Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on April 23, 2003, 07:38:11 AM
-
Boroda tells me the Soviet Union never started a "war of aggression".
He explains the excursion into Finland thus:
"Toad, "invasion" in Finland had only one purpose: to protect Leningrad, and you know it. League of Nations didn't recognize Soviet term of "indirect agression" (BTW, a bad translation, "kosvennaya agressiya" is quite different from "nepryamaya agressiya"), but this term exactly describes what happened in June 24th on Finnish border. JFYI, after the White-Finnish war USSR simply forced an exchange of territory, offered to Finns before the war. "
I'm sure you guys know your history better than I do... so do you agree with Boroda's assessment?
-
LOL...Leningrad needed protection from the Finnish hoards? Does he really believe what he writes?
-
Er, no.
The Soviets basically stated that Finland, Estonia and Lithuania had the choices of a) voluntarily become part of the Soviet Union or b) involunarily becaome part of the Soviet Union after being conquered. Finland had a treaty with the Soviets and, naively, trusting that in meant something said "No". Estonia and Lithuania both said yes as they couldn't see a way out.
When the Finns said no the Soviets had to conquer them. The Soviets faild to conquer the Finns, but did gain substantial territory, including a large increase in the buffer around Leningrad. The Soviets then changed what their objectives had been in a face saving measure. Only after failing to conquer Finland did the war become about increasing Lenigrad's safety.
-
The Soviets were obviously acting in self defense. The Finns would have invaded Leningrad because they wanted a warm place to spend their winters.
ra
-
Russians wanted first to trade some ground around Leningrad to get the border more away. Now the city was on range of heavy arty. Also they wanted to get some islands at Gulf of Finland , and I remember also that they wanted to rent space near Helsinki to make a naval base . A place called Hanko Niemi.
We refused. It was seen from the start that their only goal was to get a good reason to attack Finland. Later when all was going down into the drain Finland tried to yield to some claims, but then russians refused.
They started a plot which aim was to frame Finnish artillery battery for firing some shots on russian troops. After that they stated that finland had started it and they were only retaliating.
Around 1990 they started to admit that the war was started by russians, before that the blame was rolled on Finnish people.
I saw one good document made by RUSSIAN people, and it stated the facts and reasons very well, and they admitted that the plot to invade Finland was already running when they requested those pieces of land.
So actually , and thats a fact, Russia was the aggressor.
Or it was actually the soviet union those days... no blame to russians solely.. :)
My grandpa died just, 20th of April, 2003, just 3 days ago, at age of 78 years.
He was fighting against russians for 2 years. Told me some stories about strafed horse and truck convoys, AA downing Sturmoviks and so on.. pretty chilly stuff.
Gonna miss him, he was hard but very good man. I´m proud of having had him as my GP..
-
Well, this is not as simple as mr. Radio tries to show it.
First of all, three Pribaltic states signed "military assistance" treaties with USSR. The reason was obvious: nazis openly threatened their independance and integrity. Memel/Klaipeda is a good example.
The problem with Finland was different. USSR wanted to secure Leningrad from an "indirect agression", a term not recognized by Western powers, mostly because they were possibly counting to use indirect agression against USSR. More to say, indirect agression was exactly what happened in 1941 when German troops used Finland as a beachead. It is clear and obvious that if the border remained at Sestroretsk, only 32km from Leningrad (now it's much closer - the city grows), enemy troops could reach Palace square and even industrial districts in the South of Leningrad in a few hours.
Soviet government offered Finland a fair exchange of Karelian Istmuth for two times more land in Karelia, but Finnish government refused. Then - Mainila happened, and the war began. Finland probably relied on Western military assistance, but it didn't come in time. Future "allies" let Hitler rape Poland without waving a finger, so they wanted him to attack USSR and didn't want to engage in future War. It's pretty obvious, and many Western sources share this point of view.
After complete defeat of Finnish defence in March 1940 their parliament was wise enough to sign a cease fire on the conditions offered by USSR before the war. It's interesting that Mannerheim insisted on agreement with Soviet Union before the war... He was a former Russian general and understood that Finnish army doesn't stand a single chance against Russians. Two weeks of defence promised by Mannerheim turned into the worst campain for Russian/Soviet army since maybe 1905. I wonder what could happen if Russians didn't blow up forts of Finnish Gulf in 1918... I spent my childhood in the military harrison, "summer quarters" of the Komarov military engineering college in Privetnenskoe, literally on the ruins of fort Ino. It looked really impressive even 60 years after it was blown up...
I have once wrote here that my Father was a schoolboy in 1940, he lived in Rostov on Don. His school was turned into a hospital in winter 1940, it's hard to imagine the losses if wounded warriors didn't fit into hospitals even that far South... Mostly frozen, less - wounded...
The point where most of the Finns disagree with me is that Stalin didn't want to occupy the whole Finland. After Mannerheim line was broken in March 1940 and Kirponos's tanks croosed the ice of Finnish gulf - everything was over, and nothing could stop Red Army. Instead of occupation Stalin preferred to agree on pre-war conditions.
I have to point out that all USSR foreign policy (as well as internal policy :() in late-30s had one simple purpose: to survive in the inevitable War. The non-agression pact with Hitler didn't fool anyone - the war was in the air, and the enemy was clear.
-
Jarsci, Salute to your Grandfather!...
You Finns are great warriors.
-
That's it?
One Finn replies?
Guess I'll have to look elsewhere to see if Boroda is right about the peace-loving peoples of the Soviet Union and their brothers the Finns just having a teensy tiny little spat.
I guess it's true then that the Soviet forces absolutely kicked the Finns rear ends in short order... but in a totally non-aggressive way.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
... Future "allies" let Hitler rape Poland without waving a finger.
Why so modest? You guys you did half of the raping... Obviously in self defense I presume.
-
http://hkkk.fi/%7Eyrjola/war/finland/summary.html
http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/war1.html
http://www.sci.fi/%7Efta/history.htm
http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/winter_war/
-
Originally posted by Boroda
More to say, indirect agression was exactly what happened in 1941 when German troops used Finland as a beachead.
Gee, you think that the fact that the Soviet Union tried to conquer Finland in 1939 might have played a small part in the Finn's decision to allow Germans to attack through Finland?
Naw, that'd never happen.
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's it?
One Finn replies?
Guess I'll have to look elsewhere to see if Boroda is right about the peace-loving peoples of the Soviet Union and their brothers the Finns just having a teensy tiny little spat.
I guess it's true then that the Soviet forces absolutely kicked the Finns rear ends in short order... but in a totally non-aggressive way.
Soviet had 5 700,000 troops trying to occupy Finland.
The Finns where 200,000. (Loosing 10% of the territory is´nt what I call defeat).
They hold their lines for nearly 4 months.
Bombing civilian targets in a Capital city is very aggresive way.
Shooting at red-cross market cars is also aggresive and a warcrime. Common behavior of especialy: The Soviet Airforce.
(Funny how history often is repeated.)
Stalin tried to rape The Finns, got his Balls kicked in, End of story.
I am proud that My Grandfather where apart of this "ballkicking".
Crabofix
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, this is not as simple as mr. Radio tries to show it.
LOL!
This thread starts with YOUR way of showing it! That's a direct quote of YOURS!
But it's starting to look like a few Finns don't exactly agree with the way you view it.
:D
-
Boroda is just telling us what hes been taught :)
-
Yes, and you Finns should apologize for the aggressive attack you made on the poor Soviet Union! Shame! Shame!
Latvia (http://www.russianservice.com/regions.asp?Main=Latvia)
In the 1930s Latvia placed its economy on a sound footing. It adopted a neutral position after the outbreak of World War II (1939-1945). On October 5, 1939, Latvia signed a mutual-assistance treaty with the USSR and, later, a reparations convention with Germany. In June 1940, following the fall of France, the USSR accused Latvia of forming, with neighboring Estonia, a secret anti-Soviet military alliance, and Soviet forces occupied the country. After elections supervised by the Soviet army, a Communist regime was installed, and on August 5, 1940, Latvia became the 15th constituent republic of the USSR.
Same http://www.russianservice.com website, Estonia
In June 1940 Soviet forces occupied Estonia and the other Baltic republics of Latvia and Lithuania. Elections were then organized, in which only Soviet-supported candidates were permitted to run. On August 6, 1940, Estonia became a republic of the USSR.
Lithuania? Glad you asked! (Encarta, lying Capitalist Running Dog Lackey Microsoft Encyclopedia)
With the outbreak of World War II and the partition of Poland by Germany and the USSR, the Lithuanian and Soviet governments concluded a mutual-assistance treaty in October 1939. A new pro-Soviet government was installed in Lithuania the following June. Shortly thereafter the Communist Working People's Bloc, the only political party allowed to function, campaigned for inclusion of Lithuania in the USSR. Political dissidents were rounded up, and the electorate voted, on July 14 and 15, 1940, in a single-slate parliamentary election. The new parliament unanimously approved a resolution requesting incorporation of Lithuania in the USSR. The Soviet government granted the request on August 3...
Large-scale anti-Soviet uprisings in Lithuania followed the German invasion of the USSR on June 22, 1941. Unable to contend with both the revolt and the German onslaught, the Soviet forces withdrew. The Germans systematically pillaged Lithuanian resources and, as a national resistance movement developed, killed more than 200,000 people.
In the summer of 1944 the Soviets reoccupied Lithuania, which was reestablished as a Soviet republic. The Soviet government deported about 350,000 Lithuanians to labor camps in Siberia as punishment for holding anti-communist beliefs or resisting Soviet rule.
Oh, yes.. it sure looks like the Soviets were warmly welcomed when they occupied Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
How come you Finns didn't greet them with wine and flowers too? You evil aggressors!
-
Originally posted by Toad
How come you Finns didn't greet them with wine and flowers too? You evil aggressors!
I think the reason was we ran out of wine and flowers around 1917
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I think the reason was we ran out of wine and flowers around 1917
That must be it :)
Luckily we still had Petsamo and its nickel mines.. We gave lots of that to them :D
I think they didn´t like the way it was delivered.. (7.62mm ):rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Gee, you think that the fact that the Soviet Union tried to conquer Finland in 1939 might have played a small part in the Finn's decision to allow Germans to attack through Finland?
Naw, that'd never happen.
Well, Finland got it's part of Russian pie acting together with Germans in 1941-44... They occupied great territory in Karelia, including Petrozavodsk.
All non-Finnish/Saam population was held in concentration camps. Death rate there was significantly higher then in German camps... It's interesting that their occupational policy copied German national segregation. Saams had to wear signs like "relative nationality" on their dress, other population was deprived of basic rights and starved in labour-camps...
Other interesting thing is that Finnish troops were feared more then German SS troops by Soviet civilians. :(
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Soviet had 5 700,000 troops trying to occupy Finland.
The Finns where 200,000. (Loosing 10% of the territory is´nt what I call defeat).
They hold their lines for nearly 4 months.
Bombing civilian targets in a Capital city is very aggresive way.
Shooting at red-cross market cars is also aggresive and a warcrime. Common behavior of especialy: The Soviet Airforce.
(Funny how history often is repeated.)
Stalin tried to rape The Finns, got his Balls kicked in, End of story.
I am proud that My Grandfather where apart of this "ballkicking".
Crabofix
The Soviet goals were achieved, I can call it a complete victory. But the price was horrible. OTOH this war showed us many things, many important decisions were made after this experience. Without it the catastrophe of 1941 could be much worse.
I don't like the fact that VVS bombed Helsinki. I can imagine that they could get such orders, but believe me, if they planned it - it could not end with only 20 victims...
Frankly speaking I never heard about VVS attacking Red Cross cars. Just as well as many Finns never heard about concentration camps in Karelia.
I admit that the White-Finnish war was agressive. (BTW, where the hell did mr. Radio see that I said it wasn't?!) I only disagree that USSR planned to occupy Finland. In March 1940 it could be done with ease, Finns had nothing to stop Red Army.
USSR had a goal, nessesary to survive. We offered a bargain. Then we forced Finns to accept the offer.
Toad insists that all the evil of the XX century comes from my country. At the same time he fails to understand that his "land of free" made absolutely the same thing that USSR was doing to Pribaltica after the War. I don't speak about annexion of Hawaii, invasions to Panama and other Latin-American countris, etc. That was how politics worked at that time. We stepped away from imperial path 12 years ago. Some countries still think that tanks and bombers are the cheapest way to solve problems. :(
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Boroda is just telling us what hes been taught :)
Not exactly so.
What we were told at school was something like "We only had to move the border from Leningrad and had a war with Finland". The horrible losses were not mentioned. I didn't know about Mainila until I was maybe 25, and it made me study the question a little. BTW, in my childhood years noone dared to say that Finland attacked USSR, it was simply ridiculous...
Other things we were not told (not in school history books, but you certainly could find all the information in libraries and press) war the Finnish occupation of Karelia and all that genocide things... Simply because we were friends with Finns (and I hope we still are). Many things were not used in propaganda purposes, such as the fact that Poland got it's part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, allied bombings of German cities, etc. This fact is easily explained...
White-Finnish war left some eternal examples of propaganda. The most impressive thing is Leonid Sobolev's "Seaman's Soul" book of short stories from a front-line journalist. Finns were considered extremely brave and serious enemy...
-
In my opinion - backed by some research, invasion of Finland was just the Soviet attempt to grab the territory that was "allocated" to them according to 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop theaty.
Russians already had the "people" finnish government ready to be imported and assume the puppet rule.
Allies certainly did something about Poland - french valliantly declared desperate war on Germany they have no hope of winning - especially since their ally England concentrated it's efforts on protecting themselves from superficial damage by keeping essential modern fighters home and sending too few troops to the continent. The US of course did not even think of coming to it's historical friend and enemy help long after it was defeated and Hitler actually declared war on US.
Still, failure to defend/liberate Poland on the part of France and England does not negate their attempt to do so.
Also, there is a huge misconception about the relative size of the USSR and finnish forces. While USSR had "5,700,000" troops in it's whole army - incuding millions in the Far East, the logictics of the situation - the layout of railroads, remoteness of the terminals from the front, number and quality of the roads, few meters of snow cover, etc. - would not have permitted to operate more that just a few divisions altogether - few tens of thousands people.
If it takes more fuel to burn to get there than a car can carry certain distance from the railroad, your operations effectively end at that point. Adding more troops than your ligistics can effectively support causes reduction rather than increase in the combat power.
Taking prepared positions (20 years of building on the part of brilliant and prophetical Mannerheim) in severe winter conditions with meters of snow cover, limited roands against well-prepared and motivated enemy was quite a feat on russians' part - due mostly to terror of troops of their officers more than death or cold or starvation.
It was lucky that finns resisted as long as they did to make Stalin stop and postpone his plans to occupy their country. They could have gotten it back eventually but their intellectual elite, officers, teachers, priests and buisness class would have been exterminated just like those of Poland and baltic countries.
miko
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The Soviet goals were achieved, I can call it a complete victory.
I only disagree that USSR planned to occupy Finland. In March 1940 it could be done with ease, Finns had nothing to stop Red Army.
USSR had a goal, nessesary to survive. We offered a bargain. Then we forced Finns to accept the offer.
As the goal for Stalin was to incoperate the Finns into "USSR", it was a great defeat.
Indeed, I belive it was the greatest defeat in modern history.
Crabofix
-
Miko, desperately declaring war is not a good expression... Having 80 divisions on the Western border of Germany and doing nothing until nazis attacked France is definetly not "desperate" action.
The problem is that Western nations were waiting for a war between Germany and USSR. If they wanted to stop Hitler - they should have finished 1938 Moscow negotiations fast and decisively. Instead they simply were playing for time. USSR had given them everything including strategic plans and mobilization conditions, just to get a complete and arrogant refusal.
About Kuusinen's "government" - they turned into a Karelo-Finnish SSR government... You remember there was a 16th Republic?
In 1956 the Karelo-Finnish SSR was renamed into a Karelian Autonomous Republic, because they discovered there are only two Finns there, one - Financial inspector and another - Finkelstein, both being the same person ;)
-
I disagree about those concentration camps. I admit that later during the war the POWs held in captivity were having hard time, and lots of them did die, but its because even the front line troops didnt have enough food. Regular families didn´t have flours to make bread , so they added some sawdust (or whats it in english..)
But there wasn´t racial problems here in Finland. Saam population lived on in Lapland. Among the best Sissi ( recon/partisan teams moving behind enemy lines , usually skiing)
platoons were lots of Saam people, which knew the nothern ways of nature very well. Finland refused to send jews to Germany. Although later its been found out that there may be some single cases where people have been given to the Germans.
How you think that we could have been able to resist USSR´s attack if we had had lots of troops guarding some concentration camps, how our people could have been so united agains yours??
Even the people who were politically pro-communists were fighting against Russian troops, because they were defending our way of thinking and our land.
During Continuation war 41-44 Finland reclaimed areas which we lost during Winter War and following peace treaty, and then some. But Finland halted its attack and refused to aid Germany in attacking further in Russia. We just took what was ours (and some compensation of course.. heh ) Our intend was not to crusade against USSR, as Germany was doing.
It´s funny thought that we keep arguing over some 60yrs+ old war where lots of people died and all participants who fought there try to forget that as hard as they can... why we try to justify old things and wrongdoings when we could try to make a better tomorrow and learn from old mistakes?
But it seems that human mind is not capable to live in peace and prosper, we need always some reason to kill and maim our neighbours.. And its also funny that 1% of population which is in charge is usually the most fanatic to wage war, and the rest 99% , who will suffer mostly, are following like sheeps..
Sheesh this stupidity.. wondering how we didnt kill ourselves right after we fell down from the tree...? and they call this evolution!
-
Originally posted by crabofix
As the goal for Stalin was to incoperate the Finns into "USSR", it was a great defeat.
Indeed, I belive it was the greatest defeat in modern history.
Crabofix
Can you explain why Stalin agreed to end the war on the conditions offered before in started, incluing the Karelian territory several times bigger then Karelian Istđmus given to Finland?...
Also tell me what could save Finland from occupation after Mannerheim's line was broken? Soviet tanks moved on the ice of Finnish Gulf, and when the ice should melt - the whole Baltic Fleet could be sent to combat. It was a complete and obvious victory.
-
Boroda: Miko, desperately declaring war is not a good expression... Having 80 divisions on the Western border of Germany and doing nothing until nazis attacked France is definetly not "desperate" action.
They were no match for germans - in defence or in offence. They got destroyed. That kind of proves they started a war that was desperate. They might not have believed it to be so when they started - but their hesitation of going on offencive kind of indicates they did.
They probably at first expected Brits to hit germans hard with heavy bombers and destroy their port cities with their mighty fleet and send plenty of troops and machinery but the brits were not that enthusiastic about the whole thing.
The problem is that Western nations were waiting for a war between Germany and USSR. If they wanted to stop Hitler - they should have finished 1938 Moscow negotiations fast and decisively.
Alternatively - and actually, Stalin spent 15 years bringing Hitler to power and setting the Europe up for the next world war according to the communist doctrine - so that he could "liberate" the whole continental Europe with from Hitler instead of just half of it like he did when Hitler recognised his back-stabbing plan and attacked preemptively.
The fact that Stalin publicly agreed that it was "possible to build socialism in one country" hext to prosperous fast-developing free societies does not mean that he really believed that and just said so to quiet their suspicions. He was a genius after all and had all the data, so impossibility of long-term coexistence of socialism and capitalism must have been obvious to him long before it became obvious to everybody.
So stopping Hitler from taking on Europe was the least thing Stalin would have wanted. Hence he did not allow the 1938 negotiations to conclude the way brits wanted.
miko
-
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
I disagree about those concentration camps. I admit that later during the war the POWs held in captivity were having hard time, and lots of them did die, but its because even the front line troops didnt have enough food. Regular families didn´t have flours to make bread , so they added some sawdust (or whats it in english..)
But there wasn´t racial problems here in Finland. Saam population lived on in Lapland. Among the best Sissi ( recon/partisan teams moving behind enemy lines , usually skiing)
platoons were lots of Saam people, which knew the nothern ways of nature very well. Finland refused to send jews to Germany. Although later its been found out that there may be some single cases where people have been given to the Germans.
How you think that we could have been able to resist USSR´s attack if we had had lots of troops guarding some concentration camps, how our people could have been so united agains yours??
Even the people who were politically pro-communists were fighting against Russian troops, because they were defending our way of thinking and our land.
During Continuation war 41-44 Finland reclaimed areas which we lost during Winter War and following peace treaty, and then some. But Finland halted its attack and refused to aid Germany in attacking further in Russia. We just took what was ours (and some compensation of course.. heh ) Our intend was not to crusade against USSR, as Germany was doing.
Jarsci, the concentration camps in Karelia in 1941-44 are a sad truth. Only in Petrozavodsk there were 5 (five) camps, with all the population except Saams and Finns held there. I meant that Saams had to wear that "relative nationality" signs to get benefits together with Finns. Funny that you call Petrozavodsk "some compensation"... You should find some maps of that time. Some Finnish maps I saw on your historical sites look as if occupation of Karelia didn't happen at all... :(
I understand that it was not a "crusade" as nazis, and frankly speaking I was stunned when I read about all that racial crap :( I read it in translated Finnish sources.
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
It´s funny thought that we keep arguing over some 60yrs+ old war where lots of people died and all participants who fought there try to forget that as hard as they can... why we try to justify old things and wrongdoings when we could try to make a better tomorrow and learn from old mistakes?
But it seems that human mind is not capable to live in peace and prosper, we need always some reason to kill and maim our neighbours.. And its also funny that 1% of population which is in charge is usually the most fanatic to wage war, and the rest 99% , who will suffer mostly, are following like sheeps..
Sheesh this stupidity.. wondering how we didnt kill ourselves right after we fell down from the tree...? and they call this evolution!
Agreed completely.
The problem is that mr. Radio-Toad tries to bait me for not admitting my own personal responsibility for all the crap Western propaganda whistled into his years about evil Russians. Every country has some skeletons in a closet. Only a real Master-Baiter like Toad can use dirty tricks to show as if I am an enemy of the Finns.
-
Miko, here is a beautiful book on the subject we discuss:
Leonard Mosley, "On Borrowed Time" (How WWII began) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394439104/qid=1051206049/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-4440683-1693450?v=glance&s=books)
It's not a Soviet source, and can't be called "pro-Soviet", but it was published in 1972 in Russian by Voenizdat, 50000 copies.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Can you explain why Stalin agreed to end the war on the conditions offered before in started, incluing the Karelian territory several times bigger then Karelian Istđmus given to Finland?...
Also tell me what could save Finland from occupation after Mannerheim's line was broken? Soviet tanks moved on the ice of Finnish Gulf, and when the ice should melt - the whole Baltic Fleet could be sent to combat. It was a complete and obvious victory.
I tell you Why Stalin ended his efforts, being so close to "win".
Stalin thought that the war against the Finns was gonna be over with pretty quick. He never dreamed about losing that many men and thoose hughe amounts of equiptment.
It would also have taken many men then he thought, to keep Finland occupied. (He lost the amount of troops that where suposed to handle this).
He didnt know what France and England where up to.
They could have decleared war on USSR as they did on Germany.
What he accomplished was his secondary goal.
But, you are saying that he kept a enemy alive, ready to aid Germany in a future attack, just because he could afford it, cause his goals where met?
-
It is very simple
According to Boroda, the USSR wanted some of Finland . Finland refused. USSR invaded Finland's sovereignty to take it. That was a war of aggression.
-
Originally posted by Makofan
It is very simple
According to Boroda, the USSR wanted some of Finland . Finland refused. USSR invaded Finland's sovereignty to take it. That was a war of aggression.
Now, thats to simple to explain a war of aggression. The rules have changed lately. This is "selfdefence".
Crabofix
-
Crabofix, again, why didn't Stalin simply annex Karelian Isthmus, but handled some land in Karelia to Finns in exchange?...
Occupation of Finland couldn't be a problem. Absolutely no problem. You have to understand that the only one Leningrad Military District took part in that war, and it wasn't the best eqipped and numerous. Most of the losses were due to Timoshenko's inability to work according to regulations, his stupid belief that Finns will simply surrender. After he was removed - all was nessesary for the victory was to just follow field regulations...
As for the position of France and England - you know that they failed (or were too afraid) even to supply Finland with some equipment before the cease fire... They were so scared of Hitler (as Miko said) that they simply couldn't afford to declare war on USSR. All the "what ifs" about massive landing in Norway or Sweeden are non-science fiction. Stalin surely wasn't afraid of them.
The discussion is useless as almost any "what if" in history... We have what we have, and it's not very clever to try understanding Stalin's motivation now. I only try to use Occam's razor ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The problem is that mr. Radio-Toad tries to bait me for not admitting my own personal responsibility
Ah, NO. That's not it and you know it. You weren't even born then; you have no "personal responsibility" for the aggression and atrocities perpetrated by the Soviet Union.
However, you fail to admit ANY Soviet responsibility for some of the greatest atrocities in the history of man, Katyn Forest being a prime example.
Now, to refresh your memory on how this all started in the "Thousands Demonstrate in Anti-Bush March" thread, here's some DIRECT QUOTES of YOURS... YOUR OWN WORDS.
As for being "anti-american" - I just can't imagine what should happen in order to make me support agressors. All words about "liberation" simply make me sick. Especially when spoken by righteous young Party activists.
So you just can't support aggressors, but you can be totally in support of Stalin? :D
I understood your post that you mean Stalin was an agressor?
Yes, that's what I meant. That's what all but a very few people left alive on the planet mean too. You being one of the exceptions.
Toad, "invasion" in Finland had only one purpose: to protect Leningrad, and you know it. League of Nations didn't recognize Soviet term of "indirect agression" (BTW, a bad translation, "kosvennaya agressiya" is quite different from "nepryamaya agressiya"), but this term exactly describes what happened in June 24th on Finnish border. JFYI, after the White-Finnish war USSR simply forced an exchange of territory, offered to Finns before the war.
Hey, WAIT! In this thread you JUST said:
Boroda: I admit that the White-Finnish war was agressive....USSR had a goal, nessesary to survive. We offered a bargain. Then we forced Finns to accept the offer.
Goodness, first you deny it then you admit it.
Beyond that, do you realize that you just said that ANY country that views a particular issue as a matter of its national survival... by their own judgement only... is justified in waging agressive war? :D
Skipping the list of treaties with Polish state that by Sept. 17th 1939 ceased to exist. Now tell me how many people Red Army saved from nazis in Eastern Poland.
KATYN must be an example of "saving Poles"! Stalin "saved" people in funny ways, I guess.
I'm not surprised you want to ignore the five treaties that were in existance with the Polish government at the time Stalin stabbed the Poles in the back. The Polish state HAD NOT ceased to exist when Stalin invaded. Germany invaded from the west on 1 September 1939, starting the Second World War. Russia invaded from the east on 17 September. Warsaw, the seat of Polish governement did not fall to the Nazis until 27 September.
Here's a real strange idea to consider: What if the Soviet Union, instead of getting into bed with Hitler in the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty that carved up Poland between them, had actually AIDED POLAND against the Nazis? What if they had fought WITH the Poles? Don't want to talk about that, do you?
What if all those Russian divisions had been used against Hitler? You castigate the French for sitting on their butts while Hitler invaded Poland? LOL! At least they didn't stab the Poles in the back with their divisions like the Soviet Union did!
Toad:
Oh, yeah.. remember what happened on 15 June 1940 in Lithuania? June 17, 1940 in Latvia? September 28, 1939 in Estonia?
BORODA: You call THAT an "agression"!? Damn, it happened after absolutely Democratic procedures.
Yeah, I call it aggression. Those people had the choice of voting to accepting "peaceful" assimilation into the Soviet Union or to accept instant invasion by the Soviet Army. Pretty revealing that they initially welcomed the Nazi Army as liberators, wouldn't you say? (Of course, the Nazi's were no better than the Soviets as it turned out.) Do a little in-depth reading on it from the Latvian, Lithuanian or Estonian history books......
I just wonder what will US of A do when some day they'll find people in a "friendly" country hanging your allies on lamp posts. And JFYI: "invasions" in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were perforemed by Warsaw Treaty troops, not only Soviet.
Again: did anyone in the "free world" care about poor Magyars and Czechs? Did they do anything to help them after they arranged that great provocations? No they didn't.
That "people wanting freedom" thing is just a b tch, isn't it? Your "Warsaw Pact" invasion (as if the Warsaw Pact would do anything independently of orders from Moscow) was aggression against an internal change of government. The Hungarians and the Czechs wanted to shape their own destiny. What they got instead was Soviet tanks.
So again, what you misunderstand is that I do not hold YOU personally responsible for these things. I don't even hold you responsible for learning what they taught in your schools. The history was obviously skewed.
What you are responsible for, IMO, is continuing to spew the unrecognizably skewed history they taught you while ignoring the entire world of unfiltered knowledge that can now be summoned with a few keystrokes.
You can read up on these things from several different sources. And if you free your mind, you'll see the truth is not what they told you.
But... sadly we'd then lose one of the most entertaining aspects of the O-Club.
:D
You are missing a great opportunity though..... the guy has made tons of money selling the misery that was the Soviet Union as humor.
Yakov Smirnoff (http://www.yakov.com/bio.html)
-
Agreed Boroda, "what if is" no use to argue about.
I dont think Stalin where affraid of the Norweigans or the Swedes. British forces where on their way to invade parts of Nothern Norway, shortly after the end of the winter war. (Germans got there first though).
Am I wrong when I say, French troops where involved to? (forign legion).
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Now, thats to simple to explain a war of aggression. The rules have changed lately. This is "selfdefence".
Crabofix
Really times have changed... Now Ignorance is Power, Lie is a Truth and War is Peace... :(
Only a fallen Empire can admit that some of it's wars were agressive, regardless to the fact that this agression saved it 2 years later...
My personal attitude:
That war was agressive.
We have won.
It's good that we have won.
I am sorry that we had to have a war with Finland to achieve our vital goals.
Finns are damn good soldiers, brave and desperate, I salute them.
I want to drink for Finns. Cheers! Your health!
(http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif)
-
Toad, it's pretty hard to argue to your built-in radio after it have told me about "the "incorporation" of Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia into the Soviet Union after WW2". I will try to do it next time when I'll be drunk enough to turn it on and ask it to sing me a song.
Go read some books. I mean real history books, not something approved for US military personnel or people with IQ below 90.
-
Sorry, just couldn't resist reading mr. Radio's post :D
So we have closed the question with Finland? Looks like you don't care about Finland any more? Next question goes to Poles or Czechs?
You are the Real Master-Baiter!
(http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/images/graemlins/pray.gif)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Sorry, just couldn't resist reading mr. Radio's post :D
So we have closed the question with Finland? Looks like you don't care about Finland any more? Next question goes to Poles or Czechs?
You are the Real Master-Baiter!
Boroda might prefare Angola?
Toad might want to talk about Chile? or Nam?
-
Yeah Boroda, invasion of Finland was major success. Red Army troops arrived Helsinki capital in 2 weeks as was planned..:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Yeah Boroda, invasion of Finland was major success. Red Army troops arrived Helsinki capital in 2 weeks as was planned..:rolleyes:
In current state of military science breaking the Mannerheim line in -40 degrees frost, with 2 meters of snow and other goodies requires tactical nukes...
-
I'll talk about anything you like.
The difference between Boroda and I is that I was educated in an open society and he wasn't.
*********
So, you finally admit that the Soviet Union under STALIN waged aggressive war against Finland?
Good!
Now, do you want to move on to Poland? Or are you still maintaining that the Soviet Union didn't stab the Poles in the back.
I've got plenty of time, we can work through these one by one.
:D
-
Oh, and that long post was merely a review of things YOU said indicating that the Holy Soviet Union under Saint Joseph never waged "aggressive war".
Well, except Finland, now, apparently.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'll talk about anything you like.
The difference between Boroda and I is that I was educated in an open society and he wasn't.
Did you have access to Soviet historical literature translated into English and published in your country? If so - how many Soviet sources did you read?
Also - how many books from modern Russian/Soviet writers did you read?
Also please tell me what were the chances of a Communist party member to serve together with you. I also want to know this chances for 1940s, 50s and 60s.
Calling a society "closed" or "not open" is a silly thing if you never had a chance to live in it and rely only on propaganda.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The difference between Boroda and I is that I was educated in an open society and he wasn't.
Ok, got that, ........Toad, How come I have doubts about this ?
-
Because you didn't go to a Jesuit High School in the US?
If you don't think the US is an open society where you can have access to and read anything you like by any author, there's no point in any disucssion with you, either.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, and that long post was merely a review of things YOU said indicating that the Holy Soviet Union under Saint Joseph never waged "aggressive war".
Well, except Finland, now, apparently.
Again, where did you see me posting that USSR never waged agressive wars?
Oh, sorry folks, I am getting drunk enough to ask radio to sing me a love song :D
(http://forum.exler.ru/vb/images/smilies/alc.gif)
-
Tell me about the Soviet verison of the Katyn Forest massacre again Boroda... I love that fairy tale.
Hey, in you open society, why did the jam Radio Free Europe?
:D
-
Boroda,
I wouldn't call all goals achieved, if they were supposed to have a birthday parade in Helsinki for Stalin :>
It is also funny that soviet military tried to split up Finland with their forces, if all they wanted, was to just secure Leningrad.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because you didn't go to a Jesuit High School in the US?
If you don't think the US is an open society where you can have access to and read anything you like by any author, there's no point in any disucssion with you, either.
:D
Hehe I did go to the Jesuit school in the US :D
Do you have "Green Book" in the bookstores?
Could you buy Soviet books in English in the US in 1970s? In 1960s? 50s? 40s?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Again, where did you see me posting that USSR never waged agressive wars?
What you said in one thread is that you don't support aggressors. What you said in another thread is that you support Stalin and what he did.
Can't have it both ways.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tell me about the Soviet verison of the Katyn Forest massacre again Boroda... I love that fairy tale.
Hey, in you open society, why did the jam Radio Free Europe?
:D
We never jammed Radio Free Europe :D
Again, I want to see DOCUMENTS about Katyn tragedy. Not your obvious fakes that contradict themselves. Again, I have a right to doubt, leaving blind faith in propaganda to you.
-
I didn't start reading until the mid-50's. :D I'm not as old as you think.
Yes, we had books by Russian authors available in the 60's.
Do you have the internet now? Good! You might want to research things like Katyn and the treaties between Poland and the USSR in 1939....... before Stalin stabbed the Poles in the back.
Then we can move on to the "choice" the Soviet army gave to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. The Hungarian revolution...... Prague Spring...... The Purges and the Gulag Archipelago......
I've got nothing against Russians or anyone else for that matter.
However, the willing blindness to proven historical fact is another thing altogether.
It took half this thread to get you to admit to the Finns that yes, that was an AGGRESSIVE war.
Stalin was an oppressive aggressive butcher of his own people and of his neighbors.
-
But you are very entertaining. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because you didn't go to a Jesuit High School in the US?
If you don't think the US is an open society where you can have access to and read anything you like by any author, there's no point in any disucssion with you, either.
:D
I do belive you can access most anything everywhere
-
Originally posted by Boroda
In current state of military science breaking the Mannerheim line in -40 degrees frost, with 2 meters of snow and other goodies requires tactical nukes...
Yeah, well last document i watched, Russian made BTW, stated that Mannerheim line was nothing special. Couple of reinforced bunkers and few meters wide river in front of it. Intel knew the exact locations of these bunkers, but because the Russians sucked in C&C, such information never reached the warplanners.
You can "what if" all day long, but this thing boils down to the fact, that Russia sucked like Chasey Lane in their warcampaings. War is like playing scrabble, you have the letters you have and thats it, use them wisely. We did, you didnt, we rich you poor..:D
-
Originally posted by crabofix
I do belive you can access most anything everywhere
Yes, the internet made that possible.
I don't think you could say that 30 years ago, however.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, the internet made that possible.
I don't think you could say that 30 years ago, however.
Ok, 30 years ago in soviet.
40 years ago, US, I know it leaves a bad taste, but does the word "anti american activity" ring a bell?
I was In soviet 1986, it was a horrible place and you could trade mostly anything (if there was naything availible) with some dollars or used mens magazines.
I went into a groserystore, it was filled, with one type of caned meat, that was it. No line though, like to the bread and the milk shop.
crabofix
-
Joe McCarthy?
McCarthy-ism was pretty short lived as an American political phenomenom.
And if you're saying that what Americans could read was ever restricted, I'd have to disagree.
-
Cant really judge that, I am not that old, Toad.
-
I am.
;)
-
Poor you:D
-
I wouldn't trade the youth I wasted for the one you folks are now wasting.
I've got a 23 year old that's living life large. I still think I had more fun than he's having. ;)
My generation was right there at the beginning/best part of "sex, drugs and rock and roll".
Saw Led Zeppelin on their first American tour, for instance..... with a really cute little hippy chick. :D
Nah, enjoy yours....... I had a great one, thanks!
You made me reflect a bit. I saw them Nov 05, 1969 - Memorial Hall, Kansas City, KS. That wasn't their FIRST tour of the states but it was the first year they toured. I do remember that the air was so thick with smoke that you could barely see the stage. Not talking pyrotechnics, either.......
-
led zepplin, never saw them, cause Keith said they sucked, but Plant is a great guy.
-
Weren't you quitting or something, Crabotard?
SOB
-
Nah, cant let Blitz have all the fun by himself.
-
I didn't start reading until the mid-50's. :D I'm not as old as you think.
So you started reading 20 years before me :) I only want to say that until I was 15 I prefered to read something like Jules Wernes and didn't care about Katyn at all. So I hope that you didn't want to read political stuff at that age too, unless you had no childhood with endless fight against Evil Communists instead :D
Yes, we had books by Russian authors available in the 60's.
Yeah, standard kit from Tolstoy (damn I couldn't break through "War and the World" for five times! ;)), Dostoyevskiy and Solzhenitsyn :D
Did you ever open a historical book by any Soviet author?
Do you have the internet now? Good! You might want to research things like Katyn and the treaties between Poland and the USSR in 1939....... before Stalin stabbed the Poles in the back.
No I don't have internet :) Evil KGB officers standing behind me don't let me go to wrong sites :D
I just can't understand why you rely completely on nazi version of Katyn' and fail to use Google and find a Burdenko Comission report, IIRC signed by Allied representatives too. It is the last DOCUMENT availible, other then the obvious fakes you showed me.
Then we can move on to the "choice" the Soviet army gave to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. The Hungarian revolution...... Prague Spring...... The Purges and the Gulag Archipelago......
Toad, I know you will not answer this particular paragraph, ignoring it, but I want to discuss US politics in Latin America since late XIX century. Let's begin with the story of relations between US and Columbia, OK? Did Columbia threaten US? How did it happen that we have a state of Panama now where the Channel was supposed to be built? Why didn't US representantives even visit the ceremony in Panama in 1999? What is your attitude towards Teddy Rousevelt?
I also want to know why it was nesseary to isolate all Japanese-Americans in 1941 in concentration camps?
Should I continue asking you questions? I have plenty of them.
I've got nothing against Russians or anyone else for that matter.
Yeah, really? Wasn't it you who said that Americans brought peace and "freedom" (damn "freedom" again!!!) to Vietnam and evil Soviets didn't let them by shooting down helpless American planes? Wasn't it you, among others, saying that Soviet soldiers occupied pacefull Germany only to rape everyone regardless of age and sex? Wasn't it you saying that brave Americans didn't do anythig like "barbarians from the East"? Wasn't it you who said bobmings of Yugoslavia were OK, regardless to the fact that your aerial bandits were bombing civilians to assist an organisation that was declared "terrosrist" by your own Congress?
However, the willing blindness to proven historical fact is another thing altogether.
Sure it is. Reading only Western propaganda is nothing better then repeating Soviet version, as I usually do, because I want YOU to see the other side, but your blind faith is too strong.
It took half this thread to get you to admit to the Finns that yes, that was an AGGRESSIVE war.
Really!? Poor me. Sorry that I don't know English as good as you do, you know, only nine years in Soviet school...
Stalin was an oppressive aggressive butcher of his own people and of his neighbors.
...who saved the world from nazism, saved endless millions from beind destroyed as "useless" and the rest turned into speechless slaves.
I understand that you simply can't imagine any other view on that great personality, but he saved us from nuclear devastation by "fighters for freedom and democracy" too.
You still can't understand one simple thing: the survival of many nations was at stake, and it took such a tragic and dark figure as Stalin to make it never happen.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I wouldn't trade the youth I wasted for the one you folks are now wasting.
I've got a 23 year old that's living life large. I still think I had more fun than he's having. ;)
My generation was right there at the beginning/best part of "sex, drugs and rock and roll".
Saw Led Zeppelin on their first American tour, for instance..... with a really cute little hippy chick. :D
Nah, enjoy yours....... I had a great one, thanks!
You made me reflect a bit. I saw them Nov 05, 1969 - Memorial Hall, Kansas City, KS. That wasn't their FIRST tour of the states but it was the first year they toured. I do remember that the air was so thick with smoke that you could barely see the stage. Not talking pyrotechnics, either.......
Toad, you couldn't say anything more to make me envious!!!
:(
:p
:D
I was at Robert Plant's show in November... Almost 20000 people at the Olinpiyskiy palace, crowds outside trying to get a ticket...
And 2 weeks ago I was at the first Jethro Tull concert of their 2003 tour :p
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I was at Robert Plant's show in November... Almost 20000 people at the Olinpiyskiy palace, crowds outside trying to get a ticket...
Wow, 400 saw him here :(
-
"Evil Communists"?
Communist has nothing to do with it. It's the forcing people to do things "my way" that is the problem. And the Soviet Empire was built on forcing people to do things "their way".
You don't think Solzhenitsyn wrote history? Oh, wait.. the Gulag did not exist... lies, lies, all capitalist lies, right? :D
Katyn? The Nazi version? How about the SOVIET GOVERNMENT version? YOUR GOVERNMENT, including Gorbachev AND Yeltsin both admitted to the deed. The NKVD did it. There's plenty of indepednent documentation too. You say you're waiting for proof and I have to laugh. It's been well documented for at least 30 years and YOUR GOVERNMENT ADMITS IT!
The only proof you'll ever accept is if someone invents a time machine and takes you back to Katyn so you can watch the NKVD shooting Polish prisoners in the back of the head.
And, yes, you DO ignore the "choice" the Soviet army gave to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. The Hungarian revolution...... Prague Spring......
The choice was accept Soviet rule or be invaded and slaughtered. But, in your mind, that's not "aggressive" right? That's like saying "hey, you want to go to the movies and get a beer later?" :D
But ask all the questions you want.. because once again here's the difference. If the US did it, I'll admit it.
For example, US troops killed innocent civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. That happened. Those responsible were brought up on charges.
Now compare that to your defense of Katyn, where NKVD killed innocent Polish civilians and prisoners for no other reason really than that they were highly educated and thus a threat to the state. You can't admit it and no one was ever brought up on charges for it. But it happened as surely as the sun rose this morning.
THAT'S the difference.
The US didn't bring peace and freedom to South Vietnam.. but we tried.
Soviet soldiers did rape nearly everything that walked in Berlin at the end of WW2.
During Berlin’s death throes earlier that year, according to the British historian Anthony Beevor, at least two million women were raped by Soviet forces. Some 200,000 of these women committed suicide afterward. The German capital was a city of starving orphans and widows.
Yeah, the Germans raped Soviet women too... both deserve the harshest condemnation. The problem is that again, you can't admit the Soviets ever did anything like this.
And you'll find if you reflect that I agreed with you that the NATO strikes on Bosnia were a violation of the NATO charter.
Your English is very good. Far to good to hide behind the fact that you were defending Soviet aggression at the beginning of this thread and have now admitted that it was AGGRESSION. But it took a while to get you to admit it and it took the Finnish input for that.
Stalin was an oppressive aggressive butcher of his own people and of his neighbors.
...who saved the world from nazism, saved endless millions from beind destroyed as "useless" and the rest turned into speechless slaves.
I think unbiased research will show that Stalin slaughtered at least as many innoncents as Hitler did if not a great number more. But then, you deny he engineered the Ukranian famine, don't you?
Stalin saved the world from Hitler? Horsepuckey.
Stalin saved Russia from nuclear devastation by democratic powers? More horsepuckey.
You have only to look at the results in Western vs Eastern Europe to see who was enslaved and who was "saved".
:D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hehe I did go to the Jesuit school in the US :D
Do you have "Green Book" in the bookstores?
Could you buy Soviet books in English in the US in 1970s? In 1960s? 50s? 40s?
We had a quite active Communist party in the 30s, 40s, and up to the present. It has never been declared illegal to be a communist in the US, but it has been repressed by society in general--the ideals of Communism do not work well in a Capitalist system, and Communist intenationalism was seen by people in general and in government as a threat. The McCarthy hearings were not able to put anybody in jail for being a Communist, but they were able to create an atmosphere in which public pressure was put on the poor victims. Our court system overturns all laws passed that restrict the right of an individual to express his political beliefs in a peaceful manner. Our new "patriot act" will go away, just like other laws that have repressed the freedom of expression we enjoy in the USA.
That being said, you can now, and could then, buy copies of any book published in any country in the world in the US. I read the Communist manifesto, Mao's little red book, and a lot of other pro-communist literature in the early 70s, and I got them from the library in my high school.
Somebody, somewhere will sell anything at all here in the US. Publishers are, however, subject to one self imposed method of censorship--they must make a profit to survive, and there are costs involved in translating, publishing, and marketing a book.
If it won't sell, it won't be published. What's the title and author of this "Green Book"? I'll get you the Library of Congress catalog number.
One problem non-US residents have trouble grasping is that our society really IS free, at least in the arena of ideas. It's not perfect, but I am convinced that Western Democracy is the best that has come along in the world to date.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Wow, 400 saw him here :(
You won't believe me, but the most popular old band here is Deep Purple. Every time they come here all the tickets are sold out two weeks before the concert, and THOUSANDS are standing outside hoping to get in somehow :) You have to pay 3-4 times the price to get a ticket, making it up to $100-120 for a standing parter ticket.
I think that thousands of people from all over European Russia came to Moscow and SPb to have a chance to see Robert Plant live...
-
Wow.
But without Richie Blackmoore, it is´nt really DEEP PURPLE, Is it?
-
Toad, Gorbachev is not an authority here. He could declare that we crusified Jesus to please his Western friends.
BTW, where can I take a look at the documents he provided about Katyn'? :D
JFYI: Solzhenitsyn have admitted that all the numbers of "victims of Soviet regime" he gave in "GULag Archipelago" were a fiction of his imagination... And that the whole book was his greatest mistake ever :(
If you studied the Pribaltic history carefully (but I don't think so), you can find the real numbers of "cleansed" people. They are at least 20 times less then the number of Pribaltic Jews slaughtered by nazis. Only 18 (eighteen) Jews were left in Latvia in 1944 when Soviet army came back :mad:
About US Army war criminals responsible "brought up on charges": ANY Soviet soldier caught on rape or robbery was immediately executed in front of his unit. Immediately. Executed. That's a fact that you simply don't want to admit. Soviet Army had the most severe policy about rapists and looters. How about that in the US army? Was buying a woman for a pack of cigarettes or a can of meat cosidered OK?...
About Beevor's book: it's not even funny. What grass did he smoke? Or he mistyped two or three extra zeros?...
Next time some looney commie "historian" will write that US army raped everyone regardless to sex and age in France, Italy and West Germany, and will provide some "real numbers" - will you believe him too?...
I think unbiased research will show that Stalin slaughtered at least as many innoncents as Hitler did if not a great number more. But then, you deny he engineered the Ukranian famine, don't you?
I don't deny the Ukrainan famine. My family lived there, so I have some first-hand accounts. JFYI, such disasters happened every 5-10 years until 1947. Evil Communists did their best to stop it.
As for Stalin's victims - just try to count. Numbers are declassified in early-90s. Try to search for them on the Internet. Traditional Western propaganda repeats legends invented by dr. Goebbels. If what Western "historians" wrote is true - there should be no people at all in USSR now.
The saddest thing about it is that current population of Russian Federation is about the same as USSR in 1940s. The number of prisoners is approximately the same. Think about it. Then try to find the number of prisoners in the US and try to compare.
Stalin saved the world from Hitler? Horsepuckey.
Stalin saved Russia from nuclear devastation by democratic powers? More horsepuckey.
Stalin DID save the world from Hitler. Surely he did. Not your brave warriors who opened second front in Europe when everything was over.
I really enjoy that "democratic powers" newspeak (if you know this word). Try to search for American plans of nuclear attack on USSR. They are well-known now. I don't remember all the names but one of them was called "Charioter". It was a direct and deadly threat to us. Fortunately we got some things to respond to "nuclear democracy". The cost was almost as huge as the War - but we survived facing the ruthless and deadly enemy.
Exactly as I said - you prefer to speak about all possible "sins" of USSR and don't want to talk about endless agressive wars that YOUR OWN country waged. International gangsterism of the US regime is something taken for granted. "We are different, we have the right to do it". WTG. Now you can rape almost any free country. USSR is gone. Noone can stop your "democracy" and "freedom". Congratulations.
Heh, we moved too far from original topic of baiting me. Thanks to our Finnish friends, they have much more common sence then you expected.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Wow.
But without Richie Blackmoore, it is´nt really DEEP PURPLE, Is it?
Steve Morse is a great guitar player, and he is much closer to "vintage" Blackmore then Richi himself playing that silly fast solos...
The greater loss was Jon Lord :( Moscow concert in 2002 was the first one after he declared he quits DP... Only Paicie is left from Mk.I now :(
-
Interesting how a single commie is turning whole discussions into politics.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Interesting how a single commie is turning whole discussions into politics.
Toad is a commie!?
:eek:
-
Yes, if you see his kind of a person from the mirror when looking at it :p
-
For some reason Boroda can't muster the fact that any historian living in USSR is nothing but a happy story teller..
Everything was controlled by the party and nothing outside the official 'truth' came out. Ever.
Nobody simply dared to write anything even in secret, the KGB made sure of that. The ones that tried were sent to siberia.
Boroda if you still think those books you read in your youth were a reliable source of information - wake up man. For Gods sake.
-
Did you ever open a historical book by any Soviet author?
Are there any history books written by Soviet authors you would recommend? Are any still in publication?
-
Originally posted by rshubert
What's the title and author of this "Green Book"? I'll get you the Library of Congress catalog number.
Title: Green Book
Author: Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
Too bad it's not available here, it would be interesting read.
-
The official Soviet admission of guilt came on April 13, 1990, exactly forty-seven years after the German announcement on finding the Katyn graves: Gorbachev gave General Jaruzelski, then visiting Moscow, copies of NKVD lists of the names of Polish officers, NCOs, border guards and others massacred in the spring of 1940.
I'd say you should check Polish sources if you want to read those lists. But Gorbachev gave them to Jaruzelski. It's fact.
Here's a book you might want to read:
Katyn’: Prestuplenie protiv chelovechestva (Katyn: A crime against humanity) Natalia S. Lebedeva, Russian Academy of Sciences, (Moscow: Progress–Kul’tura, 1994);
The author is now working on this:
The Katyn Massacre.
This volume investigates the massacre of some 22,000 Polish officers by Soviet NKVD execution squads in the spring of 1940 in the forest of Katyn and other locations. It is a project of great importance both because of the magnitude of the crime committed and its elaborate fifty-year cover-up by the Soviet authorities. In 1989 Gorbachev for the first time revealed the existence of documents that prove Soviet responsibility for the crime; and in 1990 he delivered to the Polish government a set of such documents. Since that time a commission of Polish and Russian researchers has collected tens of thousands of relevant documents. This vast undertaking will produce not only full documentation and proof of Soviet responsibility, which has already been acknowledged, but also a picture of the entire system—political, military, bureaucratic—that operated to produce this tragedy. Yale University Press intends to condense the findings of the Polish and Russian research teams into one volume of approximately 400 printed pages, which will include a representative selection of documents along with a narrative text written by an American scholar working with Russian and Polish colleagues.
Let's see... Gorbachev admitted it; Yeltsin admitted it and in January 2000, Russia's president-elect Vladimir Putin telephoned Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski to inform him of the discovery of a mass grave thought to contain the bodies of Poles murdered by Soviet forces during the Second World War.
Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin admit it...... but Boroda is the only one that knows the truth. :D
Pribalitic history? Study this one The Ghastly Year (http://home.parks.lv/leonards/BaigaisGads/eng/Lapas96.htm)
It's the story of what the NKVD did in Latvia If you're squeamish, don't look at this page (http://home.parks.lv/leonards/BaigaisGads/eng/Lapas83_85.htm)
As I said... you simply can't admit that your beloved Soviet NKVD and Army were barbarians.
Ask some of the Germans here if they think all Russian Army Rapists were shot in front of their units. The streets of Berlin would have been impassable due to dead Soviet soldiers if that were true.
Beevor? He used Soviet documentation.
Beevor, in describing sources for his latest work, mentions Natalya Gesse, a Soviet war correspondent and close friend of former scientist and later dissident Andrei Sakharov. Gesse described Soviet soldiers in Germany in 1945 as "an army of rapists."
Beevor says an examination of Soviet archives confirms Gesse's allegations. He describes where he got his source material.
"A certain amount from the archives of the Ministry of Defense, a large amount from the Central State Archive -- and this is very significant because one has reports from the NKVD chiefs of the army groups of the front advancing on Germany and into Germany reporting back to [NKVD chief Lavrentii] Beria, and these reports are then passed to Stalin stating that Germans interrogated by the NKVD say that virtually every woman left behind in East German territory is being raped by Red Army troops.
There is no indication, there is no comment on this. There is nothing to say that this is slander or a lie or anything like that. This is presented as fact."
So, you see no difference between a US soldier "buying" a woman for a can of meat and a Soviet soldier raping a woman at gunpoint?
:D That's what makes your posts so great!
Ukraine?
BLACK FAMINE IN UKRAINE 1932-33 (http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/)
WHY DID THE FAMINE TAKE PLACE?
OPPOSlTlON TO COLLECTIVIZATION is only half the story why Moscow created the famine in Ukraine. The Ukrainian opposition was not only ideological, that is against Communism, but also political. Russian nationalism reared its ugly head at this time. The Kremlin used the famine as a political weapon to destroy Ukrainian aspirations for independence. At the same time as the famine (1932-34) a wave of persecutions of thousands of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers and leaders took place. Plots for liberating Ukraine were discovered not only in the smallest villages but even in the top ranks of the Ukrainian Communist Party itself. Purges took hundreds of Ukrainians. Suicide was the escape of many.
For those of you who think Boroda is telling it like it is, put "stalin ukraine famine genocide" into google.
You'll see "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550. Search took 0.12 seconds ". Read for yourself and make up your own minds.
We were the ruthless and dangerous enemy?
Again, look at Western Europe and Eastern Europe. It's pretty obvious who destroyed the hope of the common man. Zoom in and compare East Germany with West Germany.
Soviets won WW2, eh? All by yourselves? Yah, sure. :D
I'll talk about any American "atrocities" you want to talk about; and if we did it, I'll admit it.
YOU, on the other hand, can't admit to any of the DOCUMENTED atrocities your nation is guilty of.
And if you ever want to honestly match lists..... I know which one will be the longest by far. By Faaaaaaaaaaaaar.
:D
-
Now , Toad, you don´t have to rub it in.
He had enough.
-
All of us know there's lots of cr p on the internet. However, there's lots of reliable stuff as well AND good leads to actual source documents, electronic as well as ink and paper.
He knows how to use the internet. He obviously knows how to read.
The true history is out there.
You know Crabofix, if he didn't continue the totally absurd denials, I'd let it go.
But he insists on fairy tale history and much of that is pretty entertaining. So....... what can I say? I'm weak.
-
He knows the truth, he is just telling what he is been thought to tell.
Without his likes, there would nt be any diffrent views on stuff like the "winter-war", I dont know much about the stories they where telling the soiviets about this.
So, it is a diffrent view, even if its not true.
Still interesting to me.
During 2 times, my Granfather toke a lift with red cross market Ambulances. One time there was about 10 guys inside it, to be transfered from the frontline. 2 times they where attacked by I 16s and badly shoot up, (not a single wounded survived in the ambulance). The driver and my Grandfather escaped stoping and running away from it, after the initial attack.
Second time, they where empty.
My grandfather said it was the last time ever he took a lift with a ambulance. More dangerouse then anything.
-
Christ, I'm squemish now. Thanks Toad. Bleh.
-
Everybody I ever talked to (handfull of old germans, and an old russian couple that escaped to the west during the war), who was an adult in WWII soviet occupied Germany told me that soviet soldiers were ORDERED to rape every female from 10-80 years of age .
Of course I'm sure they are all liars .
-
You still haven't answered Boroda...
Originally posted by Wmaker
Boroda it's just your words against a senior researcher, a doctor. You say "let's stick to the facts" and yet you don't provide any sources yourself to the discussion. Why do you expect anyone should believe you?? I've posted several quotes backing up my statements. Boroda, I challenge you to PROVE me wrong. I challenge you to find sourches that support your views. Obviously there isn't any since you do no effort to prove your points. Boroda, people don't believe this: "Of course it's true when I, Boroda, say it is. Everyone who thinks differently than me are wrong even if they have proof for their statements."
Some quotes:
"The deeds of the Finns during the Winter War gave others an example of how a people must fight for its independence."
Colonel General Dimitrij Volkogonov, February 1989
Why Soviet Colonel General says finns fought for their independence if what you say is true??
"The truth was on the side of the Finns when they heroically defended their freedom and their independence."
Historian Boris Sokolov, December 1989
See above.
"On November 30, 1939, it was Stalin's next move. 250,000 Russian troops under the cover of a coordinated air and artillery bombardment crossed into Finland to begin one of the least publicized and most costly campaigns in the annals of military history. It would be a "walk over;" General Meretskov estimated it would take only 10 to 12 days for his 26 well equipped 14,000 man divisions to reach Helsinki. Russian propaganda had been so convincing that it was felt that the Finns would be waving flags and welcoming the Red Army with open arms. Opposing him were nine poorly equipped 11,000-man Finnish divisions.
Meretskov never suspected that his army was about to plunge into a frozen hell, the second coldest winter since 1828, and oppose Mannerheim, probably one of the greatest defensive tacticians since Robert E. Lee. So confident were the Soviets of a quick victory march to Helsinki that they came with parade bands, but without winter uniforms, without supplies for a protracted campaign and without medical services. Even more sinister was the fact that Stalin had purged most of his regular army officers two years earlier and placed most of the responsibility for the army in the hands of political commissars."
Robert K. Maddock. jr
Source: http://www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html
Another site:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/3818/FINNLIV.HTM
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Yeah, well last document i watched, Russian made BTW, stated that Mannerheim line was nothing special. Couple of reinforced bunkers and few meters wide river in front of it. Intel knew the exact locations of these bunkers, but because the Russians sucked in C&C, such information never reached the warplanners.
You can "what if" all day long, but this thing boils down to the fact, that Russia sucked like Chasey Lane in their warcampaings. War is like playing scrabble, you have the letters you have and thats it, use them wisely. We did, you didnt, we rich you poor..:D
Watched the exact same document. It was made 2002. It told about how USSR tried to occupy Finland etc. Basically shared my view in every way. I just wanted to tell about the document to show that not everyone in Russia believes in same BS as Boroda does.
What gets me most is these lies about consentration camps in Karelia. I want everyone to note that Boroda still haven't posted any sources backing up his claims on them. "I read it in a book" isn't enough.
"USSR-truth" is only affecting to few die-hard commies nowdays... :)
Toad, check this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50258
-
One must also bear in mind that USSR had also a political agenda for Finland. Troops were told they were on the way to liberate Finnish working-class to the bliss of communism. So this is one 'victory condition' that was not met.
The documentary to which Jarsci referred earlier (by Kirill Nabutov, Adams Apple/Russia, St.Petersburg.) revealed some interesting pointers as Russian veterans and historians were interviewed:
+ Finns treated POWs fairly and divided rations equally from the scarce resources of the army. No racism or discrimination was tolerated.
+ The USSR command had no idea of a huge Karelian isthmus bunker defence line being built even thou they had spys observing the area. One veteran said that "the intelligence officers should have been shot for this incompetence". Later this was named as the Mannerheim line by the Russians and the name was taken to use also in Finland.
When the first bunkers were captured the troops noticed what was in their view 'luxurious' living conditions inside the bunker and were wondering why they were liberating these people that were doing so well all by themselves. The fact that no people were ever found welcoming the Russian troops at captured sites was also puzzling the communists.
+ Lice, disease and cold resulting from poor supplies and equipment was as much or more disasterous for the Russian troops as the armed resistance of Finnish troops. The Finns killed lice effectively in obligatory louse-saunas(Russian POWs were delighted with this as much as German troops which found the sauna to be 'the heaven').
+ No Russian troops were actually killed in the Mainila shots. Operation was executed by the Communist party special service which also delivered the 'kill-count' as the result. People listed dead were missing people or party traitors etc.. The military officers were puzzled by the names they had to report as victims in their unit because some of them they had never even known. The shells landed safely to some nearby field. There was no Finnish artillery even in range to make this happen.
+ Russian troops were fighting desperate with the communist party officers' guns pointed at their backs. It was made clear that only by attacking they had a chance to survive. Troops were equipped with 100-200g of vodka for cold and wounds. Most just drank this right away. A common survivor returning was "'drunk as a cuckoo' and with a face of a man senteced to death without a glimpse of hope".
This documentary is worth watching, I recommend it.
The point is that the regular Ivan was not an aggressor, but a poor pitiful man, unwillingly forced to fight, not bravely, but desperately for a vague cause, but in the end just for his life.
Boroda, I will also raise a glass of vodka in silence for the memory of these horrible and sad losses of both sides. Let us never experience anything like this again.
-
Originally posted by Toad
"Evil Communists"?
Communist has nothing to do with it. It's the forcing people to do things "my way" that is the problem. And the Soviet Empire was built on forcing people to do things "their way".
Sorry forgot to answer this.
To me the greatest problem is making people THINK "your way". Looks like Western side has some great achevements in it...
-
Originally posted by Toad
All of us know there's lots of cr p on the internet. However, there's lots of reliable stuff as well AND good leads to actual source documents, electronic as well as ink and paper.
He knows how to use the internet. He obviously knows how to read.
The true history is out there.
You know Crabofix, if he didn't continue the totally absurd denials, I'd let it go.
But he insists on fairy tale history and much of that is pretty entertaining. So....... what can I say? I'm weak.
Toad, I told you many times. When I see two logically reasonable views on one historical event, one of them Soviet and another one - Western, I prefer to believe Soviet source. Just for my sanity's sake. I also prefer facts and documents to things like "everyone knows that...".
Your side (let's simply call it "blue", and ours - "red", as traditionaly on military maps) employed about 80% of what nazi Ministry of Propaganda said about Soviet Union. I think that my duty, as a free man, Soviet patriot and Russian citizen is to show that it's mostly a lie.
-
Originally posted by mora
Title: Green Book
Author: Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
Too bad it's not available here, it would be interesting read.
Indeed a very interesting read. It was published in USSR in Gorbachev's time. I have a copy myself.
The book is absolutely anti-Soviet. It's hard to imagine that it was published here. Kaddafi's ideas look very strange. But for Americans it's nessesary to know their enemy.
The whole Lybian state is a strange island of... I don't know how to call it. Moslim traditions, strange kind of Socialism, and great (without any doubt!) personality of Kaddafi.
/*the last phrase will make me an enemy of the whole "free world" again ;) */
Hehe, in a preface to Russian edition he says that American attack in Tripoly had the only purpose - to destroy his "modest tent" with a manuscript of Green Book ;)
Another great detail of Kaddafi's personality is that he suggested a law that makes a male Lybian consult his wifes about taking a next one. He was absolutely mad at female parliament members who voted against it...
Such things help you to understand other nations and traditions..
-
Wmaker, quotes from Volkogonov and especially Boris Sokolov are not a value at all. If you quote this "historians" - I have no other choice then to give up.
I can give you tons of commie/nationalistic crap written here to prove they are wrong, bit it's too easy and will be not very good to quote obvious bull****. Let's not go down to that level.
Tsingis, what you posted is very interesting, especially when you know Kirill Nabutov, one of the best Russian TV journalists. Unfortunately he no longer works with Moscow Resue Service, so I don't think I can ask him questions directly :(
-
Just as a reminder, You are welcome to settle this discussion in current Finland-Russia CT map by violent means ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Wmaker, quotes from Volkogonov and especially Boris Sokolov are not a value at all. If you quote this "historians" - I have no other choice then to give up.
It doesn't matter who I quote. If the author doesn't match your...ahem...*views* you are going to declare them inaccurate, biased or whatever no matter who they are.
This thread has shown that most people in this forum seem to be aware what really happened in Winter war and in Continuation war. That is all I care about. That is the only reason why I have ever even replied to your posts. I could not care less what you think. I only want to make sure no one believes the BS you post about Finland.
Kirill Nabutov's document proved to me that the truth is known in Russia too. And as I said only a few "Good Ol' CCCP-commies" that are left can believe what they want for all I care. They wont be around much longer anyway.
-
Sorry about the delay in checking the Library of Congress. There are 68 titles in the LOC collection by Qadaffi (that's the "official" LOC spelling of his name), including one titled "Women's Issues/ First International Symposium on the Thought of Muamar Al-Gathafi, the 'green book'", and another on the philosophy of Jihad. Some are in English, some are in (apparently) Arabic.
There really is free trade in ideas and philosophies here. Just accept it, get over it, and learn to live with it.
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
I only want to make sure no one believes the BS you post about Finland.
It's not just Finland.
:D
-
I'm sure you guys are hurting Romanian feelings. What about their "gift" of Odessa to Stalin in 1940?
Hooligan