Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Boroda on June 08, 2005, 01:37:10 PM
-
Number one joke on http://www.anekdot.ru today:
In 2020, after EU will completely fall apart in 2010, Latvia will demand compensations for illegal forced joining the European Union, unconditional withdrawal of NATO troops and immediate deportation of 3 million Turks.
-
I think it loses its punch in translation.
Would be great if Russia joined the EU though.
-
dunno about the translation but i think he's talking out of his ............@#$%!@#$@# ..erm rear end
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I think it loses its punch in translation.
The "punch" is in the fact that our media is screaming about Latvia demanding compensations for "illegal forced occupation" by USSR.
Originally posted by Momus--
Would be great if Russia joined the EU though.
I don't think so. Common opinion that in this case we'll "live like in Europe and work like in Russia" is IMHO quite stupid.
-
Correct me If I'm wrong Boroda. But didn't Russia invade Latvia in 1940 and Lithuania and Estonia not to mention Finland and Poland? Maybe they left that bit out of your history books too?
-
boroda lives in never never land. he still can't get over the fact that the great USSR failed.
-
I'm not so sure......
While human habitation in the region dates back to at least 9000 BC, the first forebears of Latvia's present inhabitants were Finno-Ugric hunters who probably reached the area between 3000 and 2000 BC. The ancestors of the modern Latvians, known as Balts, probably showed up around 2000 BC.
Recently however, archeologists have found an amazing artifact near the site of Latvia's present day capital of Riga. Excavation for a new hotel unearthed a long-buried secret chamber full of ancient artifacts of decidely human origin. Some of them have been subjected to carbon dating and appear to be older than 9000 BC, thus raising the interesting question of just who these original Latvians might be.
Here is a photo of one such item, particularly well preserved, carbon dated to 10,000 BC and clearly shaped by the hands of early man.
(http://home.netcom.com/~merezhko/scans/htbdge2.jpg)
-
Uncalled for, I'm an prettythang.
-
Arghhhhhhhhhhhh no.... not more '80s commie movie flashbacks!
Boroda have you ever thought of moving to China, I swear that place will be like a holiday resort for you.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I think it loses its punch in translation.
Would be great if Russia joined the EU though.
I would rather see Au and MEU :)
Every little baby know that russia will never join Europian union, coz russia is in Asia :D
zdrastvuj ta :D
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Correct me If I'm wrong Boroda. But didn't Russia invade Latvia in 1940 and Lithuania and Estonia not to mention Finland and Poland? Maybe they left that bit out of your history books too?
muhehee... If i were you i would puke every morning, because churchil, that drunken idiot made deal with stalin.
And if you want to laugh at Boroda, you better check what are you lauging about, because you are lauging at russian work, whitch has been done with Churchil's blessing.
stupidity is an international bussines.
-
I seem to remember that the "agreement" was between Stalin and a different leader -- the infamous Herr Ribbentrop and his master, Herr Hitler. At the time of the invasion of Latvia, Sept 1940, the USSR was bound by nonaggression treaty to the Nazis, with whom they had digested Poland. Mr. Churchill was not exactly party to the USSR's political decision making in this interval.
If you're talking about Yalta, I'd say the west had a different concept of "sphere of influence" than the freedom loving peoples of the USSR. When the allies administered an area, we worked to achieve their independence and self sufficiency. We did not invade them if they displeased us (remember Hungary?) -- as can be seen by France's continued existance as an independent country.:lol
However, I realize that with the pair of brainwash-ees in question, I'm just wasting my breath.
Sigh.
-
I doubt if Churchhill wouls agree to that. But whatever. He was nothing to with me. Our leader at the time was called De Valera.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Would be great if Russia joined the EU though.
Buck that. I think the U.S. should join the EU.
-
The U.S. should have continued in Russia after defeating Germany. Stalin was much worse than Hitler.
As for brilliant Soviet tactics, it is no wonder Russia lost 20,000,000 people in World War II while the U.S. lost only a few hundred thousand. Americans use steel to stop bullets, Soviets use their soldiers.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The U.S. should have continued in Russia after defeating Germany. Stalin was much worse than Hitler.
As for brilliant Soviet tactics, it is no wonder Russia lost 20,000,000 people in World War II while the U.S. lost only a few hundred thousand. Americans use steel to stop bullets, Soviets use their soldiers.
That would have been a long war if fought conventionally (no A-bombs).
Massed produced shermans vs massed produced T-34s (even though M-26 would have been entering service at this time, not in as large of numbers as sherman)
Then again.. I do wonder what would have happened. After the defeat of Japan the US would have been able to focus on one enemy instead of two. US would have had complete air and sea dominance, and with troops coming in from the Pacific... makes you wonder.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Stalin was much worse than Hitler.
bull****
Stalin is the lesser of 2 evils (in context)
calling for xtermination of races has a lasting effect...
-
In numbers of people killed, Stalin is worse.
-
What can you expect from the akward history of the USSR...
Had Finland been occupied by the USSR, it would have also read that the government willingly gave up the country.
The winter war would been just a little skirmish between the rebels and russian border guards.
-
Raptor;
German's problem was that they didn't have means to attack against Russian manufacturing plants and bridges behind the Ural mountains but this wouldn't had been a problem for the thousands of B-29s.
-
I think there needs to be a new world club called "Not in the EU" that non-EU countries could join. In 15 years, it might be smaller than the EU itself.
I've heard that Germany and Italy are thinking of pulling out of the Euro single currency - anyone else know anything about this?
-
The main tank of the U.S at the end of the war was the upgunned M4E8. The Russians were still using a hodgepodge of T-34s. Both countries had heavy tanks in small numbers. The Russians had the Josef Stalin 3 (IS3), the U.S. had the M-26.
The U.S. had a better airforce hands down. Air superiority would have gone to the U.S. All targets within reach of B-29s based in Germany would have been bombed.
Numbers wise, the Russians had alot more troops than the U.S. Both sides had experienced troops. Now heres where a big variable comes in. Many German soldiers would have fought against the Russians with the U.S. *If* the U.S. adopted German squad tactics (which they did in Vietnam), this would offset the numerical advantage the Russians had. Heck, at the end of the war, the Germans were using MG34s and STG44s in squads. It would take the U.S. over 20 years to match that firepower.
Naval battles would go for the U.S. Did the USSR even have aircraft carriers?
-
Originally posted by Drunky
Buck that. I think the U.S. should join the EU.
lol ... trying to imagine 10 years of US in EU, that big day, when US is trashing their $ and starting to use Euro...... World record in suicides would occur :D
-
Originally posted by lada
lol ... trying to imagine 10 years of US in EU, that big day, when US is trashing their $ and starting to use Euro...... World record in suicides would occur :D
The hardest thing for some Americans (besides the conversion to Metric etc.) would be the realisation that the USA is not a planet, and that there are other countries in their "solar system".
-
Originally posted by 1K3
bull****
Stalin is the lesser of 2 evils (in context)
calling for xtermination of races has a lasting effect...
actualy question is not whitch one is worster.
Fact it, that Churchil simply sold half of Europe to same type of guy, like Hitler, and when it came to light nobody cared. All brits were happy drinking tea at home. Im not wondering that brits were hated by some people more that Germans. It take a lot of efford to betry your ally 2 times in raw. However we are talking about 60 years old politic, not about contemporary UK.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I've heard that Germany and Italy are thinking of pulling out of the Euro single currency - anyone else know anything about this?
That doesn't sound to me like a reasonable thing to do.
Prolly a hoax or an anti-EU looney in the government talking of his own agendas.
It'd be way too costly to revert back to old currency this soon.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It'd be way too costly to revert back to old currency this soon.
Well, it was simple enough for 12 nations to implement the Euro simultaneously on 1/1/2002, so I don't see that it would be prohibitively expensive for one or two countries to pull out - especially (in Germany's case) in view of the economic liberation they would enjoy after years of stagnation with the Euro.
But I agree, it would be expensive - a last resort, and I was surprised myself to hear it being suggested (as a possibility).
-
...and it was costly.
I don't see any benefits in reverting back, not so much that it would make right for all the hassle to do it again.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The hardest thing for some Americans (besides the conversion to Metric etc.) would be the realisation that the USA is not a planet, and that there are other countries in their "solar system".
that is an absolute lie, now back into your orbit you little pipsqueak of a moon particle.
-
"The hardest thing for some Americans (besides the conversion to Metric etc.) would be the realisation that the USA is not a planet, and that there are other countries in their "solar system"."
we realize it... it's just that most "other countries"are unable to sustain life as we know it yet. some of the more backward ones even drive on the wrong side of the road.
lazs
-
ROFL Lazs & Storch. (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif)
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Correct me If I'm wrong Boroda. But didn't Russia invade Latvia in 1940 and Lithuania and Estonia not to mention Finland and Poland? Maybe they left that bit out of your history books too?
USSR invaded Finland. USSR took back it's land in Western Ukraine and Belorussia, BTW - giving lots of land to Lithuania including their capitol city.
Adoption of "Baltic states" into USSR simply can't be called an "invasion". Their democratically elected governments kindly asked to join USSR and were allowed to do that. There was no power of weapons used, it was their own decision. In fact - I doubt that USSR wished to take them by force in case they refused.
Do you seriously think that leaving them to nazis could be a better solution? In this case nazis could take Leningrad in a matter of days.
USSR have built everything they have now in 1944-91. The total sum of investments into their non-existant economics was much more then the total price of all their posessions including land.
-
First of all USSR never invaded finland, only minor parts of it. Second, whatever russia built 1944-1991 was sold for scrap, all the wealth stolen by a few individuals while many people in russia still live without electricity or running water.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
First of all USSR never invaded finland, only minor parts of it.
Beautiful :)
"I didn't beat him half-dead, only a minor part of him"
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Second, whatever russia built 1944-1991 was sold for scrap, all the wealth stolen by a few individuals while many people in russia still live without electricity or running water.
For Russia - unfortunately it's true. It's called "capitalism", just in case you didn't know. One correctuon: bot "for scrap" but "for price of scrap".
-
Originally posted by Boroda
USSR have built everything they have now in 1944-91. The total sum of investments into their non-existant economics was much more then the total price of all their posessions including land.
Surprisingly... guess who were in power in 1944-91.
Without the USSR there could been alot more built, more modern infrastructure, and the countries would be doing much better than they're doing at the moment (just as good argument as yours).
Somehow the european countries have been build up after the WWII and it didn't need the USSR's help.
Yet more surprisingly every country on the western side of the red curtain have been built better than the countries behind the red curtain.
They're also economically in better shape.
Even the barbarians of Ireland have become an excellent place for investments.
Oh.. did I say investments? Thats how you build up countries without the help of the USSR.
In fact, aren't they doing it just like that at the very moment?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Oh.. did I say investments? Thats how you build up countries without the help of the USSR.
In fact, aren't they doing it just like that at the very moment?
Please check who works as low-payment construction workers in Kaliningrad region.
A bottle of cheap vodka is a good thing to bribe a Lithuanian customs officer.
The only investment they have now is into building airstrips for NATO aviation.
They are useless.
Damn. First book in Latvian language was published in Riga in 1868. By Russians.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The main tank of the U.S at the end of the war was the upgunned M4E8. The Russians were still using a hodgepodge of T-34s. Both countries had heavy tanks in small numbers. The Russians had the Josef Stalin 3 (IS3), the U.S. had the M-26.
The U.S. had a better airforce hands down. Air superiority would have gone to the U.S. All targets within reach of B-29s based in Germany would have been bombed.
Numbers wise, the Russians had alot more troops than the U.S. Both sides had experienced troops. Now heres where a big variable comes in. Many German soldiers would have fought against the Russians with the U.S. *If* the U.S. adopted German squad tactics (which they did in Vietnam), this would offset the numerical advantage the Russians had. Heck, at the end of the war, the Germans were using MG34s and STG44s in squads. It would take the U.S. over 20 years to match that firepower.
Naval battles would go for the U.S. Did the USSR even have aircraft carriers?
We had Patton, MacArthur & the Bomb. It would have been over in about 6 months.
-
I thought the EU was the joke of the day.
-
Shoooore, the US would have succeed in invading Russia...just like the Napolean and Hitler. You would have had to nuke them...then occupy them, piece of cake.
-
Don't think it would have happened but...
Thrawn, assuming the use of say......30 nukes......... why would even want to occupy?
Might peak in there after 50 years or so.............
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
We had Patton, MacArthur & the Bomb. It would have been over in about 6 months.
It would have been over in 6 weeks.
An army that was scared to death by two SS panzer divisions had one option: to run like hell towards British Channel.
Sorry, but after reading Bradleys' "Soldier's diary" (a book that was a base for "Patton" film) - I came to a conclusion that Patton was... hmmm... intellectually challenged.
Please don't forget that "allied" massive bombings didn't significantly reduce German industrial production.
With only airfields in UK left - it was impossible to seriously damage Soviet industry.
And by 1949 USSR had a bomb too, and interceptors invulnerable for US bomber gunners. I hope you remember what MiG-15s did to B-29 formations in Korea, it was like raping into all possible holes at once.
Your desire to turn other countries into a playground for your mentally disabled generals with nukes is absolutely amazing. I wonder what Europeans could think after US nuked several cities reachable for B-29s. A-bomb have always been a weapon of terror, almost useless in battlefield.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
A bottle of cheap vodka is a good thing to bribe a Lithuanian customs officer.
Brought to you by the USSR 1944-91, the side effects left unmentioned by the history of a certain country.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't think it would have happened but...
Thrawn, assuming the use of say......30 nukes......... why would even want to occupy?
Might peak in there after 50 years or so.............
Toad finally reveals his dreams. :rolleyes:
In May, 1945, you didn't have nukes at all.
30 nukes are nothing. Drop Shot plan included using 300+ nukes, and still they had almost no effect on Soviet Army, being used only as weapons of terror.
Can anyone do me a favour and plot a B-29 effective range from Western occupation zones?
-
....I don't even want to speak about what could happen after pictures of the first Soviet city nuked by the US have been published in "Frontovaya Illustratsiya" ("Frontline Illustration") and shown to the troops.
Sorry, I have problems with tenses, can anyone help me by pointing at mistakes I probably made in a paragraph above?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't think it would have happened but...
Thrawn, assuming the use of say......30 nukes......... why would even want to occupy?
Might peak in there after 50 years or so.............
Come to think of it, at the end of WW2 the Russian army is in eastern Europe right? So you are going to have to nuke the very countries you want to save from communism.
-
It's Thrawn's hypothetical Boroda, not mine.
How do you know what 30 nukes would do? Dropshot is a hypothetical; it never happened. You guys stopped at conquering Eastern Europe, thank goodness, so we didn't have to fight you.
Tough luck for those you occupied; I guess you could say they sacrificed their freedom was sacrificed to avoid another world war.
I'm personally glad we were there to keep the Bear in his cave. That's how it all was avoided.
Before you start, all you have to do is review the respective economies of East and West Germany to see whether it was better to have the US as a friend or the USSR as your occupier dictating your style of government and economics.
I'll say no more, as I know this stuff upsets the Skuzzmeister.
Outta here.
Skuzz, I apologize in advance if you think even this is going too far.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's Thrawn's hypothetical Boroda, not mine.
Really? :confused:
Toad, the axiom is: it was impossible to defeat Soviet Union by the power of weapons.
All you could do was to use nukes to terrorize civilian population. Again, 20kT toys were useless in a battlefield.
And the impact on morale could be huge: after seing what "they" have done to "our" homes and families - soldiers simply could tear their shirts on the chests and try to kill "them" at all costs, with bullets, bayonets, teeth and nails.
-
Talk to Thrawn.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Talk to Thrawn.
I thought you were out of this tread?
Toad, your rationalising about genocide of Soviet people really makes me go off the rocker and behave really ugly, sorry to other respectable participants of this discussion.
And please don't tell me whom I should talk to.
Чмо зелёное. Даже нихера не жёлтый земляной червяк.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
And the impact on morale could be huge: after seing what "they" have done to "our" homes and families - soldiers simply could tear their shirts on the chests and try to kill "them" at all costs, with bullets, bayonets, teeth and nails.
Have fun swimming across the Atlantic.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You guys stopped at conquering Eastern Europe, thank goodness, so we didn't have to fight you.
Stop. Looks like you forgot Thegeran-Yalta-Potsdam. Really I don't want to translate that materials, I think you can find them easy on the net yourself. Eastern Europe was divided with full agreement from USA and GB.
As I remember, you can not leave Polish problem. Poland received a lot of territory after the war. Only because of Stalin.
To fight? You haven't A-bombs that time. All two devices were used against Japan. As was written by Leslie Groves (perhaps you know who was that guy), they needed at least half a year to build 4-5 devices. And don't tell me the tales about air dominance. You haven't enough pilots and planes in Europe to do that. Tell "thanks" to Stalin who stopped an army in borders of agreements.
-
Originally posted by Estel
Stop. Looks like you forgot Thegeran-Yalta-Potsdam. Really I don't want to translate that materials, I think you can find them easy on the net yourself. Eastern Europe was divided with full agreement from USA and GB.
The only thing they usually remember about Yalta is that "Russians asked us to burn Dresden", that is another utter Toad-style lie.
Originally posted by Estel
As I remember, you can not leave Polish problem. Poland received a lot of territory after the war. Only because of Stalin.
Stalin simply couldn't do any good things, his main goal, as everyone knows, was to murder and kill :D
Originally posted by Estel
To fight? You haven't A-bombs that time. All two devices were used against Japan. As was written by Leslie Groves (perhaps you know who was that guy), they needed at least half a year to build 4-5 devices. And don't tell me the tales about air dominance. You haven't enough pilots and planes in Europe to do that. Tell "thanks" to Stalin who stopped an army in borders of agreements.
Estel, they, civilized people, will never read Groves's book, it's only for us, asian barbarians on our shaggy mounts (tm). They prefer comics.
-
boroda, the USA did not have to attack the USSR, they just let you self destruct as you did, foolish commies.
-
Have fun swimming across the Atlantic.
You forgot crap floats. :D
(Sorry, couldn't resist the obvious punchline.)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It would have been over in 6 weeks.
An army that was scared to death by two SS panzer divisions had one option: to run like hell towards British Channel.
oh ok, so now the US was pushed back to the English Channel? Man have I been reading the wrong books.