Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Baltic States vs. the Holocaust Center

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 3:33:53 AM10/8/09
to
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=7189527

Wiesenthal Center Blasts Baltic Campaign to Equate Communism and
Nazism; Calls for International Effort to Thwart Initiatives That
Distort Holocaust History

Jerusalem, July 16, 2009

The Simon Wiesenthal Center today blasted the current campaign
conducted by the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to
grant Communist crimes equal recognition to the crimes of the
Holocaust . In an op-ed article featured in the Israeli English-
language daily Jerusalem Post, the Center’s Israel director Holocaust
historian Dr. Efraim Zuroff severely criticized the recently-
intensified campaign by the Baltic republics and other post-Communist
governments to mark August 23 as a joint remembrance day for the
victims of Nazism and Communism, and to establish an “Institute of
European Memory and Conscience” as a museum, research and educational
center on totalitarian crimes in order to “reunite [European] history
[and] recognize communism and Nazism as a common legacy.”

According to Zuroff:

“While one can sympathize with the legitimate desire of the victims of
Communism for recognition, there is nothing innocent about this
declaration which clearly seeks to undermine the current status of the
Holocaust as a unique historical tragedy and relativize it to divert
attention from the extensive collaboration of Balts with the Nazis and
the abysmal failure of all their governments since independence to
adequately deal with these issues.

“It is clear that the time has come to start paying attention to this
insidious campaign being conducted primarily by Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia to alleviate their guilt for Holocaust crimes and displace the
Shoa from its unique status. If not, we are likely to soon find
ourselves facing the cancellation of the numerous important
achievements of the past decade in Holocaust commemoration and
education and forced to fight an uphill battle against a new and
distorted World War II historical narrative.”


http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=7261475#

July 28, 2009

Tallinn-The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a harsh criticism of recent
Estonian efforts to equate Communism and Nazism and to glorify the
fighters of the Estonian SS Legion which fought alongside the Nazis,
at a launch here late yesterday of a new Russian language edition of
Anti-Semitism, an anthology of articles published in honor of the late
Smon Wiesenthal by the Russian Holocaust Center and edited by Ilya
Altman, Shimon Samuels and Mark Weitzman. In a speech by Israel
director Holocaust historian Dr. Efraim Zuroff, he noted that the
prevalent tendency in Estonia to glorify those who bore arms in Waffen-
SS units and to consider them as fighters for Estonian independence
rather that Nazi collaborators was a distortion of World War II
history. Zuroff also pointed to the recent gathering of SS veterans
held this past Sunday in Estonia and which was attended by SS veterans
from other Europan countries in which such events are illegal, as
another example of a failure by the Estonian authorities to accurately
identify the criminals and villains of World War II.

According to Zuroff:
“The consistent failure of the Estonian authorities to prosecute any
local Nazi war criminals, in blatant contradiction to their enormous
efforts to bring Communist criminals to justice, and the continuing
glorification of Estonian SS veterans, combined with the recent
campaign to equate Communism and Nazism make Estonia a leader in
Holocaust distortion. As a member of both the European Union and NATO,
it is incumbent upon Estonia to reassess its current policies in this
regard and to restore historical accuracy to the presentation of the
events of World War II. Only by facing its bloody Holocaust past will
Estonia ever be able to truly overcome its record of collaboration
with the Nazis and the active participation of numerous Estonians in
the crimes of the Shoa both in Estonia and outside its borders.”

http://www.ucsj.org/news/estonian-ss-veterans-rally-speakers-criticize-simon-wiesenthal-center.

Estonian SS Veterans Rally, Speakers Criticize Simon Wiesenthal
Center
Posted September 4th, 2002
Over 1,000 veterans of the Estonian SS Legion celebrated the legion’s
60th anniversary in Ida-Virumaa, Estonia, according to an August 29,
2002 article in the Russian language newspaper “Estonia.” Some rally
participants jeered when a speaker mentioned the Simon Wiesenthal
Center, whose staffer Efraim Zuroff has accused Estonian Nazi
collaborators of killing Jews. Loud applause broke out when, referring
to an employee of the Center, one speaker argued: “We should not says
‘the politician Yakobson’ but instead the ‘Jew Yakobson.’” The mayor
of Johvi was spotted in the crowd, though he did not speak at the
event.

http://bronze-soldier.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=256&Itemid=51

The Jerusalem Post 02 May 2007

The struggle over Estonia's history
EFRAIM ZUROFF

Last weekend's large-scale riots in Estonia in which one demonstrator
was killed, over 100 people were injured, and more than 1,000 detained
in response to the government's decision to remove a Soviet-era
monument commemorating the victory of the Red Army over Nazi Germany
from downtown Tallinn to a remote location, were hardly surprising.

Anyone who has followed the manner in which the history of WWII and
the Holocaust and their aftermath have been treated in the Baltic
republic is well aware that the controversy over the monument is
merely the tip of the iceberg, a metaphor for a much more fundamental
struggle over its recent history.

Ever since Estonia regained independence in 1991, the country's
occupation by the Soviets in 1940-1941 and for more than four decades
after World War II, and by the Nazis during 1941-1944, has been the
subject of bitter debate between the Estonian majority and the
country's ethnic minorities - Russians and Jews. While the former, for
obvious reasons, prefer to emphasize their suffering under Soviet rule
and the role played by Russians and Jews in Communist crimes, while
ignoring or minimizing Estonian collaboration with the Nazis, the
latter continue to view the victory of the Red Army in Estonia and the
end of the Nazi occupation as liberation and salvation.

It is important to remember that in Estonia (as well as throughout
post-Communist Europe), this debate has numerous practical
implications that have deepened the rift between the sides over the
years.

One of the most obvious concerns the prosecution of those responsible
for the crimes committed under the occupations. For example, the
Estonian judicial authorities have invested much effort in prosecuting
Communist criminals, mostly Russians, at least 10 of whom have already
been convicted in Estonia. The same cannot be said, however, of the
investigations carried out regarding Estonians who collaborated with
the Nazis in the crimes of the Holocaust.

Not a single Estonian citizen who participated in the persecution and/
or murder of Jews during WWII has been brought to trial by the
Estonians, despite the existence of abundant incriminatory evidence in
at least two cases submitted in recent years.

The lack of political will in Tallinn to prosecute Holocaust
perpetrators is clearly evident in public pronouncements by officials
such as former state prosecutor Heino Tonismagi, who in announcing his
late 2005 decision not to take legal action against Estonian Political
Police operative Harry Mannil, who participated in the arrests in 1941
of Jews and Communists subsequently executed by his colleagues,
claimed that Estonians could not have been involved in any Nazi war
crimes since the country was occupied at the time, an assertion that
ignores the active participation of numerous Estonians in WWII era
crimes and the support of much of the local population for the Nazi
occupation. (There was no anti- Nazi underground or resistance
movement of any kind in Estonia.)

Local efforts to encourage Holocaust commemoration and education in
Estonia lag far behind those of most European countries, a factor
clearly reflected in the belated decision to observe January 27, the
anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, as a memorial day. The
fact that no Estonian Jews were deported to that death camp made the
choice more palatable to the Estonian public, the overwhelming
majority of whom (93 percent according to an opinion poll in the Eesti
Paevaleht daily) opposed the establishment of such a day.

The widely-divergent views on the most important events in recent
Estonian history are a key factor in the tense interethnic relations
in the country. If we add the deep-seated feelings of discrimination
in employment and education shared by most of the Russian minority,
who constitute a third of the population and are viewed as occupiers
by many Estonians, it is obvious why the decision to remove the statue
of a Red Army soldier from the center of Tallinn sparked the worst
riots in Estonia's recent history.

Prime Minister Andrus Ansip's government was clearly playing to
nationalist sentiment by moving the monument, but in the eyes of those
ethnic groups who were saved by the Red Army, such a step bordered on
the sacrilegious, and reinforced the local Russians' sense of
marginality in Estonian society, making the current clashes
inevitable.

Dr. Efraim Zuroff is the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in
Israel.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=149866&page=3
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441251

Quote:
August 25, 2004

WIESENTHAL CENTER PROTESTS ERECTION OF MONUMENT COMMEMORATING ESTONIAN
SS-DIVISION WHICH FOUGHT WITH NAZIS IN WORLD WAR II

The Simon Wiesenthal Center today issued an official protest against
the erection in the Estonian town of Lihula of a monument
commemorating the members of the 20th Estonian SS Division, which
fought for Nazi Germany during World War II.

In a statement issued today in Jerusalem by the Center’s chief Nazi-
hunter Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the Wiesenthal Center condemned the erection
of the monument which “glorifies those who were willing to sacrifice
their lives to help achieve the victory of Nazi Germany and the Third
Reich in World War II.”

Zuroff added that the inscription on the monument which attempts to
portray the members of the units as fighters “for Estonian
independence in 1940-1944” is a misguided attempt to rewrite history
and to turn Nazi collaborators into Estonian heroes.” This is hardly
surprising in a country which has hereto failed to prosecute a single
Estonian Nazi war criminal and in which a public opinion poll revealed
that 93% of the public oppose the establishment of a memorial day for
the victims of the Holocaust,” said Zuroff.


My sarcastic commentary:

Will being a Nazis soon be regarded the same as being a Communist?

Communists are a respected party in France, Italy and most of the rest
of Europe. Poland joined NATO while being ruled by a Communist
President.

Nazis are outlawed in most European countries.

But there is a movement all over Europe, spearheaded by the Baltic
states, to equate Nazism to Communism in legal terms.

Sadly, this will mean that neo-Nazi parties will become eligible for
Parliament membership in European countries, and countries that elect
Nazi Presidents will have no problem joining NATO the way Poland
joined under the rule of a Communist.

Even more outrageously, the Republic of Moldova, ruled by Communists,
may be viewed to be the same as being a Nazi country.

Who will be next? Will Socialists be next to be declared "as bad as
Nazis"? Afterall, Stalin's USSR was a Socialist country.

Will estimable founders of the European Union, Nazi-fighters and
European Parliament members from Communist Parties become regarded as
“Nazis”, or will Nazis be welcomed in the European Parliament?

Is Altiero Spinelli as bad as the Nazis/fascists who imprisoned him
for 16 years? Will USA apologise for freeing him from prison?
http://europa.eu/abc/history/foundingfathers/spinelli/index_en.htm.
Altiero Spinelli (1907-1986)
The Italian politician Altiero Spinelli was one of the fathers of the
European Union. He was the leading figure behind the European
Parliament's complete proposal for a Treaty on a federal European
Union - the so-called Spinelli Plan. This was in 1982 adopted by an
overwhelming majority in the parliament and provided an important
inspiration for the strengthening of the EU Treaties in the 1980s and
90s.

As a 17 year old, Spinelli had joined the Communist Party, as a
consequence of which he was imprisoned by the fascist regime between
1927 and 1943. At a conference of European resistance in early 1944 he
was one of the initiators of a proposal for a European Manifest. At
the end of the war, he founded the federal European movement in Italy.

In the role of advisor to personalities like de Gasperi, Spaak and
Monnet, he worked for European unification. A trained juror, he also
furthered the European cause in the academic field, and founded the
Institute for International Matters in Rome.
As a member of the European Commission he took over the area of
internal policy from 1970 to 1976. For three years he served as a
Member of Parliament for the Italian Communist Party before being
elected to the European Parliament in 1979.

Erkki Aalto

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 5:40:44 AM10/8/09
to
In soc.culture.baltics Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. <ostap_be...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=7189527

: Wiesenthal Center Blasts Baltic Campaign to Equate Communism and
: Nazism; Calls for International Effort to Thwart Initiatives That
: Distort Holocaust History

: Jerusalem, July 16, 2009

: The Simon Wiesenthal Center today blasted the current campaign
: conducted by the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to
: grant Communist crimes equal recognition to the crimes of the
: Holocaust . In an op-ed article featured in the Israeli English-

: language daily Jerusalem Post, the Center?s Israel director Holocaust


: historian Dr. Efraim Zuroff severely criticized the recently-
: intensified campaign by the Baltic republics and other post-Communist
: governments to mark August 23 as a joint remembrance day for the

: victims of Nazism and Communism, and to establish an ?Institute of
: European Memory and Conscience? as a museum, research and educational
: center on totalitarian crimes in order to ?reunite [European] history
: [and] recognize communism and Nazism as a common legacy.?

: According to Zuroff:

: ?While one can sympathize with the legitimate desire of the victims of


: Communism for recognition, there is nothing innocent about this
: declaration which clearly seeks to undermine the current status of the
: Holocaust as a unique historical tragedy and relativize it to divert
: attention from the extensive collaboration of Balts with the Nazis and
: the abysmal failure of all their governments since independence to
: adequately deal with these issues.

: ?It is clear that the time has come to start paying attention to this


: insidious campaign being conducted primarily by Lithuania, Latvia, and
: Estonia to alleviate their guilt for Holocaust crimes and displace the
: Shoa from its unique status. If not, we are likely to soon find
: ourselves facing the cancellation of the numerous important
: achievements of the past decade in Holocaust commemoration and
: education and forced to fight an uphill battle against a new and

: distorted World War II historical narrative.?

Well, on the Russian propaganda side there is a visible trend to equate
restitution of pre-war Baltic republics to Holocaust:

http://dissidentti.blogspot.com/2008/11/viron-wannsee-vuonna-1989.html

This is in Finnish, but 'Wannsee' should ring a bell

http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/12/modern-auschwitz.html

This is in English.

--
Erkki '�rkki' Aalto "Life is divided up into
Internet: Erkki...@Helsinki.FI the horrible and the miserable"
Snail: Tietotekniikkaosasto, P.O. Box 64
FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 10:23:17 AM10/8/09
to


Did you mean "on the pro Russian side propaganda..."? Or everybody who
doesn't follow party line from now on becomes "Russian"?

Besides it is just peanuts in comparison with announcement that it was
Russia which started WWII:

http://www.isamaaliit.com/category/mart-laar-blog-english/

VM.

vello

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 12:55:13 PM10/8/09
to
On Oct 8, 5:23 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> Erkki Aalto wrote:
> > In soc.culture.baltics Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > :http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF...

You mean this:
"On 23. August 1939 Europe-dividing Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed by
Germany and Soviet Union, dividing Europe between two dictators and
paving way to the start of II World War."?

Quite a lot of historians think that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was one
of cornerstones for WW2. War starts with annihilating of Poland and
that pact was just about annihilating Poland (and some other
territories incl. my homeland :-)) It would be extremely hard to
defend a position that pact have nothing to do with the start of the
ww2.


Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 1:34:29 PM10/8/09
to

Not exactly even though this one comes very close and from the same Nazi
revisionism pile.
What I meant is this quote:

"...regime, which ... started the II World War."

>
> Quite a lot of historians

How many, names and quotes. Because my answer would be - "99% of
historians do not think that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was one
of cornerstones for WW2."

> think that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was one
> of cornerstones for WW2.
> War starts with annihilating of Poland and
> that pact was just about annihilating Poland (and some other
> territories incl. my homeland :-)) It would be extremely hard to
> defend a position that pact have nothing to do with the start of the
> ww2.

??? It had nothing to do with the start of WWII because attack on Poland
had been planned and the plans put in motion long before the pact
came into existence.
And btw, isn't real beginning of the war is March of 1939 when Germany,
Hungary and Poland dismembered Czechoslovakia?

VM.

Pekka

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:03:29 PM10/8/09
to

"Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RtGdnR7JYNdIv1PX...@giganews.com...

>> Quite a lot of historians
>
> How many, names and quotes. Because my answer would be - "99% of
> historians do not think that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was one
> of cornerstones for WW2."
>

Please take a look on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Ribbentrop_Pact
it has a long index to study

Pekka


J. Anderson

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:13:55 PM10/8/09
to

"Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:RtGdnR7JYNdIv1PX...@giganews.com...

I recall, however, that g. Putin was present in Poland on *1 September
2009*, when the beginning of WWII 70 years earlier was remembered. Russia
also traditionally celebrates the end of WWII in May (victory in Europe),
not in August (de facto end of WWII). It would be difficult to make the
whole world accept alternative beginnings and ends just to satisfy a Soviet
interpretation of history.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:17:51 PM10/8/09
to

That still doesn't answer my question: "How many, names and quotes."
Because as a counter argument I may suggest that you visit Library of
Congress.
And then we proceed exchanging similar suggestion till one drop dead.

However if you such a fun of diet coke history as Wiki provides then
you'd better have a look at its article "Causes of WWII".

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:21:13 PM10/8/09
to

Hm, isn't it what often can be heard as a complaint - that history is
written by victors? Isn't "victors" is sometimes an euphemism for
"perpetrators who got away with what they did"?

VM.

Pekka

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:32:53 PM10/8/09
to

"Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vZudnXrwkbNjsVPX...@giganews.com...

I am very well aware that who ever can write what ever to wiki, that's why I
told that studying their index can give some answers.


vello

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:40:41 PM10/8/09
to
I would agree with your here, sure chechs were the first wictims. Just
start of some war was counted from first shots - and Czechoslovakia
was murdered without shots.
to say about that pact that it is "nothing to do with the start of
WW2" is just stupid no matter what ideas Hitler may have. No one says
it was the sole reason of ww2. But it was first real act of that war:
two nations decided to attack/annihilate some others and they
fulfilled that plan.

There is no need to turn scb to some "what-if" group, but Hitler would
had a lot to think about if Russia's response would be clear and loud:
from day Germany attacks Poland he is in war also with Russia.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:45:18 PM10/8/09
to

Well, today wiki tries to muzzle at least the most odious views by
offering accompanying discussion with explicit warning at the beginning
of a particular article if the content of the article looks not
objective for some who can offer counter arguments. However it is not
the case for the one I pointed to - "Causes of WWII".
Looks like there is more or less consensus there on the "cornerstones"
of WWII.

VM.

vello

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:49:22 PM10/8/09
to
On Oct 8, 9:17 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pekka wrote:
> > "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:RtGdnR7JYNdIv1PX...@giganews.com...
> >>> Quite a lot of historians
> >> How many, names and quotes. Because my answer would be - "99% of
> >> historians do not think that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was one
> >> of cornerstones for WW2."
>
> > Please take a look onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Ribbentrop_Pact

> > it has a long index to study
>
> > Pekka
>
> That still doesn't answer my question: "How many, names and quotes."

Don't be silly. you offer on 2your side" just one 2expert2 - yourself
- and ask for me to list thousands of historians over the world :-)?

> Because as a counter argument I may suggest that you visit Library of
> Congress.
> And then we proceed exchanging similar suggestion till one drop dead.
>
> However if you such a fun of diet coke history as Wiki provides then
> you'd better have a look at its article "Causes of WWII".
>
> VM.

"Causes" are a bit different tthing. If you ask me, Versailles was the
most important cause. But having cause for war don't means one must
start a war. btw, molotov-ribbentrop pact is listed in article
suggested by you.

vello

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 2:54:02 PM10/8/09
to
On Oct 8, 9:21 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> J. Anderson wrote:
> > "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, human civilization is still moving towards more rightful world -
at least from Napoleon times we can't call robbers as heroes as we did
in times of Alexander "the Great", Gengis Khan, Caesar et cetera.

Pekka

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 3:15:24 PM10/8/09
to

"Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25SdnVRqcOXzrlPX...@giganews.com...

Agreed, however is hard to be not biased (for anyone) depending on own
history, wheter his country was attacked by USSR or by Germany. Also I feel
if historian does not come from a country which was divided either to USSR's
or Germany's interest area significance view can be different.


Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 3:24:00 PM10/8/09
to


First victims were many - Germans included and the real beginning of
WWII was put on by Versailles.
This treaty solved no problems which led to WWI, it canned them and
created new. It engineered a time bomb.

> Just
> start of some war was counted from first shots - and Czechoslovakia
> was murdered without shots.


Well, maybe Czechs should have thought twice of abusing their minorities.

> to say about that pact that it is "nothing to do with the start of
> WW2" is just stupid no matter what ideas Hitler may have.


Please address it to supervisors of "Causes of WWII" Wiki's article. I
am just a messenger who shares (almost) the views of the article.

> No one says
> it was the sole reason of ww2.


Shall I thank God for that?

> But it was first real act of that war:
> two nations decided to attack/annihilate some others and they
> fulfilled that plan.


Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
why would) in the USSR about Baltics?


>
> There is no need to turn scb to some "what-if" group, but Hitler would
> had a lot to think about if Russia's response would be clear and loud:
> from day Germany attacks Poland he is in war also with Russia.


WHAT? The Soviets offered Czechoslovakia a deal exactly in these terms
only to be stonewalled off by the West. The Soviets wanted a security
pact with B&F only to see negotiations being torpedoed by Poland.
With M-R pact the West got what it "wanted", because of its incredible
stupidity and arrogance (these two are inseparable). It took the War to
start and alcoholic Churchill to come to sober thinking.

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 3:38:40 PM10/8/09
to
vello wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:17 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pekka wrote:
>>> "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:RtGdnR7JYNdIv1PX...@giganews.com...
>>>>> Quite a lot of historians
>>>> How many, names and quotes. Because my answer would be - "99% of
>>>> historians do not think that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was one
>>>> of cornerstones for WW2."
>>> Please take a look onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Ribbentrop_Pact
>>> it has a long index to study
>>> Pekka
>> That still doesn't answer my question: "How many, names and quotes."
>
> Don't be silly. you offer on 2your side" just one 2expert2 - yourself
> - and ask for me to list thousands of historians over the world :-)?

You see how hidden yet computer AI takes my side and changes your text:

into "2expert2" which makes of course already four on my side.

>
>> Because as a counter argument I may suggest that you visit Library of
>> Congress.
>> And then we proceed exchanging similar suggestion till one drop dead.
>>
>> However if you such a fun of diet coke history as Wiki provides then
>> you'd better have a look at its article "Causes of WWII".
>>
>> VM.
>
> "Causes" are a bit different tthing. If you ask me, Versailles was the
> most important cause.

Right. Or more generally a white hot ethnic issues plus social
development lagging far behind industrial/technological. Thus the
perfect bomb was created by radical polarization of Europe along social
and ethnic lines.

> But having cause for war don't means one must
> start a war. btw, molotov-ribbentrop pact is listed in article
> suggested by you.

Well obviously M-R didn't happen on the Moon, why it shouldn't be
mentioned? It is a part of what happened. However it happened one week
before the war and had no impact on whether it would start but rather
how it will proceed. If you remember the Soviets had no illusions about
the war with Germany eventually coming and cared only about winning
better starting positions and time. What "collateral" damage it would
cause to the neighboring countries was of no concern to them.

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 8:45:54 PM10/8/09
to

I agree. The war starts when it starts. In Latvia it started on 15th
June 1940 when Soviet troops attacked Latvian border guards at
Maslenki.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 9:03:47 PM10/8/09
to
> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?

It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
Russian colonies??? The greed for territories was coming from both
sides and it is more natural to team up with like-minded regime than
with Britain and France.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 10:06:27 PM10/8/09
to
Dmitry wrote:
>> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
>> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
>> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
>> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
>> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>
> It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
> Russian colonies???

Then I didn't say it clear enough - it was Soviet demand on the deal
conditions: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
what you do to Poland".

> The greed for territories was coming from both
> sides and it is more natural to team up with like-minded regime

This "team up" tune is quite popular in some circles in Eastern Europe
because it allows to equal Soviets to Nazi. But as a matter of fact
there was no "team up" but repositioning before fight. As to collateral
damage - did B&F cared really what happened to Czechoslovakia
population? E.g. bloody defeat by Hungary the Ukranian Republic? Naah.
But I bet if Soviets did that Baltics today would not forget to mention
the story.

> than
> with Britain and France.

There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
death).

VM.
>
>
>

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 10:19:36 PM10/8/09
to

Then let's go all the way because first shots in Spain from foreign
troops sounded even before Munich, and in Ethiopia (it was a World war
right?) - even earlier and so on till we hear Gavrilo Princip
discharging his handgun.
If you paid attention to the article on "Causes of WWII" then you
mentioned and every day more popular theory of European Civil war - the
name by the way given to what was going in Europe by non European -
Indian diplomat.
So who knows how your grand grand children will be looking at this
period of Euro/World history - XX cent., and what their Arabic teachers
will explain them in the native language of mankind - Chinese.

VM.

How clairvoyant we were in the good ol' USSR with the joke: optimists
are learning English, pessimists Chinese, realists - Kalashnikov.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 10:46:04 PM10/8/09
to
Dmitry wrote:
>> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
>> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
>> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
>> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
>> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>
> It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
> Russian colonies???

The real unanswered question for me is why Hitler agreed to grant
Soviets so much? Just a week before the war he would started anyway?
He didn't know that Stalin wouldn't move a finger to help Poland?
Did he think "it is just for a year or two only - who cares..."?

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 8, 2009, 11:16:40 PM10/8/09
to

That is surprisingly in some sense resonant with recent article I saw in
Russian press: "War of historical compromats" (compromising materials).
It is on how initially almost strictly anti Russian attitude in Eastern
Europe started to pick up and target neighboring countries - the
interest groups figured out its political value for today's interests.
And now it is not unusual to dig a piece of dirt two - three centuries
old on a neighbor. However the results among the young are
disappointedly low (what is somehow a relief), looks like they just not
into it. Maybe with all the shortcomings it was a very good idea of
Western Europe to accept the poor EEuropean relatives (much better
educated though - in top ten on the world scale - look at the recent
world results for Latvia and Lithuania, Estonia didn't pass population
threshold).
As to those who were not subjected/subjugated to USSR or Germany power
- well we just exchanged with John about how come the beginning of
WWII regards not the moment of occupation of Czechoslovakia but attack
on Poland?
Looks (today) clear for me - it was OK for B&F to remove the case of
Munich and OK with Soviets about Poland - "we saved Ukrainian and
Belorussian brothers from Nazi plague, and what secret protocols? ".
(Case of Bessarabia was mentioned in between very fast and hard to hear).
So in some sense really objective history of WWII and its causes is
still in works.

VM.

vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 3:06:07 AM10/9/09
to
I agree - but thinking this way - what's wrong with Hitler? He also
run for the "best for Germany" how he understands it - with no concern
about countries suffering due his activities. That's why I put those
two into the same kettle in the Hell.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 11:53:59 AM10/9/09
to

Vello if Russia see that there was no wrong with the deal Putin wouldn't
go to Poland on September 1 to commemorate the beginning of the war and
apologize. Not because to deal with Hitler was wrong but for the crime
committed to the Poles. And it should be some feeling of guilt to
overcome Russian Ego.
That said attempts to present that Europe in the time was some pastoral
idyll which fell a victim to evil Russkies are ridiculous - Europe was
in the time a mad house where nobody feel safe to turn its back to
anybody. And when one fell neighbors were jumping on the body tearing
pieces. Like Poland did to Czechs. Soviets just being *big* made
outstandingly remarkable contribution to this criminal havoc, they were
not just cutting off provinces, they killed countries. Because they
could. But so did others.

VM.

vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 2:26:42 PM10/9/09
to

Again I must point out that no one west of Rhein don't had such
feeling that Europe is madhouse - and even in East there were just two
big and a few smaller madmen running in loose. Take a list of European
countries of 1939 and mark those who (even probably) would want to
grab lands not belonging to them - you get a very short list. And one
thing makes Soviets and Nazis unique: they don't look for provices
abroad habitated by their own ehtnic brothers to (re)unite nation -
they look for territories habitated by other nations just for Gengis
Khan's dream to push the border to the Last Sea.

vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 2:43:40 PM10/9/09
to
On Oct 9, 6:16 am, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> Pekka wrote:
> > "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:25SdnVRqcOXzrlPX...@giganews.com...
> >> Pekka wrote:
> >>> "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:vZudnXrwkbNjsVPX...@giganews.com...
> >>>> Pekka wrote:
> >>>>> "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Just don't put Munich and Molotov-Ribbentrop into the same kettle:
being weak-kneed and not helping those who in hands of criminal gang
is sure not a thing to be a proud of - but no way comparable with
organising criminal gang with other criminals by yourself.

About different wiewpoints due different experiences in ww2 - of
course it is that way. russian people and historians are interested in
history of their land - the same is true for Estonia, France, Belgium,
Finland and all other nations.

vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 3:10:01 PM10/9/09
to
On Oct 8, 10:24 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> vello wrote:

> >> And btw, isn't real beginning of the war is March of 1939 when Germany,
> >> Hungary and Poland dismembered Czechoslovakia?
>
> >> VM.
> > I would agree with your here, sure chechs were the first wictims.
>
> First victims were many  - Germans included and the real beginning of
> WWII was put on by Versailles.
> This treaty solved no problems which led to WWI, it canned them and
> created new. It engineered a time bomb.

Sure - but taking things this way we can't talk about some historical
event at all - all we get is one single line from Adam till today, any
next step dictated by situation created in the past. Can we agree that
Versailles creates situation provoking a new war - but someone still
makes the first shots?
more, if redoing mistakes of Versailles would have been the sole goal
of Herr Hitler, he would probably won the game - he got Sudeten
without a shot and if he would not occupied whole Czechia, maybe West
would at some point agreed to leave german populated areas in Poland
rejoined to Germany again. It is one thing if you want to dominate
"from this point to the end of th World" and comletely other if all
you want is to rejoin one nation in one country.


>
> > Just
> > start of some war was counted from first shots - and Czechoslovakia
> > was murdered without shots.
>
> Well, maybe Czechs should have thought twice of abusing their minorities.

It's a problem of Versailles - why they put millions of germans living
on their historical homeland into Czechoslovakia? Sure sudetendeutsche
had no will to be a part of Chech society - they want back home from
the first day Czechoslovakia was created. I can't see much what Prague
would do about that.


>
> > to say about that pact that it is "nothing to do with the start of
> > WW2" is just stupid no matter what ideas Hitler may have.
>
> Please address it to supervisors of "Causes of WWII" Wiki's article. I
> am just a messenger who shares (almost) the views of the article.

Mol-Rib pact is perfectly mentioned as one cornerstone of ww2 in the
very same article - read it again.


>
> > No one says
> > it was the sole reason of ww2.
>
> Shall I thank God for that?

I think you must thank or swear history, it just happens this way.


>
> > But it was first real act of that war:
> > two nations decided to attack/annihilate some others and they
> > fulfilled that plan.
>
> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F

Here you are not too correct - B&F were surely interested in Soviet
help to beat German danger.


and offered one by Germany -
> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?

It's not about Baltics. Sorry, Vladimir, but you sentence sounds
exactly like "but they were just jews". In civilized part of world, no
one even had a think about using the situation to annex, say, Andorra,
Luxembourg or Monaco.


>
>
>
> > There is no need to turn scb to some "what-if" group, but Hitler would
> > had a lot to think about if Russia's response would be clear and loud:
> > from day Germany attacks Poland he is in war also with Russia.
>
> WHAT? The Soviets offered Czechoslovakia a deal exactly in these terms
> only to be stonewalled off by the West. The Soviets wanted a security
> pact with B&F only to see negotiations being torpedoed by Poland.

Poland was against letting troops into Poland in peacetime. Thinking
about fate of those idiots who let - they did a right decicion. But
nothing would stop Russia to declare war on Germany in case Germany
would attack Poland (or any other country near Soviet border). US was
thousands of kilometers from Germany, it not stops them fight.


> With M-R pact the West got what it "wanted", because of its incredible
> stupidity and arrogance (these two are inseparable). It took the War to
> start and alcoholic Churchill to come to sober thinking.
>

"It took the war to start" - so we share common wiew on all thing now?

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 3:10:30 PM10/9/09
to

And this is of course JUST NOT TRUE. Otherwise you have to explain that
the concept of "European Civil War" is outlandish fantasy.

> Take a list of European
> countries of 1939 and mark those who (even probably) would want to
> grab lands not belonging to them - you get a very short list.

Feel free to compile such a list. I will complement it.

> And one
> thing makes Soviets and Nazis unique: they don't look for provices
> abroad habitated by their own ehtnic brothers to (re)unite nation -
> they look for territories habitated by other nations just for Gengis
> Khan's dream to push the border to the Last Sea.
>

Soviets were building a barrier between them and burning Europe.
That's it. Because there are solid facts to prove it - like Mongolia
with its huge territory, tiny population and valuable resources was left
alone.

VM.

vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 3:27:17 PM10/9/09
to
On Oct 9, 5:06 am, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> Dmitry wrote:
> >> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
> >> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
> >> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
> >> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
> >> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>
> > It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
> > Russian colonies???  
>
> Then I didn't say it clear enough - it was Soviet demand on the deal
> conditions: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
> what you do to Poland".

Here I agree with you. Other part of that treaty had it's own demands
also: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
what you do to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania...
Both gangs feel at first they had successfully divided all city - you
rob on streets west of riverbank, we on streets of east. But as
history of mafias show, predators end up fighting each other pretty
soon.


>
> > The greed for territories was coming from both
> > sides and it is more natural to team up with like-minded regime
>
> This "team up" tune is quite popular in some circles in Eastern Europe
> because it allows to equal Soviets to Nazi.

Vladimir, why you think someone WANTS to equal commie and nacional
socialists? I'm not a nazi so I can't say attacking of France,
Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Poland is bigger crime then
attacking Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the same
Poland - I can't separate people to being "more valuable" and "less
valuable" ones. what puts then into one basket whas their similar (and
partly coordinated) activities.


But as a matter of fact
> there was no "team up" but repositioning before fight. As to collateral
> damage - did B&F cared really what happened to Czechoslovakia
> population? E.g. bloody defeat by Hungary the Ukranian Republic? Naah.
> But I bet if Soviets did that Baltics today would not forget to mention
> the story.

Sure they cared - they did almost anything they could - exept direct
fighting the Third Reich.


>
> > than
> > with Britain and France.
>
> There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
> in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
> between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
> congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
> Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
> death).
>

Well commies see anyone with IQ higher then 70 as potential enemies no
matter of their nationality. not better.

vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 3:35:47 PM10/9/09
to
On Oct 9, 10:10 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
> vello wrote:

>
> > Again I must point out that no one west of Rhein don't had such
> > feeling that Europe is madhouse - and even in East there were just two
> > big and a few smaller madmen running in loose.
>
> And this is of course JUST NOT TRUE. Otherwise you have to explain that
> the concept of "European Civil War" is outlandish fantasy.

I don't know that concept and can't see how it fits in our simple
problem - how many countries were ready to attack others in pre-war
Europe.


>
> > Take a list of European
> > countries of 1939 and mark those who (even probably) would want to
> > grab lands not belonging to them - you get a very short list.
>
> Feel free to compile such a list. I will complement it.

You are not able to count up to two? Or well a bit more if you want to
put cases like Czeszin area (polish people in Czech state) into the
same basket with activities of Stalin and Hitler,


>
> > And one
> > thing makes Soviets and Nazis unique: they don't look for provices
> > abroad habitated by their own ehtnic brothers to (re)unite nation -
> > they look for territories habitated by other nations just for Gengis
> > Khan's dream to push the border to the Last Sea.
>
> Soviets were building a barrier between them and burning Europe.
> That's it.

Well destroying anything between himself and "burning Europe" was not
the best idea to have something between?

Because there are solid facts to prove it - like Mongolia
> with its huge territory, tiny population and valuable resources was left
> alone.

?????????????????

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 3:45:47 PM10/9/09
to

I don't - if there were no Munich there would be no M-R.

> being weak-kneed

Cannot you please elaborate on this hypothesis? Czech army in the time
was about 1 mln strong and had more advanced weaponry than German.
It is apart from my doubt that France and Britain had their knees weak
over a possibility of Czech army defeat in hand of Germany.
They did this because they cared only about their personal political
future. No better than Stalin.

> and not helping those who in hands of criminal gang
> is sure not a thing to be a proud of - but no way comparable with
> organising criminal gang with other criminals by yourself.


Lyrics.

>
> About different wiewpoints due different experiences in ww2 - of
> course it is that way. russian people and historians are interested in
> history of their land - the same is true for Estonia, France, Belgium,
> Finland and all other nations.
>

As "Pekka" noticed the more years and miles separate us from the events
the more objective weighing results we may expect.
I sort of understand the recent Baltics anger and blues that when they
eventually went free and wanted to tell their side of the story the
World is not so much interested in listening. Or give you a credit for
stubbornly standing up in silence all these years and preserving your
identity. As appropriate analogy - my high school classmate told me how
a couple of Estonians in his regiment in Afghanistan were granted day
time they were spending sleeping under trucks because they couldn't
stand the sun heat, - they were too ofetn fainting because of heat
shock. They were called "cats" because they were doing patrols after
dark. The same goes for the countries - survived under Soviet Union
heavy truck operating by night. Well, guys - life is not fair.
I do hpwever accuse you not of playing dirty but stupid. Playing dirty
is fine with me.

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 4:23:58 PM10/9/09
to
vello wrote:
> On Oct 9, 5:06 am, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>> Dmitry wrote:
>>>> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
>>>> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
>>>> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
>>>> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
>>>> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>>> It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
>>> Russian colonies???
>> Then I didn't say it clear enough - it was Soviet demand on the deal
>> conditions: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
>> what you do to Poland".
>
> Here I agree with you. Other part of that treaty had it's own demands
> also: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
> what you do to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania...
> Both gangs feel at first they had successfully divided all city - you
> rob on streets west of riverbank, we on streets of east. But as
> history of mafias show, predators end up fighting each other pretty
> soon.

I have very simple question and I really want to hear the answer without
make up:
What B&F was doing in the same time around the globe? I.e. why you think
that Estonia deserved to be treated better than say Namibia or India or
Iraq?
You put everything in Eurocentric perspective. France run in the time
SLAVERY in Indochina.

>>> The greed for territories was coming from both
>>> sides and it is more natural to team up with like-minded regime
>> This "team up" tune is quite popular in some circles in Eastern Europe
>> because it allows to equal Soviets to Nazi.
>
> Vladimir, why you think someone WANTS to equal commie and nacional
> socialists?

Because your politicians like Landsbergis are making their living off
such claim. Scumbags.

> I'm not a nazi so I can't say attacking of France,
> Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Poland is bigger crime then
> attacking Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the same
> Poland - I can't separate people to being "more valuable" and "less
> valuable" ones. what puts then into one basket whas their similar (and
> partly coordinated) activities.

Again simple question - do you think Jews or Gypsies or Russians or
Poles would be around today if Nazi won? Even you Estonians were on the
list of untermensch.

>
>
> But as a matter of fact
>> there was no "team up" but repositioning before fight. As to collateral
>> damage - did B&F cared really what happened to Czechoslovakia
>> population? E.g. bloody defeat by Hungary the Ukranian Republic? Naah.
>> But I bet if Soviets did that Baltics today would not forget to mention
>> the story.
>
> Sure they cared - they did almost anything they could - exept direct
> fighting the Third Reich.

They did one thing - to direct the Reich to the East. They were not as
outspoken as Hitler but shared his views that the East is populated by
the untermensch worth to sacrifice, literally. They were doing the same
around the globe in their colonies.

>>> than
>>> with Britain and France.
>> There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
>> in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
>> between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
>> congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
>> Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
>> death).
>>
> Well commies see anyone with IQ higher then 70 as potential enemies no
> matter of their nationality. not better.
>

Let's first agree on definition of "commie". Today Obama is called a
"commie".
Obama wins a Nobel Prize. I had bet that this guy will be a president in
2004 (met by laughter by born in Americans - "black guy ? a president?
bwahaha, what is his jungle name? such a naive Russkie, say it again!!!-
who is gonna be next president? bwahaha!!!") But even I didn't see this
steep ascent to the level of Global Triumph.

VM.

vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 4:51:44 PM10/9/09
to
On Oct 9, 10:45 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
> vello wrote:

>
> >> VM.
>
> > Just don't put Munich and Molotov-Ribbentrop into the same kettle:
>
> I don't - if there were no Munich there would be no M-R.
>
> > being weak-kneed
>
> Cannot you please elaborate on this hypothesis? Czech army in the time
> was about 1 mln strong and had more advanced weaponry than German.
> It is apart from my doubt that France and Britain had their knees weak
> over a possibility of Czech army defeat in hand of Germany.
> They did this because they cared only about their personal political
> future. No better than Stalin.

No. They would in pair with Stalin if they would went on other
nations. Say, UK would occupy Ireland and France Belgium saying:
what's wrong - Germans are doing the same. Hard to imagine.


>
> > and not helping those who in hands of criminal gang
> > is sure not a thing to be a proud of - but no way comparable with
> > organising criminal gang with other criminals by yourself.
>
> Lyrics.

Just simple truth. Being weak and don't helping those who in hands of
criminal is problem of ethics. But to build an alliance to kill and
rob people - and then go and actually kill and rob people is clear
criminal offence. If you don't believe, ask any lawyer you know.


>
>
>
> > About different wiewpoints due different experiences in ww2 - of
> > course it is that way. russian people and historians are interested in
> > history of their land - the same is true for Estonia, France, Belgium,
> > Finland and all other nations.
>
> As "Pekka" noticed the more years and miles separate us from the events
> the more objective weighing results we may expect.
> I sort of understand the recent Baltics anger and blues that when they
> eventually went free and wanted to tell their side of the story the
> World is not so much interested in listening. Or give you a credit for
> stubbornly standing up in silence all these years and preserving your
> identity. As appropriate analogy - my high school classmate told me how
> a couple of Estonians in his regiment in Afghanistan were granted day
> time they were spending sleeping under trucks because they couldn't
> stand the sun heat, - they were too ofetn fainting because of heat
> shock. They were called "cats" because they were doing patrols after
> dark. The same goes for the countries - survived under Soviet Union
> heavy truck operating by night.  Well, guys - life is not fair.
> I do hpwever accuse you not of playing dirty but stupid. Playing dirty
> is fine with me.

Vladimir, your problem is, you get 99% of data about Baltics in
Russian media. So you practically know nothing what happens here.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 5:19:56 PM10/9/09
to
vello wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:45 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
> wrote:
>> vello wrote:
>
>>>> VM.
>>> Just don't put Munich and Molotov-Ribbentrop into the same kettle:
>> I don't - if there were no Munich there would be no M-R.
>>
>>> being weak-kneed
>> Cannot you please elaborate on this hypothesis? Czech army in the time
>> was about 1 mln strong and had more advanced weaponry than German.
>> It is apart from my doubt that France and Britain had their knees weak
>> over a possibility of Czech army defeat in hand of Germany.
>> They did this because they cared only about their personal political
>> future. No better than Stalin.
>
> No. They would in pair with Stalin if they would went on other
> nations. Say, UK would occupy Ireland and France Belgium saying:
> what's wrong - Germans are doing the same. Hard to imagine.


May I try again to turn your attention that in the time B&F were running
and conquer new colonies?
Now - point by point explain me how it is acceptable more than doing the
same in Europe.

>>> and not helping those who in hands of criminal gang
>>> is sure not a thing to be a proud of - but no way comparable with
>>> organising criminal gang with other criminals by yourself.
>> Lyrics.
>
> Just simple truth. Being weak and don't helping those who in hands of
> criminal is problem of ethics.

How about this version - "being weak and taking a weapon from hands of
the victim of the rape is a problem of ethics"? It was a crime. Simple.
And this crime was committed not because "weak knees" but to protect the
gains of Versailles. Or so thought it was.

But to build an alliance to kill and
> rob people - and then go and actually kill and rob people is clear
> criminal offence. If you don't believe, ask any lawyer you know.
>>
>>
>>> About different wiewpoints due different experiences in ww2 - of
>>> course it is that way. russian people and historians are interested in
>>> history of their land - the same is true for Estonia, France, Belgium,
>>> Finland and all other nations.
>> As "Pekka" noticed the more years and miles separate us from the events
>> the more objective weighing results we may expect.
>> I sort of understand the recent Baltics anger and blues that when they
>> eventually went free and wanted to tell their side of the story the
>> World is not so much interested in listening. Or give you a credit for
>> stubbornly standing up in silence all these years and preserving your
>> identity. As appropriate analogy - my high school classmate told me how
>> a couple of Estonians in his regiment in Afghanistan were granted day
>> time they were spending sleeping under trucks because they couldn't
>> stand the sun heat, - they were too ofetn fainting because of heat
>> shock. They were called "cats" because they were doing patrols after
>> dark. The same goes for the countries - survived under Soviet Union
>> heavy truck operating by night. Well, guys - life is not fair.
>> I do hpwever accuse you not of playing dirty but stupid. Playing dirty
>> is fine with me.
>
> Vladimir, your problem is, you get 99% of data about Baltics in
> Russian media. So you practically know nothing what happens here.
>

That is not so. Today I get 99% of the info from scb and affiliated
sources.
Russians as a nation and even its leadership has (and very strong) bias.
However if you drop a popular Baltics assumption that you are dealing
with congenital maniacs and try to Obamaship clearly, without hidden
knives like "anti Iranian missile shield" to deal with them, the results
will surprise you. Your bet that Russia is over - failed, now time to
change strategy of the game. For sake of your countries.
When next presidential elections are due in Latvia? What is an attitude
there towards a constitutional monarchy? How many tanks Latvia has vs
how many tanks Estonia has?

VM.

J. Anderson

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 5:28:54 PM10/9/09
to

"Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:QsydnSIkd8N8BlLX...@giganews.com...

>>> As to collateral damage - did [Britain & France] cared really what
>>> happened to Czechoslovakia population?

An authorized history of MI 5 (Britain's security service) was published on
Monday. In his book Christopher Andrew, a professor at Cambridge, reveals
that Adolf Hitler called British prime minister Chamberlain an 'Arschloch'
(asshole) after the Munich agreement that handed over the German-speaking
parts of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany in 1938.

Hitler obviously hadn't expected the western European leaders to be as
easily fooled as they turned out to be. I wonder what he called Stalin in
1939. 'Angsthase' (sissy)?

http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/mi5-the-authorised-centenary-history.html


vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 5:33:26 PM10/9/09
to
On Oct 9, 11:23 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:

Russians for sure, polish - maybe, gipsies - no way. for estonians we
have a paper undersigned by very Henry Himmler saying that "estonians
are historically germanized at least for 50% so they to be considered
as allied nation" - a lie, but official paper :-). Our fate would be
mental death. No Vladimir, I never met even one in Estonia or Eastern
Europe who would want nazis winning that war. One reason for that: we
know the outcome of Soviet win and despite all - we are still alive
and independent. But surely we have no idea about developments if
Hitler would won (amoung all very possible horror scenarios it may
include also a variant that germans got enough from that maniac - or
that latter nazi-brezhnevs would dilute nazism to some harmless parody
- before giving up to democracy)..
If it is important to you - for me personally Hitler (nazis) is more
nasty then Stalin - mostly for unique "race theory.in praxis". But
both they were targeted on occupying other nations, both runned
ideology tuned on world domination, both killed millions of people,
both give a shit about human values and very human life. They were
murderers of their own class unprecedented in history. Well from later
time, Pol Poth was for sure of their class. If to be serious, from
those three monsters I would put Pol Poth on No 1 position. Imagine,
if not Lenin but Pol Poth would take over in Russia in 1917 - for
today Russia and Estonia would be very friendly neighbouring nations
having similar climate and ..size of population.


>
>
>
> >  But as a matter of fact
> >> there was no "team up" but repositioning before fight. As to collateral
> >> damage - did B&F cared really what happened to Czechoslovakia
> >> population? E.g. bloody defeat by Hungary the Ukranian Republic? Naah.
> >> But I bet if Soviets did that Baltics today would not forget to mention
> >> the story.
>
> > Sure they cared - they did almost anything they could - exept direct
> > fighting the Third Reich.
>
> They did one thing - to direct the Reich to the East. They were not as
> outspoken as Hitler but shared his views that the East is populated by
> the untermensch worth to sacrifice, literally. They were doing the same
> around the globe in their colonies.

what they did - giving back a bit from Versailles they made attempt to
sort things out with their own clother clean. About thinking his own
skin is more valuable then other guy's one is maybe nice but very
common. I can't imagine a person who reads from newspaper that one
person per day are killed by criminals and thinks: why not me? Being
selfish is not nice but no way criminal. Killing/robbing others IS
criminal.
btw, with Czechoslovakia you mess two different developments: what get
shameful OK from West was rejoining of areas populated by more then
90% by ethnic germans - and not immigrants but people living there
hundreds of years before Versailles borders. Annihilating
Czechoslovakia as whole was pure German activity with no support from
West.


>
> >>> than
> >>> with Britain and France.
> >> There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
> >> in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
> >> between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
> >> congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
> >> Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
> >> death).
>
> > Well commies see anyone with IQ higher then 70 as potential enemies no
> > matter of their nationality. not better.
>
> Let's first agree on definition of "commie". Today Obama is called a
> "commie".

True, that's hard question. "Nazi" is definite, 2commie" for sure not.
I had in mind regime of USSR from 1917 to 1953-1955???


> Obama wins a Nobel Prize. I had bet that this guy will be a president in
> 2004 (met by laughter by born in Americans - "black guy ? a president?
> bwahaha, what is his jungle name? such a naive Russkie, say it again!!!-
> who is gonna be next president? bwahaha!!!") But even I didn't see this
> steep ascent to the level of Global Triumph.

Here you are childish. If a skin colour would be a maior problem,
Obama had no chance to get elected first time. Second time is much
easier coz then people had rewiew what he realy did in last 4 years.
So I think next time Obama will get a lot of votes from "mild racists"
thinking in 2008 that afroamerican is maybe not the best solution for
US - but realizing after 4 years that their fears had no ground, guy
was success story for America. So if he really had balls, his position
will be stronger next time.

J. Anderson

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 5:38:50 PM10/9/09
to

"Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:R6GdnQ5TbdifNFLX...@giganews.com...

> When next presidential elections are due in Latvia? What is an attitude
> there towards a constitutional monarchy? How many tanks Latvia has vs how
> many tanks Estonia has?

Still interested in the Latvian presidency?

Here's the car that awaits you:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ostsee/3948703202/

And here's your flag:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ostsee/3947920171/

Why are you interested in the number of tanks? Are you planning to invade
Estonia after you've become president?


Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 6:02:39 PM10/9/09
to

Probably "a total moron" - who else would kill the most gifted army
commanders on the eve of all out war?
The problem is - emotions are still too hot to write the real story,
because there was the army intent to remove Stalin. They just spent too
much time talking instead of acting. And to open these archives today is
to start blood letting settling of scores. On the other hand - the
archives has to be open to point who was a bitch.
Despite all the Stalinists say today the numbers says it simple -
Stalin brought country to national catastrophe. We still don't know if
it really will ever come back. The demographics echoes from WWII was
reverberating till 70-ties every as few years Soviets were facing a gap
in labor force - unborns because their would be fathers instead of
getting married got killed in WWII. But demographics is just a small
part of the really hidden catastrophe - the best the bravest the
brilliant got killed. The scum always knew how to survive. Natural
evolution in reverse gear.
There is one verse which is probably became for me a symbol of Russia's
side of WWII - "I am killed under Rzhev in a swamp without name".
Another story about another no hope death in the beginning of the war -
a symbol of death over how the millions paid their lives.

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 6:21:23 PM10/9/09
to
J. Anderson wrote:
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:R6GdnQ5TbdifNFLX...@giganews.com...
>
>> When next presidential elections are due in Latvia? What is an attitude
>> there towards a constitutional monarchy? How many tanks Latvia has vs how
>> many tanks Estonia has?
>
> Still interested in the Latvian presidency?

What you mean "still"? I never abandoned my retirement plans. I already
have a complete set of sketches of my portraits and statues to be placed
in towns squares and every school classrooms.
I just don't like this stupid election fuss. I want monarchy.

>
> Here's the car that awaits you:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ostsee/3948703202/
>
> And here's your flag:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ostsee/3947920171/
>
> Why are you interested in the number of tanks? Are you planning to invade
> Estonia after you've become president?
>

No - Estonia will surrender on its own. And THEN after combining forces
and making alliance with Iran, I place a call to Kremlin - Hey Medvedev,
we have have something to talk about...

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 6:36:06 PM10/9/09
to
On 9 Oct, 03:06, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> Dmitry wrote:
> >> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
> >> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
> >> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
> >> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
> >> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>
> > It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
> > Russian colonies???
>
> Then I didn't say it clear enough - it was Soviet demand on the deal
> conditions: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
> what you do to Poland".
>
> > The greed for territories was coming from both
> > sides and it is more natural to team up with like-minded regime
>
> This "team up" tune is quite popular in some circles in Eastern Europe
> because it allows to equal Soviets to Nazi.

It must be understandable because Eastern European countries became
victims as a result of "Molotov-Ribbentrop" deal.

> But as a matter of fact
> there was no "team up" but repositioning before fight.

Probably true about Hitler, but not Stalin. He was too busy
"repositioning" his forces to Far East and imprisoning talented
military commanders. Apart from Brest and of course Leningrad -
Germans have almost walked in.

> As to collateral
> damage - did B&F cared really what happened to Czechoslovakia
> population? E.g. bloody defeat by Hungary the Ukranian Republic? Naah.
> But I bet if Soviets did that Baltics today would not forget to mention
> the story.

That is obvious. Everybody speaks from their experience. For
Baltics, Soviet occupation brought much more devastation than German.

>
> > than
> > with Britain and France.
>
> There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
> in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
> between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
> congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
> Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
> death).

These things happen when mentally imparted people enter politics.
They seem to be be trying to restore their imaginary Rome.

>
> VM.

Did you hear that Obama got Noble Prize for not being Bush? I think
he deserved that, and his speech in response to the award was also
meaningful.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 6:37:08 PM10/9/09
to

Anyway everything good what happens in this world is due to my hard
effort, everything bad - despite of it.
E.g. - it is all Cedrins' fault: if he listened to me - today I would be
a Latvian president, he would be my chosen political prisoner and Noble
prize winner and right now we would be on a charter flight to Caribbean
with 1.5 mln of US $$ in our pockets.
Such a waste of time and effort. Baltics are really backwater in modern
economy, still do not understand Wall Street rule: Steal and Run.

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 6:46:33 PM10/9/09
to

There is an endless list of wars in Europe since European history was
recorded.

> If you paid attention to the article on "Causes of WWII" then you
> mentioned and every day more popular theory of European Civil war - the
> name by the way given to what was going in Europe by non European -
> Indian diplomat.
> So who knows how your grand grand children will be looking at this
> period of Euro/World history - XX cent., and what their Arabic teachers
> will explain them in the native language of mankind - Chinese.
>
> VM.
>
> How clairvoyant we were in the good ol' USSR with the joke: optimists
> are learning English, pessimists Chinese, realists - Kalashnikov.

I can't remember this one, it may have not covered the region where I
came from.


Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 6:51:51 PM10/9/09
to


Unless of course if you are a Jew or Russian.

>>> than
>>> with Britain and France.
>> There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
>> in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
>> between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
>> congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
>> Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
>> death).
>
> These things happen when mentally imparted people enter politics.
> They seem to be be trying to restore their imaginary Rome.
>
>> VM.
>
> Did you hear that Obama got Noble Prize for not being Bush? I think
> he deserved that, and his speech in response to the award was also
> meaningful.
>

Obama got his prize for introducing (backed by sheer force) rational
thinking back to the world affairs. It lacked it since demise of the
USSR. Clinton was like a kid left unattended in a candy store - Bush (or
rather Cheney) a violent hoodlum in the street. Obama is a decent cop
with a big gun. He grew up on foodstamps. As Vysotski was saying "Ya tam
uznal... pochem ona kopeechka...". Among all philosophers I trust most
what my grandma told me and what I hear from Obama is very coherent with
that - down to earth, no crap.

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 7:05:51 PM10/9/09
to
On 9 Oct, 03:46, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> Dmitry wrote:
> >> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
> >> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
> >> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
> >> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
> >> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>
> > It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
> > Russian colonies???
>
> The real unanswered question for me is why Hitler agreed to grant
> Soviets so much? Just a week before the war he would started anyway?

Probably because Adolf had some clever strategic advisors that he
listened to.

> He didn't know that Stalin wouldn't move a finger to help Poland?
> Did he think "it is just for a year or two only - who cares..."?

He thought that he can create his own empire. Such problems are
always down to psychos who manage to get in to power.

vello

unread,
Oct 9, 2009, 7:12:28 PM10/9/09
to
On Oct 10, 1:51 am, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
> Dmitry wrote:

>
> > That is obvious.  Everybody speaks from their experience.  For
> > Baltics, Soviet occupation brought much more devastation than German.
>
> Unless of course if you are a Jew or Russian.

for a Jews - sure. for a russians - just the opposite. Estonian
russians had to explain to KGB why they left socialist homeland for
burgeois hell - and "izmena rodiny" was the most popular diagnose by
KGB.
>


Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 4:12:48 AM10/10/09
to

I would never do that: the Munich Deal came earlier and forced USSR
into signing Molotov-Ribbentrop.

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 4:15:58 AM10/10/09
to
On Oct 8, 11:54 am, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:21 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:RtGdnR7JYNdIv1PX...@giganews.com...
> > >>> Quite a lot of historians
> > >> How many, names and quotes. Because my answer would be - "99% of
> > >> historians do not think that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was one
> > >> of cornerstones for WW2."
>
> > >>> think that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was one
> > >>> of cornerstones for WW2. War starts with annihilating of Poland and

> > >>> that pact was just about annihilating Poland (and some other
> > >>> territories incl. my homeland :-)) It would be extremely hard to
> > >>> defend a position that pact have nothing to do with the start of the
> > >>> ww2.
> > >> ??? It had nothing to do with the start of WWII because attack on Poland
> > >> had been planned and the plans put in motion long before the pact came
> > >> into existence.
> > >> And btw, isn't real beginning of the war is March of 1939 when Germany,
> > >> Hungary and Poland dismembered Czechoslovakia?
>
> > > I recall, however, that g. Putin was present in Poland on *1 September
> > > 2009*, when the beginning of WWII 70 years earlier was remembered. Russia
> > > also traditionally celebrates the end of WWII in May (victory in Europe),
> > > not in August (de facto end of WWII). It would be difficult to make the
> > > whole world accept alternative beginnings and ends just to satisfy a Soviet
> > > interpretation of history.
>
> > Hm, isn't it what often can be heard as a complaint - that history is
> > written by victors? Isn't "victors" is sometimes an euphemism for
> > "perpetrators who got away with what they did"?
>
> Well, human civilization is still moving towards more rightful world -
> at least from Napoleon times we can't call robbers as heroes as we did
> in times of Alexander "the Great", Gengis Khan, Caesar et cetera.
>

Not so fast. Many in USA still call the conquerers of Iraq and Kosovo
"heroes".


Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 4:20:22 AM10/10/09
to
On Oct 8, 11:40 am, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:
> > VM.
>
> I would agree with your here, sure chechs were the first wictims. Just
> start of some war was counted from first shots - and Czechoslovakia
> was murdered without shots.
> to say about that pact that it is "nothing to do with the start of
> WW2" is just stupid no matter what ideas Hitler may have. No one says
> it was the sole reason of ww2. But it was first real act of that war:
> two nations decided to attack/annihilate some others and they
> fulfilled that plan.
>
> There is no need to turn scb to some "what-if" group, but Hitler would
> had a lot to think about if Russia's response would be clear and loud:
> from day Germany attacks Poland he is in war also with Russia.
>

But neither Britain nor France came to defend Poland one bit. So, what
good did that do to defend Poland? Had USSR also declared war on
Germany but did nothing (as they did nothing to pdefend
Czechoslovakia, their common ally with France), what good would that
have done? The only thing that the French declaration of war on
Germany accomplished is that it gave Hitler a pretext to conquer
France a few months later.

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 4:23:49 AM10/10/09
to
On Oct 8, 7:06 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> Dmitry wrote:
> >> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
> >> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
> >> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
> >> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
> >> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>
> > It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
> > Russian colonies???  
>
> Then I didn't say it clear enough - it was Soviet demand on the deal
> conditions: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
> what you do to Poland".
>
> > The greed for territories was coming from both
> > sides and it is more natural to team up with like-minded regime
>
> This "team up" tune is quite popular in some circles in Eastern Europe
> because it allows to equal Soviets to Nazi. But as a matter of fact
> there was no "team up" but repositioning before fight. As to collateral

> damage - did B&F cared really what happened to Czechoslovakia
> population? E.g. bloody defeat by Hungary the Ukranian Republic? Naah.
> But I bet if Soviets did that Baltics today would not forget to mention
> the story.
>
> > than
> > with Britain and France.
>
> There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
> in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
> between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
> congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
>

That's wrong. Hitler agonised before invading Russia and felt that it
may prove to be the beginning of his end. He knew that if he didn't
attack USSR, USSR would attack him after an extra year or two of
recovery from the Purges.

>
> Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
> death).
>

> VM.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 4:27:22 AM10/10/09
to
On Oct 9, 12:27 pm, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 5:06 am, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dmitry wrote:
> > >> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
> > >> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
> > >> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
> > >> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
> > >> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>
> > > It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
> > > Russian colonies???  
>
> > Then I didn't say it clear enough - it was Soviet demand on the deal
> > conditions: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
> > what you do to Poland".
>
> Here I agree with you. Other part of that treaty had it's own demands
> also: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
> what you do to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania...
> Both gangs feel at first they had successfully divided all city - you
> rob on streets west of riverbank, we on streets of east. But as
> history of mafias show, predators end up fighting each other pretty
> soon.
>

Yes. But that also refers to Germany and England ending up fighting
each other and USA and Japan fighting each other.

>
> > > The greed for territories was coming from both
> > > sides and it is more natural to team up with like-minded regime
>
> > This "team up" tune is quite popular in some circles in Eastern Europe
> > because it allows to equal Soviets to Nazi.
>
> Vladimir, why you think someone WANTS to equal commie and nacional
> socialists?
>

Because there are a lot of political advantages to be derived from
that. For example, this may allow Baltic countries to demand $100s of
billions in "reparations" from Medvedev.

Do you knw how wealthy you and your entire Cabinet can become with
$100s of billions?

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 4:33:36 AM10/10/09
to

Maybe **you** have no idea, but as a Jew, I sure do have an idea: all
Jews, including my parents, would have been exterminated. All. And so
would Gypsies.

And Croatian Serbs would have been all exterminated too.

>
> (amoung all very possible horror scenarios it may
> include also a variant that germans got enough from that maniac - or
> that latter nazi-brezhnevs would dilute nazism to some harmless parody
> - before giving up to democracy)..
>

That's the difference between USSR and Nazi Gemrany. USSR won - and
both you and I are alive and well. If the Nazis won, I wouldn't
exist.

> will be stronger next time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 4:34:47 AM10/10/09
to
On Oct 9, 3:36 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> On 9 Oct, 03:06, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dmitry wrote:
> > >> Soviets wanted a deal - preferably with France and Britain but for a
> > >> rainy day doesn't matter with whom to distance themselves from a trouble
> > >> brewing in Europe. They were refused by B&F and offered one by Germany -
> > >> they took it. It included a death sentence to Baltics but who cared (and
> > >> why would) in the USSR about Baltics?
>
> > > It sounds almost as if Soviets were pushed by Nazis to occupy former
> > > Russian colonies???
>
> > Then I didn't say it clear enough - it was Soviet demand on the deal
> > conditions: "we'll get this, this and this and THEN we don't give a damn
> > what you do to Poland".
>
> > > The greed for territories was coming from both
> > > sides and it is more natural to team up with like-minded regime
>
> > This "team up" tune is quite popular in some circles in Eastern Europe
> > because it allows to equal Soviets to Nazi.
>
> It must be understandable because Eastern European countries became
> victims as a result of "Molotov-Ribbentrop" deal.
>
> > But as a matter of fact
> > there was no "team up" but repositioning before fight.
>
> Probably true about Hitler, but not Stalin.  He was too busy
> "repositioning" his forces to Far East and imprisoning talented
> military commanders.
>

He wasn't imprisoning them. He was killing them. They were too
dangerous to him alive.

>
>  Apart from Brest and of course Leningrad -
> Germans have almost walked in.
>
> > As to collateral
> > damage - did B&F cared really what happened to Czechoslovakia
> > population? E.g. bloody defeat by Hungary the Ukranian Republic? Naah.
> > But I bet if Soviets did that Baltics today would not forget to mention
> > the story.
>
> That is obvious.  Everybody speaks from their experience.  For
> Baltics, Soviet occupation brought much more devastation than German.
>
>
>
> > > than
> > > with Britain and France.
>
> > There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
> > in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
> > between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
> > congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
> > Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
> > death).
>
> These things happen when mentally imparted people enter politics.
> They seem to be be trying to restore their imaginary Rome.
>
>
>
> > VM.
>
> Did you hear that Obama got Noble Prize for not being Bush?  I think
> he deserved that, and his speech in response to the award was also

> meaningful.- Hide quoted text -

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 4:37:02 AM10/10/09
to
On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 19:40, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 8:34 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > vello wrote:
> I agree.  The war starts when it starts.  In Latvia it started on 15th
> June 1940 when Soviet troops attacked Latvian border guards at
> Maslenki.
>

How about Lithuania. Given that they received Polish Wilno/Vilnius
from Stalin in October 1939, WW2 must have started for them by then.

>
>
>
>
> > There is no need to turn scb to some "what-if" group, but Hitler would
> > had a lot to think about if Russia's response would be clear and loud:

> > from day Germany attacks Poland he is in war also with Russia.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

vello

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 1:25:15 PM10/10/09
to
On Oct 10, 11:12 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
> into signing Molotov-Ribbentrop.-

so Western unability to whitstand peacefully rejoining german-
populated Sudeten to the Germany forces USSR ...to agree with
agressor about annihilating Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and
Poland? Stupidity is limiteless :-)

vello

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 1:28:14 PM10/10/09
to
On Oct 10, 11:15 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."

kosovo is ruled by people who would got at least 90% of votes on any
real elections here. and Iraq will be free in not too remote future -
no one is practicising ethnic cleansings there so Iraq will be like it
was - just more peaceful and democratic.

vello

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 1:33:29 PM10/10/09
to
On Oct 10, 11:33 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."

But millions died also by hands of USSR leaders. for them outcome is
not the same as for you and me. no way I can't want to make you a nazi
sympathizer. what I ask is just understanding that lives talen by USSR
are as valuable as lives taken by nazis.

vello

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 1:45:13 PM10/10/09
to
On Oct 10, 11:27 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."

What I want is calling murderer a murderer. "Demanding" money from
putin would not make rich anyone. btw, I don't concider folks
successfully turning sufferings of their granddads into money making
business as valuable part of mankind. There are things one can't
count in money.


>
> Do you knw how wealthy you and your entire Cabinet can become with

> $100s of billions?- Hide quoted text -
>
Wrong person to make such a business offer.

vello

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 1:46:57 PM10/10/09
to
On Oct 10, 11:37 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
For them? Maybe. for a lot of Caribean nations war starts somewhere in
1944 - and was happening making it into headlines not too often.

vello

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 1:51:57 PM10/10/09
to
On Oct 10, 11:20 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ask Albert Speer or any other Nazi economy leader. Brits started to
cut Nazi support lines from the very first day of ww2 - and at the end
it was maybe the most important thing in defeating nazis. You can't
fight without rubber, oil and components for armour steel.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 3:16:23 PM10/10/09
to
> > That is obvious.  Everybody speaks from their experience.  For
> > Baltics, Soviet occupation brought much more devastation than German.
>
> Unless of course if you are a Jew or Russian.

Nazis didn't target Russians in Latvia. None of my family died from
hand of Germans during that war, a lot of their Jewish friends were
exectuted though.

> >>> than
> >>> with Britain and France.
> >> There was an old score to settle between these sides apart from hegemony
> >> in Europe and colonies. Neither of that was an issue in relations
> >> between Hitler's Germany and the USSR. Besides Hitler, being
> >> congenitally stupid didn't see the USSR other than a bunch a barbarians.
> >> Well these barbarians taught him the toughest lesson of his life (and
> >> death).
>
> > These things happen when mentally imparted people enter politics.
> > They seem to be be trying to restore their imaginary Rome.
>
> >> VM.
>
> > Did you hear that Obama got Noble Prize for not being Bush?  I think
> > he deserved that, and his speech in response to the award was also
> > meaningful.
>
> Obama got his prize for introducing (backed by sheer force) rational
> thinking back to the world affairs. It lacked it since demise of the
> USSR. Clinton was like a kid left unattended in a candy store - Bush (or
> rather Cheney) a violent hoodlum in the street.  Obama is a decent cop
> with a big gun. He grew up on foodstamps. As Vysotski was saying "Ya tam
> uznal... pochem ona kopeechka...". Among all philosophers I trust most
> what my grandma told me and what I hear from Obama is very coherent with
> that - down to earth, no crap.

Yes this is another advantage he has - he can relate to ordinary
people and consequently people can relate to him. He is certainly a
decent man. And your grandma's philosophy seems to be trustworthy -)

>
> VM.

vello

unread,
Oct 10, 2009, 3:18:14 PM10/10/09
to
On Oct 10, 11:23 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
It's the idea of Suvorov. but despite he is a brilliant writer - he is
a writer, not historian. I can't imagine Stalin wanting to put
everything onto one single card - his style was to hit for sure, to
find weak victims for that.

Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 1:54:48 AM10/11/09
to

And all Iraqis will become Protestants and Catholics. Drea on.

vello

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 8:33:12 AM10/11/09
to
On Oct 11, 8:54 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."

I can't say there will be Swiss next year. But being better of then
with Saddam who gasses his own people is not too hard to achieve.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 11:37:25 AM10/11/09
to
On 10 Oct, 09:37, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."

It started whenever the military actions took place. According to
Soviet history it started on 22nd June 1941.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 11:54:33 AM10/11/09
to
> and Iraq will be free in not too remote future -
> no one is practicising ethnic cleansings there so Iraq will be like it
> was - just more peaceful and democratic.

You might be over-optimistic about Iraq, Vello. The fact that it
disapeared from headlines doesn't mean that the conflict is now over.
It is far from being peaceful and democratic. The country is still in
the process of civil war with presence of foreign troops. You may
have seen some "v Bagdade vsjo spokojno” reports, but outside Baghdad
it is still going on.

Maris

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 11:58:08 AM10/11/09
to
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:16:23 -0700 (PDT), Dmitry
<dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote:

>> > That is obvious. �Everybody speaks from their experience. �For
>> > Baltics, Soviet occupation brought much more devastation than German.
>>
>> Unless of course if you are a Jew or Russian.
>
>Nazis didn't target Russians in Latvia. None of my family died from
>hand of Germans during that war, a lot of their Jewish friends were
>exectuted though.
>

What Dmitry says is backed up by Geoffrey Swain in 'Between Stalin and
Hitler - Class war and race war on the Dvina, 1940-1947'. He writes
that the Germans tried to encourage good relations between the
Latvians and the Russians in Daugavpils and were annoyed that the
Latvians tried to pursue a narrow Latvian nationalistic line (or
something to that effect anyway).
Maris

vello

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 12:00:51 PM10/11/09
to

I have no illusions about nor motives of going to Iraq, nor about
outcome there. MAYBE it will be a bit better then in times of Saddam.
My point was, West is NOT chosing one side there to ethnically cleanse
other(s) out - so when foreign troops will left, Iraq will be the same
Iraq, not some territory with "recycled population" like Abkhazia.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 12:05:34 PM10/11/09
to
> I can't say there will be Swiss next year. But being better of then
> with Saddam who gasses his own people is not too hard to achieve.

It is much harder than you imagine. Who is killing people and what
methods thay use is another matter, but the fact is - American
invasion resulted in a very long war, which includes civilian
casualties, and created even more problems than Iraq had under Baath
party's regime.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 1:52:25 PM10/11/09
to

People instinctively use instrument of war even they are violent by
nature as the last resort because the damage inflicted is too often
exceeds the spoils.
If Bush and Co were not idiots and instead of "smart bombs" used cheap
laptops saturating the country with universal Internet access today
Saddam would be as dead as he is and Iraq would be more or less stable
country with some kind of democratic system. Instead Iraqis were showed
what they only knew already too well: get a gun go make a killing to get
food for your family. Sheer force is a Rule.
As some genius of humor said it is easy to make a fish soup of aquarium,
it is very difficult to make aquarium out of fish soup.

VM.

J. Anderson

unread,
Oct 11, 2009, 3:19:47 PM10/11/09
to

"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:87708486-5fb4-4d70...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> You may have seen some "v Bagdade vsjo spokojno� reports

Remember that "all is quiet [on the western front]" originally referred to a
trench full of corpses. Like in the famous painting (burned by the Nazis) by
Otto Dix: http://www.art-ww1.com/trame/099text.html


Dmitry

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 5:02:10 PM10/15/09
to
On 11 Oct, 20:19, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message

Nazis copied lots of strategies from Bolsheviks. Decades later,
Taliban destroyed ancient Buddha statues because they didn't fit their
ideology. Such ideologies cannot survive without destroying things
(and there is always something to destroy).

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 5:46:20 PM10/15/09
to
Dmitry wrote:
> On 11 Oct, 20:19, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>>
>> news:87708486-5fb4-4d70...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> You may have seen some "v Bagdade vsjo spokojno� reports

>> Remember that "all is quiet [on the western front]" originally referred to a
>> trench full of corpses. Like in the famous painting (burned by the Nazis) by
>> Otto Dix:http://www.art-ww1.com/trame/099text.html
>
> Nazis copied lots of strategies from Bolsheviks. Decades later,
> Taliban destroyed ancient Buddha statues because they didn't fit their
> ideology. Such ideologies cannot survive without destroying things
> (and there is always something to destroy).

Hm, didn't Christians burn, kill and destroy everything/body what/who
they found to be counter their religion?
Nazi, Bol'shevik or whatever didn't invent anything new. They just
sorted out already used methods with preference on violence. Violence is
very cheap and fast. Whether shooting opposition or locking it in
concentration camps or destroying material symbols of ideological
competitors.
Btw, what is worse - to destroy the Buddhas because they are "wrong" or
vandalize Sphinx into unrecognizable pile of stones by artillery
exercise because one gives no damn?

VM.

The Black Monk

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 10:37:01 AM10/16/09
to
On Oct 15, 5:46 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dmitry wrote:
> > On 11 Oct, 20:19, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> >> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>
> >>news:87708486-5fb4-4d70...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> You may have seen some "v Bagdade vsjo spokojno” reports

> >> Remember that "all is quiet [on the western front]" originally referred to a
> >> trench full of corpses. Like in the famous painting (burned by the Nazis) by
> >> Otto Dix:http://www.art-ww1.com/trame/099text.html
>
> > Nazis copied lots of strategies from Bolsheviks.  Decades later,
> > Taliban destroyed ancient Buddha statues because they didn't fit their
> > ideology.  Such ideologies cannot survive without destroying things
> > (and there is always something to destroy).
>
> Hm, didn't Christians burn, kill and destroy everything/body what/who
> they found to be counter their religion?

It depends. In Mexico City they destroyed the temple where 10,000s of
people were sacrificed in brutal ways (such as having their hearts
ripped out while they were still alive) to their gods (perceived by
the Spaniards, correctly, as "demons") and using the same stones built
a gorgeous Baroque Cathedral (since replaced by a grander one).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Cathedral

The Bolshevik-built swimming pool on the grounds of the demolished
Christ the Savior isn't really comparable. And I don't think the
Taliban had any nice plans for the Buddha statues.

> Nazi, Bol'shevik or whatever didn't invent anything new. They just
> sorted out already used methods with preference on violence. Violence is
> very cheap and fast. Whether shooting opposition or locking it in
> concentration camps or destroying material symbols of ideological
> competitors.
> Btw, what is worse - to destroy the Buddhas because they are "wrong" or
> vandalize Sphinx into unrecognizable pile of stones by artillery
> exercise because one gives no damn?

Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler, what would you
expect?

regards,

BM

> VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 11:06:24 AM10/16/09
to
The Black Monk wrote:
> On Oct 15, 5:46 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dmitry wrote:
>>> On 11 Oct, 20:19, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>>>> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>>>> news:87708486-5fb4-4d70...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> You may have seen some "v Bagdade vsjo spokojno� reports

>>>> Remember that "all is quiet [on the western front]" originally referred to a
>>>> trench full of corpses. Like in the famous painting (burned by the Nazis) by
>>>> Otto Dix:http://www.art-ww1.com/trame/099text.html
>>> Nazis copied lots of strategies from Bolsheviks. Decades later,
>>> Taliban destroyed ancient Buddha statues because they didn't fit their
>>> ideology. Such ideologies cannot survive without destroying things
>>> (and there is always something to destroy).
>> Hm, didn't Christians burn, kill and destroy everything/body what/who
>> they found to be counter their religion?
>
> It depends. In Mexico City they destroyed the temple where 10,000s of
> people were sacrificed in brutal ways (such as having their hearts
> ripped out while they were still alive) to their gods (perceived by
> the Spaniards, correctly, as "demons") and using the same stones built
> a gorgeous Baroque Cathedral (since replaced by a grander one).

Hah, so how many of them got sacrificed in Christian way - burned alive?
Christianity gave them a lot - they now probably kiss the cross before
going into another drug war battle.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Cathedral
>
> The Bolshevik-built swimming pool on the grounds of the demolished
> Christ the Savior isn't really comparable. And I don't think the
> Taliban had any nice plans for the Buddha statues.

What you have against the swimming pool? Replacing opium to people by
Health to masses looks as not a healthy idea?
You probably are a Christian.
Then why do you allow some priests to command what gospels to read and
what not? Why Christ's biography is not made public?

>
>> Nazi, Bol'shevik or whatever didn't invent anything new. They just
>> sorted out already used methods with preference on violence. Violence is
>> very cheap and fast. Whether shooting opposition or locking it in
>> concentration camps or destroying material symbols of ideological
>> competitors.
>> Btw, what is worse - to destroy the Buddhas because they are "wrong" or
>> vandalize Sphinx into unrecognizable pile of stones by artillery
>> exercise because one gives no damn?
>
> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler, what would you
> expect?

Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU. If he just didn't
mess up with nasty Russkies.
What is wrong with Euros - every time they start so nicely and then end
up trying to kick Russians and get of course badly bitten.

VM.

>
> regards,
>
> BM
>
>> VM.
>

vello

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 1:45:30 PM10/16/09
to
On Oct 16, 6:06 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:

>


> > Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler, what would you
> > expect?
>
> Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU.

Well in this case Gengis Khan was running for first UN on Earth :-)
There is one grave difference: EU - not easy to enter, very easy to
leave. Planned or realized "EU's" of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler -
entering without your own will, leaving impossible. It's like to call
a jail as home.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 1:49:41 PM10/16/09
to
> >> Remember that "all is quiet [on the western front]" originally referred to a
> >> trench full of corpses. Like in the famous painting (burned by the Nazis) by
> >> Otto Dix:http://www.art-ww1.com/trame/099text.html
>
> > Nazis copied lots of strategies from Bolsheviks.  Decades later,
> > Taliban destroyed ancient Buddha statues because they didn't fit their
> > ideology.  Such ideologies cannot survive without destroying things
> > (and there is always something to destroy).
>
> Hm, didn't Christians burn, kill and destroy everything/body what/who
> they found to be counter their religion?
> Nazi, Bol'shevik or whatever didn't invent anything new.

Nobody invents anything new. Every new invention is based on older
inventios.

> They just
> sorted out already used methods with preference on violence. Violence is
> very cheap and fast. Whether shooting opposition or locking it in
> concentration camps or destroying material symbols of ideological
> competitors.
> Btw, what is worse - to destroy the Buddhas because they are "wrong" or
> vandalize Sphinx into unrecognizable pile of stones by artillery
> exercise because one gives no damn?

I don't know what's worse. Both are bad.

> VM.

You can give examples such as early Russian Church was destroying
wooden sculptures of old Slavic gods, but I think there is a
difference between millennium ago and now. We are much more "evolved"
now and the values have shifted since year 1000. Today we are trying
to preserve historical artifacts. Generally speaking, many things
that were considered normal then are not normal today. For example,
we don't chop the hands off for theft and in most civilised parts of
the world we don't have capital punishment. Considering this, I'd say
that the destruction crimes of Nazis, Bolsheviks and Taliban are
somewhat worse than of early Russian Church.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 2:16:09 PM10/16/09
to
vello wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:06 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler, what would you
>>> expect?
>> Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU.
>
> Well in this case Gengis Khan was running for first UN on Earth :-)

Well, sort of. But the very first attempt has been done by Alexander.

> There is one grave difference: EU - not easy to enter, very easy to
> leave.

EE Countries were/are coerced to accept EU membership.

> Planned or realized "EU's" of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler -
> entering without your own will, leaving impossible.

How come you didn't mention *any* name from uncountable dynasties who
were cutting Euro and world map again and again?

> It's like to call
> a jail as home.
>

Napoleon was a progressive, stepping on privileges and granting rights.
This is why all Houses of Europe ganged up to stop him.

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 2:24:35 PM10/16/09
to

And what exactly makes you think so? That you boil water using electric
current instead of open fire?

> We are much more "evolved"
> now and the values have shifted since year 1000.

Why this particular year is taken as reference? Which country btw?


> Today we are trying
> to preserve historical artifacts. Generally speaking, many things
> that were considered normal then are not normal today. For example,
> we don't chop the hands off for theft and in most civilised parts of
> the world we don't have capital punishment. Considering this, I'd say
> that the destruction crimes of Nazis, Bolsheviks and Taliban are
> somewhat worse than of early Russian Church.

Russian church is a bandit obscurantist organized crime group.
Catholic church also. Btw why Vatican refuses to grant access to the
archives? What are they hiding? That Christ was married and had
children? Everybody knows this anyway...

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 2:37:04 PM10/16/09
to
> > The Bolshevik-built swimming pool on the grounds of the demolished
> > Christ the Savior isn't really comparable. And I don't think the
> > Taliban had any nice plans for the Buddha statues.
>
> What you have against the swimming pool? Replacing opium to people by
> Health to masses looks as not a healthy idea?

They could have at least spare the building. In Riga, they vandalised
Orthodox Cathedral, but they at least kept the building.

> You probably are a Christian.
> Then why do you allow some priests to command what gospels to read and
> what not?

Do you mean the Gospel of Barnabas?

> Why Christ's biography is not made public?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

> > Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler, what would you
> > expect?
>
> Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU. If he just didn't
> mess up with nasty Russkies.

If Hitler didn't mess up with Russkies, the Third Reich would have
survived for much longer. So there is a parallel between both Cesar
wannabes.

> What is wrong with Euros - every time they start so nicely and then end
> up trying to kick Russians and get of course badly bitten.

There is a big difference between EU's and Hitler's/Napoleon's vision
of Europe. EU vision is based on voluntary collaboration between
member states; their vision was based on mad ideas of mentally
impaired individuals.

J. Anderson

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 2:48:05 PM10/16/09
to

"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ac4a3f6-e600-4c50...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler

What an absurd comparison! Napoleon was a military genius, Hitler (and
Stalin) always remained on the corporal level.

Napoleon was an important legislator, and his Code Napol�on 'with its stress
on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in establishing the
rule of law. Historians have called it "one of the few documents which have
influenced the whole world."' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code)
Hitler (and Stalin), on the other hand, transgressed every conceivable law
and moral code.

Hitler and Stalin were mass murderers and ought to have ended their wretched
lives in front of a firing squad. Napoleon retained the respect even of his
vanquishers, who decided only to isolate him instead of punishing him in any
harsher way.

But I guess it is actually the Code Napol�on that makes you dislike
Bonaparte: 'The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of
religion, and specified that government jobs go to the most qualified.'
Judging from your earlier posts you miss the old world with its rigid class
division, its forced religiosity, and its conceited bureaucrats.


vello

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 2:53:15 PM10/16/09
to
On Oct 16, 9:16 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>

wrote:
> vello wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 6:06 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler, what would you
> >>> expect?
> >> Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU.
>
> > Well in this case Gengis Khan was running for first UN on Earth :-)
>
> Well, sort of. But the very first attempt has been done by Alexander.
>
> > There is one grave difference: EU - not easy to enter, very easy to
> > leave.
>
> EE Countries were/are coerced to accept EU membership.

Just the opposite. In 1995 almost all EU politicians say that
membership is "maybe possible after 2-3 decades", unofficially - "more
trouble then fun from you". We work hard and push on principles of EU
and NATO - both they declare they are open to democratic societies -
till there was not arguments left to let us out. With NATO, US
supports our entry, but anyway it was long lasting and hard fight to
get in. For now it is easier for newcomers - with 85% EE in there is
no point to left the rest out.


>
> > Planned or realized "EU's" of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler -
> > entering without your own will, leaving impossible.
>
> How come you didn't mention *any* name from uncountable dynasties who
> were cutting Euro and world map again and again?

I names three - but of course there have been a lot of them - take
Caesar for example.


>
> > It's like to call
> > a jail as home.
>
> Napoleon was a progressive, stepping on privileges and granting rights.
> This is why all Houses of Europe ganged up  to stop him.

Sure he was not hitler or Stalin. But he was guy taking by force what
not belongs to him. Very different from EU.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 2:59:59 PM10/16/09
to

Thanks. I was laughing for good five minutes after reading about
"voluntary collaboration". With American troops in town and in cross
hair of Russian guns.
If not for these two trying their Egos against each other Euros would
continue to beat each other into a pulp, yugoslavian style.
God Bless the Cold War side effect!

> their vision was based on mad ideas of mentally
> impaired individuals.

Were they really mentally impared or just just had a nerve to take to
extremes the idea of Europe? Btw did they do that alone or they had most
of Europe whole heartedly supporting them?

Last example - Italians selling French "comrades in arms" to Taliban.
Every time you left unattended you do something funny. Like rape,
murder, betray.

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 3:03:00 PM10/16/09
to
J. Anderson wrote:
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2ac4a3f6-e600-4c50...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler
>
> What an absurd comparison! Napoleon was a military genius, Hitler (and
> Stalin) always remained on the corporal level.


Stalin never had risen that high, he stayed on a level of a thief from
laundry service for troops.

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 3:15:01 PM10/16/09
to
vello wrote:
> On Oct 16, 9:16 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
> wrote:
>> vello wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 6:06 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler, what would you
>>>>> expect?
>>>> Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU.
>>> Well in this case Gengis Khan was running for first UN on Earth :-)
>> Well, sort of. But the very first attempt has been done by Alexander.
>>
>>> There is one grave difference: EU - not easy to enter, very easy to
>>> leave.
>> EE Countries were/are coerced to accept EU membership.
>
> Just the opposite. In 1995 almost all EU politicians say that
> membership is "maybe possible after 2-3 decades", unofficially - "more
> trouble then fun from you".

Have you ever been to Eastern bazaar? Rule number one of negotiation
with simpletons - say you don't want to sell what you desperately need
to sell at any price given.

> We work hard and push on principles of EU
> and NATO - both they declare they are open to democratic societies -
> till there was not arguments left to let us out. With NATO, US
> supports our entry, but anyway it was long lasting and hard fight to
> get in. For now it is easier for newcomers - with 85% EE in there is
> no point to left the rest out.

That is a party line. Besides I suspect that it is a natural human trick
-when cheated insist - I was not!

>>> Planned or realized "EU's" of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler -
>>> entering without your own will, leaving impossible.
>> How come you didn't mention *any* name from uncountable dynasties who
>> were cutting Euro and world map again and again?
>
> I names three - but of course there have been a lot of them - take
> Caesar for example.

Caesar is not a company here - he was a leader of advanced society
surrounded by murderous tribes.

>>> It's like to call
>>> a jail as home.
>> Napoleon was a progressive, stepping on privileges and granting rights.
>> This is why all Houses of Europe ganged up to stop him.
>
> Sure he was not hitler or Stalin. But he was guy taking by force what
> not belongs to him. Very different from EU.
>

Who started the war? He understood well that France will never be left
alone nor there was a point to allow all the banana kingdoms around to
continue their ugly existence. As a matter of fact you cannot call a
single example when Napoleon conquest targeted any national culture not
a dynasty. In the times there were no mass propaganda means to attack,
all he was left with were guns.
He shouldn't have messed up with Russians.

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 3:16:41 PM10/16/09
to
> Well in this case Gengis Khan was running for first UN on Earth :-)

His empire managed to stay on for 200 years in Russia. Gengiz wasn't
the first - earlier in history empires stayed on for much longer than
that.

> There is one grave difference: EU - not easy to enter, very easy to
> leave. Planned or realized "EU's" of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler -
> entering without your own will, leaving impossible. It's like to call
> a jail as home.

Exactly. It was very easy to become a member of komsomol and very
difficult to leave the organisation until the age (27???) takes it
course. These are absolutely different models.

Vladimir's anti-EU sentiment came through again -))) Whilst Henry and
Hui are absent, someone has to keep it going.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 3:21:58 PM10/16/09
to
Dmitry wrote:
>>> The Bolshevik-built swimming pool on the grounds of the demolished
>>> Christ the Savior isn't really comparable. And I don't think the
>>> Taliban had any nice plans for the Buddha statues.
>> What you have against the swimming pool? Replacing opium to people by
>> Health to masses looks as not a healthy idea?
>
> They could have at least spare the building. In Riga, they vandalised
> Orthodox Cathedral, but they at least kept the building.
>
>> You probably are a Christian.
>> Then why do you allow some priests to command what gospels to read and
>> what not?
>
> Do you mean the Gospel of Barnabas?

And many others.

>
>> Why Christ's biography is not made public?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus


That is party version. Sounds like a story about little Lenin learning
how bad it is to lie.
This is why Bolsheviks shot almost all priests - they didn't like
competition.

>
>>> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler, what would you
>>> expect?
>> Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU. If he just didn't
>> mess up with nasty Russkies.
>
> If Hitler didn't mess up with Russkies, the Third Reich would have
> survived for much longer. So there is a parallel between both Cesar
> wannabes.


Basing on such methodology I can call parallels between Dalai Lama
Genghis Khan. Both were born at high attitude and have Asian looks.

VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 3:30:59 PM10/16/09
to
Dmitry wrote:
>> Well in this case Gengis Khan was running for first UN on Earth :-)
>
> His empire managed to stay on for 200 years in Russia. Gengiz wasn't
> the first - earlier in history empires stayed on for much longer than
> that.
>
>> There is one grave difference: EU - not easy to enter, very easy to
>> leave. Planned or realized "EU's" of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler -
>> entering without your own will, leaving impossible. It's like to call
>> a jail as home.
>
> Exactly. It was very easy to become a member of komsomol and very
> difficult to leave the organisation until the age (27???) takes it
> course. These are absolutely different models.

Not true. I was expelled for chronically delinquent membership payments.
I was spending money on girls and alcohol. No "organizational
consequences" how it was euphemised then didn't follow.

>
> Vladimir's anti-EU sentiment came through again -))) Whilst Henry and
> Hui are absent, someone has to keep it going.

Who said I am anti EU? I am very much PRO EU. I just don't buy the crap
"voluntarily", "democratic", blah blah blah. Or how it's called in
Russian - making a tough face with bad cards. Bluff.
Who had worst cards then EEurope in 90-ties? Only Russkies and Rwanda.

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 3:44:03 PM10/16/09
to
> > You can give examples such as early Russian Church was destroying
> > wooden sculptures of old Slavic gods, but I think there is a
> > difference between millennium ago and now.
>
> And what exactly makes you think so? That you boil water using electric
> current instead of open fire?

The difference is that today Russian Church is not destroying
buildings and monuments.

> > We are much more "evolved"
> > now and the values have shifted since year 1000.
>
> Why this particular year is taken as reference? Which country btw?

There is no reference to a particular date or year. Destruction of
pagan artifacts continued for few centuries.

> >  Today we are trying
> > to preserve historical artifacts.  Generally speaking, many things
> > that were considered normal then are not normal today.  For example,
> > we don't chop the hands off for theft and in most civilised parts of
> > the world we don't have capital punishment.  Considering this, I'd say
> > that the destruction crimes of Nazis, Bolsheviks and Taliban are
> > somewhat worse than of early Russian Church.
>
> Russian church is a bandit obscurantist organized crime group.

It is not a "crime group". The main problem is that it is acting as a
political organisation instead of concentrating on spiritual business.

> Catholic church also. Btw why Vatican refuses to grant access to the
> archives? What are they hiding?

What archives?

> That Christ was married and had
> children? Everybody knows this anyway...

How many? Don't mix it up. "Married with Children" sitcom is an
absolutely different show.

>
> VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 3:59:56 PM10/16/09
to
> > Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler
>
> What an absurd comparison! Napoleon was a military genius, Hitler (and
> Stalin) always remained on the corporal level.

How come the genius has committed suicide by trying to conquer
Russie? Perhaps, not so genius.

> Napoleon was an important legislator, and his Code Napol on 'with its stress
> on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in establishing the
> rule of law. Historians have called it "one of the few documents which have
> influenced the whole world."' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code)
> Hitler (and Stalin), on the other hand, transgressed every conceivable law
> and moral code.

Hitler was also establishing his rule of law. So did Stalin.

> Hitler and Stalin were mass murderers and ought to have ended their wretched
> lives in front of a firing squad. Napoleon retained the respect even of his
> vanquishers, who decided only to isolate him instead of punishing him in any
> harsher way.

Napoleon had lots of blood on his hands.


Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 4:18:49 PM10/16/09
to
Dmitry wrote:
>>> You can give examples such as early Russian Church was destroying
>>> wooden sculptures of old Slavic gods, but I think there is a
>>> difference between millennium ago and now.
>> And what exactly makes you think so? That you boil water using electric
>> current instead of open fire?
>
> The difference is that today Russian Church is not destroying
> buildings and monuments.
>
>>> We are much more "evolved"
>>> now and the values have shifted since year 1000.
>> Why this particular year is taken as reference? Which country btw?
>
> There is no reference to a particular date or year. Destruction of
> pagan artifacts continued for few centuries.
>
>>> Today we are trying
>>> to preserve historical artifacts. Generally speaking, many things
>>> that were considered normal then are not normal today. For example,
>>> we don't chop the hands off for theft and in most civilised parts of
>>> the world we don't have capital punishment. Considering this, I'd say
>>> that the destruction crimes of Nazis, Bolsheviks and Taliban are
>>> somewhat worse than of early Russian Church.
>> Russian church is a bandit obscurantist organized crime group.
>
> It is not a "crime group". The main problem is that it is acting as a
> political organisation instead of concentrating on spiritual business.


It is a bandit obscurantist organized crime group. It hates science. It
doesn't pay taxes. It poisons children minds. It encourages defying
civil authority (see the last case with of kidnapping a child from
communist Finland where children - Oh horrow! - children may walk
streets safely!) and it collects money by blackmailing people by fear -
give me money now or rot in hell forever!
And it always agrees with whatever Kremlin says, or as in a song of my
childhood:

Советская малина собралась на совет,
Советская малина врагу сказала "Нет!!!"
Мы сдали того субчика воискам НКВД
С тех пор его по тюрьмам я не встречал нигде...

Replace "малина" with Russian Ortho and picture is perfect.

Я надеюсь что ты понимаешь мрачную концовку - красные сволочи
расстреляли мирного шпиона...
Maybe this is how young Putin started his way up in the
service...Shooting agent 006.

>
>> Catholic church also. Btw why Vatican refuses to grant access to the
>> archives? What are they hiding?
>
> What archives?


Vatican's so called "library". Which contains literally metric tons of
documents. And which almost all are kept SECRET. What dirty deadly
secrets you Christians are hiding? Is your "Christ" taught you so?
Does it hides Roman police his rap sheet?

>
>> That Christ was married and had
>> children? Everybody knows this anyway...
>
> How many? Don't mix it up. "Married with Children" sitcom is an
> absolutely different show.

I am not sure about "married" but about children - come on, get real the
man was 33 and certified vagrant. Why btw you are so keen on evading
telling the world what he was doing all his life? E.g. Muslems come
clean - they can attest for every minute of Mohamed's life. They have
all the receipts, police registration cards, employment and tax records
everything. You on the other hand present with events of being born,
being a baby and then - bang! he is 33 y.o. What he was doing in
between? Serving in time juvenile facility?

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 4:21:11 PM10/16/09
to

> >> What is wrong with Euros - every time they start so nicely and then end
> >> up trying to kick Russians and get of course badly bitten.
>
> > There is a big difference between EU's and Hitler's/Napoleon's vision
> > of Europe. EU vision is based on voluntary collaboration between
> > member states;
>
> Thanks. I was laughing for good five minutes after reading about
> "voluntary collaboration". With American troops in town and in cross
> hair of Russian guns.

I don't think "Kalashnikovs" or American troops are the reason for
this union.

> If not for these two trying their Egos against each other Euros would
> continue to beat each other into a pulp, yugoslavian style.

This union is not about beating each other.

> God Bless the Cold War side effect!
>
> > their vision was based on mad ideas of mentally
> > impaired individuals.
>
> Were they really mentally impared or just just had a nerve to take to
> extremes the idea of Europe?

Personal greed could be an answer.

> Btw did they do that alone or they had most
> of Europe whole heartedly supporting them?

Not much of European population supported Hitler.

> Last example - Italians selling French "comrades in arms" to Taliban.
> Every time you left unattended you do something funny. Like rape,
> murder, betray.

Can you elaborate on Italians selling French citizens to Taliban?

>
> VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 4:32:11 PM10/16/09
to
Dmitry wrote:
>>> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler
>> What an absurd comparison! Napoleon was a military genius, Hitler (and
>> Stalin) always remained on the corporal level.
>
> How come the genius has committed suicide by trying to conquer
> Russie? Perhaps, not so genius.

Russkies were mistaken for Europeans. We are not. As Genghis confused us
with Asians. We are not. We are Russkies. We are ourselves not sure what
the f*** it means. Still figuring out... Kinda paradox - we have no clue
who we are but very proud of ourselves...

>
>> Napoleon was an important legislator, and his Code Napol on 'with its stress
>> on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in establishing the
>> rule of law. Historians have called it "one of the few documents which have
>> influenced the whole world."' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code)
>> Hitler (and Stalin), on the other hand, transgressed every conceivable law
>> and moral code.
>
> Hitler was also establishing his rule of law. So did Stalin.

Do not try to pull this cheap - if you be stubborn I will prove that
Obama is Himmler reborn.

>
>> Hitler and Stalin were mass murderers and ought to have ended their wretched
>> lives in front of a firing squad. Napoleon retained the respect even of his
>> vanquishers, who decided only to isolate him instead of punishing him in any
>> harsher way.
>
> Napoleon had lots of blood on his hands.

Numbers please vs numbers of losses of Europe labor force (which was 99%
of population) due to inadequate pay and lack of any state provided
assistance - health, education, pensions. ALL at least theoretically
provided by Napoleon's new rules of game.
The question is simple - where all the money came from? From taxes which
were not anymore wasted on 1% of the most useless part of populace.

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 4:41:15 PM10/16/09
to
On 16 Oct, 20:21, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> Dmitry wrote:
> >>> The Bolshevik-built swimming pool on the grounds of the demolished
> >>> Christ the Savior isn't really comparable. And I don't think the
> >>> Taliban had any nice plans for the Buddha statues.
> >> What you have against the swimming pool? Replacing opium to people by
> >> Health to masses looks as not a healthy idea?
>
> > They could have at least spare the building.  In Riga, they vandalised
> > Orthodox Cathedral, but they at least kept the building.
>
> >> You probably are a Christian.
> >> Then why do you allow some priests to command what gospels to read and
> >> what not?
>
> > Do you mean the Gospel of Barnabas?
>
> And many others.

I suggest you organise your own Church and decide which ones you want
to read and let other priests to read what they want.

> >>  Why Christ's biography is not made public?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
>
> That is party version.

Whatever it is, it is made public.

> Sounds like a story about little Lenin learning
> how bad it is to lie.

Why does this article makes you to come to this conclusion?

> This is why Bolsheviks shot almost all priests - they didn't like
> competition.

How do you explain Bolsheviks killing their own fellow Bolsheviks?

> >> Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU. If he just didn't
> >> mess up with nasty Russkies.
>
> > If Hitler didn't mess up with Russkies, the Third Reich would have
> > survived for much longer.  So there is a parallel between both Cesar
> > wannabes.
>
> Basing on such methodology I can call parallels between Dalai Lama
> Genghis Khan. Both were born at high attitude and have Asian looks.

Well, Dalai Lama wasn't involved in occupying other nations.

>
> VM.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 4:58:12 PM10/16/09
to
Dmitry wrote:
>>>> What is wrong with Euros - every time they start so nicely and then end
>>>> up trying to kick Russians and get of course badly bitten.
>>> There is a big difference between EU's and Hitler's/Napoleon's vision
>>> of Europe. EU vision is based on voluntary collaboration between
>>> member states;
>> Thanks. I was laughing for good five minutes after reading about
>> "voluntary collaboration". With American troops in town and in cross
>> hair of Russian guns.
>
> I don't think "Kalashnikovs" or American troops are the reason for
> this union.
>
>> If not for these two trying their Egos against each other Euros would
>> continue to beat each other into a pulp, yugoslavian style.
>
> This union is not about beating each other.
>


As long as you know that there is a big American dog inside the house
and a big Russkie dog on a front lawn.
And the both watch you. As long as they are not busy with each other.
Or busy licking wounds or feel drunk happy that the other licks the
wounds. Two dopes on a rope. Then you go Yugoslavia to unleash yourself
in your usual happy rampage.


>> God Bless the Cold War side effect!
>>
>>> their vision was based on mad ideas of mentally
>>> impaired individuals.
>> Were they really mentally impared or just just had a nerve to take to
>> extremes the idea of Europe?
>
> Personal greed could be an answer.

I don't know the answer.

>
>> Btw did they do that alone or they had most
>> of Europe whole heartedly supporting them?
>
> Not much of European population supported Hitler.


Hah? OK, in thousand-th time: more than half of Waffen SS was made of
non Germans by the end 1942 when no draft was used.
Nazism is natural but unloved child of Europe because it turned on
mother. It was supposed to murder and and enslave people on other
continents but the beast got out of control. Bit the Mother Europe.

>
>> Last example - Italians selling French "comrades in arms" to Taliban.
>> Every time you left unattended you do something funny. Like rape,
>> murder, betray.
>
> Can you elaborate on Italians selling French citizens to Taliban?

Check the news.
Italians paid money to Taliban not to be attacked but did not warn the
French who replaced them. Who got killed in numbers because they thought
the area is "safe" and didn't take appropriate precautions. Italians
of course knew what is going to happen, but save their hides and gave no
damn about the French. Ugly, isn't it? Can you imagine Americans doing
this? One can blame Americans for many many things but they are not
cheap treachery schmuks.

VM.

Dmitry

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 5:02:35 PM10/16/09
to
> > Exactly. It was very easy to become a member of komsomol and very
> > difficult to leave the organisation until the age (27???) takes it
> > course. These are absolutely different models.
>
> Not true. I was expelled for chronically delinquent membership payments.

It was 2 kop. per month. Everyone could afford that, ask Andrius (he
even had zhiguli).

> I was spending money on girls and alcohol.

Naughty.

> No "organizational
> consequences" how it was euphemised then didn't follow.

What year was it?

> > Vladimir's anti-EU sentiment came through again -))) Whilst Henry and
> > Hui are absent, someone has to keep it going.
>
> Who said I am anti EU? I am very much PRO EU. I just don't buy the crap
> "voluntarily", "democratic", blah blah blah.

But it is true. EU is a voluntary union and democracy is at union's
heart.

> Or how it's called in
> Russian - making a tough face with bad cards.

I don't know this saying.

> Bluff.

Nobody is forced to join EU.

Vladimir Makarenko

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 5:03:36 PM10/16/09
to

You must be kidding right?
How many years last religious war in which you Christians were
evaporating each other lasted?

>
>>>> Not Hitler. Not at all. It was another attempt to EU. If he just didn't
>>>> mess up with nasty Russkies.
>>> If Hitler didn't mess up with Russkies, the Third Reich would have
>>> survived for much longer. So there is a parallel between both Cesar
>>> wannabes.
>> Basing on such methodology I can call parallels between Dalai Lama
>> Genghis Khan. Both were born at high attitude and have Asian looks.
>
> Well, Dalai Lama wasn't involved in occupying other nations.

How do you know what he wants as he has no army and nukes? Where/there
is a boundary between "he can't" and "he will not do this"?

VM.

>
>> VM.
>

Anton

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 5:04:43 PM10/16/09
to
Vladimir Makarenko kirjoitti:
> Dmitry wrote:

>> There is a big difference between EU's and Hitler's/Napoleon's vision
>> of Europe. EU vision is based on voluntary collaboration between
>> member states;
>
> Thanks. I was laughing for good five minutes after reading about
> "voluntary collaboration". With American troops in town and in cross
> hair of Russian guns.
> If not for these two trying their Egos against each other Euros would
> continue to beat each other into a pulp, yugoslavian style.
> God Bless the Cold War side effect!

>> their vision was based on mad ideas of mentally
>> impaired individuals.

> Were they really mentally impared or just just had a nerve to take to
> extremes the idea of Europe? Btw did they do that alone or they had most
> of Europe whole heartedly supporting them?
>
> Last example - Italians selling French "comrades in arms" to Taliban.
> Every time you left unattended you do something funny. Like rape,
> murder, betray.

> VM.

Vladimir: why do you hate Europe so much? EU is a union of many
countries that for decades were very hostile towards one an other, but
for more than half a century there has not been any slightest embryo of
conflict even suggesting a possibility of hostilities. Sure all the big
member states have their darker chapters in history and the Union itself
has defects, but still - I don't get your sentiments on this one. In my
opinion Europe - for such a heterogenous region - has made huge leaps of
progress in a very short time.

--
Anton

Anton

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 5:08:21 PM10/16/09
to
Vladimir Makarenko kirjoitti:

> J. Anderson wrote:
>> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2ac4a3f6-e600-4c50...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler
>>
>> What an absurd comparison! Napoleon was a military genius, Hitler (and
>> Stalin) always remained on the corporal level.
>
>
> Stalin never had risen that high, he stayed on a level of a thief from
> laundry service for troops.
>
> VM.

...he owes you guys at least 10 million lost lives. (Since you always
bring up the casualty count of "Great Patriotic".)

--
Anton

J. Anderson

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 5:36:01 PM10/16/09
to

"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:1b2f413a-f46a-4202...@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

>> > Napoleon was the early 19th-century protoype of Hitler
>>
>> What an absurd comparison! Napoleon was a military genius, Hitler (and
>> Stalin) always remained on the corporal level.
>
> How come the genius has committed suicide by trying to conquer
> Russie? Perhaps, not so genius.

Well, there seems to be a general consensus that he was a military genius.
Even a genius can make mistakes. Or have bad luck. Luck has saved Russia a
few times. For instance in 1941-43. Luck with the weather plus Stalin's
ruthless sacrifice of 'human material' (= soldiers).

>> Napoleon was an important legislator, and his Code Napol on 'with its
>> stress
>> on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in establishing
>> the
>> rule of law. Historians have called it "one of the few documents which
>> have
>> influenced the whole world."'
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code)
>> Hitler (and Stalin), on the other hand, transgressed every conceivable
>> law
>> and moral code.
>
> Hitler was also establishing his rule of law. So did Stalin.

Hardly comparable. Napoleon's law rules this very day.

>> Hitler and Stalin were mass murderers and ought to have ended their
>> wretched
>> lives in front of a firing squad. Napoleon retained the respect even of
>> his
>> vanquishers, who decided only to isolate him instead of punishing him in
>> any
>> harsher way.
>
> Napoleon had lots of blood on his hands.

It's ridiculous to put him in the same category as the mass murderers Hitler
and Stalin. Or have you heard that Napoleon would have ordered any specific
group of people to be killed? He even put an end to the mindless bloodshed
going on in Paris in the name of the Revolution.


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages