 |
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pekka
You're basically saying, that we starved a city, because we were in the location where we were. |
That's kinda how starving a city works. You can't starve it if your troops don't control territory around it.
quote: You are not refuting 99% of my arguments |
Because they are irrelevent. I don't need to deal with them. If you started talking about the Sun, I wouldn't need to deal with that either. We aren't discussing justification, or what you could have done, but didn't do. We are discussing what you did do. You cut off the city, except for one narrow corridor, and 670,000 people starved to death as a result.
As for Nuremburg, since the Allies weren't at war with Finland, why would it concern you? You were at war with the Soviets, not the Allies, and you reached a seperate peace agreement with them, which is fortunate for you, as otherwise you would surely have ended up part of the Eastern Bloc. But again, this isn't relevant.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:30
|
|
No, we didn't cut off a city. We were in the defensive zones, are forced by Stalin. I exaplined this to you, but you seem to think it is irrelevant somehow. Once we were there, in the zone, you do realize no SU troops can go through, behind the lines. Simple, yes? The line CALLED THE ROAD OF LIFE for some weird reason, we didn't cut. Not because we woudl have been unable, but because we knew what it woudl have meant. This is, according to you irrelevant.
You claim, Stalin was only partially responsible for these little irrelevant facts.
Was anything we did, according to you, not justified, or the best thing to do?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:30
|
|
Sava, and that is exactly how? All we need is another clueless observer.
edited: just trying to cut the thread but I guess not then
Last edited by Pekka on 20-01-2005 at 05:58
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:30
|
|
You see, we were fighting SU. Who attacked us. We didn't cut any lines. The line we cut is the line we didn't creat FOR SU, the enemy at the time.
You can draw conclusion that we helped to starve Leningrad, failing to see our decision kept it alive also at the same time, disregarding most facts, and then making a route of conclusions so mixed up even Stephen Hawkings couldn't work it through. YOu know, where I support Al Qaeda, because it's part of international terrorism, if I buy a joint, because that money goes to criminals and at some level criminals and terrorists cooperate, thus I'm helping OSama to destroy the West. That kind of logic, far far routes, that's the way you are thinking. It's not a fact. It's just your interpretation. Based on way less facts than others have in this thread.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tinyp3nis
|
 |
compensate this!!
May 2002 time: 07:30
|
|
At all this.
To aid someone? How do you aid/help someone? Can you passively aid, help or assist, is that aid at all? Maybe...
What we didn't do is, once we got the land back we previously owned, we didn't declare peace and start handing out bread to them. So atleast, we didn't aid Leningrad, that we didn't do. By not giving Russians aid, is that aiding Germans to starve Leningrad? Finns just sat on their asses.
But wait, we didn't do what we could to make them starve. We also sat on our asses regarding the German needs, the ones to move closer and join the siege etc.
Is the logic here
To not aid Russian = To aid Germans?
Then also
To not aid Germans = To aid Russians.....
why wouldn't that apply also? Because...? Who else aided in the starving then? They don't apply separately.
Oh no! The world isn't black and white, and it just isn't about "simple facts"? So I must be wrong, because clearly the world is just black and white?
Neither of them is very meaningful, because,, both things happened because it was our best interest, finns weren't helpful heroes nor evil. Regarding Leningrad, our actions were neutral as possible, so we could get least amount of **** later on.
I'm still waiting to see how we aided with the starving other than sitting on our asses. There is only one way to say we did aid with the starving but didn't ALSO help preventing it, it is to use the logic above, apply hopycricy and contradiction. It's not trolling, Che just didn't know period.
I'm going to have to throw in a wild guess, and say Che is a closet nationalist. USA did help Russia. 
Oh, and for the record, I'm not nationalist myself, biggest shame for my country is that we are much like the deep south in USA in some respect.
Nationalism
Lack of objectivity and twisting the truth without even knowing it 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
tinyp3nis
|
 |
compensate this!!
May 2002 time: 07:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sprayber
No, its simply about fessing up to what you done. You don't have to justify it if you don't want to but trying to go around in circles trying to say it didnt really happen that way. I don't necessarly mean you in particular. |
Wait, what? Are you saying it's correct analogy? I sure hope not.
I actually want the truth, not the truth in favor of us, or them. Would it be true to say US also nuked Tokyo? No because it didn't happen.
But I'm sure people in Japan generally did have less of food because of the war, and that applies to most wars, which means most wars mean starving, even if you don't cut supply. Passive one, which never gets mentioned because it's redundant, but if you siege it's no longer passive but active, then it get's mentioned, and rightly so.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:30
|
|
Confessing what you have done? Is doing nothing now doing something against someone?
What Che feels irrelevant is the situation all together and how it got to that. Stalin created the mess in the first place and we were forced to be where we were. I said we took a moderate buffer zone, matter of kms. Yes, some could still argue it's a lot of kilometers, well, maybe so, but strategically that was the best place for us to be and start digging in for the coming major offensive, undoubtetly coming at some point.
Strategically speaking, how could Finland win against invading SU? By invading back and destroinyg the country? Well maybe in lalaland but not in reality. It would be impossible for us. So the only way we can win is to somehow make SU stop. To stop in the old borders and dig in would still be in target of major offensives, and then you'd run back to Helsinki in no time and Oops Stalin got his goal after all and we lost it all.
No no, the best is to make the invader pay as much as possible for the war, so at some point it will just stop it. THat's the only way we could have won. So, that's what they tried to do, make invader pay for every single square meter invaded. And that's hwo we came to negotiate for peace. It wasn't like Stalin didn't watn Finland in the beginning, the price started being too high. Of course we couldn't take it also, so there was a middle grounds to meet in. Naturally we would have wanted to keep our old borders but that wasn't an option then.
Now, so SU bombs, continuation war begins. The start pushing in, but our side was able to block and push the other way instead. WELL EXCUSE ME! Now they take the old border back and create buffer zone for defensive purposes. Hey, maybe they want to settle for less now and we can keep old borders, who knows. Makes sense. Also the river as you see is where you want to be. It's not like the best idea would be to let SU mass its troops again in the Karelian isthmus and start pounding, no thanks. Strategically speaking, there are better defensive zones, and that river came essential as everyone could see.
They dug in. It was mostly inactive. SU didn't bother to attack a lot either. Now, this would equal to being responsbiel for something because you exists.
It's like you'd be driving a car drunk, wrecklessly and then hitting a tree next to the road and blaming the tree for being partially responsible for the crash. MAKES NO SENSE! Factually speaking, the tree was there. It did the damage to the car. But how much of a role it did in the crash? Well, umh, not?
The fact is, the last MAJOR offensive did came, and it was blocked, but the battle was the biggest fought in the northern europe's history I believe it was. There were many days and weeks even then, that our country was in danger, not only losing the old borders again, but the whole country. Fortunately enough, Stalin was unable, again. Stalin's plans were clear. His actions proved it.
Our INACTION shows that we weren't interested in starving Leningrad. And just because our defensive zones COULD have been used for support lines doesn't mean we cut the support lines. If someone cut them, Stalin cut them himself. He is the one responsible for it.
Yes, sometimes inaction can be negative action towards someone if it's not helping and someone needs help. EXCUSE ME again! I'm sorry we didn't help our enemy. You know they didn't even think about sieging any grads at all. Mostly about how the defensive zone will hold up. The zone was essential and justified and the only thing to do and it was forced on us. FACT: Finnish troops were near Leningrad. FACT: They didn't siege Leningrad. FACT: They didn't help Leningrad. Anything else is details.
Like I said, you keep bringing up cutting support lines. Well, they were in our zones. If you can't understand that, and the redicilous nature of your suggestion that we cut it, then you will never get it anyway. And not much else either. Where were your other support lines. In helsinki? I'm sorry, we cut that one too, when our mothers gave us birth.
What about Sweden? They didn't help you either! BASTARDS!
There are lot of people who didn't help you.
The fact is, we didn't cut the lines. They got in our way when SU attacked and we pushed back. Too bad. IT's like the tree and the drunken driver.
We were close Leningrad this is true. However, this doesn't mean we were partially starving Leningrad.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|