Question to Finns

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Nekto
I have not the pleasure of knowing any Stalinist-era "apologist" dinosaurs I am talking about you, diehard coldwar relicts. Face it

We are "bloody stalinists" only because we want to survive and don't declare "death to the USSR" like modern "liberal right" "progressive forces" who simply write us off together with millions of our compatriots.

[Boroda]

The question of shooting down planes that violated Soviet airspace is discussed now in ru.military echo.


From a historical journal of one military unit:

16.04.55 10.00 был обнаружен радиотехническими постами американский самолет,
шедший на север вдоль восточного побережья Камчатки. На перехват вражеского
самолета вылетели два дежурных МиГ-15бис 53 смешанного авиакорпуса. В 11.03
один из наших истребителей атаковал американский реактивный самолет Б-47. В
11.14 у острова Беринга, Арчий Камень рыбаки наблюдали столб воды и дыма,
глухой взрыв. Через несколько дней на берегах о-ва Беринга были найдены
обломки и предметы американской принадлежности.



23.06.55 Американский самолет типа <Нептун> в районе зоны ответственности
Старшего Морского Начальника бухты Провидения нарушил нашу государственную
границу. Поднятые наши два МиГ-17 атаковали и сбили американский
самолет-нарушитель.



28.07.55 Министр Обороны Союза ССР запретил открытие огня по всем самолетам
противника, если они даже находятся над нашими территориальными водами или
над нашей сухопутной территорией. Приказано принуждать самолеты нарушители к
посадке только сигналами и эволюциями.

First two paragraphs describe two violators shot down, B-47 and Neptune over Bering isalnd and Providence harbour.

Last paragraph is most interesting: 28.07.55 USSR Defence Minister prohibited to open fire at any enemy aircrafts, even if they are over our territorial waters or land. It was ordered to force violating planes to land only by signals and maneuvers.

I use a word "enemy"  as a translation of "protivnik", that can be also translated as "opponent". The word that translates exactly as "enemy" is "vrag".

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Nekto
I have not the pleasure of knowing any Stalinist-era "apologist" dinosaurs I am talking about you, diehard coldwar relicts. Face it

You're making yourself sound funny... I wonder why dont you think at all it might apply to yourself.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Boroda
In late-70s another KAL plane "mixed up" East and West directions, and landed on a frozen lake in the North. When possible - they are landed. When not - sorry.
 

Every time you open your mouth, you cover yourself with more shame.

Landed on a frozen lake? Why not tell the whole story?

That was KAL 902, in 1978. Once again, Soviet Air Defense was hoping they'd found an RC-135 but ONCE AGAIN  it was an off-course civilian airliner.

Soviet fighters SHOT MISSILES at it; they didn't even attempt to force it to land.

Sukhoi Su-15TM interceptor jets were sent to intercept the intruder. When both Sukhoi jets were flying next to the Korean airliner, the captain said he slowed down plane and switched on landing lights.

Nevertheless the Su-15 crews were ordered to shoot down the plane.

According to the U.S. the Su-15 pilot for several minutes tried to convince his superiors to cancel the attack, because the aircraft was a civilian Boeing 707 instead of a reconnaisance Boeing RC-135. After an additional order two P-60 rockets were launched.[/u] One of them missed the 707 but the other rocket exploded, severly damaging part of the left wing. Shrapnel punctured the fuselage, causing a rapid decompression and killing two passengers.

The Korean pilot initiated an emergency descent from FL350 to 5000 feet and entered clouds. Both Sukhoi jets lost the 707 in the clouds. The aircraft continued at low altitude, crossing the Kola Peninsula and looking for a place to land. After several unsuccessful attempts in the evening dusk landed on the ice of Korpijärvi lake. All occupants were rescued by Russian helicopters.

Let's see.. your fighters recognized the plane as civilian, tried to get command and control to cancel the "shoot" order but NO.... the Soviets once again attempt to destroy... NOT attempt to make it land... attempt to destroy a civilian airliner in the air.

Now in the late '70's, your pilots were terrible; they couldn't fly formation to save their hind ends. But somehow I doubt that they really "lost" that airliner in the clouds. I think they decided they didn't want any further part of this murder. So to those pilots.



AND there's this:

When an earlier Korean airliner (flight 902) was shot down near Murmansk on April 21, 1978, the panicked pilot repeatedly called out to the attacking jets on 121.5MHz, but no reply was ever made – and a Finnish air traffic control tower at Rovaniemi recorded those calls and the absence of any ground or air Soviet responses (apologists have asserted that in 1978, such calls were in fact made but were ignored by the Korean pilot then "as well"). In that case, the Soviet jet demonstrably did not follow ICAO standard procedures.

So the Soviets didn't try to contact this airliner either and they didn't listen when he called on the International Emergency Frequency. They meant to kill him and his passengers from the start.

I was in the RC squadron when this mass murder was attempted.

I personally talked with the RC crew that was flying the offshore track that passed by Murmansk that day. They recorded all your Air Defense communications along with some others. We KNOW your command and control mistook this KAL 902 for an RC-135, we also know they DELIBERATELY waited until it was well inland before firing. They were hoping to have an RC-135 crash on Soviet territory.

The missiles were fired three minutes after the fighters intercepted.

Once again. there was no need to shoot missiles at an airliner. Once again, the Soviets didn't even attempt to warn him away or force him to land.

Now, tell everyone how it was your "right" to shoot down any aircraft from any nation of any type that was in your airspace.

And wonder why the rest of the world thinks you are barbarians.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Boroda
I want to point at the grade of moral corruption of the regime that sends civilian airliners as target-drones for air defence. It is something unthinkable.

 

I think you better point to the moral corruption of a regime that uses visually identified civilian airliners as target drones. And does so repeatedly and without apology.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Boroda
Your politicians always understood that USSR wants to be left alone, and will never start a global war because of intentions to "enslave" othr nations. Anyway - they planned nuclear genocide of Soviet people. They relied on genocide, because American nukes couldn't make any significant damage to Soviet Army.

No, our politicians didn't understand that. Why? Because you Soviets enslaved Eastern Europe and militarily put down any movement towards resuming independence.

Don't deny the Soviet Union had missiles and bombers armed with nukes aimed at the US. It was a major threat long before 1980, too. We no more "planned genocide" than the Soviets "planned genocide".

MAD made an attack by you on us.. or by us on you... an unthinkable proposition. It served its purpose. It kept you from conquering any more countries than you already had conquered.

We wouldn't have started it and the rest of the world knows that. The free world understood which country was the threat to peace and freedom.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Boroda
Face it, mr. "dove of peace". You were searching for weak spots for US nuclear bombers to slaughter millions of innocent people. Think of it before you go to bed.

Face this:

What I did helped ensure the Red Army wouldn't conquer any more European countries.

I sleep very well knowing I contributed to keeping them on lands they had already stolen at the end of WW2.

[Raven_2]

to Toad

>>We wouldn't have started it and the rest of the world knows that. The free world understood which country was the threat to peace and freedom.

Toad, there were *no* Nuclear weapons in USSR in 1948. And there *was* plan of nuclear bombing of USSR 20 biggest cities by USA at that time. I`m already posted link to now open documents from cia.org.

So, it was *you*, who want to genocide all soviets. And cold war from soviet side was just at deffensive state.

>>What I did helped ensure the Red Army wouldn't conquer any more European countries.

Sure, you want do this by yourself :-)

>>I sleep very well knowing I contributed to keeping them on lands they had already stolen at the end of WW2.

Toad, why you still don`t give Mexica stolen land? It`s ~1/3 of your territory.

[Raven_2]

to Toad

>>Don't deny the Soviet Union had missiles and bombers armed with nukes aimed at the US.

I deny this :-) Not "had" but "have". And that is why you, guys, still occupies only  Afganistan, Iraq (Siria, Livia, Iran, North Korea...) but not Russia, China or any of Europe countries (except you caddie boy England) :-)

USA is a main agressor in the world since 1945.

>>The free world understood which country was the threat to peace and freedom.

Sure, Iraq, Siria, Livia, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba knows that perfect :-)

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raven_2
And there *was* plan of nuclear bombing of USSR 20 biggest cities by USA at that time.

So, it was *you*, who want to genocide all soviets. And cold war from soviet side was just at deffensive state.

[/b]

There probably was such a plan. There had to be, considering the Soviet Union had conquered half of Europe and had the largest army in the world poised to conquer the rest.

Genocide? Hardly. According to YOU, had we wanted to "Genocide" side you with nukes we could have done so without fear of retaliation. Right? You had no nukes, we COULD have nuked you.

But we didn't, did we? Even though we could have right? And you couldn't have stopped us. Go ponder on that mystery for a while.

I'm sure glad it wasn't the other way around and I suspect all of free Europe felt the same way.

Sure, you want do this by yourself :-)

[/b]

But of course we didn't, did we? We didn't act like Soviets. In places where our troops were stationed there were elections featuring far more than just one party, and far more than just on set of candidates. We didn't dictate their policy, domestic or foreign. Go figure.

Toad, why you still don`t give Mexica stolen land? It`s ~1/3 of your territory.

If you're talking about the Mexican War the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, you better do some more research before you are embarassed again. Mexico was paid the going rate or more. Such a putz.

[Toad]

September 1961
At this time, the Soviet Union also unexpectedly exploded the largest nuclear device in history, equal to 57 million tons of TNT. The Soviet Union had voluntarily stopped testing nuclear devices three years before, and Khrushchev had assured President Kennedy in June 1961 that the Soviet Union wouldn't test nuclear devices if the United States didn't.

Largest nuclear device in history... my, my.. must have been planning Genocide.

Originally posted by Raven_2
 And that is why you, guys, still occupies only  Afganistan, Iraq (Siria, Livia, Iran, North Korea...)

[/b]

Boy, you really need to get out more.

We don't occupy ANY of those countries except Iraq.

In Afghanistan they have their own freely elected government and they got to choose from many parties and tons of candidates. Unlike when the Russians tried to conquer them and offer them one party, one candidate.

And look at Iraq too... just held multiparty elections, three main factions in a combined government.... jeez, they more free than ANY of Soviet conquered countries were after WW2. Hungary didn't get choices like that did they? When they tried they got invaded by...the Soviets again!

Syria? Libya? Iran, North Korea? We don't occupy those. Although I personally think we should have unified Korea after the North Koreans... supported by the SOVIET UNION...  suddenly and aggressively attacked South Korea.

[genozaur]

Originally posted by Nekto
No, I think, you are not right there. "10 years without the right for correspondence" it was just what relatives were told. My grandmother recieved the official letter with these words about her brother. He was executed in 1937. And I saw his name in the list to be executed. http://stalin.memo.ru/images/intro.htm (in Russian).

So, I think the whole numbers of executed are correct.

Thanks for the correction, Nekto.

[Raven_2]

to Toad

>>But we didn't, did we?

Cause communism was widespreaded ideology throught all countries working class after WW2 an USSR role in destroing the Fachism. So, by destroing USSR to that time, you oppose yourself to the whole world.

>>In places where our troops were stationed there were elections featuring far more than just one party, and far more than just on set of candidates.

8-) LOL. Toad, how much parties in USA? Two? And how much they different?

>>We didn't dictate their policy, domestic or foreign.

Sure :-) I wonder, what your TV shows you about Iraq during last years? :-)


>>Largest nuclear device in history... my, my.. must have been planning Genocide.

Toad, we didn`t explode it over Hirosima.

>>We don't occupy ANY of those countries except Iraq.

Countries in bracets is current/future aims of your occupation, Toad. Didn`t your TV say that to you? Our TV said that to us :-) And you have military bases on Afganistan territory. You still have bases on Japan territory! 60 years of occupation.

>>Unlike when the Russians tried to conquer them and offer them one party, one candidate.

Bah. There were communist revolution in that country and our government was forced (by government ideology) to help rebels. Like USA now forced to help any democratic revolutions by your ideology - even if it cause robers, marauders and others.

>>And look at Iraq too... just held multiparty elections, three main factions in a combined government.... jeez, they more free than ANY of Soviet conquered countries were after WW2.

LOL. You think that number of parties means democracy? Man, then according to your words, USA, England and Deutsch are most totalitarian countries in the world, cause there only 2-3 parties in it. And Russia is way more democratic, cause we have 4 biggest parties and > 50 parties total.

Number of parties means nothing, Toad.

[Raven_2]

to Toad

>>If you're talking about the Mexican War the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, you better do some more research before you are embarassed again. Mexico was paid the going rate or more.

Hah. 15 millions for 2.300.000 km^2 territory. Paid... Yo don`t buy this land, you occupy it first (1845, invasion of Zerk Teylor by pres. Polk order).

So, I would listen your BS about "half of East Europe occupation" only after your country return Texas, California, New-Mexico, Arizona, Newada, Uta, Colorado and Waioming :-) Occupators.

[Toad]

Yeah, countries so loved Communism that you had to invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia to keep them and all the others in the warm embrace of Mother Russia.

How different are the parties here? Well, read the O-Club BBS back during the election. I think you'll see quite a difference.

What my TV shows about Iraq is that they are no longer ruled by a dictator as brutal as the Soviets were and that they have formed a new government that includes a lot of differing viewpoints. Looks like major progress... unlike say the wasteland that East Germany became under Soviet domination.

That's right.. you didn't exploded any nukes over any populated areas because you knew we'd retalitate when and if you did. Of course, you did make the largest nuclear weapons because you were planning to "genocide" the Amreekans, right? Or were you making the largest nukes in the world as flashbulbs for your cameras?

Our TV said that to us

[/b]

Well, looks like your TV is as full of krap as you and the rest of the Stainists here are.

And you have military bases on Afganistan territory. You still have bases on Japan territory!

[/b]

Yes, we do. Because BOTH countries want our troops there. We leave when asked, too. Unlike say... Soviets in Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

There were communist revolution in that country and our government was forced (by government ideology) to help

[/b]

Horse****. You OCCUPIED them during WW2 and gave them no choice... Communism was the ONLY choice.

 

You think that number of parties means democracy?

[/b]

It means CHOICE. Something the Soviet Union didn't have and didn't allow in its satellite states.

You could choose between The Party and.. The Party. Always The Party candidate for election.  

Go ahead, tell the whole world Raven thinks the USSR was a democracy.

It wouldn't be any more crazy than the rest of the BS you spout.

Did you look up the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo yet? How much did the USSR pay the countries it stole land from?