Russia plans nuclear wargame - Page 8

Serb · February 7, 2004, 07:57

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond

But the fact that they didn't offer resistance doesn't mean that they joined willingly. They simply had no choice. They decided that resistance was futile.

Like Finns had choice.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 08:00

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

What's so funny, tiger?

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 08:01

They did. they told the Red Army to stuff it. And it stuck. Poor you, couldn't even hang a whipping on the Finns.

That's... quite mind boggling. That's sorta like Canada hanging a can-o-whopass on the USA in the 1910's rather than Canada and the British Empire doing it in the 1810's.

Tsk, tsk. Sad, sad.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 08:16

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
They did. they told the Red Army to stuff it. And it stuck. Poor you, couldn't even hang a whipping on the Finns.

Actually we get what we wanted (some lands they refused to trade). And get something later in 1944.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 08:31

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. You gained 100 meters of border space.

How do you spell defeat?

Serb · February 7, 2004, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond

That was a horrible event among other horrible events. But the terror of the regime was applied uniformly to the whole Soviet Union. They didn't die just because they were Ukranians. It was because circumstances turned like that while governed by a cruel regime. It could have well been ethnic Russians in their place.

Actually no, Vagabond.
They suffered because they lived in Ukraine.
And I'll try to explain why (for NYE mostly).
Stalin took the same harsh measures everywhere. EVERYWHERE in Soviet Union peasants were forced to join kolhozes (collective farms). Peasants were forced to give their own means of pruduction for collective use. For peasants such means of production were domestic animals.
Once again, this proccess- collectivization took place everywhere in USSR. Here raise the question- why there was hunger only in Ukraine, why not in Siberia for example?
Because Ukrain always was a bread basket of Russia.
Why?
Because it has the most fertile soil in Russia.
So?
Their soil has different structure and because of this, they always used different domestic animals to raise their crops. While Russian peasants developed their feilds with horses, Ukranians always used "Vol". "Vol" it's castrated bull= high quality beef.
Slavs never eat meat of horses much, esp. meat of working horses, but they have nothing against the beef.
When commissars forced peasants to bring their means of production to kolhozes, everywhere where peasants used horses, they gave horses for collective use (they couldn't use them for anything else anyway). At Ukraine, peasants prefered to slaughter their bulls and to keep the meat for themselves, than to give them to kolhozes for collective use.
The result - on next spring, they do not have enough domestic animals to develop their feilds. The summer was very hot, at the end they gain nothing from their feilds and hanger had started.

The end of story.
Go ahead, NYE, call me Stalinist.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 08:52

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. You gained 100 meters of border space.

SU gained sq. kilometers it wanted to trade from Finland, before the war. The goal, why USSR had started this war was achieved.

Quote:

How do you spell defeat?

Ask Finns.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 08:54

That is such a crock of **** that the term Stalinist would do a disfavour to the name of Stalin.

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 08:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

SU gained sq. kilometers it wanted to trade from Finland, before the war. The goal, why USSR had started this war was achieved.

Ask Finns.

They spell it INDEPENDENCE. You know, the thing that no one esle managed to maintain when the Red Army came knocking til the Afghans? Oh yes, got your asses handed to you there too, yes?

It's still a running joke that your great leader and marshals were defeated by a bunch of later-day vikings with reindeer.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 09:00

Quote:

That is such a crock of **** that the term Stalinist would do a disfavour to the name of Stalin.

Great argument to defend your theory of evil Soviets slaughtering their own citizens just for fun or because of their pure evilness.

Then how do you explan that there was no hunger in Siberia, where soil and climate is nowhere near in comparison with UIkraine?

Let me guess, Soviets surrounded Ukraine with Red Army...blah...blah...blah... and starvation begun. Right?

notyoueither · February 7, 2004, 09:03

*psst* Serb

The authorities took all the grain. Even that needed to feed those who grew it.

Keep this under cover, OK? I don't want the secret blown.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

They spell it INDEPENDENCE. You know, the thing that no one esle managed to maintain when the Red Army came knocking til the Afghans? Oh yes, got your asses handed to you there too, yes?

I can not see how country which capitulated and surrendered part of its territory can be called a victor of war.

Quote:

It's still a running joke that your great leader and marshals were defeated by a bunch of later-day vikings with reindeer.

You may joke as long as you wish, but your jokes will not bring Karellia back to Finland.

Serb · February 7, 2004, 09:12

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
*psst* Serb

The authorities took all the grain. Even that needed to feed those who grew it.

Keep this under cover, OK? I don't want the secret blown.

Great theory.

*psst* NYE
You know that some people claim their cows were stolen by alliens for experments?
You can use it in your theory, because this clearly explain where Ukranian's bulls disapeared and why Ukranians peasants raised so little crops that year.

Saras · February 8, 2004, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond

OK, that was a bit of exaggeration. Of the former Soviet republics, only Georgia can be said to have a puppet government right now.

Good save.

Saras · February 8, 2004, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Victims, my as$.
Then why now, when they are "free" and no longer belong to this evil empire of Russians, absolute majority of them live much, much worse than when they were "slaves"?

What a load of cack of a justification for oppression and mass murder.

Saras · February 8, 2004, 12:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

In times of USSR, they lived better than any other representatives of all remaining republics. They had a best stadard of living among all republics of SU. The people of entire country build for them there a hi-tech plants to produce electronics and alike, while keeping other dirty industries on territories of their own republics.

You know, victims and slaves usually live worse than their masters.

Serb, cut back on the vodka intake, cause you start posting immense loads of shite these days.

Here's what I'd like you to do - take Lithuanian GDP/capita 1939. Take Finnish GDP/Capita 1939. Take Lithuanian GDP per capita 2003. Take Finnish GDP per capita 2003. THEN BEAT YOUR DUMB HEAD AGAINST THE WALL!!! If not for your glorious liberating grandparents, we would have had our own Nokia, Metsa Serla and Stora Enso, and perhaps now, a million of extra Lithuanians, the offspring of all that were shot or shipped off to siberia.

Wake the **** up, Serb.

Dis · February 17, 2004, 16:04

I don't think it worked...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

chequita guevara · February 17, 2004, 16:18

The US runs these types of games all the time.