New Russian movie announced: Convoy PQ-17

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Nath[BDP]
My justification is this: The Marshall plan, resulting in economic growth, and today we have a democratic, free Germany and Japan.  What did the Soviets do?  I think Grunherz mentioned it.  

Marshall plan was nothing then a successfull attempt to rob the nations you were "helping", abd drawing them into the suicidal alliance with overseas "conquerors" at their own expence. Check recent Miko's posts on this subject.

In the same threads it was clearly shown that isolation of Soviet occupation zone was an answer to hostile "allied" politics in economical, political and military fields. You started the division of Germany, declaring "free" elections in your occupation zone, not us. You played the same trick in Korea, but, unfortunately, it resulted in a full-scale war...

We also had a democratic, free Germany. It all depends on definition of "democracy" and "freedom". For you "freedom" meant Marshall plan robbery and "democracy" meant ban of left political parties, while for us "freedom" was absence of transnational corporations influence and "democracy" was an election where left parties were the main forces.

Originally posted by Nath[BDP]

I trust that they realized it was all done to counter a possible Soviet threat;  are you suggesting the USSR didn't practice military movements or training in countries you stole after WWII?  In fact, the Soviets were the aggressors. This is witnessed by their remaining in countries they took from German occupation during the war and never gave up untill '89.  We needed to prepare to defend ourselves against the communist aggressors.

Soviet agressors?! What did you smoke!? A country that lost TWENTY SEVEN MILLION people, half of it's industry, facing the enemy armed with A-bomb can be an agressor!? Yes, now I understand why Yugoslavia and Iraq were a direct threat to the US national security... Yeah, well said: "We needed to prepare to defend ourselves against the communist aggressors.". Soviet tanks were anxious about swimming across the Atlantic to attack US of A! Everyone knows: evil Soviets had agressive swimming tanks!

Didn't you enjoy your own occupation zones arranged in Yalta and Potsdam? Again: we withdrew from Europe in 89-92, while your occupational forces keep on moving eastward, already having Leningrad, er, SPb, inside tactical aviation range. Why didn't you just leave Europe when we have put "bayonets into the ground"? Still protecting Europe from "asian hordes of jewish bolsheviks"? Get real. You still are, and always were AGRESSORS. I am happy that you can't rape my country as you did with Yugoslavia and Iraq - thanks to Stalin we have nukes.

[Nath[BDP]]

Originally posted by Boroda
. Check recent Miko's posts on this subject.

I'd rather just read the author from which his arguments were most likely regurgitated.

Sounds like a Soviet propagandist.

Soviet tanks were anxious about swimming across the Atlantic to attack US of A! Everyone knows: evil Soviets had agressive swimming tanks!  

USSR didn't have ICBMs or a will to invade Western Europe?  ugh. i guess it was all American agitprop again.  

Didn't you enjoy your own occupation zones arranged in Yalta and Potsdam? Again: we withdrew from Europe in 89-92, while your occupational forces keep on moving eastward, already having Leningrad, er, SPb, inside tactical aviation range. Why didn't you just leave Europe when we have put "bayonets into the ground"? Still protecting Europe from "asian hordes of jewish bolsheviks"? Get real. You still are, and always were AGRESSORS.

No, we needed to protect our economists and yuppies with MBAs who were trying to rebuild Eastern Bloc nations' economies in places like Slovakia because of USSR ;p  I was in parts of Eastern Europe in the mid 90s.  Such a depressing place.  Hopefully they won't ever have to suffer under such venomous control again.

thanks to Stalin we have nukes...

... and a GDP per capita of nearly $26,000 less than the USA.  Hurray for communism!

[Angus]

Boroda, it would be for your own good to shut up for once.

The Marshall plan:

"Marshall plan was nothing then a successfull attempt to rob the nations you were "helping", abd drawing them into the suicidal alliance with overseas "conquerors" at their own expence"

You clearly know nothing of this, - as little as I know, my little country got helped with these funds without any following commitments whatsoever.
In the east of Europe there was nothing like this....

Then this here:

"You started the division of Germany, declaring "free" elections in your occupation zone, not us"

Is Germany "free" today? Did the western forces build "the wall"? Why did the Western forces bother to make an airbridge to Berlin at the time, if the seperation was their doing?
Oh, I know..it's all a LIE?

And here is the icing on yer cake:
"It all depends on definition of "democracy" and "freedom". For you "freedom" meant Marshall plan robbery and "democracy" meant ban of left political parties"
YOU WHAT?
Western Nations?
There are and were left political parties in all of i.e. the NATO nations, except perhaps USA.
There are and were left governments in many if not most NATO nations at times after WW2.
Left politics were always open, not banned, and usually quite much in action. I will however not answer this for internal US affairs.
Now, the USA must get their credit for not mixing into internal politics of European/NATO nations. NATO governments could and would at times be LEFT sided. That is a lot different picture than the eastern side had.............

Looking at the total sum of the Marshall funds (who's distribution is an open source matter) there would not be many votes bought for that sum anyway. I guess that you are too deeply brainwashed from old times to understand the concept of "freedom" or "free choice" then.

[Glasses]

Originally posted by Nath[BDP]
... and a GDP per capita of nearly $26,000 less than the USA. Hurray for communism!

I call that a comeback

[Angus]

Ohh, looking deeper into Borodas stuff, it just gets funnier:
"Marshall plan was nothing then a successfull attempt to rob the nations you were "helping", abd drawing them into the suicidal alliance with overseas "conquerors" at their own expence."

Own expence from suicidal alliance at least left the western side of Europe in a very nice economical state compared to the states on the eastern side of the "curtain"

Then this:
"Why didn't you just leave Europe when we have put "bayonets into the ground"? Still protecting Europe from "asian hordes of jewish bolsheviks"? Get real. You still are, and always were AGRESSORS."

Who was supposed to leave Europe? US forces?
They'd leave if asked, actually today even they're being asked not to leave.
And about the agressors...when did the west push eastwards in a century's time or so? Hmm. apart from Hitler's time, the only agression between east and west is SOVIET advance. From east TO west.

[hawker238]

Let's keep pushing our petty arguments!

[Nath[BDP]]

Sounds like fun.

[GRUNHERZ]

Fortunately - he have won 1.5 years of peace and saved half of Poland from nazi rape.

True, saved it for soviet sodomy...

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Boroda
Nice example of ignorance. "Everyone knows that USSR..." etc. ad nauseum.

Go find some book and learn that USSR spent months in futile attempts to form an alliance with France and UK. An allied delegation in Moscow in August 1939 failed to offer any answer to Soviet plans of military assistance to Poland, drew the negotiations to nothing, and left Moscow one or two days before Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed. Stalin had to sign a treaty with Germans when he understood that "allies" have nothing to offer. Fortunately - he have won 1.5 years of peace and saved half of Poland from nazi rape.

I can recommend you one good book: L. Mosley, "On borrowed time". A book by British historian.

Did you know that USSR was the only country that offered assistance to Czechoslovakia in 1939, after it was sold to Germany, Poland and Hungary be the "allies"?...

It's no fun to argue with people who know nothing about the subject of discussion. In USSR we had mandatory history classes at school. IMHO it's another great advantage of Soviet system.

Oh I know that Chamberlain was more affraid of Stalin and Comunism then Hitler and he basically derailed any chance of a Russian-French-British alliance against Hitler hopping to get a pact that would allow him to stay out of a war between Germany and Russia.
But that being said. Russia was on the side of the Third Reich and your pathetic revisionism doenst change that.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Boroda
To Toad:

Thank you for bringing original nazi Ministry of Propaganda version here. It's a good example of reliability of your "sources", maybe even better then giving me a book title "Soviet agression against Poland in 1920". Thank you. Dismissed.

Yeah, you know how Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin always were stooges for the Nazi's.

Do you ever stop and think how you look defending this when your country has admitted it?

I will suggest one book for you, although it's out of print. You may be able to get one on Amazon.

Check this out:

God's Eye: Aerial Photography and the Katyn Forest Massacre by Frank Fox

Guess what? There are "before and after" aerial photos of Katyn.

[Toad]

It's no use Pongo.

IIRC, Boroda even claims there was never a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, you know how Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin always were stooges for the Nazi's.

I already explained my POW on their reasons.

Originally posted by Toad

Do you ever stop and think how you look defending this when your country has admitted it?

There is a big difference between my country and above mentioned persons. Just like between American people and government.

Originally posted by Toad

I will suggest one book for you, although it's out of print. You may be able to get one on Amazon.

Check this out:

God's Eye: Aerial Photography and the Katyn Forest Massacre by Frank Fox

Guess what? There are "before and after" aerial photos of Katyn.

Great. Before and after aerial photos?... This sounds funny.  Same photos used by mr. Powell in the Security Council? /*please see my comments below*/

I recommend you another book, by Western author: Kurt Reiss, "Goebbels: the devil's advocate". It can somehow open your eyes on nazi propaganda kitchen, including Katyn'. I bet you will see how similar your propaganda is to nazi inventions, and that a huge percent of Goebbels's lies was employed by "blue side" in cold war times.

So far all your reasonable arguments are drowned by blatant lies and pesudohistorical propaganda myths. I simply can't trust any arguments from a person who seriously speaks about "Soviet agression against Poland in 1920".

Relations between our two countries in XX century were not very good. Please check the sad fate of Soviet POWs in 1920, and what happened in Poland to Russian POWs returning from Central countries after WWI. The number of POWs and interned servicemen who died in Polish camps will surprise you.

Again, Toad, unlike you - I was born in different country in a different time, and I had a rare (may you live in an interting time!) opportunity (by historical means) to live under two completely different environments, facing two opposite waves of propaganda. What I say here is opposite to current "politically-correct" version of official history. And in Soviet times we were not told about things like Katyn' and 1920 war at schools or on TV - we were friends with Polish People's Republic, and bringing such things to public attention were considered... hmm... can't find a correct word, maybe "inappropriate" is a good definition. This doesn't mean that "evil communists" were concealing such things, if you were intersted in it - you could find tons of information even from Western sources. You will probably not understand it, because you Westerners have an extremely distorted picture of life in USSR, but at least you can try.

And I have told you that I try to provide you with a different point of view, and I find it interesting and educating for me. What I strongly disagree with is that my country was an "evil force" opposed by "brave fighters for peace and democracy".

I hope I'll find understanding on your side.

BTW, can you tell me more about that aerial photo book? It seems to me it's unknown here, and I want to maybe state the main idea of this book to some historians, both "lefts" and "rights". Every source is intersting and must be examined closely. It will serve good for both points of view. This is what I mean by not trusting both sides, I have to make up my own mind, because both sides are equally biased. I give you pro-Soviet arguments here mostly because they face the obvious reaction of "everyone knows that...", and I hate things that "everyone knows". This words are usually used to hide the truth, and being raised in USSR I know it quite well.

Thank you.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Toad
It's no use Pongo.

IIRC, Boroda even claims there was never a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Toad, I only question the existance of so-called "secret protocols". I am surprised by the fact that noone ever saw the originals of this document. Please, remember when and why they were "discovered" and brought to public: it was an obvious attempt to justify and support nationalistic and separatist movements in Baltic republics.

Another "everyone knows that..." thing.

You have to look closer at the situation of 1939-40 to understand that such "secret protocols" were unnessesary and useless. Baltic states were an obvious beach head for nazi agression. USSR could not stay out of the process of "slicing the pie", because we could have Hitler in Leningrad in the first week of the War.

BTW, did you know that Lithuania received significant part of it's historical territory from Polish lands, including it's capital, Vilnus (Vilno) in 1940?...

IMHO Soviet "advance" of 1939-40 must be viewed as a vital nesessity, under a frightening lack of time. Looking at the catastrophe of 1941 you can easily guess what could happen if USSR didn't take a part of Poland and if Baltic states have signed same treaties with Hitler.

There is a frightening analogy with what we face now. I'll try to show it in next posts, and I have to apologize for them in advance.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Pongo
Oh I know that Chamberlain was more affraid of Stalin and Comunism then Hitler and he basically derailed any chance of a Russian-French-British alliance against Hitler hopping to get a pact that would allow him to stay out of a war between Germany and Russia.
But that being said. Russia was on the side of the Third Reich and your pathetic revisionism doenst change that.

UK and France made a brilliant attempt to make Russians follow their obligations to Poland, stating that they will deploy "some troops" in a matter of months in case of German agression against Poland, without giving any obligations to Soviet side. This negotiations are well documented. Check the Mosley book I mentioned before.

Voroshilov had nerves made of steel, trying to make something out of that "negotiations" and not seing any positive movements from his "partners".

This was the moment when Poland was sold out to Hitler.

USSR had to come to the "side of the Third Reich" only because we didn't want to start a war where so-called "allies" were supposed to sit and watch Russians dieing for their profits, like in Autumn, 1914. We had enough of that before, thanks.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
True, saved it for soviet sodomy...

...says Grunherz, the well-known victim, raped by evil communist regime. Calling this "sodomy" is a brave act of self-positioning.



sorry, couldn't resist

Grun, you know, if you'll be in Moscow - I'll be honored by an opportunity to pour you a glass or two This is only flames on the Net. I was touched by your question after the underground bombing... I hope you understand that I don't have against you.