 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
Nope, those territories are spoils of war. Your government signed a treaty. You lost the war and lost territories. Everything is official and legal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:29
|
|
Sure we signed a treaty, because you would have had your genocide with us. It was an act of aggression, unprovoked attack to our lands. And because of that, it doesn't make any difference that we signed it. It was war only because we answered to the aggression. Otherwise you would have killed us and take our lands and homes. We had to sign it because we had to sign it with gun point. I don't see how that is any more legal with a piece of paper.
So, to show good faith and will, I don't see any reasons why you must keep it, because it does not benefit you at all. Furthermore, it only hinders your new rise because it's expensive area to fix up. We could fix it up, and you could concentrate on other areas that are rightfully yours. We are not a threat to you, never were and never will be. So you don't need those lands to 'protect leningrad' or whatever. So there is no reason to keep it, right? So why not just give it back.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:29
|
|
YEAH! The international community is getting aware of the situation! It doesn't matter, that Putin said to us 'discussing about this is dangerous'. Now if that is not threatning, I don't know what is.
400 000 homes man.. because someone was paranoid.. all the lives lost from both sides.. what a f:ng waste. Just because some dude with moustaches decided to get psycho on everyone... for nothing.
We are only little country.. and what you lost? Almost a million man in KIA, MIA (this is the most, in reality KIA) and injured. For what? Was it worth it? Did we invade? No.. But we forgive that, but you could show a sign of friendship. Instead of threatning to talk about it, how about getting to the point and giving it back. We have all historical and legal claims for it. You took it because you were bigger and had more power, but that doesn't make it right, now does it?
By NOT giving it back and by NOT wanting to discuss about it.. that is not a friendly sign. By saying it's dangerous is near hostile. You have blocked talks about this in EU and international community. Try to make it go away and put it in secret files. But the folks who lost their homes, and families who lost their close people.. they will never forget and I will never forget. But giving it back is friendly act and showing the sense of justice.
So I'm looking for lots more arguments to not give it than 'it's ours, we took it'. Thank you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
Da poshli vy vse na hui.
Do you need a translation?
p.s. I return to my beer. Tommorow Pekka I'll try to prove to you that attack wasn't so unprovoked as you think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
And also I'll prove that Soviet lost about 80 000 KIA and that KIA ratio was 1:3 in favivor of Finns. Which is extremly good considering offence and consequense such as terrain and the most cold winter in 20 century.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
 Yeah, right. Like commisars with whistles, like war corespondents acting like paparaci (sp?), like 'human wave' attack, like boy wearing short pants in the middle of winter, not to mention he was very clear for citizen of completely destroyed city, like German officer giving chocolate to Russian boy when in reallity Germans were happy when they catch a rat for dinner, like Khrushev and Zaitsev warshiping to Stalin's portrait like to some kind of idol, like destroyed T-34/85 on streets of Stalingad when T-34/85 was not created yet, like Russian women, her son and Zaitsev's girl freind living in house when in reallity people lived in sewers because city was completely destroyed by bombs and there were less than half of a dozen undestroyed houses, like unshaved Russian soldier who trained Zaitsev, like Russian soldiers singing in the baracks, like female soldier and her cosmetics etc, etc, etc. It's only a tip of the iceberg. |
Well...
I should let you talk to my mother-in-law. She lived (still a girl) in a small village near Novgorod, occupied by a German airwing. Thankfully not SS and Gestapo crap as she explains, but halfway educated people, many of them officers. She told, the first chocolate of her life she indeed received from the Germans. They did not harass the locals, built a road, which is the best one around even till these days, and other infrastructure. Even the school house where she learned was built by Germans. The latter fact is hard to believe even for me, but she insists. So I believe the building was perhaps used as club house or meeting room in the evenings.
My point is not to justify the occupants or that war at all. I think she had goddamn luck with that air unit, as everybody knows about the atrocities committed by the occupation forces at other places. My point is, that every war movie on either side is a big piece of propaganda. I have seen a crapload of them, American, British, Russian, German and other movies. I know of no one decent and halfway objective. They all are made around the assumption "We are 100% good and they are 100% evil". Well except the German ones, of course, but even they are mainly wrapped around the "not every German was evil" thesis.
Movies are propaganda, face the fact. Russian movies too. Look at "Osvobozhdenie" (8 series), or "Velikaya Otechestvennaya" (20 series). They are at least 75% history and 25% propaganda. Maybe even 50-50. Fact the fact. What Russian would like to see the mass looting of German civilians and the mass raping of German women after the victory? They aren't shown in any movie. Nevertheless they are a historical fact. True, the Germans did the same, but remember, they are 100% evil. So somehow your soldiers can't be 100% good. Simple logic.
Movies are made to please the own citizens. To generate pride. This is true for totalitarian systems (for obvious reasons) as well as for free-market systems, as movies too critical to the own country would be bad for business.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Well...
I should let you talk to my mother-in-law. She lived (still a girl) in a small village near Novgorod, occupied by a German airwing. Thankfully not SS and Gestapo crap as she explains, but halfway educated people, many of them officers. She told, the first chocolate of her life she indeed received from the Germans. They did not harass the locals, built a road, which is the best one around even till these days, and other infrastructure. Even the school house where she learned was built by Germans. The latter fact is hard to believe even for me, but she insists. So I believe the building was perhaps used as club house or meeting room in the evenings.
My point is not to justify the occupants or that war at all. I think she had goddamn luck with that air unit, as everybody knows about the atrocities committed by the occupation forces at other places. My point is, that every war movie on either side is a big piece of propaganda. I have seen a crapload of them, American, British, Russian, German and other movies. I know of no one decent and halfway objective. They all are made around the assumption "We are 100% good and they are 100% evil". Well except the German ones, of course, but even they are mainly wrapped around the "not every German was evil" thesis.
Movies are propaganda, face the fact. Russian movies too. Look at "Osvobozhdenie" (8 series), or "Velikaya Otechestvennaya" (20 series). They are at least 75% history and 25% propaganda. Maybe even 50-50. Fact the fact. What Russian would like to see the mass looting of German civilians and the mass raping of German women after the victory? They aren't shown in any movie. Nevertheless they are a historical fact. True, the Germans did the same, but remember, they are 100% evil. So somehow your soldiers can't be 100% good. Simple logic.
Movies are made to please the own citizens. To generate pride. This is true for totalitarian systems (for obvious reasons) as well as for free-market systems, as movies too critical to the own country would be bad for business. |
Ralph, (may I call you Ralph without this 'Sir' thing?) I perfectly realize that Soviet movies were full of propaganda, as well as American or anyone else movies. And you are absolutely corect about this "they are evil, we are good" thing. It's exactly what I meant when I said that those movies were for 'internal consumption'. But, could you please answer one question, did you see 'enemy at the gates'? This movie really sucks. Because it's full of propaganda. It's full of propaganda of cold war times when yannks created a myth about Russian hordes. It's full of western propaganda and it really sucks.
As for choclate, you really do not need to convince me that this story is true. I'm pretty sure that it was. It doesn't mean that I think that German invasion was OK, but it doesn't mean that I think that every German acted like Soviet movies tell so. Not at all. Once again I perfectly realize that Soviet movies contained some propaganda, but I think it's quite normal thing. Look at American movies for example. Those movies are full of such crap. In comparsion with American directors/propaganda makers Soviet directors are unexpirenced virgins.
I bring this example about chocolate to just to point out the silliness of this movie. The officer of surrounded army give a chocolate and other food like "salo" to Russian boy (the boy who clean boots of German soldiers. In surrounded Stalingrad I just can't imagine such kind of crap. Like Germansoldiers in Stalingrad really cared about their boots. ) when German army was starving. I find this unbielivable. If it was in 1941 near Novgorod, I would believe, but in 1943 in surrounded Stalingrad when surrounded German soldiers were ready to kill for small piece of bread. It's just unbelievable.
This movie is total ****, if you never saw it, just don't watch it. Ity doesn't worth it.
Sorry, I'm a bit drunk right now.
Respect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Main_Brain
|
|
Economic World Center
Jul 2002
time: 06:29
|
|
A Bridge too far
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
|
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Ralph, (may I call you Ralph without this 'Sir' thing?) |
You can, but be aware, that it's not my name.
quote:
It's exactly what I meant when I said that those movies were for 'internal consumption'. But, could you please answer one question, did you see 'enemy at the gates'? |
I'm not sure. Here are 99.9% of all movies synchronized and have a translated and often slightly changed title. I have seen a lot of bad american war movies, may be it was among them.
quote:
In surrounded Stalingrad I just can't imagine such kind of crap. Like Germansoldiers in Stalingrad really cared about their boots. ) when German army was starving. I find this unbielivable. If it was in 1941 near Novgorod, I would believe, but in 1943 in surrounded Stalingrad when surrounded German soldiers were ready to kill for small piece of bread. It's just unbelievable. |
I agree, in surrounded Stalingrad they would have been happy with a fried rat. The locals too, btw, their situation was even worse.
Have a nice weekend. I will too. My son is visiting me after 7 or 8 months of absence.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2003 14:56
. I had a girl eating with me, but she was my friend so.. no random sex for me!
|