how iraq was, is, and shall continue to be a total f - up

[Staga]

Well at least I'm surprised how fool can one be

[Crumpp]

Well at least I'm surprised how fool can one be

When the story is about the United States, Euro's can use the facts and twist the story so it becomes a lie.

How come you don't like it when it's done to your country??

Crumpp

[Siaf__csf]

investigate the deportation to Nazi Germany during World War II of approximately 3,000 foreigners, among them numerous Soviet Jewish prisoners of war and political officers of the Red Army.

According to Wiesenthal, the deportation was of 3000 _foreigners_ who were most likely spies or war prisoners. Gee whizz a couple of them happened to be Jew.

It's pretty far from systematically destroying Jews from the country like you like to envision it.

On a related story, the wartime opponent of the time still denies the whole holocaust. If you want to point fingers about warcrimes and such, point here:

April 19, 2002

SWC CALLS ON KREMLIN TO ACT AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL

Pravda, in its 9 April (the international memorial day for victims of the Holocaust) edition, published an article entitled "The State of Israel Was Founded on the Holocaust Myth."

Its author, Sergei Stefanov, stated, "there was no killing of Jews in gas chambers of the Nazi camps, since there were no chambers there." He adds, "There were some 150,000 Jews who died in Auschwitz and no one was killed with gas there. The major reason for such a huge death rate was typhus epidemics."

In a letter to Kremlin Counsellor, Sergei Yastrezhemske, the Wiesenthal Centers Director for International Liaison, Dr. Shimon Samuels, protested that "this language not only calumnies Jews, but also offends the memory of 20 million Soviet victims of Nazism, the suffering of Russian prisoners-of-war and the testimony of Red Army liberators of Auschwitz."

Samuels noted that Stefanov's main purpose was to delegitimize the State of Israel, by arguing that "it appeared on the basis of the Holocaust myth." He added that "the contrary is true: Had there been a Jewish State to welcome the fugitives of Nazism while the world closed its doors to the Jews, there would have been no Holocaust."

The Center urged the Kremlin "to condemn Holocaust denial and to take the necessary legal and moral measures to end Pravda's endorsement of antisemitism."

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Rude
You have to be a young person to be this stupid

Wow Rude.. How brave of you to take the time to write out such an idea like this.. I mean, this chain of words must represent what, 2 hours of contemplation on your part?? Did you need to reference any sorces? So bold of you guy. I'm certain your enlightenment leaves all in awe.

Why dont you attempt to say something rather than appear like a pansy..

How am I suppose to respond to this? O, I have it now..

You have to be a really old, decrepate, slow minded, sexless, pot bellied, lethargic simplton to produce such a statement.

Really rude.. I'm not making a list of wars to judge if they might be right or wrong. Its a simple list. Perhaps you should attempt your own. You might learn something new.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Crumpp
This way they could both appease their Nazi Masters and their conscience at the same time.  I mean they were not actually gassing or shooting these people.

Well, Finland set up concentration camps for non-Finnish/Saam population in occupied Karelia, and the death rate there was worse then in German concentration camps... Not gassing or shooting, simply starving them to death.

Each time I remind people about this some Finns tell me it's not true because they didn't learn it in school

Some of the Finnish occupational policies were almost nazist, like local Saam population wearing "Kindred nationality" strips on their sleeves, meaning that they do have some rights, unlike Russians/Ukrainians/Jews etc.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
On a related story, the wartime opponent of the time still denies the whole holocaust. If you want to point fingers about warcrimes and such, point here:

"Pravda" now is a marginal nationalistic leaflet, I don't know if they belong to Communist Party now, they were sold 3 or 4 times, belonged to some Greek millionaire, then there were two or three "Pravdas", maybe even now there is more then one.

Modern Communist Party of Russian Federation is far from "proletarian internationalism", but I doubt that they'll let their official newspaper print such crap. The official position of Russian Federation can be only what dr. Samuels advises. There are stupids in every country, and in this case you have nothing to accuse Russia of.

[patrone]

Boroda.

In the clash between Finns and Soviet, who again occupied territory from who?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by patrone
Boroda.

In the clash between Finns and Soviet, who again occupied territory from who?

In 1939 USSR took back the land that was a present to Great Principate of Finland (inside Russian Empire) and then became a part of independant Finland. It was done to secure Leningrad, and proved to be vital in 1941. Before the war USSR made all possible efforts to make a bargain with Finland, offering it 4 times more land in Karelia, Finland refused and later occupied this (offered) lands in 1941.

In 1941 Finns invaded USSR, took back Karelian isthmus and stopped there, unable to break the defence line on the pre-1939 border. At the same time they invaded Karelia and occupied it's large part, including Petrozavodsk, and started genocide against non-Finnish/Saam population there.

You can use other words to describe this events, as I usually do, but now I feel like telling it this way.

No offences please. My deep respect to Finnish people. They showed real bravery and heroism fighting an irresistible force.

[patrone]

As you tell this story, or history/event, Soviet never invaded or tried to occupy parts of Finnish territory. Or you are just not mentioning it, because it is not revelant?

I see no difference by the way you look at history, then for ex. ccrump, cobra412. With other words: Totally brainwashed.
A pity, cause you actully seemed bright in some inputs.

[TheDudeDVant]

As you tell this story, or history/event, Soviet never invaded or tried to occupy parts of Finnish territory. Or you are just not mentioning it, because it is not revelant?

Isnt that what his entire first paragraph is about?? Or am I not reading your question correctly??

[Siaf__csf]

Boroda just tries to justify the attack by saying 'We tried to be nice and offer you the chance to become another Soviet province by force'

And then: 'Took back land which used to be part of russia, and sweden, and russia and which was presented finally to finns by the tsar (before the communist overthrew him.)' Therefore there was apt justification for marching on the borders carrying full parade paraphinelia with drums, horns and banners ready to celebrate the victory.

I guess they really wanted to secure Leningrad, I mean, REALLY well by invading the whole country.

Little did they know what they faced up with.

[JB88]

well, its nice to see weve stayed on topic here...

funnelcakes anyone?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by patrone
As you tell this story, or history/event, Soviet never invaded or tried to occupy parts of Finnish territory. Or you are just not mentioning it, because it is not revelant?

Did I say USSR didn't start an aggressive war against Finland? It did. I only tried to show you a view different from what you usually get in the West, and I tried to explain it

Originally posted by patrone
I see no difference by the way you look at history, then for ex. ccrump, cobra412. With other words: Totally brainwashed.
A pity, cause you actully seemed bright in some inputs.

For last 15-20 years Soviet people are brainwashed in opposite direction. IIRC "western" POV is now even in school history textbooks.

We have all sorts of propaganda that is 100% anti-Soviet, and I don't like it at all. Victor Suvorov as a "well-known historian", with his hallucinations about Hitler making a pre-emptive strike on June 22nd 1941! The books by real historical scientists are printed in minimal quantities, and read only by thinking people, while majority buys a cheap Suvorov's paperbacks and says - "Look! We were so bloody stupid and evil!", and I hate it.

From two points of view - Soviet and Western - on one event I choose Soviet, if it doesn't contradict with common sence.

Apart from propaganda issues or "popular history - WWII in 12 pages" many Western historians with an unbiased view admit that Soviet pre-war policy was probably most pragmatic, honest and reasonable among all interested sides. We have all kinds of literature here, and I can read all kinds of books on WWII in Russian, and I really have a chance to compare. BTW, even in Soviet times we had tons of Western literature on WWII translated and printed here, and some of the books were almost anti-Soviet, or at least making you doubt, they usually had politically-correct prefaces and comments.

[lazs2]

see... you euros can never get along.  Probly have another war in a few years and we will end up getting involved.... probly have something to do with kings or who owns some tiny little nothing of a country..

lazs

[GreenCloud]

.ahhh funny euros...

 "There always there when they need us"

4 more years of spreading Freedom