International Politics Thread

[otk-member 0]

they don't have the right to invade a country (Irak), whitout the agreement of NATO.

Really?

NATO?

How about UN? (It is "United Nation")

Irak - its independent country, isnt?.

or NATO==UN??  

P.S. Communizm like idea - is newer dies.

Like idea - it has some interest things and methods. Like "From everyone - by opportunities. To everyone - on needs"

But, it is a utopia in modern world. Maybe, a few thousand years must pass, to get a people psychology change for it.

Btw. Norden Korea

http://www.tema.ru/travel/north-korea-1/

http://www.tema.ru/travel/north-korea-2/

http://www.tema.ru/travel/north-korea-3/

http://www.tema.ru/travel/north-korea-4/

http://www.tema.ru/travel/north-korea-5/

Comments on russian only. But having a foto

[baddo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Don't you realize that all you are getting here is opposition? Shouldn't you try to learn something from your obvious defeat instead of telling other people that they are uneducated?

Defeat? In what way? That the US is better than Cuba? That cuban healthcare is better? That people in cuba can go to school without paying? Full employment, and no homelessness? That it's the only country with sustainable development? I see it the other way round. I present loads of facts that back my statements. People don't know what they talk about even. Is that my fault? Or their? Just because a majority thinks something it doesn't mean it's right. Ask a heap of kindergarten kids what 1+1 and they'll teach you it's 3.

Yes I call it a defeat when you are not convincing anyone, and that is not all, then you have to go and use the exact same argumentation again, and not surprisingly, you are not convincing anyone this time around either.

I think you really should re-think your approach to these kinds of discussions. If you don't see that you have failed here, then forget about it and just continue posting the same "proof" over and over again, and continue seeing how people are not convinced. And continue telling them that they are uneducated. Now I even see you reference kindergarten. Do you really think that this is the way how you will get people to believe what you are saying.

[-Snafu- 78]

otk-member

No-One has doubted the USSR's contribution to World War 2. And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was still the world power by the beginning of WW2. It was not until then end of WW2 that the century belonged to America/USSR.

You are also rather pathetic mocking the contributions of the Western Allies in the defeat of Nazi Germany. You guys made a pact with Hitler, so don't take the moral stance here. Britain had been fighting the Axis longer than the USSR. Britain even warned Stalin about Op. Barbarossa but it was fobbed off. Your comment that the Western Allies sat back and let you guys do all the hard work and that Normandy was worthless is ignorance. The Western Allies were fighting across the globe. From North Africa to Italy. The skies over London. The Atlantic to the Pacific. The fields of France to the jungles of Asia. The USSR didn't join against Japan until the last stages. Another reason not to take the moral stance. The USSR never had to island hop across the Pacific. It never had to fork out all that money for Naval Forces to do that. America also joined not help our tiny (but powerful) island. Pearl Harbour not spring to mind? It was the RAF that smashed Hitler's hopes of invading Britain. Britain also had the RN to defend the invasion routes. His attack on the USSR sealed the deal when he had to move a lot of his resources to the East.

Before you start telling people to learn history how about you learn it yourself.

You claim that MehMan to be victim of propaganda. You can be as well. If the USSR was so friendly why didn't it let Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. receive Marshall Aid? The USA even offered the USSR aid but they refused. This is the start of the Cold War. Then we have the Berlin Airlift. An incredibly ignorant move which could have sparked WW3. Moreover how can you say Churchill sparked the Cold War when he was not even PM after the war? (I'm assuming you mean the 'Iron Curtain' speech?)

Apologies for dragging thread offtopic.

[otk-member 0]

You guys made a pact with Hitler, so don't take the moral stance here.

So what? First of all - it was nonagression pact. And, the pact about differentiation of spheres of influence. It was in 1939.

Britain had been fighting the Axis longer than the USSR.

Through the sea, yes. If passage was not - England would grasp for some months, as well as all Europe.

Britain even warned Stalin about Op. Barbarossa but it was fobbed off. Your comment that the Western Allies sat back and let you guys do all the hard work and that Normandy was worthless is ignorance.

I know. Stalin trusted Hitler. He thought that Hitler observes the contract.

The Western Allies were fighting across the globe.

In occasion of other theatres of war - basically there was a sea war. Or war in territory of colonies. English and the French colonies, by the way. It was a small local ground wars.

Real greater war was only in the Europe and in the USSR. With massive tank battles, infantry and artillery attacks.

You have opened the second front only when have seen that we have started to win.

The USSR didn't join against Japan until the last stages. Another reason not to take the moral stance. The USSR never had to island hop across the Pacific.

Generally we beat out the enemy from the our territory at this time. Have been a little bit borrowed.

America also joined not help our tiny (but powerful) island.  Pearl Harbour not spring to mind? It was the RAF that smashed Hitler's hopes of invading Britain. Britain also had the RN to defend the invasion routes.

I know. And you know that Churchill  knew about plans of Japan to attack Pearl Harbour? But has not informed on it the USA.

Before you start telling people to learn history how about you learn it yourself.

Are you sure, did you know it better than me? ))

You claim that MehMan to be victim of propaganda. You can be as well. If the USSR was so friendly why didn't it let Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. receive Marshall Aid? The USA even offered the USSR aid but they refused. This is the start of the Cold War.

You in general know that such "Marshall Aid"? This draining of inflation of the USA in economy of the Europe in the form of long-term credits.

Differently - when money turn to a paper - it is necessary to make somehow them valuable. Creation of credit obligations and long-term investments - an ideal output.

Moreover how can you say Churchill sparked the Cold War when he was not even PM after the war?

He remained the politician. And its ideology has been supported.

Btw, Why you have told nothing about "Landlease" (i'm not sure to correct writing this word...)? It was really the help of allies for the USSR within war. Landlease has approached a victory at least for 2 years.

[MehMan 0]

MehMan you told a bullshit.

You a victim of propagation.

It was not kept even traces of the system, capable to provide so scale reprisals: there is no necessary quantity of camps, there are no delivery roads, investigatory insulators. And tombs with " in millions shot " are not found. Is absent also there are no demographic effect which necessarily would give so enormous reprisals (besides famine and the Second World war).

Look at this, pal

It is demographic structure of the population of Russia. Look itself. Within reprisals - the population did not decrease! And it means that some hundreds thousand person have been killed. Not millions!

For an example. In the second world war Russia has lost 20 million person. Look the schedule - 1941-1945. Here so millions person look!

Years of political reprisals - 1930-1939. Look the schedule - the population only grows! Yes, there is some falling in 1930-1931 - but at that time there was a famine. And after - only growth of the population. And the big growth.

Stalin was in power for 30 years, Hitler for 12. Look what Hitler did and I think that Stalin could've pulled it off.

I would gladly read that graph if I could, however I don't speak russian and the help I got didn't really help a lot. So that doesn't really help a lot.

Within reprisals it did slump. Also during the great famine it slumped. The great famine in the Ukraine was a man caused famine.

I agree the numbers might have been lower, but still, Stalin caused much harm, too much to be forgiven and written off. Yes, you make sacrifices in every system, yes somebody always gets hurt, but why did they hurt the very people they were supposed to be helping? And in such great numbers? Does the cost really justify the end means here?

Quote[/b] ]

And now my opinion. Stalin was the ideal anti-recessionary manager. It has received a collapsing country without the industry. It has created from it one of the strongest countries of the world.

Yes, sometimes it was necessary to operate rigidly. But easy ways does not happen. But the purposes have been reached. And owing to it we have won the second world war. And you too, by the way. Really you think that your landing in Normandy was a determinative of war? LOL  

Read It! - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/11/russia.secondworldwar

Your "British Empire" already by that moment has lost all power. You were afraid to be put out from the island. Americans have helped. But if the red Army has not crushed 160 German divisions - your landing simply would smear on a beach of Normandy.

Germans by that moment, have already been beaten out from territory of the USSR. They receded. You send to finish off already half-dead opponent.

So learn history. But, only not history Churchill (Uinston Churchill - "the Second World War"). There the delirium is written.

But even he spoke good about Stalin

Quote[/b] ]It is very fortunate for Russia in her agony to have this great rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the sombre and stormy times in wich his life has been cast; a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power and a man direct and even blunt in speech … Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humour which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin also left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom and complete absence of illusions of any kind. I believe I made him feel that we were good and faithful comrades in this war — but this, after all, is a matter which deeds not words will prove.

An, after that - look at the man who start a cold war!

http://britannia.com/history/docs/sinews1.html

And here is Stalin answer. I will not translate it. Try to you own. http://www.coldwar.ru/stalin/about_churchill.php

Wow, the ammount of disrespect there is amazing. In fact, so much that you anger me greatly. Yes, Russia took the bore of the beating, but you were never alone.

You believe Russia won the war all by itself? How about the British fighting in North Africa? How about partisan activity in Yugoslavia? How about allied bombing of the third reich that distrupted their manufacturing capabilites? I can go on and on.

You were never alone in the fighting, you didn't win the war by yourself. Did you forget the Battle Of Britain? Did you forget Dunkirk? Did you forget the BEF? Did you forget the countless SAS raids? Did you also forget the Pacific?

By the way, thank you for mistaking me for a brit, I'm not really one, half only. The rest of me is Slovenian and I've lived here since I was born. We liberated ourselves from the Germans and Italians very much on our own initiative and with little external help. By the end of the war we tied down a large numberi of troops through the Balkans. We managed to stay strong enough to keep the Soviets out. And that is what probably saved Yugoslavia from becoming a complete shithole. Along with driving the Soviet influence completely out later, but that's something completely different.

And saying that Churchill started the cold war is just absurd. He only said that an iron curtain was laid down. The Cold War started when the common enemy, in this case Nazi Germany, was defeated and the ideologies could confront again.

Quote[/b] ]Through the sea, yes. If passage was not - England would grasp for some months, as well as all Europe.

No, not just the sea. You forget Africa. You forget the East. the Axis also marks Japan.

Quote[/b] ]I know. Stalin trusted Hitler. He thought that Hitler observes the contract.

How Stalin fell for that one I don't know, because Hitler was so incredibly anti-bolshevik that hardly anybody could've beaten him at it.

Quote[/b] ]In occasion of other theatres of war - basically there was a sea war. Or war in territory of colonies. English and the French colonies, by the way. It was a small local ground wars.

Real greater war was only in the Europe and in the USSR. With massive tank battles, infantry and artillery attacks.

You have opened the second front only when have seen that we have started to win.

No. Pacific. Remember that? North Africa, remember that?

The pacific battlefield was big and tough. No picnic. Africa was tough too.

Quote[/b] ]Are you sure, did you know it better than me? ))

Yes, he did.

Quote[/b] ]Btw, Why you have told nothing about "Landlease" (i'm not sure to correct writing this word...)? It was really the help of allies for the USSR within war. Landlease has approached a victory at least for 2 years.

Good, you admit help. You see, we didn't leave you alone.

If you're going to start a history discussion, be sure you know it.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Marxism is a theory. It is not fact. Not a science. Don't see many Universities offering joint Marxism and Chemistry degrees. It's a social science. Studying people's behaviour. People are not logical (generally). Maths and science are logical.

Marxism is a scientific theory based on the foundations of economical analysis. It meets all the requirements of being a science.

Quote[/b] ]You contradict yourself all the time.

Where? You fail to bring up any examples. Yet you accuse me of contradicting myself?

Quote[/b] ]Oh and now you say there are hundreds of millions of you. Big fcuking LOL. Wait you must be right because Communist and Socialist parties are winning elections everywhere. Oh wait, you said that people do not know about these theories.  

That's right, hundreds of millions. People in the west generally don't know anything about marxism. But if you look at South America or Asia you'll see a huge difference. In any society, even seen globally, the weakest link breaks first. That happened to Russia 1917 and that's what's happening at those places right now. Nepal, India, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia to name a few.

Quote[/b] ]You see how stupid you look? See how you contradict yourself?

I don't see any contradictions there.

Quote[/b] ]Just a couple. That we know about. Concentration camps. They are death camps, they either starve people to death or beat them to death, shoot them or experiment. Just like the Nazi regime. It's not a jail like in the US, yes the prisoners work in the US, but they don't die from working, neither are they beaten to death for no reason, neither are their families detained, neither are they generational camps.

Yes, there's abuse in US prisons too, but it gets reported and news spread out. Guard abuse is rarer than prisoner on prisoner abuse.

Bullshit. Who says that? Your teacher or the CIA? You're letting your fantasy slip. There is no proof, just propaganda.

People don't die from working, and they aren't beat to death in North Korea. If anyone claims he knows, he's lying. Sure there might be some deaths in prison. Loads of people have died at Guantanamo as well.

Quote[/b] ]Here's one.

You can believe the accusations of the Cuban goverment or the other explanation.

An estimated 15k to 17k died from politcal persection in Cuba.

No that's not one. Sure he was a dissident, but he didn't get executed because of that. Cuba, just like the US executes people for major crimes. Treason means death penalty in most countries.

That estimate is not serious. There's no way to say anything like that unless one is politically motivated. It's the same old liberal propaganda. In Cuba dissidents go free in the streets and aren't executed. Ladies in White to name a few. However, if dissidents receive payments from the CIA, they naturally are brought to court. That is what any country would do. If the CIA has sponsored terrorism against Cuba, why wouldn't they be able to finance the opposition? The opposition that doesn't take money from the US is not in jail. They are free like anybody else.

Quote[/b] ]I don't understand the difference? There is no difference. It was cold murder. In camps, with exectuions or just starvation.

A few hunderd thousands? More like 3,5 million to 20 million. 700,000 people disappeared just during the Great Purge, where Stalin in his manic paranoia made them dissappear from the face of the earth. They even photoshopped pictures for crying out loud.

Most people? You know why so many think that? Because the rest were killed. All the people who showed the slightest opposition and even those with no grudge against Stalin got killed. School teachers that the children didn't like got deported to Gulags and killed. I could recommend a movie that deals with this era and the massive killings, that showed the situation, a Russian movie, but I can't recall the name.

People also like Hitler. Guess what, he was bad, so was Stalin. What does that tell you?

And don't pull up any polls, they are worth shit in my opinion. I've conducted those, you mainly get old people to answer, and do the math with what I said above.

If starvation is murder, hundreds of millions of people should be counted in the death toll of capitalism. "Photoshopped" pictures are common. The famous US Iwo Jima flag picture was arranged and there are numerous of other occurences where important images have been altered as well. It's a common procedure even today. Look at the Iraq war for instance.

When you're disputing numerous respected opinion polls cited in the western press it shows that you don't care about facts.

If you don't count starvation a few hundred thousand, a million max, can be attributed to Stalin. Naturally that's bad. Those people could be sent to prison instead. But if you look at the general level of the world powers and mentality at that time you'll find that Churchill was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the terror bombings of Dresden. The nukes over Japan, just because the USSR advanced and would take Tokyo before the US. Even ten years later blacks were murdered and lynched in thousands with police intentionally doing nothing. At the same time indian uprisings were crushed violently inside the US and atrocities performed in many parts of the world. If you blame Stalin for one type of crime, you should blame the western powers for the same reasons.

Quote[/b] ]Like where? And a moronic college student wearing a Che Guevara shirt is not a supporter, he's a trend whore.

Hunderds of millions? Yes, they are rebelling against the tzar, right? The only reason why the socialist revolution happened in Russia was because it still had feudalism by 1917 while the rest of the European nations abolished the system more than 70 years prior to that.

If an intellectual supports you, he's not really that bright. Every socialist system has killed any intellectuals that thought differently than was allowed or spoke out against bad ideas. And intellectuals are famous for thinking differently.

And you are one of the 50 people that goes to the very extremes of things and calls us brainwashed, while the reality is reverse. You are the one who is brainwashed.

No there are hundreds of millions just now. There are revolutions going on on numerous places in the world, but as uneducated you are you have no clue about them. Western media ignores them. There are tens of millions of communists in Europe. Same numbers in Africa and South America. In Asia there are many more.

Many nobel prize winners support our cause. Pinter, Lessing, Neruda, Garcia Marquez, Hemingway to name a few.

You are the ones who are brainwashed, you're just echoing the lies of the ruling class like sheep. You think the western world is made up of democracies. That's insane. How can I be brainwashed? I grew up in the western world just like you,  but I've seen the big picture.

Quote[/b] ]What Spokesperson doesn't undertsand is that Stalin is popular because he is a symbol of Russian power.

Yes partially. But no matter how much power we're talking about, people who were oppressed by him and their relatives would never like him, even today. And whatever the reasons are a majority likes him, in Russia. In the west it's different, because people here believe in the absurd western cold war propaganda.

USSRsniper, I'm not defending the US. The US is a shit country, Russia too nowadays. Just because the US has private security forces it doesn't mean it's good. The USSR had a huge responsibility to the oppressed peoples of the world. Now when it's gone it doesn't matter if Russia is "strong" or not. It's just another country ruled by religion and capitalism. Dangerous.

I can only congratulate the Russian people of having given the communist party about 20% of their votes, in unfair, undemocratic elections. The communists are the real winners.

According to brainwashed people here otk-member must be an old granny or one of the 50 you're talking about. Funny coincidence. Apart from that I agree with what he's saying.

Quote[/b] ]well this is the past, communism is dead, and with it, the dreams of Spokerson. (North Korea is not communist, but just lead by a dangerous monster.)

now, i'm more afraid by the illegal attack in Kurdistan by the Turkish army. they don't have the right to invade a country (Irak), whitout the agreement of NATO.

that could be a cause of a spreading of the war in this region. i think at Iran or maybe Syria.

Communism has never existed. Kim Jong Il is no dangerous monster. That's US propaganda. Turkey, not very known for it's democracy even among liberals, an ally of the US, is free to do anything it wants as long as it supports the US war on "terror". I hope marxist PKK (called terrorists by west), manage to create a free independent socialist Kurdistan sometime.

Quote[/b] ]Yes I call it a defeat when you are not convincing anyone, and that is not all, then you have to go and use the exact same argumentation again, and not surprisingly, you are not convincing anyone this time around either.

I'm not trying to convice anybody. I point out their errors and misconceptions.

Quote[/b] ]You guys made a pact with Hitler, so don't take the moral stance here. Britain had been fighting the Axis longer than the USSR.

The USSR had a non-aggression pact with Nazi-Germany. That kind of pacts aren't signed between two friends. Chamberlain also concluded a pact with Nazi-germany. The western powers agreed to split up the Czech Republic and give the Suedetenland to Germany. The USSR wasn't even invited. That deal helped the communists to win the general elections a few years after the war.

Quote[/b] ]You claim that MehMan to be victim of propaganda. You can be as well. If the USSR was so friendly why didn't it let Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. receive Marshall Aid? The USA even offered the USSR aid but they refused. This is the start of the Cold War. Then we have the Berlin Airlift. An incredibly ignorant move which could have sparked WW3. Moreover how can you say Churchill sparked the Cold War when he was not even PM after the war? (I'm assuming you mean the 'Iron Curtain' speech?)

MehMan is a victim of western propaganda. He repeats old lies which could be heard all the way from Washington.

The Marshall Plan wasn't unconditional. People had to let up their economic indepencence to US-capitalist reforms that would create markets for US-products and influence.

As a countermeasure the Soviets created the Molotov Plan, which later formed the COMECON. Sure, the Marshall Plan was more extensive, but then the US hadn't had 20-30 million losses and a huge part of their industry wrecked and infrastructure destroyed.

[Spokesperson 0]

WW2 Losses.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm

I think the workers and peasants army of the USSR crushed more than 70% of the fascist forces.

The other allied powers helped too. But not as much as western propaganda wants it to be. People are getting brainwashed from kindergarten and up. Same thing with religion and "democracy".

I'm not saying anyone is denying the role of the USSR here, but that picture sums up a lot.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]Communism has never existed. Kim Jong Il is no dangerous monster. That's US propaganda.

are you stupid? or you just play a role? if you think that kim jong il is not a monster, that means that you are also a monster.

please stop to use "US propaganda". YOU are the victim of a propaganda. which one? the universal bullshit. you are a negationist and a revisionist. you should be in an asylum or in jail. guys as you, are dangerous.

you speak like a sect, try to use your brain.

and about your map:

yes, this is the truth that USSR lost a lot of soldiers. but you don't even know why?

do you know how Joukov cleaned mine fields? do you know why retreat was impossible and the consequences? do you know the number of personal guns avaible in a company and the consequences?

you are a joke, you speak about facts that you don't even understand.

[-Snafu- 78]

Yes, Social Science.

How could you not see a contradiction?

You said that nobody really knows about socialism or communism.

Then you said there are hundreds of millions of you. Which is a massive number given that you said nobody really knows about them. But you have corrected yourself in the above post. You see?

Anyway this is not an argument about who did killed the most Germans in WW2. Body counts alone don't win wars.

What I was arguing against was the attitude that the Western Allies sat about and did nothing till the USSR had the Nazi's on the run.

This is obviously ridiculous.

Let us get to the main point here. The Western Allies were already fighting the Germans before the USSR. Normandy took such a long time because of several key reasons.

- Britain lost a lot of hardware at Dunkirk.

- America was wholly unprepared for a major war. Let alone one that spanned the globe. (For the Western Allies)

- Britain and the Commonwealth were unprepared for a major war.

- Germany was already being engaged in North Africa and then Italy before Normandy. Both encompassed invasions by the sea.

- Western Allies had to fight big Naval Wars.

- The Western Allies were at war with Japan in the pacific over a massive area.

- Thus it would take time to build up an invasion force for France. Men and equipment were already being sent to different parts of the world for fighting. There has to be careful monitoring between stockpiling and sending units and equipment to the different theatres of war.

- These men and material have to be sent over huge oceans. Landed at a port. These soldiers and material then need to be transported over land to their respective units.

- The logistics needed for this were huge. Very impressive that the Western Allies could fight against two enemies at different parts of the world and keep these units supplied.

- Moreover the Normandy invasion was no easy feat either. It took years to organise, supplies and equipment needed to be stockpiled. (Remember that the Axis are already being fought at this time in two separate parts of the globe.) These invasion plans needed to be kept secret so there is a huge effort for decieving the Germans.

However I am not disregarding the USSR effort. It was massive and an absolutely key factor in defeating Hitler. The war in the USSR was especially brutal and the bravery of the Soviet, soldier, tanker, airman and seaman is inspiring.

But don't think the Western Allies sat about and did nothing!

If you go to Russia you will see books, films etc. promoting their role in the war. Same with the USA. Same with any nation that was involved. In the West it's more about the USSR not getting the recogniton for it's role in the war. The media, films etc. don't deny it. The 'person on the street' just does not really have an intimate knowledge of the war. Anyone who has looked into WW2 will know how important USSR involvement was.

I had family members involved in WW2. One was captured by the Japanese and starved in a POW camp. I will absolutely not let anybody say that their role was worthless. Not just because I had family involved. But because it isn't true.

[MehMan 0]

Bullshit. Who says that? Your teacher or the CIA? You're letting your fantasy slip. There is no proof, just propaganda.

People don't die from working, and they aren't beat to death in North Korea. If anyone claims he knows, he's lying. Sure there might be some deaths in prison. Loads of people have died at Guantanamo as well.

My teacher never told me anything. Or anybody.

What the hell is it with you and teachers? Do you think that teachers really try to bring politics into class? I'd love to see how one can bring politics into grammar. Or into maths. Or physics. Or literature. The only subject I can think of is history. And even there the alcholic we had couldn't cover anything. The only mass killings we ever heard about was the holocaust. Little about Stalin. The only propaganda we have ever heard was commie propaganda, from one single teacher, she only voiced her support for Tito.

Just propaganda? Fine fine fine. Just as there were no gulags?

It's hard to bring good strong solid proof that you would believe (but even then you would deny it as liberal propaganda) because North Korea is buttoned down.

I believe you're the one who's letting his fantasy slip.

Quote[/b] ]If starvation is murder, hundreds of millions of people should be counted in the death toll of capitalism. "Photoshopped" pictures are common. The famous US Iwo Jima flag picture was arranged and there are numerous of other occurences where important images have been altered as well. It's a common procedure even today. Look at the Iraq war for instance.

When you're disputing numerous respected opinion polls cited in the western press it shows that you don't care about facts.

If you don't count starvation a few hundred thousand, a million max, can be attributed to Stalin. Naturally that's bad. Those people could be sent to prison instead. But if you look at the general level of the world powers and mentality at that time you'll find that Churchill was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the terror bombings of Dresden. The nukes over Japan, just because the USSR advanced and would take Tokyo before the US. Even ten years later blacks were murdered and lynched in thousands with police intentionally doing nothing. At the same time indian uprisings were crushed violently inside the US and atrocities performed in many parts of the world. If you blame Stalin for one type of crime, you should blame the western powers for the same reasons.

Man caused famines are one thing, natural caused famines are another thing. Iwo Jima wasn't faked.

I never claimed that western leaders were angels. The british empire is to blame for a lot of massacres, the US has sins too. But what you're claiming is that socialists states are pure angels, with only minor consequences even though the evidence points in the other direction.

Quote[/b] ]No there are hundreds of millions just now. There are revolutions going on on numerous places in the world, but as uneducated you are you have no clue about them. Western media ignores them. There are tens of millions of communists in Europe. Same numbers in Africa and South America. In Asia there are many more.

Many nobel prize winners support our cause. Pinter, Lessing, Neruda, Garcia Marquez, Hemingway to name a few.

You are the ones who are brainwashed, you're just echoing the lies of the ruling class like sheep. You think the western world is made up of democracies. That's insane. How can I be brainwashed? I grew up in the western world just like you, but I've seen the big picture.

Tens of millions? Strange. They seem to be really underground. Otherwise it would have shown something by now. Something noticable.

BAAA!

Yes, there are democracies around as much as you deny them. The US isn't a good example, but there are plenty of others.

BAAA!

You are brainwashed because you believe YOUR system is completely perfect, nothing wrong with it, socalism is the best thing since sliced bread and the systems so far are the ones to follow. Oh wait, they're gone. WHOOPS!

BAAA!

Not every single movement that exists is MARXIST! Just because it fights for freedom and justice doesn't make it Marxist. The PKK is not marxist. Are you going to call the Chechens marxist too?

BAAA!!

Quote[/b] ]MehMan is a victim of western propaganda. He repeats old lies which could be heard all the way from Washington.

And you are a victim of socialist propaganda.

BAAA!

Quote[/b] ]The other allied powers helped too. But not as much as western propaganda wants it to be. People are getting brainwashed from kindergarten and up. Same thing with religion and "democracy".

HAHAHAHAA!

FUCK YOU, YOU ASININE MORON! THE ACOMPLISHMENTS OF MY GRANDFATHERS WILL NOT BE MINIMZED BY YOU.

I have had enough of you and your bullshit.

[billybob2002 0]

Gosh, the thread has turned for the worst. I'm just going to pick out certain stuff to refute:

@Spokesman

Quote[/b] ]

The nukes over Japan, just because the USSR advanced and would take Tokyo before the US.

Blatantly false unless you got some top secret files that you are withholding from the public.

Quote[/b] ]

Even ten years later blacks were murdered and lynched in thousands with police intentionally doing nothing.

A vast majority of the lynchings happened between the late 19th century and the early 20th century. Intimidation and assault was used more so than murder.

http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroom/lynching_table_year.html

Quote[/b] ] That deal helped the communists to win the general elections a few years after the war.

In 1948, the communist preformed a coup d'état. Why did they perform a coup d'état?

Quote[/b] ]The other allied powers helped too. But not as much as western propaganda wants it to be. People are getting brainwashed from kindergarten and up. Same thing with religion and "democracy".

Logistics is very important in fighting an enemy. Without lend-lease, the Soviet Union would not of been hardly mobilized. The United States sent over 300,000 trucks that helped mobilize the Soviet infantry. Those trucks helped the Soviets make rapid advances against the Germans and their allies. Additionally, the United States sent millions of tons of food to the Soviet Union to help feed them.

[otk-member 0]

Stalin was in power for 30 years, Hitler for 12. Look what Hitler did and I think that Stalin could've pulled it off.

You think.

Only for the reason that you so think - you incur the right to accuse the person what it the world villain? Without proofs?

I would gladly read that graph if I could, however I don't speak russian and the help I got didn't really help a lot. So that doesn't really help a lot.

Sorry, didnt think about it. Ok, a Inscription above - "structure of the population of Russia"

the Inscription below - "year of a birth"

the Inscription at the left - "percent in the population"

Red color - women, dark blue color - men.

Within reprisals it did slump. Also during the great famine it slumped. The great famine in the Ukraine was a man caused famine.

About "great famine in the Ukraine". The great famine was in whole country, not only in Ukraine. Historians, by the way, miss in opinions concerning scales of famine. In particular - what to mean "victims of famine". And whether it is possible to name it a genocide. Any obvious proofs so-called "Golodomor" does not exist. There is only a number of doubtful photos. The majority from which is perfect from other sources.

I agree the numbers might have been lower, but still, Stalin caused much harm, too much to be forgiven and written off. Yes, you make sacrifices in every system, yes somebody always gets hurt, but why did they hurt the very people they were supposed to be helping? And in such great numbers? Does the cost really justify the end means here?

"The history does not suffer subjunctive moods".

Stalin wasn't an angel. But he wasn't a devil.

There are no absolutely pure politicians. Then, now. Everyone has the "a skeleton in a case". However, if the person the patriot also does all for the blessing of the country - it deserves respect, despite of methods and particulars. Worthless people would not try to heat in a dirt. Hence Stalin really was the great person.

And one more else.

I and all my relatives always lived in Russia. I never met people who had relatives arrested persons during reprisals.

NEVER! These are unique cases.

Wow, the ammount of disrespect there is amazing. In fact, so much that you anger me greatly. Yes, Russia took the bore of the beating, but you were never alone.

Well, probably I have incorrectly expressed. I wished to tell that all the basic events of that war occured in overland fights in the Europe and the USSR. ~70 % of army of Germans have been destroyed by the Soviet army. And only owing to existence of the USSR - these of 70 % have been destroyed there. Because differently - they would send on all other fronts and you would lose.

No, not just the sea. You forget Africa. You forget the East. the Axis also marks Japan.

I didn't fogot. I said "small local ground conflicts"

How Stalin fell for that one I don't know, because Hitler was so incredibly anti-bolshevik that hardly anybody could've beaten him at it.

The political screen has no value at transnational attitudes.

No. Pacific. Remember that? North Africa, remember that?

The pacific battlefield was big and tough. No picnic. Africa was tough too.

The USA against Japan - anybody especially did not interfere. As well as they especially did not interfere with an event outside of Pacific. At least an 1943.

Good, you admit help. You see, we didn't leave you alone.

If you're going to start a history discussion, be sure you know it.

Do not doubt, I know history. But discussion here - is offtopic.

[baddo 0]

Doesn't the talk about WW II steer the discussion away from what it was intended to be?

But anyways, one thing I wanted to say about the losses of the Soviets in the WW II. In the totally stupid Winter War against Finland, the Soviets lost so many men that it almost makes me cry - not quite, I said almost. They made horrible tactical mistakes which cost them huge piles of men. I am glad that they could not conquer our country, but at the same time I'm sad not only for the losses of my country, but also sad for the losses of the Soviet Union. And what did they get with the price they paid? They got a forest cluttered with the corpses of their soldiers. Basically a cemetary. Must've been happy, Josif-man.

See my point? Someone here brings up the huge losses the USSR suffered in the WW II, without mentioning that a lot of those losses could have been completely avoided. For example those they suffered against the Finnish Defence Forces.

And I do think that also the losses of the Continuation War could have been avoided if the Winter War was never fought. Here most people see it as the second chapter of Winter War, but the Russians might not agree with us on that as we had Germany on our side at that time. It was again that the Soviets attacked, as in Winter War. My opinion is that if Winter War had never happened, Finland would not have partnered with Germany at all during WW II. My reasoning for that is that we didn't have a reason to be in the war at all, we tried to avoid it as best as we could. And I don't think that the Germans would have attacked us, I think they were better aware of our military than the Soviets were and they knew, unlike the Soviets, that they would have lots of losses if they attacked us. (They trained the Jägers for our army which was in preparation for Finland to separate from Russia in 1917. Many of those same Jägers formed the basis of our military field command in WW II, and they were highly succesful in the battlefields. I'm a Jäger also, by the way, but not officer.) But this is only speculation of course, as I imagined a situation in which the Winter War didn't happen.

I think it should be noted when you bring up the huge losses of the USSR. It's not all to blame on others, lot of it is also to blame on the incredible stupidity of the leaders of the USSR. First person to blame for the Soviet and Finnish losses in the Winter War has to be Stalin himself.

[otk-member 0]

In the totally stupid Winter War against Finland, the Soviets lost so many men that it almost makes me cry - not quite, I said almost. They made horrible tactical mistakes which cost them huge piles of men.

yes, its true. stupid tactical mistakes.

thay (a leaders) want a make something like "Blitzkreg"

A little victorius war.

[otk-member 0]

I can only congratulate the Russian people of having given the communist party about 20% of their votes, in unfair, undemocratic elections. The communists are the real winners.

According to brainwashed people here otk-member must be an old granny or one of the 50 you're talking about. Funny coincidence. Apart from that I agree with what he's saying.

Actually no. Real winners is Putin's candidate. But not ~70%. Probably 45-55%. I speak it because i know a peoples around me. And more than 30% - don't go to elections, don't votes, because thay don't trust it.

What about me - i'm 27 year old, have a university education. I'm not a communist, not a democrat, not a liberal. More like a nationalist, but its not fully correct. Patriot, first of all. I want a see my country strong, respecting and great. What about a human rights - it may be respecting until it doesn't hurt a social and state.

yes, this is the truth that USSR lost a lot of soldiers. but you don't even know why?

do you know how Joukov cleaned mine fields? do you know why retreat was impossible and the consequences? do you know the number of personal guns avaible in a company and the consequences?

you are a joke, you speak about facts that you don't even understand.

OMG      

Man, sorry, but it's a fully hollywood shit  

You probably looked much hollywood films, such as "enemy at a gate"

Very, very funny movie. Just a few moments - one rifle to two soldiers - full shit! Even penal battalions "Shtrafbat" (the guilty soldiers) were armed much more this.

In occasion of barrier groups - too delirium. They certainly existed, but only...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_troops

And some information from russian NKVD archives:

http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_423.htm

Quote[/b] ]

On Stalingrad's front barrier troop it is detained - 15649 person, 244 persons are arrested, shot - 278 person, directed to penal mouths - 218 person, in penal battalions - 42, returned in the parts and on transit items - 14833 of the persons.

on August, 29th, 1942 the staff of 29-th shooting division of 64-th army Stalingrad's front has been surrounded by tanks of the opponent, a part of a division, having lost management, in a panic departed in rear. Barrier troop under command of the lieutenant of state security Philatov, having accepted drastic measures, has stopped military men departing in the disorder and has returned them on earlier borrowed boundaries of defense. On other site of this division the opponent tried to break deep into defenses. Barrier troop has entered fight and has detained enemy

On September, 14th the opponent has undertaken approach against parts of 399-th shooting division of 62-nd army. Fighters and commanders of 396-th and 472-nd shooting divisions began to depart in a panic. The chief barrier troop the second lieutenant of state security Yelman has ordered to the group to open fire above heads receding. As a result the staff of these divisions has been stopped and in two hours of a shelf have borrowed former boundaries of defense.

On September, 13th 112-th shooting division under pressure of the opponent has departed since a borrowed boundary. Barrier troop  62-nd armies under direction of the chief of group of the lieutenant of state security Hlystov has borrowed defense on approaches to the important height. Within four day fighters and commanders of group reflected attacks of submachine gunners of the opponent, having put to them greater losses. Barrier troop kept a boundary down to the approach of military units.

On September, 15-16th barrier troop 62-nd armies within two day successfully were conducted with fight with superior forces of the opponent in area Stalingrad railway station. Despite of the small number, barrier troop not only beat off attacks of Germans, but also counterattacked, having put to the opponent significant losses in alive force. The boundary has left group only when on change send parts of 10-th shooting division.

It all clean now?

[scary 0]

Loathe as I am to get involved in this demonstration of Godwin's Law, I just can't let some of this wibble pass.

Yes, sometimes it was necessary to operate rigidly. But easy ways does not happen. But the purposes have been reached. And owing to it we have won the second world war. And you too, by the way. Really you think that your landing in Normandy was a determinative of war? LOL

It was one of many decisive moments in the war, without which victory would not have been a certainty.

Quote[/b] ]Your "British Empire" already by that moment has lost all power. You were afraid to be put out from the island. Americans have helped. But if the red Army has not crushed 160 German divisions - your landing simply would smear on a beach of Normandy.

The British Empire (doesn't require inverted commas), lost its power after the war, and not embarking on an offensive in northern France had nothing to do with fear, it was because Britain wanted to win. At the beginning of the war, the British Army was not built for large scale conventional warfare, it was a colonial police force. The BEF was sent into northern Europe early with the knowledge that it would probably be beaten back, it just had to delay the Axis powers long enough to allow Britain to get on a war footing. It succeeded in doing that but lost a lot of heavy equipment during the Dunkirk evacuation.

If the Allies hadn't been fighting in Europe, Africa and the Far East, the Red Army would have been a red stain.

Quote[/b] ]Germans by that moment, have already been beaten out from territory of the USSR. They receded. You send to finish off already half-dead opponent.

The best of the Axis troops were on the Western Front. Getting sent to the Eastern Front, was more often than not, a punishment. And who do you think was being fought against in Africa and on the Italian Front?

Quote[/b] ]An, after that - look at the man who start a cold war!

Actually, you'll find it was the US that allowed the Cold War to develop. Churchill wanted to carry on the fight pushing the Soviets out of Eastern Europe.

Quote[/b] ]So what? First of all - it was nonagression pact.

No it wasn't. The USSR tried to join the Tripartite pact, with the proviso that it could annex Finland. Trying to annex a country is not an act of non-aggression.

Quote[/b] ]It was in 1939.

Um, no, talks started in 1939 and continued until 1941. 1939 would be when the war in Europe started.

Quote[/b] ]

Britain had been fighting the Axis longer than the USSR.

Through the sea, yes. If passage was not - England would grasp for some months, as well as all Europe.

What the cock has England got to do with anything? The UK, the Commonwealth and the Allies had been fighting the Axis powers at sea, on land and in the air for two years before the Soviets got involved. How long do you think the USSR would have lasted without the damage caused in those two years?

Quote[/b] ]I know. Stalin trusted Hitler. He thought that Hitler observes the contract.

Which goes to show that as well as being a coward and an evil, murdering tossbag, Uncle Joe was an idiot.

Quote[/b] ]In occasion of other theatres of war - basically there was a sea war. Or war in territory of colonies. English and the French colonies, by the way. It was a small local ground wars.

Real greater war was only in the Europe and in the USSR. With massive tank battles, infantry and artillery attacks.

You have opened the second front only when have seen that we have started to win.

Do you actually think the Western Desert and North African campaigns were small local ground wars? Buy yourself a book on the history of WWII, make sure it's a big one and slap yourself around the head with it.

But if you look at the general level of the world powers and mentality at that time you'll find that Churchill was responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the terror bombings of Dresden.

Hitler was responsible for the bombing of Dresden. Something to do with invading Poland, killing untermensch and the Blitz.

Quote[/b] ]The nukes over Japan, just because the USSR advanced and would take Tokyo before the US.

The only thing the USSR did in the Far East was to invade Manchuria, which was a requirement of Yalta, they never got anywhere near Japan, never mind Tokyo.

Quote[/b] ]I think the workers and peasants army of the USSR crushed more than 70% of the fascist forces.

The other allied powers helped too. But not as much as western propaganda wants it to be. People are getting brainwashed from kindergarten and up. Same thing with religion and "democracy".

I'm not saying anyone is denying the role of the USSR here, but that picture sums up a lot.

The only thing that picture sums up is the how inept the Soviet leadership was.

War isn't a computer game where points are racked up for number of kills. The strategic victories - destruction of the Axis war machine, control of logistic routes, destruction of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine - were by the Western Allies.

Not to mention stopping them from developing the A-bomb. How long would mighty Russia have lasted if instant sunshine was being dropped on its cities?

Well, probably I have incorrectly expressed. I wished to tell that all the basic events of that war occured in overland fights in the Europe and the USSR. ~70 % of army of Germans have been destroyed by the Soviet army. And only owing to existence of the USSR - these of 70 % have been destroyed there. Because differently - they would send on all other fronts and you would lose.

The most important battlefield of WWII was the North Atlantic. Without it, British convoys wouldn't have got American supplies through to the USSR. The Soviets would have been reduced to throwing rocks - which in a lot of cases, they already were.

Without the Soviets the war would have certainly lasted longer but as the Axis powers would never have got across the English Channel it would still have been won eventually.

Quote[/b] ]The USA against Japan - anybody especially did not interfere. As well as they especially did not interfere with an event outside of Pacific. At least an 1943.

Really? And what is the most common flag on this list of military operations in S.E. Asia? Was the BPF on a sight seeing cruise?

Quote[/b] ]Do not doubt, I know history.

You clearly don't.

[Sheps 0]

Hey can i just ask, wtf is up with sentencing in America?

Convicted date rapist Andrew Luster gets 124 years in prison.

Duane "Dog" Chapman, convicted of 1st degree murder, 18 months.

Bloody rediculous, no doubt Luster was a sick bastard and deserved capital punishment in my opinion (chopping off his penis would do)

Luster date raped 20 women, but still, the comparison in lengths of time is nuts, and this seems to happen all the time over there, one man could serve 2 years for murder and another man could serve 200 years, its crazy.

[otk-member 0]

It was one of many decisive moments in the war, without which victory would not have been a certainty.

Partially. Opening of the second front - has helped. But for that moment we already would consult. It has simply approached a victory.

The best of the Axis troops were on the Western Front.

LOL

Documentary statistics, please.

No it wasn't. The USSR tried to join the Tripartite pact, with the proviso that it could annex Finland. Trying to annex a country is not an act of non-aggression.

Quote[/b] ]It was in 1939.

Um, no, talks started in 1939 and continued until 1941. 1939 would be when the war in Europe started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

Which goes to show that as well as being a coward and an evil, murdering tossbag, Uncle Joe was an idiot.

You may think as you wish.

Hitler was responsible for the bombing of Dresden. Something to do with invading Poland, killing untermensch and the Blitz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombings_of_dresden

The most important battlefield of WWII was the North Atlantic. Without it, British convoys wouldn't have got American supplies through to the USSR.

It was impotant. But it was not most impotant.

The Soviets would have been reduced to throwing rocks - which in a lot of cases, they already were.

LOL

Really? And what is the most common flag on this list of military operations in S.E. Asia? Was the BPF on a sight seeing cruise?

Ok, was mistaken. I recognize.

btw - i mean that US not going anywhere else until 1943.

Anyway, i think we must over this topic, about WWII.

Everyone remains at the own opinion and no arguments will help.

You will consider that a greater role in war the West has played.

I shall always consider that a greater role in war the USSR has played. Understand thoroughly professional historians can only.

Lets talk about Freedom and Democraty

How you think, citizens of USA - is free?

What about citizens of Russia?

Citizens of China?

Europe?

[Baff1 0]

Gosh, the thread has turned for the worst. I'm just going to pick out certain stuff to refute:

@Spokesman

Quote[/b] ]

The nukes over Japan, just because the USSR advanced and would take Tokyo before the US.

Blatantly false unless you got some top secret files that you are withholding from the public.

Withholding what exactly?

It's common knowledge.

The Russians had had a neutrailty pact with Japan, which had allowed them to pull their Siberian army onto the eastern front with Germany. (In this respect, Japan's preoccupation with Allied forces had saved Russia from Germany).

They had agreed with Britain and America to end this pact within three months of the end of the war in Europe.

Precisely 3 months after the surrender of Germany, the Russians declared war on Japan as agreed.

Up until the bomb worked, we were counting on the Russians for the manpower required to take mainland Japan.

Losses at Okinawa had shown us that our casualties could expect to be massive. There was no guarentee of success.

It is important to remember that the Soviet land army was something like 20 times the size of the rest of allies combined. It was the Russians that captured Berlin. Not the British, not the Americans.

They also drove the Japanese out of Manchuria and half of Korea.

They had a fleet in theatre at Japan and the islands they captured are still disputed territories to this day.

The nukes over Japan however where not dropped "just to stop the Russians taking Tokyo".

What total nonsense. They were dropped to destroy city's. To end the war.

People were dying every day and it needed to be won. ASAP. Not wait around another year while Russia invaded.

The cold war began after WW2, ended. Not before.

Where the best Axis troops were, is at the spearhead of every advance.

So when they marched through Czechoslavakia, Poland, Belgium and France, that's where they were. Afterwards those same troops went on to Russia.

Crack divisions however did not stay in the same position throughout the war. Obviously they were rotated.

[-Snafu- 78]

What has the size of their army go to with the fact they took Berlin?

It would have been utterly pointless for the Allies to attack a city that would be in the Soviet sphere of influence after the war.

If you want to continue discussion on this I have created a thread here for the purpose of discussing Military History.

Anyway...

Back On Topic

What is the opinion here of this latest crisis?

Link

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]In occasion of other theatres of war - basically there was a sea war. Or war in territory of colonies. English and the French colonies, by the way. It was a small local ground wars.

Real greater war was only in the Europe and in the USSR. With massive tank battles, infantry and artillery attacks.

You have opened the second front only when have seen that we have started to win.

Do you actually think the Western Desert and North African campaigns were small local ground wars? Buy yourself a book on the history of WWII, make sure it's a big one and slap yourself around the head with it.

.

A few notes on what you wrpte Scary,

The fiorst is that yes, comparatively the North African Campaign was a small war.

Tiny even.

It was of above ordinary importance for the British as it was their first victory after all the humilating defeats it had faced one after the other in Europe, the atlantic and the pacific.

Up until this point, we had been heavily lossing on every front, in every battle.

The British Empire was not lost after WW2, it was lost during it, and during WW1.

After WW1 we lost the manpower and the willpower to fight and during WW2 we traded our logistical infrastructure to the U.S. in return for arms and food. WW2 broke us financially after the end of the war we were not able to re-establish ourselves around the world.

The pre cold war relationships between Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were complex.

Stalin laughed at Churchill. Stalin and Roosevelt conspired to split up Europe between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. without the U.K.

At the same time, Churchill admired Stalin and felt he was a man that could be trusted.

Presuambly these feelings and the precise balance of the relationships changed from day to day. A week is a long time in politics.

In all honesty, I don't think our supplies to Russia made a critical difference to them. And if they appreciated the effort or the lives lost in the process, they certainly have never mentioned it.  

(Unlike the Dutch).

The destruction of German forces by the Soviet horde is not to be underestimated. The British were unabled to single handedly defeat even a tenth of them is combined in one force.

Add another tenth for the U.S.

If Russia had fallen, we would not have been able to advance on any European front. We wouldn't have made it off the beaches.

At Normandy beach, a force of 3,000 Germans killed 30,000 Allies.

Just imagine if that force had been 6,000 Germans, let alone 60,000.

That said, the Russian's have this ego thing going on. They like to think that they don't need anyone else and can do all things alone. (Much like the Americans do, although having been invaded, their pride has been stung much deeper).

You are going to hear a lot of "We did all the bulk of the work without you, you sat back and did nothing while we all died" from them.

To this laughable and insulting conceit, designed primarily to promote their own war-weakened self esteem, I reply, if either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. has stood with us in 1939, it would have ended there and then.

I have some conceits of my own.

The U.S.S.R. got decimated by the Germans becuase they were weak, and too up themselves to remember who their friends were.

Too busy trying to save themselves and distrust everybody else.

Unable and unwilling to co-operate with other nations. Paranoid.

Who would have thought we harboured Lenin, Stalin, Marx and Trotsky for them.

Who would have believed we armed their great revolution.

It's immensley tiring to be treated like enemies perpetually by people with much to lose and so much to gain from involvement with us.

Some people are so screwed up they don't know what their best friends look like

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]You said that nobody really knows about socialism or communism.

Then you said there are hundreds of millions of you. Which is a massive number given that you said nobody really knows about them. But you have corrected yourself in the above post. You see?

Well ok I admit that I wasn't precise enough. Nobody knows anything about socialism or communism where I live, and probably not where you live either. Nobody means like 2% of the population. That's why there is little support.

In other parts of the world there is a huge amount of people like me. I think that is obvious, especially if you look at countries where there are big communist parties.

Quote[/b] ]What the hell is it with you and teachers? Do you think that teachers really try to bring politics into class?

The liberal hegemony is manifested in many things in society. Teachers, books, political correctness, movies, talkshows, newspapers, media and so on. Things you see as common sense facts are in fact opinions. Who told you you live in a democracy? You don't question that because you think it's a fact. It isn't.

Quote[/b] ]Just propaganda? Fine fine fine. Just as there were no gulags?

Gulag doesn't mean extermination camp. They are labour camps. Prisons, especially in underdeveloped countries that can't afford TV's and comfortable beds in all cells. They use prisoners as workers. That way, prisoners will get TV's eventually.

Quote[/b] ]Man caused famines are one thing, natural caused famines are another thing. Iwo Jima wasn't faked.

There were no man caused famines in the USSR. That's nazi propaganda that was echoed in the pro-Nazi capitalist Hearst-press in the US. Now it's become one of those "facts". The picture at Iwo Jima was arranged. There are two balanced war-movies about it. Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Those aren't based on fiction.

Quote[/b] ]Tens of millions? Strange. They seem to be really underground. Otherwise it would have shown something by now. Something noticable.

I said there were tens of millions of communists in Europe. There are big communist parties in the EU. Look at the Cz Republic, Russia, France, Greece or Italy. In Cyprus they won the elections recently. In moldova they have been in power for many years. Sure the moldovians are market-oriented, but promotion of capitalism is progressive in some cases.

Quote[/b] ]Not every single movement that exists is MARXIST! Just because it fights for freedom and justice doesn't make it Marxist. The PKK is not marxist. Are you going to call the Chechens marxist too?

PKK isn't marxist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers_Party

Same goes for "terrorist" FARC and PFLP.

If Spartacus was alive today, he would be classed as a terrorist by the modern day Romans. The real terrorists are in Israel, Miami, Washington and Colombia.

Quote[/b] ]And you are a victim of socialist propaganda.

I am? Yes, because I live in a liberal society. There's a lot of socialist propaganda here. Not liberal.

Quote[/b] ]In 1948, the communist preformed a coup d'état. Why did they perform a coup d'état?  

That was no coup at all. The communists won the elections in a fair and honest way. But that's what liberals call socialist victories. Chavez is a "dictator" etc. The one who staged a military coup against him and held office for one day was a true democrat (according to newspapers and tv news). The day after millions of people went out in the streets and forced the bourgeoisie to give up.

Quote[/b] ]But anyways, one thing I wanted to say about the losses of the Soviets in the WW II. In the totally stupid Winter War against Finland, the Soviets lost so many men that it almost makes me cry - not quite, I said almost. They made horrible tactical mistakes which cost them huge piles of men. I am glad that they could not conquer our country, but at the same time I'm sad not only for the losses of my country, but also sad for the losses of the Soviet Union. And what did they get with the price they paid? They got a forest cluttered with the corpses of their soldiers. Basically a cemetary. Must've been happy, Josif-man.

Yes, bad tactics, but I'm not sure what you're thinking. The USSR could've taken Finland any day. Or don't you think that a country that defeated a dozen of countries including Nazi-Germany would be able to "conquer" Finland? That wasn't their intention. After all, it was Stalin who signed the finnish independence from the bolshevik russian side. Before the war they wanted to secure the finnish border to Leningrad, first by leasing territory, second by offering a lot of territory in exchange and finally by force. They feared a german attack on Leningrad from finnish territory in the event of war. This was seen as probable because the finnish government consisted of anti-bolsheviks and pro-fascists (even if they were called social democrats).

Quote[/b] ]Actually no. Real winners is Putin's candidate. But not ~70%. Probably 45-55%. I speak it because i know a peoples around me. And more than 30% - don't go to elections, don't votes, because thay don't trust it.

Right, but that was not what I meant. It was known before the elections that he would win. It was estimated that the communists would gain 10% of the vote, but they nearly got the double. In unfair elections I think it's a good effort to have scored as much as 20%.

I also think that Baff1 has a good balanced view of the second world war. Even though we have some different opinions, his view isn't influenced by cold-war propaganda that still can be read in school books or seen in Hollywood.

[billybob2002 0]

The picture at Iwo Jima was arranged. There are two balanced war-movies about it. Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Those aren't based on fiction.

Flags of Our Fathers doesn't say the photo was arranged. The movie is about how a photo became a huge propaganda bonanza and how it affected the men who raised the flag. Just by chance Joe Rosenthal and others were there.

Quote[/b] ]

Same goes for "terrorist" FARC and PFLP.

Those two groups are actually terrorists organizations. Additionally, in the 1980s, the Colombian Communist Party broke away from FARC.

http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=96

http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=85 (PFLP)

Quote[/b] ]

That was no coup at all. The communists won the elections in a fair and honest way.

There was a coup. Also, btw, the communists had a coalition government before the coup because they didn't win majority of the vote.

http://www.radio.cz/en/article/63799

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/40s/czech_coup.asp

http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/280/czech_national_news/19102/

[Supah 0]

The raising of the flag on Iwo Jima was done when it originally happened but there was no photographer present so it was laer decided that the original men had to redo it. Btw "Ira Hayes" .... the ballad of Ira Hayes done by Bob Dylan ... super cool. I played that today driving home from work! Even about this spokesperson cant complain. the raising of the hammer and sickle over the reichstag was redone too

[billybob2002 0]

If Russia had fallen, we would not have been able to advance on any European front. We wouldn't have made it off the beaches.

At Normandy beach, a force of 3,000 Germans killed 30,000 Allies.

Just imagine if that force had been 6,000 Germans, let alone 60,000.

If the Soviet were defeated, we have no clue what would had happened. You are just badly speculating. Furthermore, at Normandy beach, the Germans didn't kill 30,000 Allies.

Quote[/b] ]

To this laughable and insulting conceit, designed primarily to promote their own war-weakened self esteem, I reply, if either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. has stood with us in 1939, it would have ended there and then.

In 1939, the U.S. was hardly a world player.

The raising of the flag on Iwo Jima was done when it originally happened but there was no photographer present so it was laer decided that the original men had to redo it.

The original flag raisers didn't raise the second flag. IIRC, only one of the originals was at the second one. There was a photographer present at the first raising. Gosh, it wasn't staged....