Good Russian is dead and buried one?
J.J.H.Kolima
Those Chechens are really kicking some Russian butt, eh? Read the latest
Newsweek article on Chechenia, it's very, eh...illuminating.
-jhk-
Igor Chudov
: Those Chechens are really kicking some Russian butt, eh? Read the latest
: Newsweek article on Chechenia, it's very, eh...illuminating.
See the latest CNN reports on whoh is kicking whose butt.
- Igor.
SS
I don't actually mind Chechens kicking Russian ass as i think they
really deserve this at the moment. But I do mind stupid bastards
from Kent who are apparently not aware of the fact that Chechens
and Russian are dying there. The mentioned above bastards are quite
welcome to visit Portsmouth (UK) to improve their mental abilities
and get some more "illumination" from me personally.
If you get the same kind of mental disorder don't hesitate to
contact us. We might be able to help!
My address is available on request via e-mail.
We are opened Mon-Fri 19.00-24.00 GMT.
J.J.H.Kolima
Chechens, and the Russian butt. :)
I really cannot fathom the sordidness of the Russian operation in
Chechenya. On the other hand, this confirms the suspicions that the
Russian army is only capable to inflict damage on itself. After seeing
the pictures of the Russki soldats covered in ragged, muddy clothing and
wearing rusty helmets (and assault rifles clearly visible in a pool of
mud behind them) trying to heat some tea (?) in an indescripably dirty
can over a small fire made of tires one can only wonder if this is the
army that forced the western nations to the arms race. What did the
Russki defense minister state initially? That taking Groznyi would take
two hours? Cheers, then. :)
It would seem that the Russian bear is the bluff of the century.
-jhk-
Dmitrii Manin
In article <3fm7mk$h...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Dragon Fly <dra...@fly.siberia.ru> writes:
o With Russian economy on the rise and Finnish one
o sunking into shit (due to Russian unwillingess to
o subsidise Finland any more) soon Finns once again
o would be forced to clean Russian boots and lick
o Russian rectums.
Khot' postydilsya by vrat'-to, chto li. Mudak.
--
- M
Disclaimer: V sluchae oslableniya khrustyaschikh svoistv
Produkt rekomenduetsya podsushit'
Jan Eric Larsson
>I really cannot fathom the sordidness of the Russian operation in
>Chechenya. On the other hand, this confirms the suspicions that the
>Russian army is only capable to inflict damage on itself. After seeing
>the pictures of the Russki soldats covered in ragged, muddy clothing and
>wearing rusty helmets (and assault rifles clearly visible in a pool of
>mud behind them) trying to heat some tea (?) in an indescripably dirty
>can over a small fire made of tires one can only wonder if this is the
>army that forced the western nations to the arms race. What did the
>Russki defense minister state initially? That taking Groznyi would take
>two hours? Cheers, then. :)
>
>It would seem that the Russian bear is the bluff of the century.
Three things to ponder:
1. The Russian bear certainly was/is the bluff of the *post WWII*
times. Both sides in the cold war did what they could to make
the Red Army seem more formidable than it was.
2. The Red Army was impressive at times, and I guess that at the
end of WWII in Europe, it was the largest war machine the world
has seen.
3. The last years has meant an enormous decline for the Red Army.
Not only the democratic tendencies, but also the general
decline in the economy. Some Russians long bakc to the Soviet
Union because it had law an dorder and better economy, *but*
that was not the truth, The decline af the CCCP, (including
the Red Army), drove the changes, not vice versa.
4. But note that even if the Red Army would have been in top shape,
they wouldn't do well in Chechenya anyway. How many soldiers
really want to go in an kill civilians fighting for indepence?
Chechenya is a tragedy, not only for its people, but for the
Russian soldiers dying there too...
Jan Eric Larsson Phone: +1 (415) 723-0948
Knowledge Systems Laboratory E-mail: Lar...@KSL.Stanford.Edu
Stanford University
701 Welch Road, Building C "We watched the thermocouples dance to the
Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA spirited tunes of a high frequency band."
Rostyk Lewyckyj
Jan Eric Larsson <lar...@hpp.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>J.J.H.Kolima writes:
>>I really cannot fathom the sordidness of the Russian operation in
>>Chechenya. On the other hand, this confirms the suspicions that the
Well even good soldiers will look like hell, in the mud, sleet, etc.
of a battlefield. Of course the other info about their preformance
confirms your evaluation of the russian army as an organization.
Which is just as well for the Chechen freedom fighters.
>
>Three things to ponder:
>
> .......................
>4. But note that even if the Red Army would have been in top shape,
> they wouldn't do well in Chechenya anyway. How many soldiers
> really want to go in an kill civilians fighting for indepence?
> Chechenya is a tragedy, not only for its people, but for the
> Russian soldiers dying there too...
>
as used in the Georgia, and a little in the Baltics.
Or what about the troops sent into Hungary in 1956 or Chechoslovakia
in 1967 or used against the citizens in the hunger protests in Gdansk.
Those soldiers did not seem to have such qualms. Perhaps these soldiers
were less indoctrinated and more human, but still not strong enough
to refuse immoral orders. And of course there would be some who would
do these things willingly and order others to kill under threats of
courts martial.
--Rostyk
Igor Mazin
>
>
> As a true purebred Sovok the Dragon Fly continues referring to
> St. Petersburg as LENINGRAD.
>
With all my disrespect to D.F. I must mention that his grandfather (as others'
of us) may have died defending LENINGRAD 50 years ago, as well as he could
have been born in LENINGRAD or grown up in LENINGRAD. With that in mind,
any of us has full right to use this name.
BTW, if tomorrow the original name KUCHKOVO will be returned to Moscow,
I may be a purebred sovok to keep calling in Moscow.
any of us has
Igor Mazin
>My uncle-in-law who fought Germans and Finns during
....
>between (then) Leningrad and Vyborg.
I was amazingly close in my abstract guess.
m...@physics.berkeley.edu
>Say, "to leave" in French, or Nb (metal) in Enmglish - that does sound
>special for a Russian ear.
Jees, there are perverts in this world. I deal with Nb almost dayly and
never thought about this. But you are right!
Yury
Jarmo Ryyti
: In article <3fq60l$6...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Joseph.E....@dartmouth.edu spake thusly:
: >
: >In article <D2o1t...@acsu.buffalo.edu>
: >a...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Gustav Akk) writes:
: >
: >> As a true purebred Sovok the Dragon Fly continues referring to
: >> St. Petersburg as LENINGRAD.
: >What is wrong with using Leningrad? Would you be angry when I use
: >Stalingrad instead of Volgograd?
: It's Tsaritsyn, you moron.
What about Leningrad region. The Russians cannot find any other
"proper" name for the region which covers the occupied territories
which were ceded from Finland 1939. It is a problem for the Russians
to find a suitable name for the region what is originally mostly Finnish
territory. Quite a funny little problem. How else could the Russkies
call Leningrad region but using old Sovok vocabulary without
falishying history and original names of the places in ther region.
Thus they have to satisfy with "Leningrad regions" which symbolizes
very well what it is all about: Illegal occupation of Finnish lands.
lots of regards,
jarmo
--
# In 1958,The Swedish School Administration repealed directives banning #
# the speaking of Finnish language in Sweden's schools. However,some #
# municipalities maintained restrictions on Finnish language until 1968 #
#.................aga parem hilja kui mitte kunagi..................... #
Joseph E. McCall Jr.
ry...@tukki.cc.jyu.fi (Jarmo Ryyti) writes:
> What about Leningrad region. The Russians cannot find any other
> "proper" name for the region which covers the occupied territories
> which were ceded from Finland 1939.
Shut the hell up. No one gives a damn about your pathetic iceberg
country. This isn't a United Nations forum. You sound like all those
third world nations crying about their place in the world.
Joseph
vad...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> As a true purebred Sovok the Dragon Fly continues referring to
> St. Petersburg as LENINGRAD.
>
Regrettably, Dragon is right here:
the Finnish soldiers perished between Vyborg and Leningrad. Neither Viipuri nor
St.Petersbourgh existed then.
Best wishes from (Al-Kods?) Jerusalem,
Vadim
> Gustav
>
>>
>>Cordially,
>>Dragon
>
>
Wolodymyr Barabash
: In article <89...@raven.ukc.ac.uk>
: jj...@ukc.ac.uk (J.J.H.Kolima) writes:
: > It would seem that the Russian bear is the bluff of the century.
: Russian Bear bluff of the century!? Who the hell beat Hitler? It sure
: as hell wasn't the British or the Americans. You wouldn't be saying
: this if Stalin was still in power.
Now I've heard everything. So it was the RUssians who beat Hitler!!!
Oh yeah! D-Day was a minor bit of foreplay. THe supplies that were sent
through Vladivostock that enabled the Russians to rebuild their army was
meaningles..
Christ, the only thing that beat the Germans was winter.
Regards, Wolly
Alexey DAN
Eric Larsson) wrote:
> Sergei Viznyuk writes:
> >My uncle-in-law who fought Germans and Finns during
> >WWII until he finally lost his leg in Koenigsberg
> >used to tell that the biggest problem with the Finns
> >was the number of Finnish corpses left rotting
> >after glorious Finnish Army was destroyed.
>
> Ah! But what happened to the leg? Is it still rotting in K-grad?
>
> >between (then) Leningrad and Vyborg.
> ^^^^
>
> Look! Rising from the feeble-minded and learning some modern Russian
> history, eh?
>
> "Learning al the time..." / Benny Hill
----------------------------------------
Hey, Larsson, sir! Do not bother uncle's leg.
Since you seems to be really amused by the learning lets start your
education from Karl the XII. Ask him all you want to know about Russia
and Ukraina (there is a nice place named Poltava).
DAN.
Alexey DAN
tmwa...@engin.umich.edu (Timothy Watson) wrote:
> In article <89...@raven.ukc.ac.uk> jj...@ukc.ac.uk (J.J.H.Kolima) writes:
> > It would seem that the Russian bear is the bluff of the century.
>
> You should hear my dad talk about the tanks he drove in Germany in
> 1948. They had a problem with gasoline (water contaminated?) in the
> winter freezing up. And the machine gun was unbelievably low
> rapidity. So the Russkies weren't the only folks bluffing.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Timothy, your kindness is greatly apressiated! I remember the story
was told by some russian veteran about meeting with american solgiers in
1945 in Germany. It was no problem despite nobody knows the language of
others. People have much of common, but if they are HUMANs.
...now to J.J.H.Kalima
The term of "russian bear?" has been introduced outside of Russia so
russians don't know exactly what is that suppose to mean to the Western
public. You guys did this crap you take care of it! If you hope you make a
deal of discussion this topik you are wrong. I guess every Man would be
obset of awaking Bear. Don't make a legend of yourself.
DAN.
Alexey DAN
(Rostyk Lewyckyj) wrote:
Not if they had been the KGB special punitive troops, or black berets
> as used in the Georgia, and a little in the Baltics.
> Or what about the troops sent into Hungary in 1956 or Chechoslovakia
> in 1967 or used against the citizens in the hunger protests in Gdansk.
> Those soldiers did not seem to have such qualms. Perhaps these soldiers
> were less indoctrinated and more human, but still not strong enough
> to refuse immoral orders. And of course there would be some who would
> do these things willingly and order others to kill under threats of
> courts martial.
> --Rostyk
-----------------------------------------
Rostyk, I don't believe you are talking about army in such a childish way.
Which soldier has any ability to refuse an orders, especially in the
time of military operation. Army organized a little bit different than
Golf Club.
DAN.
Kari Laine
>From: Dragon Fly <dra...@fly.siberia.ru>
>Subject: Re: Good Finn is a dead and buried one?
>Date: 19 Jan 1995 17:17:17 GMT
>Perhaps Finns might have more objective opinion:
>after all they experienced what does it mean to
>fight Russians. Remember the thousands of
>rotting Finnish corpses littering the area all the
>way from Leningrad to Vyborg during the latest
>Finnish army adventure.
Well sovs lost more mens than we did. And if you start arguing
of this I have to dig out some statistics.
>Personally I strongly hope Finns would undertake
>something similar again.
Your brains seems not to understand that you wouldn't see Finns
attacking Russia in the first place. The other way round seems
to me quite possible though. A russian foreign minister (I think it was
a minister - who knows in the days situation in Russia) visited
Finland and made quite an open threat to Finland. Luckily
reporters didn't buy it.
>After all it's must be
>a fun to kill Finns en masse.
It is not fun at all I am afraid. It is always pity when you sovs
always have to start killing to make politics. I don't think it
was very many people at the time 'enjoying' the situation.
Of course to put you kind of a ruskie out of books is always
something needed.
>Yeah, last time it was a fun: Russian artillery
>just wiped out the whole Finnish Army under Leningrad
>in few hours.
Could you refer some facts here. It you can't keep your mouth
shut.
>Dear Finns: see you there again :-)
Dear commie bastard - I hardly can wait... you might be surprised
how soon we meet...
>Cordially,
>Dragon
Michael G. Minkovski
>Well, it was an allied effort, wasn't it? And by 1944 the Germans had
>their best troops in the Western Frontier (their final offensive was
>launched in the Ardennes with the best troops they could muster). Still,
>the Russians played an important part (with tremendous casualties,
>though).
Try to enumerate those "best troops". And we'll compare them with those that
were used on the Eastern Front from the winter of 42/43 (Stalingrad). BTW, do
you realize the difference between "front" and "frontier"? There was no
Western front in Europe until 44, and the only noticeable military actions
Westerners were involved in were in Africa, Far East and we could count
British-German Air War and Pacific and Atlantic See War of course. At the same
time I have to admit that Western military aid played the great role and was
of great importance for Soviet Army, especially during 1941 and 1942.
As for whose part was more important, just compare total German losses
(military, of course, do not count Hirosima or Hamburg civilians) during
1941-45 on Eastern Front and at all other places.
Actually, it's rather childish to measure who did more in that war. As for me,
it's much more interesting why all European governments played the same stupid
game allowing Hitler to get more and more power. He could be easily
stopped during the first period of his expansion (34-37). Notice that the
S.U. was the last state that joined this game.
>As for today, I still claim that the Russian army is in shambles and
>can't possibly be a threat to the civilised nations.
You know, those non-civilized guys (Chechens, for example) can fight much
better than most of civilized nations, including Finns, IMHO. Much better,
trust me.
Eduard Ponarin
>Are you stating that an officer or government official does not have a
>right to refuse an immoral order from his superiors.
>I.e. he/she must give up his place to those who are willing to carry out
>such orders.
When the Gulf War was about to begin, an American journalist asked
a U.S. marine what he would have done if his superior ordered him
to shoot a pregnant woman. And the marine said that he would have
shot the individual identified by his superior. That's what is
expected in the army.
Ed Ponarin,
e...@umich.edu
THESE OPINIONS MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER
Harrison Osborne
: P.S., I got the name of the fortified line that the Germans originally
: built as insurance against the French invasion. "Siegfried" line?
The Allies erroneously called the German fortifications the Siegfried
line. The real name is "Westwall".
Mitch Osborne
hosb...@DGS.dgsys.com
Eduard Ponarin
> Not in the army with 'human face,' i.e. socialist army :).
> First lesson when I was sent to army was in something
> called 'Rules of the Service' (Pravila Sluzbe). We were
> told that if we were ordered to do something which is
> clear suicide, or something which is clear war crime
> (although this was unimaginable -- our officers were
> all good communists) we have a right to refuse the order
> and be courtmarshaled. We would face no consequences, if
> we were proven to be correct.
Milan, you forget that you had the luck and the honor to serve in
JUNA. JUNA was one of the greatest achievements of the only true
democratic socialist state (that is, of course, Yugoslavia) and of
personally its great leader J.B. Tito. (BTW, Milan, perhaps you
know that many Russian people get much fun by abbreviating our
President's name as Je. B.N. I wonder if good Yugoslavs took the
same pleasure in abbreviating the great Marshal's name. Jebe Tito
sounds almost as good as jeben for Yeltsin B.N.)
On the other hand, in the Soviet Army - which was an offspring of
the totalitarian Soviet socialist model - I didn't have a chance
to learn about what a war crime was. And I wonder if the soldiers
of oppressive capitalist-imperialist armies know what it is.
> from University to clean up mine-fields. He rejected, and was
> sent home -- 'to live with his shame.' Times changed
> since 19th century, and he would actually be able to get
> married, even after such an act of cowardice.
O tempore! O mores! That's where the cause of all the corruption
of our times lies, the morals! Seriously, I'm surprized that they
did nothing to him. In Russia I think it is still punishable by
two years of prison or something like that.
Timothy Watson
> Well, it was an allied effort, wasn't it? And by 1944 the Germans had
> their best troops in the Western Frontier
Uh, not really. I don't think even fresh reserves count as "crack"
troops. Total size of forces was much less even during the offensive
than those arayed at the Eastern front. Earlier, fresh reserves had
been sent to the Vistula. And by February they were migrating over to
the Eastern side, which made Stalin mighty mad. He called up
Roosevelt, if I remember (or someone high in gov't) to complain, as if
Americans could do anything about it. An American or Anglo book had
that in it! What "histories" are you looking at?
P.S., I got the name of the fortified line that the Germans originally
built as insurance against the French invasion. "Siegfried" line?
BTW, I don't plan to continue this series, but have cross-posted it to
alt.war so that your conceptions can be destroyed utterly.
--
Timothy M. Watson Something there is that doesn't
tmwa...@engin.umich.edu love a wall, that wants it down.
BioEngineering Program Grad Student __/| -Robert Frost, 'Mending Fences'
OPINIONS WILL NOT COINCIDE WITH OFFICIAL POSITIONS TAKEN BY U of Michigan
Vladimir Zhivov
>In article <91...@raven.ukc.ac.uk> jj...@ukc.ac.uk (J.J.H.Kolima) writes:
>> Well, it was an allied effort, wasn't it? And by 1944 the Germans had
>> their best troops in the Western Frontier
>Uh, not really. I don't think even fresh reserves count as "crack"
>troops. Total size of forces was much less even during the offensive
>than those arayed at the Eastern front. Earlier, fresh reserves had
>been sent to the Vistula. And by February they were migrating over to
>the Eastern side, which made Stalin mighty mad. He called up
>Roosevelt, if I remember (or someone high in gov't) to complain, as if
>Americans could do anything about it. An American or Anglo book had
>that in it! What "histories" are you looking at?
Correct.
>P.S., I got the name of the fortified line that the Germans originally
>built as insurance against the French invasion. "Siegfried" line?
It was called the West Wall.
--
Thus spake Vlad the Impaler, token vampire in Calgary
-----------------------------------------------------
Those who beat their swords into ploughshares will
be doing the plowing for those who don't.
-----------------------------------------------------
m...@physics.berkeley.edu
>m...@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:
>(more serious ?-s for later)
>: Did you sent letter to your Congressman, demanding unlimited refugee
>: status for Chechens?
List of cool alternative activities deleted. Explanation that Simcha has
no Congressman deleted, too.
Fine, let me re-phrase the question: "Did Jewish community make any
steps to facilitate immigration of Chechens into USA?".
Yury
sosha
>
>Michael G. Minkovski <m...@interaccess.com: wrote:
>: urj...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes:
>:
>:>The spectrum of behaviour available to any soldier, officer, and therefore
>:>whole army unit ranges from eager execution of orders through lukewarm
>:>execution, through passive disobedience (such as shooting to miss, lost
>:>orders), through surrender defection, through active diobedience and finally
>:>changing sides.
>:>The russian high command apparently had/has some problems in finding units
>:>whose officers were willing to order their men against the Chechen freedom
>:>fighters and to shoot Chechen civilians. However the soldiers in the units
>:>still were lukewarm in doing what they were being ordered to do. However
>:>the soldiers did not yet have the strength of moral character to refuse
>:>immoral orders.
>:>--Rostyk
>:
>:There is one more aspect of the problem. Almost everyone here seems to
>:agree that if a soldier refuses immoral order he is a good guy, hero and
>:stuff. That's true, probably, speaking about this soldier personally. However,
>:this situation shows that he is not professional. Well, it's not correct to
>: .........................................
>:government. If one is a goverment official, military officer or diplomat he
>:_does not_ have this right keeping his occupation. It's so here, in the US,
>:btw.
>right to refuse an immoral order from his superiors.
>I.e. he/she must give up his place to those who are willing to carry out
>such orders.
> *********
>
The line between a professional soldier and a war criminal was
drawn at Nuremburg, and is part of international law.
sosha
*********
Alexey DAN
> In article:
> > Dear Timothy, your kindness is greatly apressiated!
>
> Tim, let us know when it gets too heavy on you.;-)
>
> Mr.H.
--------------
Povtory?
DAN.
Timothy Watson
(Michael G. Minkovski) writes:
> you realize the difference between "front" and "frontier"? There was no
> Western front in Europe until 44, and the only noticeable military actions
> Westerners were involved in were in Africa, Far East and we could count
> British-German Air War and Pacific and Atlantic See War of course. At the same
BTW, there was a front in Italy since 1943. The African campaign was
already over, which is why the Allies were in Italy. Some really
serious mistakes were made; otherwise this might have turned into a
more serious front.
Milan Stojanovic
Eduard Ponarin <e...@east.psc.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <3gb49p$t...@decaxp.harvard.edu> stoj...@fas.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>
>
>Milan, you forget that you had the luck and the honor to serve in
>JUNA. JUNA was one of the greatest achievements of the only true
>democratic socialist state (that is, of course, Yugoslavia) and of
>personally its great leader J.B. Tito. (BTW, Milan, perhaps you
Actually, JNA had two purposes (at least so I have
concluded based on my experiences). One, to bring down
any anti-Tito rebellion. Two, to keep the Soviet army for two or
three hours away from Belgrade, so he could organise
running away to Geneva, where he had bought huge house.
This, in case that Breznjev decided to excercise his right
to save the socialism in Yugoslavia. From what recently
came out, Tito's generals informed him in 1968 that they would fail
in the second task, so he did not appear in Belgrade until
the crisis was over, and then started pouring money on
upgrading units in Vojvodina.
>know that many Russian people get much fun by abbreviating our
>President's name as Je. B.N. I wonder if good Yugoslavs took the
>same pleasure in abbreviating the great Marshal's name. Jebe Tito
>sounds almost as good as jeben for Yeltsin B.N.)
>
Yes, but also, JeBe Te(from tebe). Interestingly, at least
in Serbo-Croatian, JeBeN and JeBe Te describes perfectly
differences in the leadership capabilities of Yeltsin and
Tito, at least that is how I see them.
>...
>O tempore! O mores! That's where the cause of all the corruption
>of our times lies, the morals! Seriously, I'm surprized that they
Not everywhere, fortunately. In Niksic, they've started
signing up the volunteers to help Russians 'drove Turks
back.' Poor Montenegrins, they have never been good
with history or geography, but have great hearts.
>did nothing to him. In Russia I think it is still punishable by
>two years of prison or something like that.
>
There was a trick here. My friend actually has served
army before, so he was called in reserve units. War was
not officially declared, so they could call him up only
for military excercise. Thus, they could sentence him to only
60 days in prison for disobeying orders. There were
few thousands cases like him in Belgrade, so they decided
to avoid big troubles, and simply let him (and others)
get away with it. In countryside, especially in the
areas where Milosevic's party was strong, people actually
could have served their sixty days.
Just to save my friends' face, he is actually rather patriotic,
and claims that he would have fought if they would have given
him gun and enemy. He simply did not feel like crawling through
endless wheat fields and picking the land with his riffle knife,
without being previously trained in this.
>Ed Ponarin,
>e...@umich.edu
>THESE OPINIONS MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER
regards,
Milan
SmilingProudWanderer
>better than most of civilized nations, including Finns, IMHO. Much better,
>trust me.
Seriously. I had the luck to meet a Chechen mujahid in Pakistan last month.
A quiet, unassuming kind of guy, you know, says his prayers five times a
day and the whole bit.
But he looked like if you pissed him off he'd rip off your head with his
bare hands and shit down your throat.
I'm sure as hell glad I'm not out there fighting guys like that. Those
Chechens are a bunch of holy badasses.
Peace,
SPW
J.J.H.Kolima
>
>Finns did attack Russia at least two times this century.
>And I'm pretty sure they would do it again given a chance.
What on earth for?
>Huh!
>See you, buddy.
>Don't forget to order a coffins for yourself
>and other Finns, unless you want us to bury
>you in mass graves, as last time..
This is a complete waste of bandwidth, I know it, but even still
I can't help posting a suggestion: check out the Finnish/Russian
casualties from, oh, let's say Winter War and count and the ratio
of 27 000 Finnish casualties and over a million (as admitted by
Hruchchev) Russian casualties. Anyone got a calculator nearby?
>
>Cordially,
>Dragon
ico...@parcplace.com
[...]
>Fine, let me re-phrase the question: "Did Jewish community make any
>steps to facilitate immigration of Chechens into USA?".
>Yury
Nafig, nafig, pust' luchshe edut v Izrail', v sektor Gaza -- poka
s palestincami pozhivut, a dal'she vidno budet...
--
Ivan Covdy
*** People are looking for a Mind somewhere in the Universe, ***
*** because on the Earth they've been finding only the Stupidity. ***
Patrick Chew
>> You should learn your history better (well, the Finns are no saints).
>> It might be closer to the truth, that Finland is THE ONE AND ONLY neighbor
>> of Russia, which would NOT attack Russia in any circumstances.
>
>Huh!
>
>What about Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Norway, Georgia ?
Hmm, if I remember my faulty world history a bit, the Qazaqs were
known to have raided the Russians before, especially when the Kalmyks
were being annoying going though Qazaqstan. I do think the MOngol empire
stretched far into present-day Russia, didn't they (mongghol
mandtughai!!!). As for the Georgians... hmm.. I don't recall any
incursions, but.. *shrug* who's to say.. and.. finally.. down to the
Norwegians.. well.. were they not a part of the rest of the Scandic
continuum that possibly went into Russia during those oh-so-idyllic
Viking Days? (aesj)
So.. where does one say "learn your history better?" when there
are other historical counterexamples?
>Cordially,
>Dragon
-Patrick
--
___________________________________________________________________
"Thought is the blossom; language the bud;
action the fruit behind it" - R.W. Emerson
e9226282
>Subject: "Leningrad Oblast" (Re: Good Finn is a dead and buried one?
>Date: 22 Jan 1995 10:04:08 +0200
>lots of regards,
>jarmo
I've never heard that St. Petersburg, or the suburbs like Pushkin and so on
were found by Finish people, but by Peter the Great. Also didn't Finnish
people build the buildings, but prisoners from all parts of Russian empire or
occupied territories.
I was told by a Russian girl from St.Petersburg that she still calls the town
Leningrad sometimes, because she ist used to it (she used to call it
Lenningrad for all her life.
Stephan Witoszynkyj
Alexy V. Khrabrov
>Dragon Fly <viz...@mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>Huh!
>>
>>What about Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Norway, Georgia ?
>
> Hmm, if I remember my faulty world history a bit, the Qazaqs were
>known to have raided the Russians before, especially when the Kalmyks
>were being annoying going though Qazaqstan. I do think the MOngol empire
Qazaqs raiding the qasars..... They'll shut the qasars down,
and ``hers will be impenetrable darkness.''
Koroche, tak nastupaet pizdec. Be prepared!
>-Patrick
--
Alexy V. Khrabrov <khra...@cccc.com>
``Age Quod Agis'' (Do what you're doing.)
Alex Demyanov
urj...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes:
> However
> the soldiers did not yet have the strength of moral character to refuse
> immoral orders.
> --Rostyk
>
A person questioning the morality of orders given *prior* to following
them can no longer be considered a soldier. A mercenary, a guerilla
fighter, a cute boy in a nice uniform, whatever, but not a soldier. If
you and I are ordered by a commander to perform something dangerous
and, say, I start questioning moralilty of the order that may put *you*
(and other people around me) in a deadly danger.
______________________________________________________
Alex Demyanov
ahor...@cid.aes.doe.ca
>part...@utu.fi (Jari Olavi Partanen) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >bus...@klaine.pp.fi (Kari Laine) wrote:
>> >> Your brains seems not to understand that you wouldn't see Finns
>> >> attacking Russia in the first place.
>>
>> >Finns did attack Russia at least two times this century.
>> >And I'm pretty sure they would do it again given a chance.
>>
>>
>> It might be closer to the truth, that Finland is THE ONE AND ONLY neighbor
>> of Russia, which would NOT attack Russia in any circumstances.
>
>Finns did attack Russia at least twice this century ?
>And after they helped Bolsheviks to come to power
>in Russia in return to territorial concessions ?
>(which I consider the worst of their crimes)
>
>Who the fuck gonna believe you ?
>
>> It might be closer to the truth, that Finland is THE ONE AND ONLY neighbor
>> of Russia, which would NOT attack Russia in any circumstances.
>
>
>What about Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Norway, Georgia ?
Norway??!!?? Hell, they just launched a missile at your glorious
motherland. Don't you know we would ALL attack russia according
to your (hic! - pass the vodka) great (band)leader Boris! hehehe
arp :)
Ilya Dyakov
Mikhail Semenov
: Are you aware of the sentence the courtmartial gave from the atrocies
: committed in My-Lai?
: Probably not. Read about the case before you make blanket accusations.
: Jyrki Valkama
: PS No I won't tell the answer, there are damn too many lazy people here.
: Read about it.
I don't care about sentences. But I've read recently about *punishments*.
One officer was locked in prison -- for 10 days or so. Others were
just discharged from the military or deprived of some benefits.
Great example of justice.
Misha Semenov
Audun Johannes Mørch
>
>
> Norway??!!?? Hell, they just launched a missile at your glorious
> motherland. Don't you know we would ALL attack russia according
> to your (hic! - pass the vodka) great (band)leader Boris! hehehe
> arp :)
The missile was not launched at Russia, but at the northern light, believe
it or not. It was supposed to, and did, land on Norwegian land, some
island in the Arctic Sea. This became an issue as a result of Russian
eternal strife, although it must be admitted from the Norwegian side that
the Russians never had information as to the exact date and time for the
launching.
Norway would never attack Russia so long as we are so small and Russia so
big. We do however fire shells at Icelandig fishing boats. This is because
Iceland has only a quarter of a million inhabitants and no army.;)
A.J. Mørch
Jens Kristian Haug
Audun Johannes Mørch wrote;
This missile is (was) based on the Nike Hercules AAM system, that for so
many years protected a large area of the Eastern Norway. When this system
was installed years ago , the Soviet government protested intensly,
because of what they called a threat against Soviet land!!!!!!
Now these missiles are obsolete and handed over to the research establishment
at Andoya rocket center.
Since a missile has to be guided to be called a missile, the correct name
for this thing is now a rocket.
Eltsin said that he thougth this rocket-firing incident was a deliberate
test from NATO, to see in what state of readiness Russia was in.....
This have to be politics, he surely can't believe such a thing!!!!!
Audun, we are not small, we are both tall guy's. The reason we don't want
to attack Russia, is because we both love russian litterature;
Beleet parus odinokij
V tumane morja golubom....
Jorma Kyppo
comments):
> Only case where I can say that Finns attacked Russia was in 1941 and
> that was after the Russians had bombed our cities and killed innocent
> civilians.
And also then Finns didn't attack on Leningrad, though Hitler was
begging. That saved Leningrad.
And also then Finns didn't cut the blood vessel to the Russian
heart, the railroad from Murman, where American and British
militar and food aid went to Moscow. That saved Russia.
> >What about Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Norway, Georgia ?
If we take off Norway, that caused by his missile last week
a nuclear alarm in Yeltsin's suitcase, we can say that the
southern border, no matter what are the states is extremely
unlabil and dangerous for Russia.
This we'll see in next two years, now when Gratshov shot all
his bullets in Chechenya.
Or perhaps Lebed comes and kicks the kids out of army.
Jorma Kyppo
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
Eduard Ponarin
>> Only case where I can say that Finns attacked Russia was in 1941 and
>> that was after the Russians had bombed our cities and killed innocent
>> civilians.
Care to elaborate?
And Jorma Kyppo <jo...@jytko.jyu.fi> replied:
> And also then Finns didn't attack on Leningrad, though Hitler was
> begging. That saved Leningrad.
Do you know what you are talking about, men? Finns, the saviors
of Russia in WWII, holy cow!
What did those Finns do between the Gulf of Finland and Ladoga
Lake? They participated in the siege of Leningrad, cutting it
from the mainland on the North. They contributed to the deaths of
about one million civilians who died in Leningrad of starvation
and shells. Do you call it saving?
According to Hitler's plans, his Finnish allies would have been
rewarded with the territory of North-Western Russia; Leningrad and
Arkhangelsk would have been annexed by a Greater Finland.
> And also then Finns didn't cut the blood vessel to the Russian
> heart, the railroad from Murman, where American and British
> militar and food aid went to Moscow. That saved Russia.
1) Finns didn't go there not because they didn't want to, but because
they couldn't. 2) Russia was supplied by the Americans and British
not only through Murmansk, but also from Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan
(Persian Gulf -> Caspian Sea -> Astrakhan), etc. Russia would have
survived even without that assistance (although it was certainly
valuable) because Russia is invincible. Everyone who dared go
deep into Russia lost: Poles (17th c.), Swedes (18th c.), French
(19th c.), Germans (20th c.) Hitler's war against Russia was a
folly (Bismarck had warned long before Hitler that even if one could
reach the Urals, he would still have to get back alive somehow.) You,
the Finnish allies of Hitler, were just lucky to get out of this
mess relatively unharmed, thanks to Stalin's generosity. He could
have well ordered the Russian troops in to kill one million of
Finnish civilians in revenge for one million civilians of Leningrad
and establish a Soviet government under the leadership of Kuusinen.
Instead, you just lost some 85,000 soldiers and were let go after
crying "Mercy!".
Do not call yourself the saviors of Leningrad or Russia any more.
It makes me mad.
Osmo Ronkanen
Jorma Kyppo <jo...@jytko.jyu.fi> wrote:
>Osmo Ronkainen (they are not all his opinions, where I give my
>comments):
>
Argh! Who is Osmo Ronkainen?
Osmo
Ilya Dyakov
: >Well, it was an allied effort, wasn't it? And by 1944 the Germans had
: >their best troops in the Western Frontier (their final offensive was
: >launched in the Ardennes with the best troops they could muster). Still,
: >the Russians played an important part (with tremendous casualties,
: >though).
: Try to enumerate those "best troops". And we'll compare them with those that
: were used on the Eastern Front from the winter of 42/43 (Stalingrad). BTW, do
: you realize the difference between "front" and "frontier"? There was no
: Western front in Europe until 44, and the only noticeable military actions
: Westerners were involved in were in Africa, Far East and we could count
: British-German Air War and Pacific and Atlantic See War of course. At the same
: time I have to admit that Western military aid played the great role and was
: of great importance for Soviet Army, especially during 1941 and 1942.
: As for whose part was more important, just compare total German losses
: (military, of course, do not count Hirosima or Hamburg civilians) during
: 1941-45 on Eastern Front and at all other places.
: Actually, it's rather childish to measure who did more in that war. As for me,
: it's much more interesting why all European governments played the same stupid
: game allowing Hitler to get more and more power. He could be easily
: stopped during the first period of his expansion (34-37). Notice that the
: S.U. was the last state that joined this game.
: >As for today, I still claim that the Russian army is in shambles and
: >can't possibly be a threat to the civilised nations.
: You know, those non-civilized guys (Chechens, for example) can fight much
: better than most of civilized nations, including Finns, IMHO. Much better,
: trust me.
Subject: Re: Good Russian is dead and buried one?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.usa
References: <89...@raven.ukc.ac.uk> <3fe262$o...@iii1.iii.net> <3fq5ls$6...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <D2xxD...@cs.dal.ca>
Distribution:
Wolly,
Russians appreciate American help. I have no idea about the "rebuilding"
the army, but we all know that Russians used Russian weapons mostly. You can
watch the chronicles of those days, both Russian and German. You can ask
those veterans who are alife. You probably have never had a chance to do it,
I had. Winter was of a great help, no doubt, but both Germans and Russians
had to endure it. Russians are ordinary human beings, believe me, they
do not like when it is very cold, as you do. I believe, you will agree with
me that Russian winter was not looking at faces.
I have no doubt that the world would have been able to beat the beast without
Russia, but it happened so that Russians had to do the hardest part of the
job. And if you do not admit that, something made you historically blind.
With respect to all Americans who helped my country beat Hitler,
Ilya V. Dyakov
Osmo Ronkanen
Eduard Ponarin <e...@east.psc.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
>Osmo Ronkainen wrote:
>
Please, my name is not Ronkainen.
>>> Only case where I can say that Finns attacked Russia was in 1941 and
>>> that was after the Russians had bombed our cities and killed innocent
>>> civilians.
>
>Care to elaborate?
After the Germans attacked the USSR, we did not join the war
immediately, even though we did know of the attack before, only after
Russian planes bombed our cities, did we attack them.
>
>And Jorma Kyppo <jo...@jytko.jyu.fi> replied:
>
>> And also then Finns didn't attack on Leningrad, though Hitler was
>> begging. That saved Leningrad.
>
>Do you know what you are talking about, men? Finns, the saviors
>of Russia in WWII, holy cow!
>
Yes, Finnish attack on Leningrad could have broken the defense.
>What did those Finns do between the Gulf of Finland and Ladoga
>Lake? They participated in the siege of Leningrad, cutting it
>from the mainland on the North. They contributed to the deaths of
>about one million civilians who died in Leningrad of starvation
>and shells. Do you call it saving?
What did we do. We established a good line of defense and we took back
the land that was stolen from us by Stalin one year earlier.
Have you looked at the map lately. It would have been impossible for us
to leave some way to the Karelian Isthmus. That would have been used by
Russians to attack us and probably we would have ended up being a
battle zone between Germans and Russians.
>
>According to Hitler's plans, his Finnish allies would have been
>rewarded with the territory of North-Western Russia; Leningrad and
>Arkhangelsk would have been annexed by a Greater Finland.
>
So what. He had many plans. In 1939 he had no troubles in selling us to
Stalin.
Shirinowsky has promised to give Karelia back to us. Are we somehow
responsible for that?
>> And also then Finns didn't cut the blood vessel to the Russian
>> heart, the railroad from Murman, where American and British
>> militar and food aid went to Moscow. That saved Russia.
>
>1) Finns didn't go there not because they didn't want to, but because
>they couldn't.
Are you joking? We stopped our advance the moment we had established
good lines for defense. We could have continued advancing but we did
not.
> 2) Russia was supplied by the Americans and British
>not only through Murmansk, but also from Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan
>(Persian Gulf -> Caspian Sea -> Astrakhan), etc. Russia would have
>survived even without that assistance (although it was certainly
>valuable) because Russia is invincible. Everyone who dared go
>deep into Russia lost: Poles (17th c.), Swedes (18th c.),
Nice that you mentioned the Sweden in the 18th century. During the
Great Northern War Finland was several years occupied by the Russians.
That is in our history known as "Isoviha", the great wrath. We have had
so bad experiences from Russian occupations that we did not want to face
them again.
>rench
>(19th c.), Germans (20th c.) Hitler's war against Russia was a
>folly (Bismarck had warned long before Hitler that even if one could
>reach the Urals, he would still have to get back alive somehow.) You,
>the Finnish allies of Hitler, were just lucky to get out of this
>mess relatively unharmed, thanks to Stalin's generosity.
Fuck you, Stalin tried to occupy us, but he could not. In the Isthmus in
'44 he used half of his artillery to make one of the greatest artillery
concentrations of the war and that did not break us. He had to choose,
either to go to Finland or to Germany.
> He could
>have well ordered the Russian troops in to kill one million of
>Finnish civilians in revenge for one million civilians of Leningrad
>and establish a Soviet government under the leadership of Kuusinen.
>Instead, you just lost some 85,000 soldiers and were let go after
>crying "Mercy!".
>
Seldom do I see a hard core Stalinistic asshole like you.
Stalin felt no generosity to anyone, he murdered millions of his own
country men. Millions died ion the war because of his lack for human
life. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands died in the winter war
alone.
>Do not call yourself the saviors of Leningrad or Russia any more.
>It makes me mad.
>
You are mad. period.
>Ed Ponarin,
>e...@umich.edu
>THESE OPINIONS MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER
Osmo
Antti A Lahelma
>Osmo Ronkainen wrote:
>>> Only case where I can say that Finns attacked Russia was in 1941 and
>>> that was after the Russians had bombed our cities and killed innocent
>>> civilians.
>Care to elaborate?
Early in the morning 25th of June 1941 Soviet planes bombed 19 towns and
military targets all over Finland, breaking the peace treaty. In the
following day the Finnish president announced in the radio that Finland
had been dragged into the war again.
>What did those Finns do between the Gulf of Finland and Ladoga
>Lake?
Well, basically, they reconquered stolen Finnish territory.
>They participated in the siege of Leningrad, cutting it
>from the mainland on the North. They contributed to the deaths of
>about one million civilians who died in Leningrad of starvation
>and shells. Do you call it saving?
On 4th of September 1941 Mannerheim informed the German general Jodl that
Finnish troops won't participate in the siege of Leningrad, under the excuse
that Finns don't have enough heavy artillery and planes. In reality, however,
the Finnish government had decided that an attack on Leningrad would be a
serious politcal mistake. It would have taken away the justification of the
Finnish offensive in the eyes of the allies.
Finns didn't bomb the "doroga zhizni" across the frozen surface of lake
Ladoga although they easily could have. That was the only supply line
Leningrad had, and yes, it did save quite a lot of lives. A friend of
my family, a St. Petersburg artist now in his seventies, lived in the city
during the whole of the siege; he told me that the inhabitants were very
grateful to Finns for not cutting the last thread of hope the city had.
May be he said that just out of courtesy, I don't know. It seems difficult
to imagine how anyone living through that hell could have had much sympathies
towards people who were attacking your country. But that's what he said
anyhow, and *he* is in a position to know what happened and accuse Finns
if there's need to -- not you, sir.
>According to Hitler's plans, his Finnish allies would have been
>rewarded with the territory of North-Western Russia; Leningrad and
>Arkhangelsk would have been annexed by a Greater Finland.
Leningrad annexed to Finland, huh? Sounds like a load of crap. Can you
document it somehow?
>1) Finns didn't go there not because they didn't want to, but because
>they couldn't.
Come on. How difficult do you think it would've been to blow up a
railroad if you really wanted to? Finns didn't do it because it would've
pissed off the allies, who were still basically sympathetic to the
Finnish cause (the US never declared war on Finland despite Soviet
pressure to do so, and while Britain unwillingly did declare a war it
never participated in military actions against Finns).
>Everyone who dared go
>deep into Russia lost: Poles (17th c.), Swedes (18th c.), French
>(19th c.), Germans (20th c.)
You forgot Mongols (13th c.) Oh, and Finns led by Jakob de la Gardie
conquered Moscow in 1610. That deep enough? :>
>You, the Finnish allies of Hitler, were just lucky to get out of this
>mess relatively unharmed, thanks to Stalin's generosity. He could
>have well ordered the Russian troops in to kill one million of
>Finnish civilians in revenge for one million civilians of Leningrad
>and establish a Soviet government under the leadership of Kuusinen.
>Instead, you just lost some 85,000 soldiers and were let go after
>crying "Mercy!".
This "generosity" bit doesn't quite fit in the picture I have of Stalin.
Nor does missing a chance to commit massmurder, for that matter. The reason
why Stalin didn't have Finland conquered was that it would've cost too
much; despite massive bombardments the Soviet troops advanced very slowly
and the losses were high. The last weeks were decisive; he did make a serious
attempt to break through the Finnish resistance, but when that yielded
little result the plans of occupying Finland were given up. He could've
eventually crushed the Finns, no doubt, but that would've hurt the relations
with the allies, and even more importantly he was in big hurry to be the first
one to reach Berlin. That had great symbolic importance, and he needed all
the troops he could get on the German front.
BTW, could you please drop that silly chauvinist rhetorics. The war was 50
years ago. No point in being hysterical about it anymore.
LVX,
--
Antti Lahelma GNOTHI SEAUTON "Tragedy is the farce that involves our
alah...@cc.helsinki.fi TUNNE ITSESI sympathies: farce is the tragedy that
University of Helsinki KNOW THYSELF happens to outsiders." --Aldous Huxley
Peter Vorobieff
>In article <3gu0m1$l...@controversy.math.lsa.umich.edu>,
>Eduard Ponarin <e...@east.psc.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
[a huge puddle of vitriol mopped up]
[Ed:]
>>Do not call yourself the saviors of Leningrad or Russia any more.
>>It makes me mad.
[Osmo]
>You are mad. period.
Period? Good. At least you're not pregnant.
--
Thus spake Kalmoth the Vile, Slayer of One Robot and Seven Pigs.
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in the article above, if any, are channeled from
the Fungi of Yuggoth and do not necessarily represent the views of
my other employers.
Mikhail Semenov
: In <3gu0m1$l...@controversy.math.lsa.umich.edu> e...@east.psc.lsa.umich.edu (Eduard Ponarin) writes:
: >Osmo Ronkainen wrote:
: >>> Only case where I can say that Finns attacked Russia was in 1941 and
: >>> that was after the Russians had bombed our cities and killed innocent
: >>> civilians.
: >Care to elaborate?
: Early in the morning 25th of June 1941 Soviet planes bombed 19 towns and
: military targets all over Finland, breaking the peace treaty. In the
: following day the Finnish president announced in the radio that Finland
: had been dragged into the war again.
That is quite a stretch. Soviet planes DID NOT bomb Finland until the 25th
of June because Soviet leadership hoped Finland would not participate in
the war. When it became obvious that Finland will attack USSR as a German's
ally, the order to bomb Finland's targets was issued. Soviet military
leaders were very angry that Stalin didn't allow them to bomb Finland
immidiately, on June 22-23, the delay gave Finns time to complete
preparations.
As for who and when declared war, it didn't really matter, as the history
of WWII shows. Finland did have intentions to attack USSR as a Germany's
ally, it was preparing to do so, and it did attack.
Yet I do agree that the main and only goal of Finnish participation in
WWII against USSR was to regain territories annexed in 1939. The whole course
of Finnish campaign shows this. And I think that without the Finnish war,
USSR could keep Finland neutral in case of war.
: >1) Finns didn't go there not because they didn't want to, but because
: >they couldn't.
: Come on. How difficult do you think it would've been to blow up a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: railroad if you really wanted to? Finns didn't do it because it would've
: pissed off the allies, who were still basically sympathetic to the
: Finnish cause (the US never declared war on Finland despite Soviet
: pressure to do so, and while Britain unwillingly did declare a war it
: never participated in military actions against Finns).
It WAS difficult (however, I don't know what were exaclty the plans of Finnish
military in the far north). But consider this: how difficult it was for
Germans to advance just a hundred of kilometers in the Murmansk
Region? They did advanced thousands elsewhere! Yet they failed to break the
defense of Murmansk, although they were eager to.
<...>
: LVX,
: --
: Antti Lahelma GNOTHI SEAUTON "Tragedy is the farce that involves our
: alah...@cc.helsinki.fi TUNNE ITSESI sympathies: farce is the tragedy that
: University of Helsinki KNOW THYSELF happens to outsiders." --Aldous Huxley
Regards, Mikhail Semenov
Jorma Kyppo
> In article <92...@raven.ukc.ac.uk>, jj...@ukc.ac.uk (J.J.H.Kolima) wrote:
>
> > This is a complete waste of bandwidth, I know it, but even still
> > I can't help posting a suggestion: check out the Finnish/Russian
> > casualties from, oh, let's say Winter War and count and the ratio
> > of 27 000 Finnish casualties and over a million (as admitted by
> > Hruchchev) Russian casualties. Anyone got a calculator nearby?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget the bars must be "popendicullar".
> You gonna say finnish won the war? Take care. Despite really terrible
> casualties USSR still was able to crush Nazies (do you remember?).
> So, even your ultra-modern equipment (like kalkulator) has nothing to do
> with a place of WINNER. It has exist already. It will be forever-whenever.
Have you ever heard about Pyrrhos?
Jorma Kyppo
Finland
Osmo Ronkanen
Antti A Lahelma <alah...@cc.Helsinki.FI> wrote:
>In <3gu0m1$l...@controversy.math.lsa.umich.edu> e...@east.psc.lsa.umich.edu (Eduard Ponarin) writes:
>
> Nor does missing a chance to commit massmurder, for that matter. The reason
> why Stalin didn't have Finland conquered was that it would've cost too
> much; despite massive bombardments the Soviet troops advanced very slowly
> and the losses were high.
The cost would have been in time. Stalin did not care a bit about human
lives. The Soviet losses (excluding civilians) were 13 million dead.
That is 4 times the German losses. Only a clear disregard of human lives
can cause such losses.
> The last weeks were decisive; he did make a serious
> attempt to break through the Finnish resistance, but when that yielded
> little result the plans of occupying Finland were given up. He could've
> eventually crushed the Finns, no doubt, but that would've hurt the relations
> with the allies, and even more importantly he was in big hurry to be the first
> one to reach Berlin. That had great symbolic importance, and he needed all
> the troops he could get on the German front.
>
Getting to Berlin had more than a symbolic importance. It allowed
Russians to have a buffer zone of friendly "nations" for nearly half a
Century. Had Soviets been on their own soil when the war ended, this
would have been harder to establish.
> BTW, could you please drop that silly chauvinist rhetorics. The war was 50
> years ago. No point in being hysterical about it anymore.
>
>LVX,
>--
>Antti Lahelma GNOTHI SEAUTON "Tragedy is the farce that involves our
>alah...@cc.helsinki.fi TUNNE ITSESI sympathies: farce is the tragedy that
>University of Helsinki KNOW THYSELF happens to outsiders." --Aldous Huxley
Osmo
Saarinen Kimmo Samuli
>Antti A Lahelma (alah...@cc.Helsinki.FI) wrote:
>: Come on. How difficult do you think it would've been to blow up a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: railroad if you really wanted to? Finns didn't do it because it would've
>: pissed off the allies, who were still basically sympathetic to the
>It WAS difficult (however, I don't know what were exaclty the plans of Finnish
>military in the far north).
Actually finnish troops made some small raids to Murmansk railroad and
demolished pieces of it, but mostly small patrols were send to observe
the trafic on it. From one source I remember to have read about the
finnish fighter pilots and they were little bit pissed about
the command _not_ to disturb the train transports on that area.
>But consider this: how difficult it was for
>Germans to advance just a hundred of kilometers in the Murmansk
>Region? They did advanced thousands elsewhere! Yet they failed to break the
>defense of Murmansk, although they were eager to.
The terrain of the Murmans Region is harder to advance (swamps, rocks,
forrests etc. and very few roads) and german troops was not prepared
to fight in this kind of environment. They equipment nor their abilities
didn't suit to the requirements needed in this region, thus their
performance was very poor.
One thing is worth to mention just to describe the special circumstances
of the nothern region. In Rukaj{rvi area there were no solid lines between
finnish and sovjet troops, there were just chain of fortified posts with
several kilometers distances. The gaps between those posts were controlled
by patrols. It was hard job for those that were not customed to move in
woods and the natural way of going war there was guerilla war. The Finns
stayed on those lines in that area untill the war ended.
k@ ()
--
ks5...@cs.tut.fi Kyll{ mies kissan nostaa,
ksaa...@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi jos h{nt{ kest{{. - san. lasku Jaalasta
Audun Johannes Mørch
Finnish brothers: When Germany attacked Norway in 1940, why didn't you
kick them out for us? You could have done it so easily, you know. And what
about 1945? Why didn't Finland declare war on Japan? If you had, the
Japanese would have surrendered immediately, and the US would not have had
to nuke them. This would have saved many lives. Shame on you.
AJM.
Jorma Kyppo
Audun Johannes Mżrch wrote:
> This debate really makes great reading! But I have some questions to our
> Finnish brothers: When Germany attacked Norway in 1940, why didn't you
> kick them out for us?
Perhaps, you didn't ask. You know, we had yet our right hand free,
when we had keep soviets outside by left hand.
> And what about 1945? Why didn't Finland declare war on Japan?
Because we are MONGOLS. Buuuu!!
Sorry about kicking Germans to Norway in the end of war. If you
are not very bitter, I would like to ask you to help us to
kick eunuks back to Brussel. Otherwise lot of Finns will invade to
Norway after some years.
Jorma Kyppo
Finland
Stem Nei!
Saarinen Kimmo Samuli
>This debate really makes great reading! But I have some questions to our
>Finnish brothers: When Germany attacked Norway in 1940, why didn't you
>kick them out for us?
We thought that you will manage to do it by yourself ? But you didn't,
shame on you.
>You could have done it so easily, you know.
Naw, we were so busy to resettle the people from the Karjala isthmus, who
had to leave their homes to the new owners. On the other hand we were
also busy to make new knives and trimming the older ones for the
forthcoming replay with SU.
>And what
>about 1945? Why didn't Finland declare war on Japan? If you had, the
>Japanese would have surrendered immediately, and the US would not have had
>to nuke them. This would have saved many lives. Shame on you.
Hmm, if I remember correctly Mannerheim had fought against Japan
already 1905 in Russian-Japan war in Russian troops. So why bother
anymore.
And at 1945 we had just kicked the Germans out of Lappland, we were
once again busy to resettle the people form Karjala isthmus, who had
to leave their homes to the old/new owners. Besides to get near Japan
we should have crossed the Soviet Union territory which may have caused
some annoying comments from Stalin & Co. On the other hand we were busy
to hide our knives and axes to be ready if SU had decided to occupy
Finland.
And we expected from Norway that you should have taken your share
in this wrestling but you seemed to be messed in your fishing nets.
And now you have natural gas and oil. This is not fair!
k@ (humpy dumpy dum ;-)
Olav Tormod Tømte
In article <3haefc$r...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi>, Jorma Kyppo <jo...@jytko.jyu.fi> writes:
> Hello to Norway,
>
> > This debate really makes great reading! But I have some questions to our
> > Finnish brothers: When Germany attacked Norway in 1940, why didn't you
> > kick them out for us?
>
> Perhaps, you didn't ask. You know, we had yet our right hand free,
> when we had keep soviets outside by left hand.
>
taking over the control over a piece of Norwegian land (Skibotn area). Maybe
they thougth that the negotiations would be easier with the Germans than with
the Norwegians?
Olav
J.J.H.Kolima
> Don't forget the bars must be "popendicullar".
> You gonna say finnish won the war? Take care. Despite really terrible
> casualties USSR still was able to crush Nazies (do you remember?).
> So, even your ultra-modern equipment (like kalkulator) has nothing to do
>with a place of WINNER. It has exist already. It will be forever-whenever.
> DAN.
Well, let's look at this ways.
Soviet Union's objectives in Winter War were:
a) Primary objective:
to occupy and sovietize Finland
b) Secondary objective:
to at least gain land if occupation fails
And for Finland:
a) Primary objective:
to retain independence
b) Secondary objective:
not to lose any land
So, the Soviets succeeded in their secondary objective and the Finns
succeeded in their primary objective. If you take this view then
Finland actually comes out as the winner.
J{rvinen Hannu-Matti
>: Early in the morning 25th of June 1941 Soviet planes bombed 19 towns and
>: military targets all over Finland, breaking the peace treaty. In the
>: following day the Finnish president announced in the radio that Finland
>: had been dragged into the war again.
>That is quite a stretch. Soviet planes DID NOT bomb Finland until the 25th
>of June because Soviet leadership hoped Finland would not participate in
>the war. When it became obvious that Finland will attack USSR as a German's
>ally, the order to bomb Finland's targets was issued. Soviet military
>leaders were very angry that Stalin didn't allow them to bomb Finland
>immidiately, on June 22-23, the delay gave Finns time to complete
>preparations.
>As for who and when declared war, it didn't really matter, as the history
>of WWII shows. Finland did have intentions to attack USSR as a Germany's
>ally, it was preparing to do so, and it did attack.
Finland was never an ally of German. Hitler tried his best to make Finland
one, but failed. That is one of the reasons why Finland was never officially
occupied. (Having to rent a base for USSR about 20-30 kilometers from
Helsinki is to be _almost_ occupied.)
When Hitler attaced USSR, he declared Finns as German ally. Finland never
accepted that, and even the Allies kept our war somehow "separate" (e.g.
USA never declared war to Finland, although diplomatic relations were
cancelled).
After the Winter War Finland was somewhat desparate. It seems that
Germans did make some hints to Finns about the "Operation Barbarossa"
on spring 1941. Just before the attact Finns were informed. The
Finnish Government ordered the army to be prepared but denied to
attack, if Finland was not attacked. Germans made their best to
involve Finns. They sent bombers from Köningsberg to bomber Leningrad.
These bombers approached Leningrad from the Gulf of Finland, and
returned to Finnish territory, to make the attack to look like it was
made from a Finnish base.
Eventually, USSR attacked Finland. It is impossible to say, if Finland
were to attack USSR without being attacked, but Finns were ready to do
so. The government was not ready to attack in fear to loose western
sympathy, but Carelian Istmus was wanted back by a huge number of
Finns.
Anyway, earlier on the spring Finnish Headquarters made a war game
"how to get back Carelian Isthmus". After USSR's attack the results of
this game was quickly made practice. Finnish troops got Carelia
back, plus occupied most of Eastern Carelia.
>Yet I do agree that the main and only goal of Finnish participation in
>WWII against USSR was to regain territories annexed in 1939. The whole course
>of Finnish campaign shows this. And I think that without the Finnish war,
>USSR could keep Finland neutral in case of war.
That could have happened. But we can ever be sure. We could even have fought
against Germany, if USSR had let Finland, Sweden and Norway to make military
alliance. But USSR were afraid that this was aimed agaist her, so she denied
it. USSR also denied the idea that Sweden and Finland would have common
foreign policy and army.
>: >1) Finns didn't go there not because they didn't want to, but because
>: >they couldn't.
>: Come on. How difficult do you think it would've been to blow up a ...
>It WAS difficult (however, I don't know what were exaclty the plans of Finnish
>military in the far north). But consider this: how difficult it was for
>Germans to advance just a hundred of kilometers in the Murmansk
>Region? They did advanced thousands elsewhere! Yet they failed to break the
>defense of Murmansk, although they were eager to.
The Murmansk railroad and Leningrad were not attacked because or
political reasons. And the result - independent Finland - is true
partly because of this. Not that USSR was grateful but the Western
Allies did not declare war to Finland, with the exception of United
Kingdom (and Nigaragua). The formal reason for UK to declare the war
was that Finns were attacking too near to the Murmansk railroad.
Finnish policy of "separate war" make it possible for Sweden (and even
USA) to help Finland to make negotiation contacts with USSR - without
immediately turning Germans against us. Most of these contacts blew
out, but finally Finland made her separate (temporary) peace agreement
with USSR and UK, and declared war for Germany (and her allies?).
--
-----
Hannu-Matti Jarvinen, h...@cs.tut.fi
Dragon Fly
Audun Johannes Mørch <aud...@hedda.uio.no> wrote:
>This debate really makes great reading! But I have some questions to our
>Finnish brothers: When Germany attacked Norway in 1940, why didn't you
>about 1945? Why didn't Finland declare war on Japan? If you had, the
>Japanese would have surrendered immediately, and the US would not have had
>to nuke them. This would have saved many lives. Shame on you.
>
Finns were afraid their sole appearance would cause
a world panic and instead of world war one would get
world chaos. So they were wisely hiding in swamps.
Cordially,
Dragon
Igor Chudov
: Well, let's look at this ways.
: Soviet Union's objectives in Winter War were:
: a) Primary objective: to occupy and sovietize Finland
: b) Secondary objective: to at least gain land if occupation fails
: And for Finland:
: a) Primary objective: to retain independence
: b) Secondary objective: not to lose any land
: So, the Soviets succeeded in their secondary objective and the Finns
: succeeded in their primary objective. If you take this view then
: Finland actually comes out as the winner.
Now let's consider this situation: You are walking around with a wallet
and I need $100. My primary objective: to get $100 or at least some money
to buy vodka. Your primary objective is to remain alive and secondary to
save your money. I beat the hell out of you but finally find only $5 in
your wallet, and then walk away with your $5. According to your logic,
you won.
Not that I have something against you Finns, but your logic is incorrect.
- Igor.:)
Peter Vorobieff
[quoting Wiz Nuke]
>>Finns were afraid their sole appearance would cause
>>a world panic and instead of world war one would get
>>world chaos. So they were wisely hiding in swamps.
>
> Listen you, Hitu, in 1940 there was no World War One.
>
"The cannibal tribe of Hitus inhabiting the most remote part of
Ohio rainforests did not learn of the end of World War One till 1995..."
Risto Kauppinen
> > Leningrad annexed to Finland, huh? Sounds like a load of crap. Can you
> > document it somehow?
> I think I saw it in here:
> Author: Chew, Allen F.
> Title: An atlas of Russian history; eleven centuries of
> changing borders
> Edition: Rev. ed.
> Published: New Haven, Yale University Press, 1970.
> One of the maps shows Hitler's plans for Russia: Greater Finland
> includes all Karelian ASSR, Kola peninsula, parts of Archanglesk
> and Leningrad regions with both Leningrad City and Arkhangelsk
> City within the new Finnish borders.
Well, I think Mr. Ponarin has it right. William L. Shirer writes
in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (quoting Hitler):
...The Kola Peninsula will be taken by Germany becouse of the
large nickel mines there. The annexation of Finland as a
federated state should be prepared with caution...The Führer
will raze Leningrad to the ground and then hand it over to
the Finns.
So Finland would have had Leningrad (in ruins though) but would herself
be annexed by Germany! Some bargain...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Risto Kauppinen http://www.helsinki.fi/~rkauppin/
I want to conquer the world/ expose the culprits/ and feed them to the
children/ I'll do away with air pollution/ then i'll save the whales...
(Bad Religion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiski Haapoja
>Moscow. It was then that Russia lost the Karelian isthmus which
>was Russian (Novgorodian) at least since the 14th century. (But
>Novgorodian colonization started there in the 11th century.) The
>place was (partially) reconqured a 100 years later by Peter.
In the 1323 peace of Pähkinäsaari / Nöteburg the Isthmus was divided:
Sweden got the Southern half, Novgorod the Northern. Anthropologists
say that the cultural border between West and East Finland still
loosely follows that border. Later Swedes got the whole Isthmus
(and all Gulf of Finland by 1617).
The present border is a good example of Stalin's Tsarist mind:
when he couldn't get the border of Alexander I in 1940 he settled
for that of Peter I. Very stupid IMO because the taking of Finland's
second city made a reconquest attempt unavoidable in many Finnish minds.
>header of this thread. In fact, I am partially Karelian on my
>mother's side. My grandfather was from the place called
>Kuusaranda on Onega Lake (which would be Kuusiranta or something
>like that in Finnish).
Right. And since this thread is xposted to scn, I'll remind the readers
that the 'Swedish' town of Haparanda is really Haaparanta.
regards, Hiski
Hiski Haapoja
as did Jorma Kyppö before him::
>: are not very bitter, I would like to ask you to help us to
>: kick eunuks back to Brussel. Otherwise lot of Finns will invade to
>: Norway after some years.
Please do. Finland would be a better place without all the anti-EU maniacs.
Their arguments are not even funny anymore.
>Or Estonia.
>Free and independent Estonia is already full of Euro-Finns,everwhere,
>eating cheaper food and bying cheaper gasoline,cloths everything
>what one needs but cannot afford in Union.
>Earlier it was other way round,the Estonians in Union and shopping
>in free Finland.
You neglect to mention that Union membership has _lowered_ the prices
of basic foodstuffs here, though I envy the Austrians whose prices have
been cut by a half. Let's hope EU will starve our farmers and tukkuliikkeet
(I forget the English term) for all the years they stole from the people.
Hiski
Mikhail Semenov
: In article <3h3svg$c...@adam.cc.sunysb.edu>,
: Mikhail Semenov <msem...@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
: >Antti A Lahelma (alah...@cc.Helsinki.FI) wrote:
: >: In <3gu0m1$l...@controversy.math.lsa.umich.edu> e...@east.psc.lsa.umich.edu (Eduard Ponarin) writes:
: >: >Osmo Ronkainen wrote:
: >: >>> Only case where I can say that Finns attacked Russia was in 1941 and
: >: >>> that was after the Russians had bombed our cities and killed innocent
: >: >>> civilians.
: >
: >: >Care to elaborate?
: >
AL: >: military targets all over Finland, breaking the peace treaty. In the
AL: >: following day the Finnish president announced in the radio that Finland
AL: >: had been dragged into the war again.
: >
MS: >That is quite a stretch. Soviet planes DID NOT bomb Finland until the 25th
MS: >of June because Soviet leadership hoped Finland would not participate in
MS: >the war. When it became obvious that Finland will attack USSR as a German's
MS: >ally, the order to bomb Finland's targets was issued. Soviet military
MS: >leaders were very angry that Stalin didn't allow them to bomb Finland
MS: >immidiately, on June 22-23, the delay gave Finns time to complete
MS: >preparations.
MS: >
OR: An attack, especially against civilian targets, without a declaration
OR: of war is one of the most cowardly things there is. It is also a crime
OR: against international law.
Come on, do you yourself believe in your words? Finns started war in June,
1941 with USSR without any preparations, because "Red Army attacked first"?
Finland was preparing to do this all the time after the "winter war".
Red Army in 1941 would be happy if Finalnd remained neutral, Germany was
more than enough, and now you are turning all the way around and tells that
it was "unprovoked attack against civilian targets"?
This is the same as if I would say that Finns in 1939 attacked
first. Let's not to stretch and not to substitute. After the war 1939-40
Finland had the moral right to try to regain its land, and so it did. No
necessity to try to justify it by mythical "Soviet attack" of 1941.
MS: >It WAS difficult (however, I don't know what were exaclty the plans of Finnish
MS: >military in the far north).
MS: How do you know that?
OR: I think it would have been quite easy to blow up the rail road. Of
OR: course that would be quite useless also, railroads are relatively easy to
OR: fix. Taking and holding the rail road would have been harder.
Of course, we're talking about "taking and holding", petty terrorist acts
do not affect the course of war. And I doubt that it was easy, even
feasible, because of importance of Northern route of western aid.
Regards, Mikhail Semenov
: Osmo
Mikhail Semenov
: >In article <3h3svg$c...@adam.cc.sunysb.edu>, Mikhail Semenov <msem...@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
: >>of WWII shows. Finland did have intentions to attack USSR as a Germany's
: >>ally, it was preparing to do so, and it did attack.
: >Yes, after we had been attacked first.
: But you have to admit Finland gave the USSR ample reason to think it was
: assisting Germany and preparing for an attack. There were German troops in
: the country (40000 of them by the beginning of Barbarossa) heading for
: Norway, Finnish submarines were mining the Gulf of Finland together with
: German subs and German planes used Finnish airports on their their way to
: bomb Russia.
Of course. I always considered "Finnish War" (or "Winter War", as you call
it) not only as an immoral act, but also a major mistake in Soviet foreign
policy. Unfortunately, at that time diplomacy was substituted by Stalin's
personal will, arrogant and ignorant, as history shows.
Regards, Mikhail Semenov
Eduard Ponarin
>>It was then that Russia lost the Karelian isthmus which was Russian
>>(Novgorodian) at least since the 14th century. (But Novgorodian colonization
>>started there in the 11th century.)
> Huh? Viborg was founded in 1293 by the Swedes (Tyrgils Knutsson) and was for
> centuries the second most important town of Finland. Don't tell me it's an
> "ancient Russian town" as the Soviet historians claimed.
Vyborg was a border town of the Swedish kingdom; such towns as
Korela and Kopor'e of the Karelian Isthmus had been within the
territory of Novgorod some time before the Swedes came there.
> And Karelia wasn't
> exactly empty even in the 11th century, as the name implies.
As well as Muroma, Meshchera, etc. Those were not exactly empty
places, were they?
> Karelians were
> allied with Novgorod but remained pretty independent at least until late 13th
> century when they were divided as a result of the Swedish/Novgorodian
> struggle.
As independent as the two places I just mentioned above.
Dragon Fly
>
>The present border is a good example of Stalin's Tsarist mind:
>when he couldn't get the border of Alexander I in 1940 he settled
>for that of Peter I. Very stupid IMO because the taking of Finland's
>second city made a reconquest attempt unavoidable in many Finnish minds.
Huh! It is exactly what we, true Russians, needed.
Everything was well calculated. Stalin took Vyborg
from Finns, kicked out Finnish migrants. Thus, he made
a reconquest attempt unavoidable in many Finnish minds.
Stupid Finns did attempt the reconquest.
What did they get ?
A pile of Finnish corpses all the way from Ladoga to Gelsingfors,
and, later, 50 years of extensive asslicking practice.
Stalin was a political genius.. sometimes..
Hey, Finns, wanna try again?
Cordially,
Dragon
Yli-Kuha Kari
: You neglect to mention that Union membership has _lowered_ the prices
: of basic foodstuffs here, though I envy the Austrians whose prices have
: been cut by a half. Let's hope EU will starve our farmers and tukkuliikkeet
: (I forget the English term) for all the years they stole from the people.
And your account starts with tr...? Shame on you.
"Wholesalers" or "wholesale companies" is probably the word you're looking
for. I don't want to "startve" the farmers (nor do I have the ability to
do so) but a certain back-dated compensation from the wholesale monopoly
would be, IMHO, appropriate.
: Hiski
--
_ , Kari Yli-Kuha
' ) / SQ Consulting, Tampere, Finland
/-< __. __ o e-mail: yli-...@cs.tut.fi
/ ) (_/|_/ (_<_ phone: +358 31 3165 200 fax: +358 31 3165 201
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guhkkin davvin Da'vgga'id vuolde sabma' suolggai Sa'mieatnan
Jorma Kyppo
> Jarmo Ryyti puhuu j{lleen huuhaata,
> as did Jorma Kypp| before him::
Thanks for spelling right my name.
> >: are not very bitter, I would like to ask you to help us to
> >: kick eunuks back to Brussel. Otherwise lot of Finns will invade to
> >: Norway after some years.
> Please do. Finland would be a better place without all the anti-EU maniacs.
> Their arguments are not even funny anymore.
I can't give any comment, because there's no argument. The writer
seems to be EU-maniac.
To the others, eunuk is a wordgame as eunukki in Finnish language
means, except of (you know), also eu-poppet.
> You (<-means ryyti) neglect to mention that Union membership has _lowered_ the prices
> of basic foodstuffs here, though I envy the Austrians whose prices have
> been cut by a half. Let's hope EU will starve our farmers and tukkuliikkeet
> (I forget the English term) for all the years they stole from the people.
You forget that we don't even now if the food is really getting
finally cheaper. Promises were ca. 20%. In first week the result
was 10% and a month later by some newspapers only 1%. The prices
are living all the time and some of the prices will get higher
in the future. What is the final result, we know perhaps only
in the autumn. The another point is the influence for unemployment
when those branches of industry, that depend on farmers will
go down and third point is the level of food. What kind of food
we get: less cheap fruits, more meat fitted with hormones, antibiots
and salmonella. Just to mention some.
Difference with Austria and Finland is the distance from Central
Europe.
And to the end: Our food is so "cheap", that in discussion group
sfnet.keskustelu.eu has been already several threads about this
subject. Tens, tens and tens comments, where folks try to assure
how "cheap" the food is.
Because this subject don't have much to deal with baltics or sov(?),
I suggest, that further comments will kirjoitettu suomeksi
palstalle sfnet.keskustelu.eu or in English to alt.politics.ec
or eunet.politics.
Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa, Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
Jorma Kyppo
> |> : If you
> |> : are not very bitter, I would like to ask you to help us to
> |> : kick eunuks back to Brussel. Otherwise lot of Finns will invade to
> |> : Norway after some years.
>
To look for job and better level of living. Young men to avoid
eurovietnam in Caucasus or North Africa.
Naturally you have to take my opinion as a bit extreme, but anyway...
Jorma Kyppo
Laukaa
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
J.K.
eunukki in Finnish language means also eu-poppet,
but planned to write:
eunukki means also also eu-puppet in Finnish,
J.K.
Laukaa
P.S. J.K. means P.S. in Finnish
Wolodymyr Barabash
: In article <3gu0m1$l...@controversy.math.lsa.umich.edu>,
: Eduard Ponarin <e...@east.psc.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
Osmo, treating the Soviet Communist Cur Ponarin with any civility
whatsoever is a crime against humanity. His favorite heroes like Stalin
and Kaganovich have special meaning to him. You must ignore his rantings
and insult him at every step of the way. I know it will not remove hime
from the Net, but it will create a chorus that will prevent anyone from
taking him seriously.
REgards, Wolly
Wolodymyr Barabash
than Hitler. Stalin murdered more people than Hitler. Ergo Ponarin
appreciates the worse monster.
Simple logic.
Regards, Wolly
Osmo Ronkanen
We had mobilized our army just like before the winter war in '39.
>Finland was preparing to do this all the time after the "winter war".
Preparing for war is not in itself in anyway wrong.
>Red Army in 1941 would be happy if Finalnd remained neutral, Germany was
>more than enough, and now you are turning all the way around and tells that
>it was "unprovoked attack against civilian targets"?
>
Maybe Red Army would have, but how about Uncle Joe.
>This is the same as if I would say that Finns in 1939 attacked
>first.
No, it would not. We did not shoot at Mainila, but the Soviets did bomb
our cities.
> Let's not to stretch and not to substitute. After the war 1939-40
>Finland had the moral right to try to regain its land, and so it did. No
>necessity to try to justify it by mythical "Soviet attack" of 1941.
>
There is nothing mythical about it, it was a fact.
>MS: >It WAS difficult (however, I don't know what were exaclty the plans of Finnish
>MS: >military in the far north).
>
>MS: How do you know that?
>
>OR: I think it would have been quite easy to blow up the rail road. Of
>OR: course that would be quite useless also, railroads are relatively easy to
>OR: fix. Taking and holding the rail road would have been harder.
>
>Of course, we're talking about "taking and holding", petty terrorist acts
>do not affect the course of war. And I doubt that it was easy, even
>feasible, because of importance of Northern route of western aid.
>
>
>Regards, Mikhail Semenov
>
>
>: Osmo
>
Osmo
Joseph E. McCall Jr.
ac...@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Wolodymyr Barabash) writes:
> Osmo, treating the Soviet Communist Cur Ponarin with any civility
> whatsoever is a crime against humanity. His favorite heroes like Stalin
> and Kaganovich have special meaning to him. You must ignore his rantings
> and insult him at every step of the way. I know it will not remove hime
> from the Net, but it will create a chorus that will prevent anyone from
> taking him seriously.
>
> REgards, Wolly
As if anyone takes the Finns seriously.
Joseph
Joseph E. McCall Jr.
ac...@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Wolodymyr Barabash) writes:
The Finns aren't capable of logic. Stalin happens to be one of the
greatest leaders the world has ever known. Now, let me think of all
these famous Finns. There are too many to enumerate at this point.
Better give me some time.
Joseph
Eduard Ponarin
>>Great Britain and the U.S. were allied with Stalin, rather than
>>Hitler.
> Oh, you forgot to mention that both Roosevelt and Churchill
> realized fairly quickly that was a mistake...
Any reference which could prove that?
Jorma Kyppo
JK> : eunukki means also also eu-puppet in Finnish,
> No, it doesn't. Eunukki is eunuch in english.
> The Finnish word _nukke_ means _puppet_ in english.
> So, the word you're looking for would be eu-nukke (eu-puppet),
wouldn't it?
> Granted, there's only one letter difference, but a significant one.
Yes, it is. The word 'nukki' is also used in Finnish language
and it is synonyme for 'nukke'. Nowadays it is not so usual any
more, but for example my grandma' used always only 'nukki'.
> Your twisting of words serves a purpose, but it's far too obvious...
> reading between the lines... remember?
I think, that I can't deny here the fact, that you are right.
Jorma Kyppo
There's no kind of isomorphism btw these two examples. What was this
95 dollars, that didn't exist? Your logic is incorrect.
Jorma Kyppo
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
Joseph E. McCall Jr.
trh...@uta.fi (Hiski Haapoja) writes:
> Do you also worship Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson and Pol Pot? Not to
> mention Hitler.
I never said I worshipped Stalin, I stated that he was a great leader.
If you do not think so, then your criteria for leadership must be
drastically different from that of the civilized world. I think I am
quite grown up, it is you who needs to mature.
Joseph
Tor Slettnes
>|> Jorma Kyppo (jo...@jytko.jyu.fi) wrote:
>|> : If you are not very bitter, I would like to ask you to help us to
>|> : kick eunuks back to Brussel. Otherwise lot of Finns will invade to
>|> : Norway after some years.
>
>Why would that be? I wonder?
Funny guy, this Esa Viitala. Maybe you wrote back to your family?
Maybe they spread the word to their relatives, and friends, etc.?
[Or did you imply a desire to move back after the EU result?]
-tor
J.J.H.Kolima
Hello?
The point is if I HAD had $100 in my wallet and you, for some reason,
were only able to get $5 of them AND you were more severely beaten than
me THEN can this example correlate to the Winter War.
That is, I kept most of my money and gave you a harder beating than
what you were able to inflict on me. Now this is probably what you were
looking for, eh?
Hiski Haapoja
>(Gustav Akk) writes:
>> Oh, you forgot to mention that both Roosevelt and Churchill
>> realized fairly quickly that was a mistake...
>Any reference which could prove that?
Roosevelt never realized it, but Churchill was a veteran anti-Bolshie
who didn't like the alliance with Stalin any more than Mannerheim
appreciated Hitler. Somewhere (his memoirs?) he says: "If Hitler had
invaded Hell in the summer of 1941 I would have said something
nice about the Devil." Which of course is what happened.
Hiski
Jorma Kyppo
> In article <3hc6di$d...@plootu.Helsinki.FI> alah...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Antti A Lahelma) writes:
> >>It was then that Russia lost the Karelian isthmus which was Russian
> >>(Novgorodian) at least since the 14th century. (But Novgorodian colonization
> >>started there in the 11th century.)
> > Huh? Viborg was founded in 1293 by the Swedes (Tyrgils Knutsson) and was for
> > centuries the second most important town of Finland. Don't tell me it's an
> > "ancient Russian town" as the Soviet historians claimed.
> Vyborg was a border town of the Swedish kingdom; such towns as
> Korela and Kopor'e of the Karelian Isthmus had been within the
> territory of Novgorod some time before the Swedes came there.
In a way both Antti and Edouar are wrong and right. Vyborg was
an old Carelian(Finnish), Swedish, and Russian town. It got it's
name from Swedes who established it 'officially' and built the castle.
Later the border between Russia and Sweden was changing many times.
as a matter of fact the very first official border in 1323 went
through Central Finland (where were living only hunters and Lapps
in that time) to Oulu! And the other way round, Sweden has been also
far east and south from today's St Petersburg, that's over 400 years
younger than Vyborg.
BUT: There has been hundreds of years before 1293 Carelian (= Finnish)
population on the area of Vyborg and the latest archeoloical results
from last two years have told, that in Vyborg already existed also
Carelian fortress before Swedes came. So basically Vyborg isn't
Russian, Swedish, but Carelian town.
Before war Vyborg was the second greatest town of Finland and known
of it's cheerful people and spirit. It was very talent and
international town where you could here people speak Finnish, Swedish,
German and Russian. The spirit of Vyborg has much to teach also
for this newsgroup how to stand different cultures.
The other of my granma's was born there.
> > And Karelia wasn't
> > exactly empty even in the 11th century, as the name implies.
> As well as Muroma, Meshchera, etc. Those were not exactly empty
> places, were they? >>Karelians were
> > allied with Novgorod but remained pretty independent at least until late 13th
> > century when they were divided as a result of the Swedish/Novgorodian
> > struggle.
> As independent as the two places I just mentioned above.
This reminds me about one thing. In old fennougrian cultures, the
buildings and fortresses (as in Vyborg) were made by wood, not
stone. This is one reason why so little is known about old
fennougrian cultures and states like Carelia, Bjarmia, etc.
After hundreds of years you can't find any castles like in Central
Europa. We still use build wooden houses and here in Central Finland
I know many places where today grows only forest, but where were
houses in 50's and 60's. In 60's many people from countryside went
to towns and Sweden (with EU, the same may happen in 90's). In
Finland the forest conquers surprisingly fast back the land it lost.
What comes to Muroma or Merja (means probably meri = sea), it is
a quite large area between Carelia and Ural. Muroma language is dead
fennougrian language spoken widely before Russians came sometimes
in and before 11th century. They had an independent culture. Today,
if we take a map and look the fennougrian people in Russia, there
indeed is a big and strange hole, that separates the fennougrians
in west from those living near Ural and Moscow. This hole is Muroma.
The way how Russians spread to north was mostly peaceful (I mean
no remarkable wars) and happened slowly such that among fennougrians
came Russian villages and slowly people loaned words from each others
language. The difference between fennougrians and slaves was that
slave like to live together side by side in big villages, when
fennougrians are more alone and separated.
The mystery of Muromas, how did they disappear, can be explained so
that, they slowly were both mixed with Russians and also adopted
their language.
Muromas are yet here, they only speak Russian.
Jorma Kyppo
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
P.S. With Moscow, that got it's name from Mordvians, it is almost same
like with Vyborg. It is old Russian town on fennougrian land.
P.S.2. That fennougrians accepted Russians among them and adopted
their language is also symptom of not very bad relations
with Russians.
Eduard Ponarin
> [...] So basically Vyborg isn't
>Russian, Swedish, but Carelian town.
The question is what was Karelia in the old times. Jorma Kyppo
believes it was a state:
> [...] In old fennougrian cultures, the
>buildings and fortresses (as in Vyborg) were made by wood, not
>stone. This is one reason why so little is known about old
>fennougrian cultures and states like Carelia, Bjarmia, etc.
~~~~~~
However, it wasn't. Is there a single historical source from
10-12th centuries that mentions a king, prince, president or
whatever of Karelia? I don't think so. The problem is not that
they built of wood; Russians also mostly used wood, not stone, and
nomadic Khazars didn't build anything at all (when they had to,
they invited foreigners). The social organization of Karelia
before Russians and Swedes came didn't go beyond the local tribe
level; there was no Karelian state, that's what the problem is.
That issue settled, the question then becomes twofold: who brought
the state organization to the region first and whose culture and
state the local population felt most comfortable with.
>The way how Russians spread to north was mostly peaceful (I mean
>no remarkable wars) and happened slowly such that among fennougrians
>came Russian villages and slowly people loaned words from each others
>language. The difference between fennougrians and slaves was that
>slave like to live together side by side in big villages, when
>fennougrians are more alone and separated.
How does this compare with the Swedish advance eastward? (I,
frankly, don't know the answer.) But I know some other facts that
may help answer the question I asked in the paragraph above. The
earliest known inscription in Karelian language dates from the
11th century Novgorod where someone wrote a prayer to the pagan
deity on a piece of a birch bark using Cyrillic (Russian) letters.
(He probably was a merchant from the Karelian Isthmus which was
already under Novgorodian influence back then.)
When Sweden annexed the Isthmus and the Gulf area from Russia, the
local Orthodox population fled to Tver in Russia. There are still
some Karelian districts in the Tver region. Those who remained
were mostly Lutheranized and Finnicized.
And Karelian is (or was) a separate language (contrary to what Hiski
might think; he apparently got no clue about randa=ranta); that
particular piece from Novgorod contained the Russian letter ZH which
denotes a sound not found in Finnish. These days the "official"
Karelian is almost identical to Finnish. Although I don't know
Karelian language, I know a few words spoken in the area where my
relatives live (between Onega and Ladoga lakes), and it seems that
the live Karelian language (or at least its Ludik dialect) is
closer to Estonian than to Finnish. For example, they say "izha"
(not "tautto"!) for "father" (Estonian "isa"); "ema''" for
"mother" (Est. "ema"), etc.
>Muromas are yet here, they only speak Russian.
And what have become of the Karelians who stayed in Finland? They
got Swedish culture and Finnish language. In other words, they
have become modern Finns; they ceased to be Karelians. Why is
this better than becoming Russians? I fail to understand the
whining I so often hear from the Finns (not from you, Jorma) about
Finns being the (Amer)Indians of Europe, and how the Russians are
guilty in that some Fenno-Ugrian languages died out, etc. Come
on! I am partially Karelian myself! No one sent my relatives to
reservations or traded pox-infected blankets to them! That's way
different to what happened to the Indians!
As for the language, I don't see why Russian is worse than
Finnish. Certainly, Finnish is much closer to Karelian; so what?
Serbs and Croats speak virtually the same language; do the like
each other? (It's not that Karelians hate Finns; I just want to
say that language is not that important as many Finns think.)
Jorma Kyppo
> The Finns aren't capable of logic. Stalin happens to be one of the
> greatest leaders the world has ever known. Now, let me think of all
> these famous Finns. There are too many to enumerate at this point.
> Better give me some time.
Let me help you a bit. The only one of Stalin's inner circle,
who succeeded to survive as alive through all the bloody years
from 20's to 50's, was "Stalin's left hand" Otto-Ville Kuusinen
from Laukaa and my neigbouring village Kuusa only ten miles from
here. Probably Stalin, who wasn't Russian was specilized to kill
only Russians.
BTW: Stalin was a ver SMALL man, just like Napoleon. Also Hitler,
Mussolini couldn't get in Harlem Globe Trotters...
And if I remember right Alexander the Great wasn't also very tall.
Peter the Great was 2 meters, but why Catharina the Great was
called great, well she had something great...
Jorma Kyppo
> Oh, you forgot to mention that both Roosevelt and Churchill
> realized fairly quickly that was a mistake...
Roosevelt was responsible of the very first atom bomb used in war,
the Hiroshima bomb. And as a matter of fact also about the second
one, dropped in Nagasaki.
Churchill wanted one also to Berlin, but Roosevelt was not ready
for the third one...
Hitler and Stalin also did like the idea of some nice nuclear war,
they just were not able...
Jorma Kyppo
Finland
jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
J{rvinen Hannu-Matti
>Roosevelt was responsible of the very first atom bomb used in war,
>the Hiroshima bomb. And as a matter of fact also about the second
>one, dropped in Nagasaki.
>Churchill wanted one also to Berlin, but Roosevelt was not ready
>for the third one...
Especially because German was surrended before Hiroshima and Nagasaki
bombs were dropped... It is not wise to bomb a city where you own
troops are.
--
-----
Hannu-Matti Jarvinen, h...@cs.tut.fi
Osmo Ronkanen
Jorma Kyppo <jo...@jytko.jyu.fi> wrote:
>Gustav Akk wrote:
>
>> Oh, you forgot to mention that both Roosevelt and Churchill
>> realized fairly quickly that was a mistake...
>
>Roosevelt was responsible of the very first atom bomb used in war,
>the Hiroshima bomb. And as a matter of fact also about the second
>one, dropped in Nagasaki.
How was Roosevelt responsible for those?
>Churchill wanted one also to Berlin, but Roosevelt was not ready
>for the third one...
Learn some history. There was no time to use A-bombs against Germany.
>Hitler and Stalin also did like the idea of some nice nuclear war,
>they just were not able...
>
>Jorma Kyppo
>Finland
>jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
>
Osmo
Hiski Haapoja
>Roosevelt was responsible of the very first atom bomb used in war,
>the Hiroshima bomb. And as a matter of fact also about the second
>one, dropped in Nagasaki.
Was he also responsible for EU? That happened after his death too.
H.
Jorma Kyppo
> Roosevelt was responsible of the very first atom bomb used in war,
> the Hiroshima bomb. And as a matter of fact also about the second
> one, dropped in Nagasaki.
> Churchill wanted one also to Berlin, but Roosevelt was not ready
> for the third one...
> Hitler and Stalin also did like the idea of some nice nuclear war,
> they just were not able...
I wrote this in haste, so I've to repeat more exact, what I meant.
Ofcourse Roosevelt wasn't, at least straight responsible of the
Hiroshima bomb. What I wanted to say was the president of USA, that
was Truman during hiroshimatime. Roosevelt was partly responsible
about the bomb, another thing is if he had used it.
Churchill really wanted to drop atom bomb to Germany, but it
was before Americans used it in Japan. It was Roosevelt's era then.
> Jorma Kyppo
> Finland
> jo...@jytko.jyu.fi
Hiski Haapoja
>I never said I worshipped Stalin, I stated that he was a great leader.
>If you do not think so, then your criteria for leadership must be
>drastically different from that of the civilized world.
You are so funny. Is your civilized world North Korea? As for my
criteria for leadership, it includes not killing millions of one's
subjects and isolating the rest in a miserable police state.
>I think I am quite grown up, it is you who needs to mature.
All loons say that: "I am sane, it's all the others who are crazy."
BTW, is your first name Joseph because your parents are Stalinists?
Just a thought inspired by Illitch Ramirez Sanchez, a.k.a. Carlos.
(Another hero of yours, I suppose.)
H.
Hiski Haapoja
>Where did Churchill say that British alliance with Stalin was a
>mistake? From what you wrote here it's not evident. Gustav Akk
>wrote that both Roosevelt and Churchill realized they made a
>mistake. This is just bull; and if you want to help Gustav Akk,
>you better find some proof that they repented this alliance.
I was imprecise. Churchill and co. were relieved when Hitler invaded
SU, because that removed the threat of German landing in Britain.
Nazis and Communists killing each other off can't have made him sad.
But later on he was more and more worried of SU getting a lot of power
in Eastern Europe and tried to ensure British presence on the Balkans,
with poor success. You know his famous Iron Curtain speech?
Roosevelt had the idea of marching to Berlin before the Soviets and
a map where North Germany until Stettin becomes American zone. This
was not realized because some minor bureaucrat had positioned the
Allied troops in Britain so that Brits ended up in North Germany and
Americans in the South, and because Brits and the French wanted France
cleared first. Being deathly ill (and some say naive about the SU) he
couldn't stand up to American interests. In the Potsdam conference
where the division of Europe was finalized, the US and GB were
represented by freshmen Truman and Attlee, so Stalin didn't have much
work in getting his will.
I can look up the references if you want.
Hiski
Joseph E. McCall Jr.
trh...@uta.fi (Hiski Haapoja) writes:
>
> You are so funny. Is your civilized world North Korea? As for my
> criteria for leadership, it includes not killing millions of one's
> subjects and isolating the rest in a miserable police state.
Then you are a moron. Queen Elizabeth I, Alexander of Macedon, Ghengis
Khan, Napoleon I, Hitler, and Stalin were great leaders. Take a history
class.
Joseph
Jukka T V|rlund
>>>>> "Eduard" == Eduard Ponarin <e...@west.psc.lsa.umich.edu> writes:
Eduard> almost identical to Finnish. Although I don't know
Eduard> Karelian language, I know a few words spoken in the area
Eduard> where my relatives live (between Onega and Ladoga lakes),
Eduard> and it seems that the live Karelian language (or at least
Eduard> its Ludik dialect) is closer to Estonian than to Finnish.
Eduard> For example, they say "izha" (not "tautto"!) for "father"
Eduard> (Estonian "isa"); "ema''" for "mother" (Est. "ema"), etc.
It is "isa" also in finnish. Never seen the word "tautto", but
"taatto" was used in some dialects and in poetry in finland.
It is a wery old fashioned word though...
Just my 2 cents
(\\ //)
(\\\ ///)
----(\\\\-----* new signature. softer and more absorbent *------////)----
i was wery dubious in the beginning that it was going to work, being so
thin and small, but i did a full hour and a half rn session and i felt dry
and secure all the time.. and you know, if it works for rn it is bound to
work for anything. this is so thin and small. and it has the wings too.
Eduard Ponarin
> We may
>very well find evidence for a highly organized society in Karelia, or
>we may find that it wasn't that organized, or (most sadly) the truth
>may stay hidden in lost history.
IMO, it's unlikely that there was a "highly organized society" in
Karelia; not only because we don't have the archaeological
evidence, but also because Karelia did not exist in vacuum: since
at least the 11th century it's been in close contact with
Novgorod. And yet there is not a single mention of a Karelian
"state" in Novgorod chronicles.
Eduard Ponarin
>> >fennougrian cultures and states like Carelia, Bjarmia, etc.
>> ~~~~~~
>> However, it wasn't. Is there a single historical source from
>> 10-12th centuries that mentions a king, prince, president or
>> whatever of Karelia? I don't think so.
> I think, that this is yet open question, and will be for long time.
...
> Secondly, many indoeuropean 'states' and tribes were built around
> a king. There can be states without kings.
Sure, but there has to be some central body of government,
collective presidency or something which usually resides in a
capital city. In addition to that, states impose state taxes
collected by state officials, they usually have permanent armies,
police, etc. Any evidence of that in Karelia?
> As third: because there
> are no written sources, you never know what kind of Carelian kings
> there might have been. Sometimes it has been assumed, that some of
> the younger stories in Kalevala tell about the former kings (btw:
> my opinion about Kalevala isn't that simple).
I have written already that Karelia was in a close interaction
with Novgorodians who kept chronicles. Yet there is no mention of
a Karelian state in the Novgorodian chronicles, although there are
are numerous mentions of Karels.
>> How does this [peaceful penetration] compare with the Swedish
>> advance eastward? (I, frankly, don't know the answer.)
> Finland got part of Sweden, but there never came a large invasion of
> Swedish people to Finland, except on the west coast.
I guess my question was whether Sweden acquired Finland as peacefully.
>> And Karelian is (or was) a separate language ..
> I repeat: there exits Carelian dialect (= Finnish) and Carelian
> language.
Perhaps, you have clarified the controversy; indeed, I understand
that "official Karelian" is the Finnish dialect, while what is
spoken on the western shores of Onega Lake is a separate language.
The root of the controversy is maybe that the Finns and I have
different notions of "Karelia". While the Finns mean primarily
the areas of Sortavala and Vyborg, I have in mind the area between
Petrozavodsk and Kondopoga (Kandapohja) where my relatives live.
> ... There happens to be not one, but at least three different
> languages (or dialects) of Carelian. Srongest of them was 'Lydian'
> or 'Ludik' as Ponarin says.
"Lydian" sounds to me as belonging to ancient Greek colonies of
Asia Minor. You seem to know more about these issues than I; what is
the dialect's name in Finnish?
>> And what have become of the Karelians who stayed in Finland? They
>> got Swedish culture and Finnish language. In other words, they
>> have become modern Finns; they ceased to be Karelians. Why is
>> this better than becoming Russians?
> Ups, I've never said "better".
> My point was, that Russians are more near fennougrians, than they
> use to accept.
I think Russian historians and anthropologists are very much aware
of the role of Fenno-Ugrian tribes in Russian ethnogenesis, so I
tend to disagree with you. I myself am also aware of my Karelian
origins. Most Russian people, however, perhaps are not so much
aware of it; but it is not because they don't want to accept it.
Rather, it is because they do not care.
> The other [Indo-Europeans] went over the seas, when Slavs spread
> slowly to east, Russia and Siberia. Fennougrian people were before
> that living on large from Scandinavia to Siberia and their origin
> was probably in Siberia, just like Indians had.
However, while the Indians were mostly exterminated, the
Fenno-Ugrians just merged with the Slavs.
>> As for the language, I don't see why Russian is worse than
>> Finnish. Certainly, Finnish is much closer to Karelian; so what?
> One remind: I *don't see* Russian language worse than Finnish.
That's good.
>> Serbs and Croats speak virtually the same language; do they like
>> each other? (It's not that Karelians hate Finns; I just want to
>> say that language is not that important as many Finns think.
> That's true also.
But you are perhaps an exception, aren't you? I mean it seems to
me that most Finns are supportive of language-driven nationalism.
Eduard Ponarin
> ... What I object to is the idea of
> Novgorodians or Swedes "importing civilization" to the primitive Karelians;
> this smacks of imperialist thinking and isn't quite supported by facts.
> I don't know if that's what you intended to say, but that's what it sounded
> like.
What I definitely DIDN'T intend to say is that the Karelians or any
other Fenno-Ugrian group is racially inferior. With respect to the
culture of the ancient pagan Fenno-Ugrian tribes, I meant exactly what
I said. I understand your feelings and your motivation to answer; I
disagree with you and hope that you will be able to understand me,
too, if you stay calm.
When the Greeks and Southern Slavs brought Christianity to ancient
Russia, they surely brought with them a higher civilization which
manifested itself in literacy, architecture, and Christian mores.
Until that moment, the ancient Russians led a way of life very similar
to that of Fenno-Ugrians who are so dear to your heart. However, it
does not hurt my feelings to acknowledge that a higher civilization
was brought to my country from elsewhere. Likewise, I don't see why
modern Finns - who are by all means belong to the civilized world -
would feel ashamed by the fact that the Swedes "imported civilization"
to them. Didn't they? Who brought Christianity and literacy to
Finland?
Will you insist that the pagan culture was not any lower than the
Christian culture? Do you think human sacrifices (which happened both
in Russia and in Scandinavia until Christianity) are a great
achievement of the pagan civilization? Do you think that the
illiterate Sioux shaman who tortured and slowly roasted a 10 years old
Pownie girl before killing her (because he thought his god is pleased
by the victim's suffering; a last century documented event) is at
least as civilized as a Christian (even medieval Christian) priest?
>>But why Russia should interrupt the process that is mostly
>>spontaneous?
> Are you sure it's that spontaneous?
Such events are spontaneous, as spontaneous as climatic changes.
Where are all the ancient peoples and language families like Shumers,
Iberians, Gauls, etc.? No people is eternal; the individuals who
belong to it merge with other peoples. The same thing happened with
the Fenno-Ugrians who merged with the Russians; the process started in
the 7th century A.D. or so and is still continuing.
> Would you say that speakers of e.g Mari
> (who number around one million) have the possibility of pursuing their
> studies and practicing their jobs in their own language in their supposedly
> own 'autonomous' state? I don't know if things have changed, but this
> certainly wasn't for the most part the case during Soviet era.
They certainly have all means of schooling in their native language
and all the other things you mentioned. Of course, the structure of
opportunities is different for the people who know and don't know
Russian language; but I think this is natural and it is not in
Russia's interests to artificially promote native speakers. In
Finland, how many Swedes do not know Finnish? And, if such people
exist, does it affect their career prospects? How about Finns in
Sweden?
I don't know as much about Mari, but in case of Komi-Permians they
themselves decided on their local congress (where they constituted
ethnic majority) that Russian will be their official language.
>>Is it in Russia's interests?
> Not an easy question to answer. If you look at Chechnya, it's pretty obvious
> that the assimilation policy has had a disastrous result.
On the contrary, it is pretty obvious that promoting ethnic cultures
which was the case under the Soviet regime proved disastrous. If you
are interested in these issues, you may want to read through Yuri
Slezkine's article in "Slavic Review", vol. 53, no. 2 (Summer 1994).
As for the Chechens, they were never assimilated, so your argument is
not appropriate in this case.
> BTW, you've mentioned the Muroma a couple of times; any idea if the myth of
> Ilya Muromyets is somehow related to them?
Ilya Muromyets was from the city of Murom which is of course situated
on the territory where the Fenno-Ugrian people called Muroma lived.
His first name, however, is Christian (Ilya=Elijah). So, for all
practical purposes he was a Russian, although probably of Fenno-Ugrian
origin.
--
Eduard Ponarin
EP: And what have become of the Karelians who stayed in Finland? They
EP: got Swedish culture and Finnish language. In other words, they
EP: have become modern Finns; they ceased to be Karelians. Why is
EP: this better than becoming Russians?
>The Karelians of Karelia actually have never lived in Finland.
>People who lived in former Finnish Karelia were Finns,but because
>of the region was called Karelia they were also called in the speech
>"Karelians."
>There were among them some greek-orthodox "real" Karelians but
>very few because historically the Karelians escaped the region
>during the 17 th century to Tver.
But not every single Karelian family fled the Isthmus in the 17th
century, right? Those who stayed mostly assimilated. That's what
I meant. They practically ceased to be Karelians, although some of
them still preserve the Orthodox religion to this day.
--