America saved Russia

Wr1tt3n by Dereny, 19.07.2016 at 15:53

The parts you're referring to as propaganda I thought were just added to make the movie more dramatic And I'm sure a majority of people did want to fight to defend their homes considering it was either that or live under foreign occupation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that 30% was or was similar to the draft instated in the US.

Every man in USSR had to go through military training 1 to 4 years (before WW2), depend what branch they go, i think ground forces 2 years, navy 3, technicians 4 since they are specialists, 1 for military fire, police and hospital department and air force were professional soldiers so eternity. So when Germans invaded, everyone had to be drafted and mobilized but before government could announce mobilization, people were flooding city centers and military offices asking for service. They basically volunteered, but the rest 30% had to be found and forced into army, they were hiding in villages among relatives, bribing their way out of the army etc. It is like that with every nation, we are not very different.

Greatest problem was with Muslims in Central Asia, they didn't want to go to war because they disliked the government as USSR was atheist, it hurt their way of life. So they rebelled like 20 years before (Basmachi Movement) when Imperial Russia tried to draft them for WW1. So military started to execute them as traitors if they deny conscription. The rest were forcefully drafted and sent to the front. But after sometime, muslim wounded and heroes returned to their homes (wounded because they were done for the war and heroes to rest as reward) and they told about attrocities and evil that Nazis brought into our country. That made them volunteer and stop hiding so you had 90% muslim men applying for service and 50% of them dying in the war.

Interesting fact: half of Azerbaijan recieved medals and decorations for their participation at war. They worked 2 shifts a day, some of them even 3, not leaving the factory and making minimum breaks, providing Red Army with necessary equipment, like medication, oil, ammo, weapons. Beside that, 100% of Azerbaijani men went to the front to defend the Motherland, only 50% returned.

WW2 was the time of Heroes.

Wr1tt3n by Dereny, 19.07.2016 at 15:53

I'm pleased you already saw the movie; I wasn't sure if it was popular or not because it came out when I was a young child so I don't know how people reacted to it.

I watch American movies lol, i think i watched atleast 50% hollywood produced. I just didn't watch Avengers because you know... boring, but i like Transformers

I'm sure Enemy at the gates recieved positive reactions in the West, but in Russia it recieved mixed reactions because half who watched were entertained, but other half concerned and confused with 'soldiers rushing without rifles', that is illogical, irrational and unecessary to depict.

We raged when we saw Rambo 3, when he protect innocent Afghani peasants while evil unshaven(it was impossible to have beard in the Soviet Army..not sure why Hollywood depict Soviet/Russians with beards or unshaved) Soviets use gunships to terrorize them

Wr1tt3n by Dereny, 19.07.2016 at 14:43

Speaking of movies, I would suggest the movie Enemy at the Gates about a Soviet sniper at Stalingrad and how he was turned into a hero for propaganda and then is forced to face a top Nazi sniper who was sent to kill him. I haven't done any research to see if it's true, but it is one of my favorite wwII movies

I had to write a paper for one of my classes on how accurate a movie is and I can confirm Enemy at the Gates is indeed very accurate

Wr1tt3n by Viruslegion, 19.07.2016 at 21:19

I had to write a paper for one of my classes on how accurate a movie is and I can confirm Enemy at the Gates is indeed very accurate

Ahh okay, I never know when I watch those movies and never feel like googling about them

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 19.07.2016 at 15:42

Imagine this

versus this

True, a Panzer III would have no chance against a KV-2, but also imagine it against this



I won't argue that in the beginning of the war the German tanks were outclassed, but they also later made improvements and made better tanks, and the Soviets would do the same, both sides made some impressive tanks during the war

Wr1tt3n by Viruslegion, 20.07.2016 at 00:17

True, a Panzer III would have no chance against a KV-2, but also imagine it against this



I won't argue that in the beginning of the war the German tanks were outclassed, but they also later made improvements and made better tanks, and the Soviets would do the same, both sides made some impressive tanks during the war

Pre-war tanks like Panzer III could not match Soviet pre-war tanks like T-34 or KV, but it was on-par with T-26. Panzer IV could deal with T-34 but not with KV-1 and KV-2, Red Army had superiority there (in 1941). Then Germany invented Tiger heavy tank and Panther medium tank which were superior to KV-2 and T-34.

That Tiger II you posted was superior to every Soviet tank and had a battle in Poland in 1944 where it defended one village until Wehrmacht retreat. It was fighting 100 T-34 and around 20 IS tanks if i remember correct, destroyed half of them and returned to the base to find out it was only scratched and had not damaged parts. So USSR invented 'Zveroboy' ISU-152 (152mm gun), Only that could destroy Tiger II with one shot.




There's also IS-7 which fought in Hungary 1945, but withdrawn soon so Westerners don't see superior Soviet design. I think it could manage to fight Tiger II, Both had good guns and good armor, albite IS-7 was faster.



But then again, Germans had Maus to counter IS-7.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 20.07.2016 at 06:19

There's also IS-7 which fought in Hungary 1945, but withdrawn soon so Westerners don't see superior Soviet design. I think it could manage to fight Tiger II, Both had good guns and good armor, albite IS-7 was faster.



But then again, Germans had Maus to counter IS-7.

seeing those two fight would sure be interesting, it would probably be a pretty even fight, the winner would probably come don to the more experienced crew

Few problems for you

1. If companies have to pay workers more they will move and operate in a cheaper country, the idea companies will improve by paying higher wages is nonses, you should rethink that, this isn't western propaganda talking, this is economic discipline and common sense.

2. Until GB and the US supplied the soviets via arkangel they were short supplied, This is a fact, some stupid amount of tonnes of supplies flooded into Russia, and one of the most important things that the allies supplied was trucks that were capable of carrying soldiers over incredible distances at pace enabling Russia's highly infantry dependant army to move against the nazis..

I can understand what you're saying about social conflict but its not nearly as much as a problem as you seem to think, which I will argue is Slavic propaganda. Isis targets France and French speaking countries more than any other nation and this is because Isis high command is made up of frrench immigrant, this story of terrorism being a huge threat is only true for a small number of European countries, in the UK we aren't scared of this stuff and we have solid secret services protecting us anyway.

I had an eye operation today and it was carried out by a Greek guy a British guy and an Arabian guy, all very cool and all very professional, it went smoothly, I would prefer to be operated on by the best, wherever they come from than someone of the same nationality as me.. This is good for business, not the idea that social cohesion is more important.

Am I the only one who did not miss tito?

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 20.07.2016 at 11:45

Few problems for you

1. If companies have to pay workers more they will move and operate in a cheaper country, the idea companies will improve by paying higher wages is nonses, you should rethink that, this isn't western propaganda talking, this is economic discipline and common sense.

Yes, but we took all into consideration: continuing cicle makes profit, so if company makes more and more profit - it can raise wages and will still have growing profit.

Beside, small and medium companies can't move and operate in foreign countries, as they are to small, localized. So they have to 'put up' with local laws and regulations, which of course we have to tend to make easy, affordable and profitable.

Corporations can move to weaker countries to pay less wages to its workers, but point is we don't have private corporations in Russia, we have state-owned, or public with 51% shares owned by the Government (49% by foreigners or russians). So they can't move unless Government order them to, they are here to make profit, provide jobs to keep unemployment in check, donate to charities and give loan to the State for infrastructure and federal budget. (we are aware it is fascistic and corporatist, but there is no other way for nascent democracy in wild(uncontrolled) capitalism)

And if some Russian manage to create a fortune with private company, like Alisher Usmanov, and now his (private) corporation decide to leave Russia and move to India because cheaper labor, Russian Government will make deal with him to stay: like lower taxes, free zone, subsidies, loans, contract, tender. And they usually stay as they seek profitable enviroment, so they will have to raise wages but they will get something in return. That's how German corporations are kept in Germany for 150 years.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 20.07.2016 at 14:47

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 20.07.2016 at 11:45

Few problems for you

1. If companies have to pay workers more they will move and operate in a cheaper country, the idea companies will improve by paying higher wages is nonses, you should rethink that, this isn't western propaganda talking, this is economic discipline and common sense.

Yes, but we took all into consideration: continuing cicle makes profit

What do you mean by this? Because I think you're making incorrect assumptions.

Having social cohesion doesn't effect profit very much at all... Certainly not as much as employing the most productive employees regardless of race or background

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 20.07.2016 at 15:15

What do you mean by this? Because I think you're making incorrect assumptions.

Having social cohesion doesn't effect profit very much at all... Certainly not as much as employing the most productive employees regardless of race or background

I mean period of time where you can repeat work in unchanged business environment. Like USA had in 1800-1900 and 1945-2016, or even England 1600-1800. So ending process makes your profit which you can spend but part of it invest in your business to expand it and at the end of the process make more profit which you can spend and again re-invest if you like.

But 'closed' economic system especially with 'repeating cicle' requires more and more low-skill workers and as system is closed you can't import labor force. So you have to rely on existing domestic one. So you will offer $500 wage, and you will find the worker, but other employer now can't find any unemployed, as there is shortage, so he offers your worker $1000 wage, and get him, now third company will offer that same worker $2,000 because he desperately need production as he already have a market to sell his product, he just need labor force.

Best example of 'closed' economic system is Norway, that's why they never joined EU because EU force them to switch to free trade. Norway have high tariffs and import taxes to protect domestic businesses and companies. Their motto is 'if Norway can produce it - don't import it'. That mean if they have oil, they won't import, they will use their own oil to consume. Also if they have fruit, they will consume it, but because they are extreme North, they can't produce enough for all-year consumption, so they will import, but only the amount to cover already produced fruit they never import more if they can produce alone. Their tariffs are around 100% which mean if you want to buy foreign non-Norwegian goods you will pay double the price. And if Norway doesn't produce require goods, then import tax is 0-5% probably, to encourage importers. That's how they discourage free trade but encourage domestic market, and promote domestic healthy economy. Although they are Capitalists, as Capitalism doesn't always equal with Liberalism and Free Trade.

That's probably the reason for EU crisis, Italy have affordable quality wine, France have cheese, Germany have cars but then Poland and Hungarian economies suffer as they can't compete with that. So you get unbalanced trade which lead to less profit for some.

I could go on and on, but i don't know how to end it. Probably like this: eventually closed economic system will have to allow foreign labor as foreigners will definitely be attracted with that money offered by companies, and those developed countries will need low-skill labor because domestic population will be too educated for such jobs. I've read some article not long ago that Finland have 90% population with college degree, and of them 50% have PhD. So you can't expect workers with college degree and PhD to work in factories as manual labor, they are too skilled for that and definitely overeducated for such jobs. But because the economy is growing, these factories and production facilities will need low-skill labor so you have to allow foreigners to enter and work, while your native population will be on commanding positions like CEOs, directors, managers, consultants, office workers etc.

Economy is very difficult stuff, it is not science as there are no formulas. It is more of a gamble, USSR lost at that gambling and died for example. You can't repeat same patterns and apply it in every country. For example Argentina solved its problem perfectly with inflation in the 80's, but when same pattern was applied in Serbia in the 90's it failed epicly leaving all population skint. So economy, financials and following derivatives remain philosophy and all facts put into practice by countries should be taken with reserve and doubt when trying to implement in other parts of the world.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 21.07.2016 at 07:59

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 20.07.2016 at 15:15

What do you mean by this? Because I think you're making incorrect assumptions.

Having social cohesion doesn't effect profit very much at all... Certainly not as much as employing the most productive employees regardless of race or background

I mean period of time where you can repeat work in unchanged business environment. Like USA had in 1800-1900 and 1945-2016, or even England 1600-1800. So ending process makes your profit which you can spend but part of it invest in your business to expand it and at the end of the process make more profit which you can spend and again re-invest if you like.

But 'closed' economic system especially with 'repeating cicle' requires more and more low-skill workers and as system is closed you can't import labor force. So you have to rely on existing domestic one. So you will offer $500 wage, and you will find the worker, but other employer now can't find any unemployed, as there is shortage, so he offers your worker $1000 wage, and get him, now third company will offer that same worker $2,000 because he desperately need production as he already have a market to sell his product, he just need labor force.

Best example of 'closed' economic system is Norway, that's why they never joined EU because EU force them to switch to free trade. Norway have high tariffs and import taxes to protect domestic businesses and companies. Their motto is 'if Norway can produce it - don't import it'. That mean if they have oil, they won't import, they will use their own oil to consume. Also if they have fruit, they will consume it, but because they are extreme North, they can't produce enough for all-year consumption, so they will import, but only the amount to cover already produced fruit they never import more if they can produce alone. Their tariffs are around 100% which mean if you want to buy foreign non-Norwegian goods you will pay double the price. And if Norway doesn't produce require goods, then import tax is 0-5% probably, to encourage importers. That's how they discourage free trade but encourage domestic market, and promote domestic healthy economy. Although they are Capitalists, as Capitalism doesn't always equal with Liberalism and Free Trade.

That's probably the reason for EU crisis, Italy have affordable quality wine, France have cheese, Germany have cars but then Poland and Hungarian economies suffer as they can't compete with that. So you get unbalanced trade which lead to less profit for some.

I could go on and on, but i don't know how to end it. Probably like this: eventually closed economic system will have to allow foreign labor as foreigners will definitely be attracted with that money offered by companies, and those developed countries will need low-skill labor because domestic population will be too educated for such jobs. I've read some article not long ago that Finland have 90% population with college degree, and of them 50% have PhD. So you can't expect workers with college degree and PhD to work in factories as manual labor, they are too skilled for that and definitely overeducated for such jobs. But because the economy is growing, these factories and production facilities will need low-skill labor so you have to allow foreigners to enter and work, while your native population will be on commanding positions like CEOs, directors, managers, consultants, office workers etc.

Economy is very difficult stuff, it is not science as there are no formulas. It is more of a gamble, USSR lost at that gambling and died for example. You can't repeat same patterns and apply it in every country. For example Argentina solved its problem perfectly with inflation in the 80's, but when same pattern was applied in Serbia in the 90's it failed epicly leaving all population skint. So economy, financials and following derivatives remain philosophy and all facts put into practice by countries should be taken with reserve and doubt when trying to implement in other parts of the world.

This is so wrong, firstly you talk about Industrial revolutions - Russia had its Industrial revolution under stalin from 1945-1970, they are far from having another one. I dont think you understand economics very well, I studied it and I can tell you, whether you will accept it or not that you don't understand this stuff.

Norway is not "closed" it didnt join the eu but it is a part of the economic free trade group, it pays to be a paart of tis every year....

Your analogy of businesses competing for employees in a closed economy is highly exaggerated and again wrong... these workes aren't being made to work harder for the money and therefore there is no economic improvement, just over priced labour, and if a company can afford to pay their empliyees $2000 it will definitely say "fuck that" and move to china where they can pay $3 a day and be ($2000/£3=$666) 660 times more productive!

The idea that the Eu crisis is caused by free trade is incorrect, it was caused by over zealous lending from big banks, trying to indebt the PIIGS (portugal, italy, ireland, Greece and Spain) free trade wasnt the cause, it was the banks. When an economic crisis takes place within an environment of free trade then the economy is more volatile.. it will go down faster, but will also recover mush faster... that is all.

The economy is very predictable and there are loads of formulas btw.... The USSR lost because it tried to compete with the more robust and efficient US capitalist system, if it didnt try to compete and did its own thing and decided not to take part in the space race and held on to the power it already had it could still be prospering today.

The situation in Argentina is still pretty shit btw... pick up an economics book and you'll realise its a more predicatble than you currently appreciate, I recommend super freakonomics (more fun but still pretty mind blowing and hard core, on of my faves) or the wealth of nations (old school economic prosperity book from adam smith).

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 21.07.2016 at 08:44

This is so wrong, firstly you talk about Industrial revolutions -

No.. i talk about time without (much) wars where people had continuation to live their lives and work everyday.. you don't read what i wrote above.

I didn't mention industrial revolution, i just mentioned the time span where people didn't had distractions like wars, famine, conflicts or plague. Although I.R. might happened in the era i mentioned, but it was not the point. Point was continuation.

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 21.07.2016 at 08:44

Russia had its Industrial revolution under stalin from 1945-1970, they are far from having another one.

No, it was USSR, Russia didn't exist back then, it was carved on 15 republics which made the Union (of SSR). Russia ended in 1917 and was reborn in 1991 again. Speaking about continuation, Russia don't have it because of USSR, Revolution, Civil War, WW1 and WW2. Unlike some countries like England.

By the way: Industrial revolution happened in Russia with texile first i believe, so that's 1890 probably. Just it wasn't as dynamic and epic like UK, US and Germany had. But Industrial revolution you talk about happened between 1930 and 1941. With Stalin's First Five-year plan and second five-year plan. Third was underway but Nazis invaded USSR.

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 21.07.2016 at 08:44

Norway is not "closed" it didnt join the eu but it is a part of the economic free trade group, it pays to be a paart of tis every year....

Never said Norway is closed, but their economic system because of the high tariffs they impose.

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 21.07.2016 at 08:44

The idea that the Eu crisis is caused by free trade is incorrect, it was caused by over zealous lending from big banks, trying to indebt the PIIGS (portugal, italy, ireland, Greece and Spain) free trade wasnt the cause, it was the banks. When an economic crisis takes place within an environment of free trade then the economy is more volatile.. it will go down faster, but will also recover mush faster... that is all.

True, but merging more developed countries with less developed (read: ruined economies) countries is a shock which puts oil on fire in the current European economic crisis. Polish, Hungarian, Czech and Baltic economies crashed when they switched to Capitalism from Communism, while Germany, Italy, France and UK didn't because they had continuation. So merging them in EU with free trade it was expected that Italian, French and German products will flood Polish, Hungarian and Czech markets thus destroying their domestic-already-weak companies. Leading to unemployment as those companies are unable to pay salaries, and that leading to lack of spending as now those people have no money. Vicious circle repeat until you infuse investment, which then after you blame banks for that.

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 21.07.2016 at 08:44

The economy is very predictable and there are loads of formulas btw.... The USSR lost because it tried to compete with the more robust and efficient US capitalist system, if it didnt try to compete and did its own thing and decided not to take part in the space race and held on to the power it already had it could still be prospering today.

USSR had 2 industries: A and B. A was heavy industry (oil, gas, steel, iron, coal, factories, shipyards, ships, tractors, trucks), B was light industry (clothes, computers, toys, cars, chairs, tables, furniture, tv, radio). USSR gave priority to industry A, as it was convinced it lacked production, that was in 1920 and 1930, because Stalin believed that heavy industry was already developed in Europe during 19th century. So he wanted to develop first heavy industry, and then develop light industry. But because country was so large it took time to create so many factories, ports, shipyards, mines, railways, trains, tractors, harvesters. Then he died, and new leadership simply continued investing in heavy industry although industry A already became the largest on the world by that time. They didnt switch to industry B as Stalin planned. So USSR kept producing space rockets, tanks, ships, submarines, tractors, trucks but lacked TVs, cars, radios, clothes. Until it collapsed.

This is what really happened, now we can debate was it competing or catching up. Because i see it as catching up as Stalin clearly said he wanted to develop heavy industry first to catch up with Europe which developed in 19th century. But when we cought up, we didn't stop investment there and switch to light industry. USSR had light industry, from the start, from 1930, but very small, not enough to produce consuming goods for 160 million people (at that time). Then light industry was expanded through decades, but not at the pace population required as USSR had 290 million then, double the amount.

So while USSR competed with USA in space and technology, it didn't compete in economy, as it simply wanted to catch up with Europe, that was the goal.

Anyway, to plan economy proved stupid. Chinese changed it, now they let private ownership and their economy skyrocketed. They let people make money while Government take taxes and allocate it wherever they want. It seems to be the best way.

Wr1tt3n by Phoenix, 21.07.2016 at 08:44

The situation in Argentina is still pretty shit btw... pick up an economics book and you'll realise its a more predicatble than you currently appreciate, I recommend super freakonomics (more fun but still pretty mind blowing and hard core, on of my faves) or the wealth of nations (old school economic prosperity book from adam smith).

Will read, thanks, but i have to read Learster's recommended books first

Wr1tt3n by Viruslegion, 17.07.2016 at 13:24

Wr1tt3n by Zephyrusu, 15.07.2016 at 17:17

To Britain*

*To both, even tito acknowledges that Russia got aid from the United States, you are literally even more brainwashed and blindly loyal to the Eastern bloc than tito

Russia got aid but only after the US joined the war.

Wr1tt3n by Black Vortex, 19.07.2016 at 13:00

I like the topic slowly shifted from current day nations over to nations during ww2

When does that not happen? xD

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 21.07.2016 at 10:19

i think german to russian tanks had a loss ratio of 1:3, while the russian tanks were cheaper and easier to manufacture, wich balances it out, so could we just leave it at that? this whole conversation got all out of hand...

Wr1tt3n by Tirpitz406, 22.07.2016 at 08:37

i think german to russian tanks had a loss ratio of 1:3, while the russian tanks were cheaper and easier to manufacture, wich balances it out, so could we just leave it at that? this whole conversation got all out of hand...

1. This is off-topic, so can't go out of hand (unless there was insulting)

2. This was rare occassion where i had a ww2 conversation no one started to insult and spam trash.

3. Saying Red Army tanks were 'Russian' is great insult to Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and all other North Asian & East European states that were part of the Soviet Union. Those tanks were not made by 'Russia' or 'Russians' but by Soviet people of all nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 22.07.2016 at 12:53

i think the term "russians" is pretty appropriate, after all, quite a lot of the other peoples actually helped the germans and if you asked them, they probably wouldnt appreciate your presence that much

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_the_Baltic_states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion

Wr1tt3n by Tirpitz406, 22.07.2016 at 18:56

i think the term "russians" is pretty appropriate, after all, quite a lot of the other peoples actually helped the germans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_the_Baltic_states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion

Why not mentioning Russian Army of 130,000 in Wehrmacht fighting against USSR? Or Azerbaijani Divison of 70,000? Or Turkestan Legion? Turkoman Division? You mention only part of it that suits your point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aserbaidschanische_Legion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkestan_legion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/162nd_Turkoman_Division

Nazi-Soviet War was ideological war where people changed sides. Because as we have historical facts, we can see not only 'non-russians' fought for the nazis, and neither all europeans fought for the germans.

Wr1tt3n by Tirpitz406, 22.07.2016 at 18:56

if you asked them, they probably wouldnt appreciate your presence that much

But we did ask them, and they 'want our presence', so your argument again is invalid as you make false assumtions and not follow historical facts:



As you can see, USSR voted 76% to 'maintain russian hegemonical domination oppressing minorities in totalitarian big brother communism'. Muslims liked it so much they voted 93%


Feel free to deny the result because only Western hemisphere, Australia and Japan have true elections.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 23.07.2016 at 07:34

wooo, votes in an autocratic police state, who wouldnt say their opinion there? well, except for the baltics, where the vote wasnt even held lol.

central asia, the ukraine and belarussia were getting money from you, so no wonder they wanted to stay

Wr1tt3n by Tirpitz406, 23.07.2016 at 10:48

wooo, votes in an autocratic police state, who wouldnt say their opinion there? well, except for the baltics, where the vote wasnt even held lol.

Told you are free to deny, this is free world after all

Wr1tt3n by Tirpitz406, 23.07.2016 at 10:48

central asia, the ukraine and belarussia were getting money from you, so no wonder they wanted to stay

Money in Communism? Wait a minute, i thought Communism was cashless society? So how come Central Asia, Ukraine and Belarussia were getting money from 'us'? Was that money worth something? What could they buy for that money? Or did they just drool when they see money no matter if they can or can't spend it?

Are you saying Central Asian Muslims are greedy barbarians just because they are followers of Islam and therefore you connect them to money and greed? That European right-wingerism is getting old already.. Very childish of you.

You make such a vague statements my academically taught brain cannot comprehend your point behind comment. I need specifications and details in order to conversate with a fellow human.. you pleb.

Wr1tt3n by Tirpitz406, 22.07.2016 at 18:56

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_the_Baltic_states

Forgot to answer to this: This shows what a hypocrite you are; crying how Poland kicked Germans out of Prussia but now you post how Baltics doesn't want Russians and you justify it? So Russians which are born in Baltic are not natives of Baltic and have no right to live there? They should follow political border of political entity called Russia right? So there you go, if Baltic can get independence and kick Russians, then Poland can claim Prussia and kick Germans. Germans should follow political borders of political entity called Germany, no matter how much does it shrink.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 24.07.2016 at 06:02

you know exactly what i mean with money. resources, they got oil, gas and anything you could buy with money. why do you have to take one word, you understand in that context, and just cry that it doesnt make sense because it does not fit 100% perfectly

now, the other thing you said there is pretty pointless. it has nothing to do with what i said before. then again, the USSR did nothing but deport, spread war, build gulags, and make prestigious propaganda missions, while stalin killed his counselors

You do realize 50% of my time spent on the internet is debating politics, economy and military while other 50% is playing games? Well actually that would be 90% playing games as i include debate as a game, only 10% is boring and annoying arguing with someone who have tunnel-vision.

Wr1tt3n by Tirpitz406, 24.07.2016 at 10:45

you know exactly what i mean with money. resources, they got oil, gas and anything you could buy with money. why do you have to take one word, you understand in that context, and just cry that it doesnt make sense because it does not fit 100% perfectly

now, the other thing you said there is pretty pointless. it has nothing to do with what i said before. then again, the USSR did nothing but deport, spread war, build gulags, and make prestigious propaganda missions, while stalin killed his counselors

Same old story, same old propaganda.. so let me start again with 'Why?'

Why you don't mention Soviet Space Program? Won Space Race? Largest and strongest military securing the world from another war? Funding Liberation Wars from Imperialism and Colonialism? Funding science & technology? Funding half of the planet with food, resources, clean water and medication? Building infrastructure in poor countries looted by Imperialists?

You also mention Gulag - like that was bad? Gulag is acronym for 'Главное Управление Лагереи' (Г-У-ЛАГ), it was a prison system. Doesn't every country on this cursed planet have prisons? But hey, wow, USSR have prisons, that's outrageous! We must condemn them and bring 1 million troops to contain that evil!

It doesn't matter US have 11 million incarcerated and USSR had 2 time less (5 million), because USSR is the bad guy.

USSR was no angel, it did stupid things, but none of them are mentioned in the West, only propaganda material is kept mentioning and circulating among us for 70 years. It became a stereotype.







Soon i'm waiting Westerners accusing USSR of having standing military, because that's so god damn wrong, immoral and totally communistic/oppressive. It is outraged for USSR to have military because god forbid they use it. Imagine the horror!

That's one of the reasons people don't change and keep doing same mistake. Because they lack information, sometimes whole(proper) knowledge and they are lazy to do research alone and study. They want everything to be on the plate, served to them. That's why we have crisis of all kinds and war.

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 24.07.2016 at 15:39

You do realize 50% of my time spent on the internet is debating politics, economy and military while other 50% is playing games?

Nah, 50% debating, 50% watching russian porn

I know you like it, we all do

Wr1tt3n by Al Fappino, 27.07.2016 at 09:11

Nah, 50% debating, 50% watching russian porn

I know you like it, we all do

I did watch in the 80's on VHS, but not this new on the internet, i am not into japanese sick things and serbian movies (thank you khal for describing it, i won't forget.. literally).

Cicciolina, Lovelace.. good old times

Wr1tt3n by Skanderbeg, 27.07.2016 at 12:49

Wr1tt3n by Al Fappino, 27.07.2016 at 09:11

Nah, 50% debating, 50% watching russian porn

I know you like it, we all do

I did watch in the 80's on VHS, but not this new on the internet, i am not into japanese sick things and serbian movies (thank you khal for describing it, i won't forget.. literally).

Cicciolina, Lovelace.. good old times

omg, you ruined the fun, jeez