore, be speaking of Indentured Servitude. Indentured Servitude is not slavery, sorry. It is a contract made between two people for passage to the Americas. Many who wished to escape the life in Europe for a hopefully better one here could not afford to pay for passage across the Atlantic Ocean on their own so they would contract with someone for a term of years - 7, typically - in which they would work for this person in payment for their passage. Many of these people would, after arrival here, do side-jobs to make extra money and since their contracts had a specific monetary value (The cost of their passage across "The Pond") they would save that money and then buy out of their contract early.
The US was born with the disease of slavery. It is not as though we said: "Hey, dudes! Now that we're free of England let's go over to Africa, kidnap a buch of people, then bring 'em back here as slaves!" It was a PRE-existing condition that we then had to deal with. From the start there was a powerful abolition movement here and all of the states north of Maryland began the process of emancipation very quickly after we gained our Independence, since King George no longer had a say in it. The slave trade was ended as soon as was possible (A compromise had to made with the Southern States setting a specific year in which it could be done .... and it was done as soon as that year came: 1820).
Your assertion that Indians were too weak to be slaves I - as a part Choctaw (maternal) and an unknown tribe (paternal) - take offense at as a racist comment. My people were too proud and independent minded to be made slaves of, not too weak (Which is not to say that Blacks were not proud or independent minded; it's just that they had been dragged 3,000 miles across a great ocean to a far away land. What were they supposed to do? Swim back?).
BTW: You think I am ignorant? What are the origins of the African Slave Trade? Hint: In their language, to this day, the word for a Black man is the same as their word for slave and they are the ONLY people left on the entire Earth still practicing Black African Slavery.

There is still racism in the US, you are right; both Black and White (and Hispanic, and Asian). However, it is no longer institutionalized or legislated; as it NEVER should have been, but the South still had some evolving to do after the War of Secession. Such laws have been struck from the books as they should have been. In fact, as they were violations of the Constitutional Rights of citizens of this Republic - surprise, both Black and White - they should never have been allowed to exist. I cannot change that they were, though.

The British, Spaniards and French never engaged in the wholesale slaughter of ANYONE on a scale even comparable to what the Bolsheviks and Dzhugashvili did. But, like I have said, YOU - to my knowledge - are not responsible for it and neither is Russia today. The responsible parties are Ul'ianov, Bronstein, Dzhugashvili and others of thier ilk who issued the orders or supported and encouraged the conditions that brought the mass of death and destruction. I don't even blame all of the Germans or even SS for what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust. The conditions that caused it were put in place by Hitler and his cronies; without them it never would have happened. They bear the responsibility for it. The Totenkopfverbande and Einsatzgruppen existed because the Nazi leadership, under direction from the likes of Hitler and Himmler, ordered their creation and assigned them their mission. They are the ones I hold accountable.

While in theory your argument about defending their lives and lands is sound, there was also a reality which has to be dealt with. There had been a mass migration from Europe to the Americas of people fleeing tyranny and poverty there seeking a better life here (Though, that is more relevant to the North American Colonies than to Central and South America, of which I AM NOT speaking). The British eventually, due to wars with their European neighbors, came into complete control of all the colonies here, including those of Dutch or French origins. 13 of those colonies eventually declared their Independence (1776) and then gained their Independence (1783). Therein lay the origins of the United States and the US is as native a nation to this continent as any of the Indian tribes here at the time, as it is here this Republic was born. After the British were gone the US begins its dealings with the Indians as a nation unto itself no longer beholden to the English King or Parliament. In our contact with Indians we were not invariably the aggressors, but were just as often aggressed against by them.
How were the Seminoles, for example, defending their homes and lives when they were launching incessant raids into the US from Spanish Florida, butchering our citizens and looting their homes, when the US had not attacked or launched any raids against them? The US had done nothing to them. The US had not even threatened their lives or freedom. Their raids caused us to move against them. We had little choice, in fact.
This is how Political Correctness works: Condemn someone not PC as a villain and scum of the earth. To prove they are so illustrate only examples of misbehavior on their part and if there are not enough examples of this, then distort history by addressing only those parts of the events which will support the PC view. Disregard anything that contradicts the propoganda. The Seminoles are an example of this. All the PC propoganda ever talks about is the US invasion of Florida and campaigns against the Seminoles, it leaves out any mention of the events that led us there. Back when I was in the National Guard we had this young Black man in our troop who was attending the University of California San Bernadino and almost every drill he would walk up to me and babble about the evil US only to get shot down within seconds of beginning the argument. One of my very favorite times was when he walked up to me and out of the clear blue sky said, "Did you know your great (tone dripping with sarcasm) Abraham Lincoln hung 38 Indians?"
"Yes," I replied, "which he had reduced from over 300."
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif That was the look on his face just before he wandered off. His Commissar at the Political Indoctrination Center known as UCSB had failed to mention that part of the story and he was at an immediate loss.
Had he stuck around a minute rather than wandering away in a state of dazed confusion like a robot whose programming had just been conflicted I would have told him the rest of the story. Boy, would he have been confused then! He might well have passed out.
What was really funny was that was the very last time he ever did that.

Being a Patriot of your country does not mean you have to condemn others in an attempt to protect your own. Your people were Dzhugashvili's greatest victims; he did not kill nearly as many Finns as he did Russians and Ukrainians. His aggression against Finland is past, and is reality, and is unjustifiable. Your attempts to say the Finns were just as bad for attacking in 1941 are specious. The Finns were attacked by Dzhugashvili whose intention was to bring Finland into the USSR. Though he failed, he did seize large tracts of Finnish land. The Finns were trying to regain what he had taken.
You will never hear me trying to justify the Nez Perce War, for example, or what Andrew Jackson did in sending the Cherokee, Choctaws, Chickasaws and others to Oklahoma (That one particularly irks me because of my own partial Choctaw lineage) because there was no justification. The US was flat-out in the wrong in both cases.

MLudner
12-16-2005, 12:21 PM
Oh, yes, and; There are no Indians dying on reservations today except of old age. The only Indians in this day living on reservations are those to choose to do so, no force of law is keeping them there. The ones who have stayed are the ones sadly trying to recreate a by-gone era that can never be had again anymore than the people of my European Lineage - the Celts - will ever have Britain, France or Northern Italy again. Things change. (And, by the way, I will admit that my people were more often than not the cause of their own woes. That idiot, BRENNVS, should never have sacked Rome. It might also have been a bright idea not to keep on raiding against them.)

I do not advocate restoration except in finite cases were its necessity has been demonstrated. The Jews are the only real example of that today. I believe they have sufficiently paid the penalty for their offenses against Rome, myself. (The Jews of old brought the Romans down on their own heads through their own folly much as my own Celts did.)

JuniorUK
12-16-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:

I was making no reference to any statement of yours about India or China, and - frankly - ...........

..... The US was flat-out in the wrong in both cases.

Really good post, MLudner. No sarcasm in my voice. I do mean it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

We've discussed main historical aspects as well as morality of events related to a role of USSR in the European and world history before and after WWII. I don't know if you agree with me, but I think that by now all differences in our views (I mean all of us who still bothers to post) are more or less understood.
I would try to suggest a slight change in the direction of our discussion. It might be interesting for somebody and will keep the discussion going. Otherwise it seams to me we are going in cycles and repeating ourself

So...
As a direct result of WWII and subsequent dominant role of USSR over a period of about 45 years ,
there are still some unresolved territorial and moral claims towards Russia, seen as the main SU's successor nowadays. If you are agree with this general idea, what in your opinion does Russia as a state and Russia as a society have to do to resolve existing issues?

MLudner
12-16-2005, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

I was making no reference to any statement of yours about India or China, and - frankly - ...........

..... The US was flat-out in the wrong in both cases.

Really good post, Mlunder. No sarcasm in my voice. I do mean it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

We've discussed main historical aspects as well as morality of events related to a role of USSR in the European and world history before and after WWII. I don't know if you agree with me, but I think that by now all differences in our views (I mean all of us who still bothers to post) are more or less understood.
I would try to suggest a slight change in the direction of our discussion. It might be interesting for somebody and will keep the discussion going. Otherwise it seams to me we are going in cycles and repeating ourself

So...
As a direct result of WWII and subsequent dominant role of USSR over a period of about 45 years ,
there are still some unresolved territorial and moral claims towards Russia, seen as the main SU's successor nowadays. If you are agree with this general idea, what in your opinion does Russia as a state and Russia as a society have to do to resolve existing issues? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I will admit I am not up-to-date on the claims being made by people against the Russian Federation. However, I would assume the Finns are demanding a return of the lands they lost to Dzhugashvili, for one.
Personally, I would recommend on that one the Russians give the land back and say sorry. It's not like their entire nation is at stake. It would be a good gesture and would settle an issue caused by a tyrant who once ruled their nation. It would also go far to showing how different they are now from those dark times.

As for any others I would have to develop a greater understanding of the history involved and what the claims are.

Ultimately, however, they are issues the Russians will have to settle with their neighbors by compromise. They are in the unfortunate position of being a collapsing empire and no doubt many of those previously ruled by them or who were on the receiving end of their last and darkest age (The one previous to the current Federation; the USSR).

Are the Ukrainians making claims based on the millions of them Dzhugashvili starved and butchered? If so, there's a prickly pear, indeed. There, however, I would say the Russians owe squat because the Soviet system killed large numbers of Russians as well and who are they to make claims against? Are they to go down to Hell and demand of Satan himself that Dzhugashvili pay reparations to those he wronged?
Good luck.
Some things just can't be redressed. He!!, I'd still like to see that screwhead Tarleton hang for things he did to us during the Revolutionary War. I'm still surprised he was not gutted when we took him at Yorktown.
Good luck.
There are points where one must let bygones be bygones.
Then again, the Russians might want to heed that Germany paid reparations for what the the Nazis did to the Jews, and the US paid reparations to Japanese-Americans still living who had been put in the internment camps ..... even though we did not kill them or torture them.
But I would say they would have to volunteer to do it and not be forced to.

neural_dream
12-16-2005, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Really good post, Mlunder.

indeed

Originally posted by MLudner:
I would assume the Finns are demanding a return of the lands they lost to Dzhugashvili, for one.
Personally, I would recommend on that one the Russians give the land back and say sorry. It's not like their entire nation is at stake. It would be a good gesture and would settle an issue caused by a tyrant who once ruled their nation. It would also go far to showing how different they are now from those dark times.
Things aren't that simple and I'm sure you know it. There must be extremely intense political conditions to even think about returning a territory inhabited by your people for so long. Dzhugashvili isn't exactly Gaza.

Pirschjaeger
12-16-2005, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Then again, the Russians might want to heed that Germany paid reparations for what the the Nazis did to the Jews,

The other night I attended the last social event of the year in the German Embassy in Beijing. As always, groups of men + beer = politics. During one of our discussions so historical information was told to me that I assumed was an exaggeration.

The next day I figured I'd do a quick research on the topic. I was stunned, shocked, and angered to find out that what I was told was not only true but it was actually even worse.

The problem is, I don't have enough time and I also need to do more research but this rancid "can of worms" will be opened in the new year.


Originally posted by MLudner:
and the US paid reparations to Japanese-Americans still living who had been put in the internment camps

As for paying reparations to the Canadian/American Japanese interned during WW2, it should be limited to land and property loss. It was a war.


Originally posted by MLudner:
..... even though we did not kill them or torture them.

The Allies did much worst after 1945 and after an unconditional surrender and this will be the "can of worms" I mentioned.


Originally posted by MLudner:
But I would say they would have to volunteer to do it and not be forced to.

Regarding all the Allied countries, not just Russia, it obviously will never happen. Legal and moral force will be needed.

I wish I had more time these days but I'm very limited. What I was told, and subsiquently found(very well documented)has opened my eyes.

Once I'm settled in Germany, I will open a thread with a brief summary of the topic with an invitation for the topic to be discussed in PT, one week before the PT topic begins. Those who are interested will be added to the list. I will present documentation and proof. It will be a heavy topic.

Stay tuned.

Fritz

MLudner
12-17-2005, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JuniorUK:
Really good post, Mlunder.

indeed

Originally posted by MLudner:
I would assume the Finns are demanding a return of the lands they lost to Dzhugashvili, for one.
Personally, I would recommend on that one the Russians give the land back and say sorry. It's not like their entire nation is at stake. It would be a good gesture and would settle an issue caused by a tyrant who once ruled their nation. It would also go far to showing how different they are now from those dark times.
Things aren't that simple and I'm sure you know it. There must be extremely intense political conditions to even think about returning a territory inhabited by your people for so long. Dzhugashvili isn't exactly Gaza. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, first.

Yes, I know it is not that simple; nothing ever is. However, I did not say it would be simple; I just said they probably should. How many Finns were displaced by the Soviet conquest of those lands? Many.
It would be a very similar situation to what happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina after Yugoslavia disintegrated after Marshal Tito's death. The Serbs who had moved into the eastern areas of Bosnia in the decades following WWII/VI suddenly found themselves in the position of being under the rule of a people that had killed large numbers of them in WWII/VI and basically said, "Screw that!" and tried to carve off the part of Bosnia they lived in. They should have just packed-up and left, but I can understand their view of the affair.

Dzhugashvili is not a place, by the way. Joseph Dzhugashvili is Stalin's real name.

And for anyone reading here who does not know the people I have referred to:
Vladimir Ilyich Ul'ianov: Lenin
Lev Davidovitch Bronstein: Leon Trotsky
Lenin, Trostsky and Stalin were nomme de guerres.

MLudner
12-17-2005, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
Then again, the Russians might want to heed that Germany paid reparations for what the the Nazis did to the Jews,

The other night I attended the last social event of the year in the German Embassy in Beijing. As always, groups of men + beer = politics. During one of our discussions so historical information was told to me that I assumed was an exaggeration.

The next day I figured I'd do a quick research on the topic. I was stunned, shocked, and angered to find out that what I was told was not only true but it was actually even worse.

The problem is, I don't have enough time and I also need to do more research but this rancid "can of worms" will be opened in the new year.


Originally posted by MLudner:
and the US paid reparations to Japanese-Americans still living who had been put in the internment camps

As for paying reparations to the Canadian/American Japanese interned during WW2, it should be limited to land and property loss. It was a war.


Originally posted by MLudner:
..... even though we did not kill them or torture them.

The Allies did much worst after 1945 and after an unconditional surrender and this will be the "can of worms" I mentioned.


Originally posted by MLudner:
But I would say they would have to volunteer to do it and not be forced to.

Regarding all the Allied countries, not just Russia, it obviously will never happen. Legal and moral force will be needed.

I wish I had more time these days but I'm very limited. What I was told, and subsiquently found(very well documented)has opened my eyes.

Once I'm settled in Germany, I will open a thread with a brief summary of the topic with an invitation for the topic to be discussed in PT, one week before the PT topic begins. Those who are interested will be added to the list. I will present documentation and proof. It will be a heavy topic.

Stay tuned.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are being very cryptic. I was not speaking of what the Red Army did in Germany after the War, though. While that was horrific and very, very sad so was what the German military did in Russia. If people you were talking to at that gathering were saying that Russia owed Germany reparations just keep in mind that the Russians will probably reply by demanding reparations for German depredations in Russia.
Keep the lid on that can of worms. In fact, I would super-glue that lid down, weld it into place, then hammer in 10 penny nails just for good measure ........ then I'd bury the can itself in a swamp encapsulated within ten feet of cement.
This is one of those bygones be bygones situations.
But, that's just me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-17-2005, 05:48 PM
MLudner, you totally missed the point and assumed too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No reparations, from anyone.

Not talking about the Russians, per se.

But, I will give you a few hints. After that, I cannot reply due to my move.

15,000,000 German females 10-80 years old

1946-1949 over 2,000,000 illegal abortions annually.

Forced and calculated mass starvation -Hoover "Speise"

No one is looking for reparations, only truth and aknowledgement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

JuniorUK
12-18-2005, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
MLudner, you totally missed the point and assumed too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No reparations, from anyone.

Not talking about the Russians, per se.

But, I will give you a few hints. After that, I cannot reply due to my move.

15,000,000 German females 10-80 years old

1946-1949 over 2,000,000 illegal abortions annually.

Forced and calculated mass starvation -Hoover "Speise"

No one is looking for reparations, only truth and aknowledgement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Could be very interesting. I'll try not to miss the discussion.

http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2049&

neural_dream
12-18-2005, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
MLudner, you totally missed the point and assumed too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No reparations, from anyone.

Not talking about the Russians, per se.

But, I will give you a few hints. After that, I cannot reply due to my move.

15,000,000 German females 10-80 years old

1946-1949 over 2,000,000 illegal abortions annually.

Forced and calculated mass starvation -Hoover "Speise"

No one is looking for reparations, only truth and aknowledgement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz
lol, a teaser for the PM-OT discussion.

MLudner
12-18-2005, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
MLudner, you totally missed the point and assumed too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No reparations, from anyone.

Not talking about the Russians, per se.

But, I will give you a few hints. After that, I cannot reply due to my move.

15,000,000 German females 10-80 years old

1946-1949 over 2,000,000 illegal abortions annually.

Forced and calculated mass starvation -Hoover "Speise"

No one is looking for reparations, only truth and aknowledgement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz


Did not. I got you to give me a clearer idea of what you were talking about. Like I said; you were being very cryptic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
12-18-2005, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:

Did not.

Did so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I didn't want to say to much cause I didn't want the conversation going without me. It should be interesting me thinks.

Fritz

Interminate
12-18-2005, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by ABC_1982:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
They were opposing nations, their ideologies were closer together than they were different to the western democracies, frankly.

As for invading in 1939, at least they would have saved themselves from their (largely forgotten) cobeligerant status in the invasion of Poland. People seem to forget that WW2 started with the Germans invading Poland from the West and the USSR from the east.

tater
In 1939 the reorganization of our military forces was on it's high point. No possibilities of attacking Germany at that moment. And don't forget about war with Finland and Japan... Civil war in Spain... We had lots of wars for 1939...
Stalin had a hard breaking logic, so he was predictable. You don't know a thing on the West about our history I suppose... Just some stereotypes...
As for ideology, Hitler himself supposed that he has much in common with Britain and nothing common with communsist. And communist supposed the superiority of WORKING CLASS PEOPLE not one NATION as nazis did... Proletary revolution on the whole world was a dream for communists. And the WWII showed Hitler was right by the way... The so called democratic and civilized nations showed their nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, whilst most pretend to be smart.

MLudner
12-19-2005, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

Did not.

Did so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I didn't want to say to much cause I didn't want the conversation going without me. It should be interesting me thinks.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me expand upon what I was saying. I threw that out there to goad you into saying more that I would have a more specific idea of what you were talking about.
I suspected saying, "Please extrapolate" would garner nothing. So I just chose something ...

MLudner
12-19-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Interminate:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ABC_1982:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
They were opposing nations, their ideologies were closer together than they were different to the western democracies, frankly.

As for invading in 1939, at least they would have saved themselves from their (largely forgotten) cobeligerant status in the invasion of Poland. People seem to forget that WW2 started with the Germans invading Poland from the West and the USSR from the east.

tater
In 1939 the reorganization of our military forces was on it's high point. No possibilities of attacking Germany at that moment. And don't forget about war with Finland and Japan... Civil war in Spain... We had lots of wars for 1939...
Stalin had a hard breaking logic, so he was predictable. You don't know a thing on the West about our history I suppose... Just some stereotypes...
As for ideology, Hitler himself supposed that he has much in common with Britain and nothing common with communsist. And communist supposed the superiority of WORKING CLASS PEOPLE not one NATION as nazis did... Proletary revolution on the whole world was a dream for communists. And the WWII showed Hitler was right by the way... The so called democratic and civilized nations showed their nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, whilst most pretend to be smart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, IDEM IN TE.

neural_dream
12-19-2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Indeed, IDEM IN TE.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

MLudner
12-19-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
Indeed, IDEM IN TE.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MLudner
12-19-2005, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:

Did not.

Did so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I didn't want to say to much cause I didn't want the conversation going without me. It should be interesting me thinks.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, and; don't concern yourself, Mein Herr Fritz: We would not dream of starting without you. Have a good flight back to Deutschland. But, if you're rowing back dress warm if you're going to take the shortest route ... mighty cold up that way this time of year.

Pirschjaeger
12-19-2005, 08:56 PM
I'm rowing but worry not, my medieval armor is insulated and the heater in my kayak is ueber. My night radar is solar powered so I saved having to buy batteries. More space for the essentials like beer. Now I just need to remember where I saw that "Cupholders for Kayaks Are Us" store.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz