WWII tank Duel

[Martim Silva]

He totally lost me.  What about the slaves sent to Texas?  I never heard of that.

You are a good example of how the western media blocks knowlege from its population by simply not mentioning things.

Usually, your pseudo-historians only mention the POWs in the US, and keep saying that they got "good treatment".

They *never* mention the others that were sent to America immediately after the war and forced to work in bad conditions (like those of blacks) for no wages.

After months of hard labour, they were interviewed by a US military officer, who asked them how were their lives in Nazi Germany.

If they replied "not bad" or "okay", he'd write "nazi" in their papers and they would be sent back to work.

They'd have to admit they'd lived horribly in a most evil regime to be allowed to return. The US called it part of "denazification".

Read the "After the Reich" book, it's all there.

[citizen k]

He totally lost me.  What about the slaves sent to Texas?  I never heard of that.

You are a good example of how the western media blocks knowlege from its population by simply not mentioning things.

Usually, your pseudo-historians only mention the POWs in the US, and keep saying that they got "good treatment".

Those mean western media and pseudo-historians. 

[Martim Silva]

As you seem to be blind, the Western Allies did help the Germans.  See: Marshal Plan.  The Soviets turned down Marshal Plan aide for the Germans living under their control, so if you want to blame someone for the Western part getting more Western help than the Eastern part, blame Stalin.

As you seem to be a demagogue, you know very well that the Marshal Plan loaned money for the nations to buy US goods to rebuild themselves. It was a great way for American companies to make great sales, while at the same time gaining new markets.

It was done entirely out of self-interest by the US (as it would gain nothing if Europe remained in rubble) and a way to tie those economies to America, a tie they are still struggling to get rid of.

The USSR saw through this and flatly refused, of course. Nobody should become dependent on an Economy ran by Wall Street bankers.

And all these little horror stories about the French raping the men are pretty pathetic (it may have happened that a German man was raped by a Frenchman, but this was hardly policy and was in fact illegal and punished).

If that is your defence, rape was also illegal in the Red Army and some soldiers were executed for it. That hardly stops westerners from raising the accusations. The cases of male rape were about eight, but I was of course talking about man on man. Female rape by allies was much higher (and the US also shot some soldiers about it), but you never mention them.

[Martim Silva]

Since I have always referred here to US actions as actions of the US, you can stop your garbage (claiming personal credit for Soviet WW2 actions) about six posts ago.

How you speak is your own issue.

Do Americans usually refer about Pearl Harbour by saying that "they" were caught by surprise, or do they say "we" were caught by surprise?

Do you say "we won the war", or do you say "they" won the war?

Cut the lowly demagogery, it only makes you look ridiculous.

[Martim Silva]

I don't think he recognizes any difference.  You may think that is crazy, but if you have known both Portuguese and Russians, it is a confusion easy to understand.  Both hate to be rubbed.

Paying attention, you may note that I refer to "us" when speaking about the Union, and "Russia/Russians" when speaking about the Russian Federation.

The USSR was ideological in nature, and all socialists can call it theirs. I was, in fact, told to to identify with it by the Union itself.

But I suppose its easy for Americans to get confused. You're probably too busy still thinking about the results of the Super Bowl, yes?

And Russia does like the Portuguese. Moscow would like to exempt all portuguese from visa demands, but the EU demands an agreement as a whole, so the issue is blocked.

[Martim Silva]

Martim, what you are trying to accomplish is akin to walking into an orthodox jewish temple & convince them the Nazi were right.

It ain't going to work.

You are probably right, but every time I spent some time with Russians, I get a little less patience than usual to the western "holier-than-thou"/"in-your-face"/"our- missiles-are-very-peaceful" attitude.

Lots of physical changes in Moscow and St. Petersburg lately. I miss the cities, I think I'll go back there soon.

[MadBurgerMaker]

What the fuck is all this?

[grumbler]

He totally lost me.  What about the slaves sent to Texas?  I never heard of that.

You are a good example of how the western media blocks knowlege from its population by simply not mentioning things.

Usually, your pseudo-historians only mention the POWs in the US, and keep saying that they got "good treatment".

They *never* mention the others that were sent to America immediately after the war and forced to work in bad conditions (like those of blacks) for no wages.

After months of hard labour, they were interviewed by a US military officer, who asked them how were their lives in Nazi Germany.

If they replied "not bad" or "okay", he'd write "nazi" in their papers and they would be sent back to work.

They'd have to admit they'd lived horribly in a most evil regime to be allowed to return. The US called it part of "denazification".

Read the "After the Reich" book, it's all there.

  I love the whole all of your many historians, politicians, and reporters lie to you - here is the single workl that contains all of the truth approach!  It is sooo credible (especially the part where Germans would have to admit that "they'd lived horribly in a most evil regime" before being sent home)!

Why don't you just say "I am making this up as I go along."  At least it would have the virtue of honesty.  And why don't you mention that your source compares your beloved Union's occupation policies in Prussia with Stalin's "deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian kulaks in the early 1930s?"

Any well-rounded examination of history does not lead one to conclude that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was more benign than the US/British/French occupation of western Germany.  No examination of the trends in Europe compared to those in Russia would lead one to believe that Russia is moving in the same liberal direction as Europe.  No one honestly placing themselves in the position of the citizens of any nation outside Russia (and many nations inside Russia) would conclude that they would rather be part of Russia than the West.

I have Russian friends, and nothing makes me sadder than seeing where Russia is going (right back to where it was under your beloved "Union"), but I don't think the process is reversible.  I think the Russians value security over freedom, and would rather have a tsar than a president.

[grumbler]

What the fuck is all this?

  It is exactly what it looks like.

[MadBurgerMaker]

  It is exactly what it looks like.

An enormous waste of time?   

[PDH]

  It is exactly what it looks like.

An enormous waste of time? 

Way to go, exposing all of Languish like that.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Way to go, exposing all of Languish like that.

This one goes above and beyond the usual waste of time that is Languish.  Whatever.  Carry on, and pass me some slaves.

[Razgovory]

  I love the whole all of your many historians, politicians, and reporters lie to you - here is the single workl that contains all of the truth approach!  It is sooo credible (especially the part where Germans would have to admit that "they'd lived horribly in a most evil regime" before being sent home)!

Why don't you just say "I am making this up as I go along."  At least it would have the virtue of honesty.  And why don't you mention that your source compares your beloved Union's occupation policies in Prussia with Stalin's "deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian kulaks in the early 1930s?"

Any well-rounded examination of history does not lead one to conclude that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was more benign than the US/British/French occupation of western Germany.  No examination of the trends in Europe compared to those in Russia would lead one to believe that Russia is moving in the same liberal direction as Europe.  No one honestly placing themselves in the position of the citizens of any nation outside Russia (and many nations inside Russia) would conclude that they would rather be part of Russia than the West.

I have Russian friends, and nothing makes me sadder than seeing where Russia is going (right back to where it was under your beloved "Union"), but I don't think the process is reversible.  I think the Russians value security over freedom, and would rather have a tsar than a president.

I always figured the Portugese guy as more of a fascist rather then then a commie.  Kind of a sympathizer of the old days.

[Ed Anger]

Yes, I'm still thinking about the superbowl.

[Admiral Yi]

Tecnhically, it started even before the war.

As Russia has been reminding people, in 1939 Poland demanded at least East Prussia and more land in Germany (they expected a WWI-style war where the Poles would be able to delay the Germans enough for the Allies to break through in the West, and even counted on Soviet help).

It was a given that, with the "inconditional surrender" demand, that would mean great losses for Germany.

(actually, Poland later demanded to annex all the land up to Cottbus, including Berlin, in order to "protect the slavs" which historically lived in these areas. The USSR noted that those same slavs were also being expelled by the Poles as "Germans", so Moscow denied Warsaws' claims)

And the Yalta conference advanced the biggest details, even before Potsdam, already after the war.

There were more announcements at least since 1942, especially regarding how war criminals would be treated. I'll get a chronology later when I get home.

OK, so the Germans fought on in 45 because Polish claims made in 39 and war crimes trials announced during the war.  It's an interesting theory, but it's nowhere close fear of elimination.

Actually, it was more in the "revolutionary" category - people were rising against their oppressors. The USSR tends to help immediately when that happens.

But we can be sure the USSR would not have helped if the German working class had risen against their oppressors.

I found the date of Stalin's proposal interesting.  1952 was right in the middle of a hot war in Korea.

Ossetia did ask to join the Federation, but hasn't done so yet. Abkhazia is independent. I guess your media don't bother to tell you that.

That's probably my fault, not the media's.  Now that you mention it I do recall an announcement that Russia was recognizing Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence, not annexation.[/quote]

Note that Ossetia was part of Georgia because of administrative reasons, not because they had anything in common with the georgians. They always identified with Russia, not Georgia.
And the Abkhaz have the right to self-determination.

Agree with this.

You know, Ossetia and the Crimea were settled by Russians, and many have family in Russia. They are intitled to Russian passports.

And Russia doesn't attack unprovoked. As seen in the elections, the ukrainan people was tired of the economic disaster brought by the worthless policies of its pro-western leader and got rid of him. The relations between the two countries will now improve greatly.

Nobody in the world can have any objection to Russia granting ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, the Transcaucasus and the Baltics citizenship.  What is problematic is the next step, using this recognition of citizenship as the rationale for territorial demands, breakaway republics and armed intervention.

I'm completely lost on the connection between worthless economic policies and assassination attempts.