PHOTO: Russia and her “Heroes”

A bus that began operating in Russia this month to celebrate the wonderful Russian hero known as Stalin, greatest mass killer of Russians in world history. A quote from Stalin below his image reads: "“I would like to drink a toast to the health of the whole Soviet people, and, first and foremost, the Russian people!" Presumably, his goblet would be filled with their blood.

We can only ask ourselves: What kind of barbarous, self-loathing nation is this, anyway? This man was the greatest mass-murderer of Russians in world history! How dare they?! It’s like Israel putting Hitler on a bus!

Check out that reverse view image of Stalin in the window in the background. Yikes! What a country!

102 responses to “PHOTO: Russia and her “Heroes”

  1. 1. Was Hitler an Israeli Prime Minister?

    2. Did Israel win the Independence War, the Six-Day War or the Yom-Kippur War under his leadership?

  2. With smiling children in the background?

    There is no greater infamy than the war power on the children using the whole punitive power of the apparatus. Based on the instructions of the Politburo Central Committee, personally Lenin and Stalin, the Bolsheviks created a special system of “disgraced childhood”. This system had before it children’s camps and colonies, mobile reception and distribution centers, special children’s homes and nurseries.
    Children were supposed to forget who they are, where they come from, and who their parents were.

    This was a special – Children’s Gulag …

    Alexander Yakovlev
    Architect short spring in Russia.

    For more than fifty years, Soviet children were taught to keep a sharp eye out for enemies of the people, even among their neighbors and family members. A young Komsomol leader, A. Ksoarev, wrote in Pravda, “We do not share a common morality with the rest of mankind… For us, morality is that which builds Socialism.”
    Moved by this kind of “morality,” Stalin and his government easily converted millions of living people into corpses. But in the case Pavlik Morozov, a corpse was converted into a living symbol. Through the power of this legend, Stalin raised an army of Morozov imitators, and the myth became an everyday reality of Soviet life.

  3. The present-day Russia is a free country.

    An action group of St. Petersburg bloggers led by fantasy writer Andrei Martyanov (LJ user gunter_spb) collected money to put Stalin’s portrait on a bus as advertising. No one would forbid St. Petersburg liberal bloggers to put, let’s say, General Vlasov on another bus; however, they just can neither organize nor collect enough money for that.

    • larussophobe

      “The present-day Russia is a free country.”

      Zhenya, sweetie, your head needs work.

    • Your interpretation of freedom means that I am free to kick you ass so hard you won’t be able to sit on it.

    • Psalomschick

      ‘Eugene’,
      ‘Today Russia is a free country’-?

      Is that the same ‘free’ as in the old song, ”I’m free as a bird, in a gilded cage”-?
      Except, in your RF, the pretty gilding is only for the rich ruling class.

  4. It should be accompanied by restored “Black Raven” NKVD death-squad car, cruising Moscow once again.

    http://calladhor.blogspot.com/2010/02/specific-research-subject.html

  5. The real irony here is that Stalin was a Georgian. This has got to be Russian nationalism at its most pathetic.

    • Well, to be perfectly fair, he was rather Anti-Georgian himself, given his extreme repression of Georgian culture (including the language itself) and the fact that he had a few hundred thousand Georgians ‘disposed of.’

  6. Great Russian empress Catherine II also was actually a German Princess Sophie Frederike Auguste von Anhalt Zerbst. Russians don’t care for such trifles as the ethnicity of their leaders as long as they are great and victorious – they leave such things to thoroughbread Europeans like Adolf Hitler.

    • Yes, we understand; Russia is renown, far and wide, for its ethnic tolerance as should be expected from a free country

    • Great German chancellor Der Fuhrer I also was actually an Austrian artist Adolf Hitler. Germans don’t care for such trifles as the ethnicity of their leaders as long as they are great and victorious.

      • Voice of Reason

        Robert thinks that Austria’ ethnicity was different from that of other Germanic states.

        Robert, do you know that Austrians’ native tongue is German and that Austria had more to do with other German states than did Prussia before the latter conquered/unified them?

        • @other Germanic states

          Yeah. Like England (Anglo-Saxons), or “even” France (Charlemagne’s Franks).

          • Voice of Reason

            I don’t think you know the difference between English, French and German, Robert.

            Let me repeat something that you should know if you want to become a “student of history”: Austrians have always spoken German and considered themselves German ethnically. The idea of Austrians as a separate ethnicity is a recent development and doesn’t apply to the 1920s when Hitler became a German politician:

            http://www.photoglobe.info/ebooks/austria/cstudies_austria_0070.html

            Austrian National Identity

            Before 1918 there had been no tradition among German-speaking Austrians of striving for national independence as a small German-speaking state separated from Austria-Hungary or separated from Germany. Within the context of the multiethnic and multilinguistic empire, the great majority of the inhabitants of what was to become Austria considered themselves “Germans” insofar as they spoke German and identified with German culture.

            As a result, the idea of an “Austrian nation” as a cultural and political entity greater than the sum total of provinces, yet smaller than the pan-German idea of the unification of all German speakers into one state, virtually did not exist in 1918. After 1918 many Austrians identified themselves as being members of a “German nation” based on shared linguistic, cultural, and ethnic characteristics. Since unification with Germany was forbidden, most Austrians regarded their new country as a “second” German state arbitrarily created by the victorious powers. During the troubled interwar period, unification with a democratic Germany was seen by many, not only by those on the political right but across the entire political spectrum, as a solution for Austria’s many problems.
            ————-

            Do you begin ot understand, Robert?

            • @Before 1918 there had been no tradition among German-speaking Austrians of striving for national independence as a small German-speaking state separated from Austria-Hungary

              Dude. The “separate Austrian state” (separate from the western German Reich) existed long before the whole concept of Austria-Hungary was won by the Hungarians in their national uprising against the Austrian Empire in 1848.

              What do you say, German Confederation? It was just a very loose association, more like a miniature European Union.

              @Do you begin ot understand

              That was pretty German-sounding.

              • End not even mini-EU, just a club of kings really. Oh, and it included Denmark, Holland, and yes, even even England/UK.

                Speaking of England, Hitler had a family there:

                http://gadsircomics.blogspot.com/2007/08/uncollected-new-adventures-of-hitler.html

                • Hitler has a grandson in Georgia, see

                  • If he was pro-Russia, you’d put him on a bus too.

                    You have the morals of a boa constrictor.

                  • Sorry but no. Hitler never came anywhere NEAR as far East as Georgia- hell, his military barely did- and to date we know of no descendants of Hitler that even exist, much less that Saaks is one.

                    Putting people with similar poses next to each other proves nothing.

              • Voice of Reason

                Look, Robert, I have no vested interest in making you understand the relationship between Bavaria, Prussia Austria, and various other German states. Since you said in the past that you wanted to learn history, I gave you the authoritative reference on how the Austrians felt about themselves as “ethnic Germans” until the 1960s or so. If you want to learn – read it. If not – remain ignorant and think that the Austrian-German language is as far removed from German as English and French and that the Germans in the German Confederation were as foreign to each other as Bulgarians and Irishmen are in EU. I can take a horse to the water, but I can’t make it drink it.

            • So, Voice Of Retardation does not recognise the long history of Austria? For example the history of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

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

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Austria#German_Austria_and_the_First_Republic_.281918.E2.80.931934.29

              I mean, we all know you are a lying retard VOR, but come on, do you actually have any understanding of history?

          • Voice of Reason

            Andrew wrote // May 8, 2010 at 12:30 pm

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria
            Between 1918 and 1919 Austria was officially known as the State of German Austria . Not only did the Entente powers forbid German Austria to unite with Germany, they also rejected the name German Austria in the peace treaty to be signed; it was therefore changed to Republic of Austria in late 1919.[34]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Austria#German_Austria_and_the_First_Republic_.281918.E2.80.931934.29
            Following the defeat of Austria-Hungary in World War I, in the Aftermath of World War I the Empire was broken up based loosely on national grounds. Austria, with its modern borders, was created out of the main German speaking areas. On November 12, 1918, Austria became a republic called German Austria. The newly formed Austrian parliament asked for union with Germany. Article 2 of its provisional constitution stated: “German Austria is part of the German Republic”. Plebiscites in the countries of Tyrol and Salzburg 1919–21 yielded majorities of 98 and 99% in favour of a unification with Germany. In the end France and Italy prevented the merger, and demanded the construction of an independent Austria that had to remain autonomous for at least 20 years. Treaty of Saint Germain included a provision that prohibited political or economic union with Germany and forced the country to change its name from the “Republic of German Austria” to the “Republic of Austria”. Many Austrians and Germans regarded this as hypocrisy.

            ——————-

            Thanks you, Andrew for providing links to more materials that prove my obvious point.

        • Voice of Reason

          Thanks you, Andrew for providing links to more materials that prove my obvious point. And let me quote again what the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress of the United States of America writes in its books:

          http://countrystudies DOT us/austria/61.htm

          This website contains the on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998. Each study offers a comprehensive description and analysis of the country or region’s historical setting, geography, society, economy, political system, and foreign policy.

          Country Studies

          Before 1918 there had been no tradition among German-speaking Austrians of striving for national independence as a small German-speaking state separated from Austria-Hungary or separated from Germany. Within the context of the multiethnic and multilinguistic empire, the great majority of the inhabitants of what was to become Austria considered themselves “Germans” insofar as they spoke German and identified with German culture. As a result, the idea of an “Austrian nation” as a cultural and political entity virtually did not exist in 1918.

          After 1918 many Austrians identified themselves as being members of a “German nation” based on shared linguistic, cultural, and ethnic characteristics. Since unification with Germany was forbidden, most Austrians regarded their new country as a “second” German state arbitrarily created by the victorious powers. During the troubled interwar period, unification with a democratic Germany was seen by many, not only by those on the political right but across the entire political spectrum, as a solution for Austria’s many problems.

          ————————-

          Andrew continued: “I mean, we all know you are a lying retard VOR, but come on, do you actually have any understanding of history?

          Of course I do. But in this case, I have been quoting official books from the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress of the United States of America. You and Robert are just too stupid to understand, Andrew. As always.

          • Of course ReTaRd is only cherry-picking rather than looking at the overall picture.

            The Holy Roman Empire to German Unification

            Main article: German Unification
            The House of Habsburg was the family that dominated the loose German confederation called the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) until it was abolished in 1806. The Habsburg’s seat of power was the German-speaking Archduchy of Austria but they controlled many non-German territories as well. Within the HRE the member states jostled for power and influence and often warred against each other. Austria’s main rival from the 18th century on was Prussia. Prussia and Austria fought a series of wars over the province of Silesia. Before the HRE was abolished, in oder to ensure they maintained the prestige of the title of “emperors,” the Habsburgs declared Austria an empire. After the HRE was dissolved the new German Confederation was created and again Austria struggled for influence with Prussia. Prussia hoped to unite the German states in a union that excluded Austria. Prussia succeeded in creating a German Customs Union, and after the Austro-Prussian War, a new North German Confederation, both of which excluded Austria. This grouping became the precursors to the German Empire, proclaimed in 1871.
            [edit]Austria-Hungary and the German Empire

            Austria changed itself from a German-focused power into a multi-national Central European one with the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Afterwards relations with the new Prussian-dominated German Empire improved but Germany was now clearly the stronger of the two powers. They cooperated in the League of the Three Emperors and the Dual Alliance, which became the basis for the Austro-German alliance during the First World War.
            The Great War ended badly for the Central Powers, however, and both empires were disbanded.

            Austrian German (German: Österreichisches Deutsch), or Austrian Standard German, is the national standard variety of the German language spoken in Austria and in the autonomous Province of South Tyrol (Italy). The standardized form of Austrian German for official texts and schools is defined by the Austrian dictionary (Österreichisches Wörterbuch), published under the authority of the ministry of education, art and culture.

            German

            As German is a pluricentric language, Austrian German is merely one among several varieties of Standard German. Much like the relationship between American and British English, the Austrian and German varieties differ in minor issues (e.g., spelling, word usage and grammar) but are recognizably equivalent and largely mutually intelligible. The official Austrian dictionary, “Das Österreichisches Wörterbuch” gives grammar and spelling rules defining the official language. In addition to this standard variety, in everyday life most Austrians speak one of a number of High German dialects.

            Standard German in Austria

            With German being a pluricentric language, Austrian dialects should not be confused with the variety of Standard German spoken by most Austrians, which is distinct from that of Germany or Switzerland. Distinctions in vocabulary persist, for example, in culinary terms, where communication with Germans is frequently difficult, and administrative and legal language, which is due to Austria’s exclusion from the development of a German nation-state in the late 19th century and its manifold particular traditions. A comprehensive collection of Austrian-German legal, administrative and economic terms is offered in: Markhardt, Heidemarie: Wörterbuch der österreichischen Rechts-, Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungsterminologie (Peter Lang, 2006).

    • Evgen wrote,

      Great Russian empress Catherine II also was actually a German Princess Sophie Frederike Auguste von Anhalt Zerbst. Russians don’t care for such trifles as the ethnicity of their leaders as long as they are great and victorious – they leave such things to thoroughbread Europeans like Adolf Hitler.

      Comment;

      Polish people have a ‘soft spot’ for another great tsarina Catherine the First who also was actually Marta Skowronska – Russians don’ t care about such triffles as nationality. But let me elaborate on the Catherine the First; born in the old venerable Commonwealth of Kingdon of Poland and Dutchy of Lithuania to the Polish peasant family, she followed the troups, cleaned, cooked for the soldiers and above all, provided sexual services. She met Peter the Great through Menshikov and the rest is history. THIS POLISH PEASANT, MARTA SKOWRONSKA, MARRIED YOUR GREATES TSAR PETER THE GREAT [ACTUALLY THE ILLEGITIMATE SON OF KING OF GEORGIA HENCE THE MEMBER OF THE OLDEST CHRISTIAN ROYAL HOUSE FROM 800 AD TO PRESENT TIME].

      THAT POLISH PEASANT 8-CENTURY HOOKER RULED OVER THE RUSSIAN SLAVES – APPARENTLY SHE WAS A PRETTY GOOD TSARINA TOO. ….. WE LOVE HER IN POLAND….

      • “she followed the troups, cleaned, cooked for the soldiers and above all, provided sexual services. She met Peter the Great through Menshikov and the rest is history. THIS POLISH PEASANT, MARTA SKOWRONSKA, MARRIED YOUR GREATES TSAR PETER THE GREAT”

        Hopefully you won’t accuse Jesus next for talking to Mary Magdalene, oh idiot.

        • Dimasha/huyasha wrote;

          “she followed the troups, cleaned, cooked for the soldiers and above all, provided sexual services. She met Peter the Great through Menshikov and the rest is history. THIS POLISH PEASANT, MARTA SKOWRONSKA, MARRIED YOUR GREATES TSAR PETER THE GREAT”

          Hopefully you won’t accuse Jesus next for talking to Mary Magdalene, oh idiot.

          comments;

          NOTHING BUT NOTHIGN WILL CHANGE THE FACT THAT A POLISH PEASANT WAS RULLING OVER YOU…..

  7. Stalinbus 1939:

    http://englishrussia.com/index.php/tag/russia-and-finland/

    On November 30, 1939, it was Stalin’s next move. 250,000 Russian troops under the cover of a coordinated air and artillery bombardment crossed into Finland to begin one of the least publicized and most costly campaigns in the annals of military history. It would be a “walk over;” General Meretskov estimated it would take only 10 to 12 days for his 26 well equipped 14,000 man divisions to reach Helsinki. Russian propaganda had been so convincing that it was felt that the Finns would be waving flags and welcoming the Red Army with open arms. Opposing him were nine poorly equipped 11,000-man Finnish divisions.

    http://kaiku.com/winterwar.html

    • Oh, that was a terrible war. And a real crime that was.

      The only thing that may explain Stalin’s reasons behind this is:

      Had he not moved the border of a Nazi limitrophe Finland 100 km. to the West before the war, there would be no St. Petersburg now.

      I.e. Russia would lose 3 000 000 people instead of 1 000 000 in St.Petersburg.

      These three little democrats would have destroyed the city in the 1942.

      • Ain’t he cute?

        A real democracy needs such men!

        • Yep, pretty much. But in this picture he’s very old. Here, over 50 years earlier in the Russian army, from the very same website:

          @The only thing that may explain Stalin’s reasons behind this is:

          And now tell me more about the Hitler’s reasons for allowing Stalin to take all of Finland (Stalin tried and failed). Makes perfect sense, I guess.

          Also Finland took no part in the direct attack on Leningrad. Which possibly saved the city. (Or maybe rather destroyed it actually, because their refusal resulted in the prolonged siege and famine.)

          Also the Continuation War was started by the Soviet Union. (Again.) Good job.

          • > Also Finland took no part in the direct attack on Leningrad.

            Finnish offensive on Leningrad was stopped at the Karelian Fortified Area. The Red Army managed to break through the Mannerheim Line in 1940, the Finnish troops just refused to storm the Soviet fortifications.

            • Really? Well, good for them so!

              • “Also the Continuation War was started by the Soviet Union. (Again.) Good job.”

                Try reading about Germans in Finland at that time.

                “Also Finland took no part in the direct attack on Leningrad. Which possibly saved the city. (Or maybe rather destroyed it actually, because their refusal resulted in the prolonged siege and famine.)”

                “Финляндия неофициально заявила, что она хотела бы, чтобы её граница проходила по Неве, исключая Ленинград. Как политическое решение — хорошее. Но вопрос о населении Ленинграда Финляндия не решит. Это должны делать мы”.

                “Finland non-officially made a statement that their border should be the Neva river, without Leningrad. But they would not be able to solve the problem of the Leningrad’s present population. We should solve this problem ourselves.”

                Materials of German general staff.

                Bobby, once a liar – always a liar.

                • How ironic. Once a liar, always a liar, Dima.

                  For one, the German troops in Finland were not allowed to do anything until the Soviets began to bomb Finland. That is what initiated the Continuation War. While I cannot guarentee that Finland would not have made an attack on the Soviets even had Stalin not attacked, as it was Stalin did not even offer them that choice.

                  And that “unofficial statement” was a statement made not by Ryti, not by Mannerheim, not by the Finnish Parliament, not by an Admiral, not by a Field Marshall, not by a General, but by a COLONEL who was noted by Finnish High Command to be a loose cannon with extreme sympathies to Fascism. As soon as they heard, Ryti send Mannerheim to the front to tell the Germans in no uncertain terms that they did not have a “problem” with “Leningrad’s present population.”

                  Of course, the Germans never bothered to include this in their logs because it offered them plausible deniability for their plans to kill off Leningrad anyway- which had been made as early as later ninteen FORTY.

                  • “who was noted by Finnish High Command to be a loose cannon with extreme sympathies to Fascism”

                    Who was sent by the Finnish HC, nevertheless, to represent the Finnish nation at the Nazi General Staff? And, representing the nation, this Finnish colonel with, oh yes, quite extreme sympathies, asked Germans to, say, free the land used by St.Petes – for Finns?

                    Again, let me draw your attention to the fact we are talking about the document prepared by the German gneral staff, in the freaking September 1941 – the city of Leningrad was on the verge of being taken by the humane Finns and murderous German Nazi.

                    Another option for after taking St.Petes Nazis thought about: “Город блокируем, окружаем колючей проволокой под током, простреливаем её из пулемётов”

                    “We block the city, surround it with the powered barbwire, and shoot through it with machine guns.”

                    That simple.

                    Just for you to understand why they had to propose the machine guns: they were ready to capture the city and split it in two, giving the part north of Neva to Finland.

                    But Finland was not ready to accept people of St.Petersburg – alive.

                    That are wordsa of Germans, at that time hardly pro-Russian, or anti-Finnish.

      • Hitler was not a democrat, Dima. Hitler’s regime, like Stalin’s, is a textbook example of autocracy and actually even totalitarianism.

        • In his 1941 diary, Gen. Halder, then Chief of German General Staff, calls the USSR “totalitarian” – but not the Nazi Germany.

          • That’s nice you value the opinion of “Gen. Halder, then Chief of German General Staff” so much.

          • Logical fallacy. To quote Asimov, “Abensce of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

            And “Gen. Halder” was by no means an objective source, being a fervent supporter of the very authoritarian WWI Empire and a lukewarm one of the Third Reich.

            • To quote Asimov, “Abensce of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

              From a linguistic point of view, one may well argue with Azimov on that.

              Absence of ring on your finger is well an evidence of absence of wife, for the most cultures.

              But that was not my, or Eugene’s point to tell that Hitler was a democrat.

              My only wish was to show you the picture of the three people the West failed to get allied to in it’s Crusade against Russia.

              • And that makes sense how?

                How is the absence of a ring on one’s finger (a concrete, observable thing) equivalent to the lack of a mention of authoritarian in reference to Germany in a journal by an extremely biased and unreliable source?

                • Turtler, sometimes people talk about things not directly connected to Nazi Germany.

                  Just to amuse themselves, you know. Or just to show that Aisek quotes may become an “idol of the theater”…

                  Absence of ring was a comment to Asimov’s POV, not Nazi generals and their POV.

                  To continue our talk of logical fallacies, yes, there were several – in Andrew’s initial responce to my post with a link to the picture of the three democrats.

        • Eath is not flat, Bobby.

          • @Eath

            Dima started talking in old Scottish. I wonder what’s happening in Dimaland, from where he’s commenting on ours “alternative” reality.

            • May I be forgiven for citing LR, but:

              – sadly, she deleted her recent post. *Crying*

              Anyway, I’ll try to explain her position in a few words. “Only a total moron can take a typo for a mistake”.

              That her post went in capitals, something like:

              ONLY A TOTAL MORON CAN TAKE A TYPO FOR A MISTAKE.

              I think I can understand her capsing in such cases.

      • Firstly, Hitler was no democrat, and Ryti and Mannerheim had no desire to destroy St. Petersburg or its inhabitants. Which was precisely why the Finns stopped their advance towards the City when the Germans and their Spanish/Portuguese auxiliaries were launching their main attacks in the South, refused all attempts by them to base forces on Finnish soil for an attack on St. Petersburg, turned a blind eye towards nonmilitary aid to St. Petersburg, and even contemplated a massive headlong assault on St. Petersburg to conquer it before their “allies” from the South could and thus prevent the generalized slaughter of the city in accordance with Hitler’s wishes.

        If anything, they probably did more to save the city than that incompetent Zhdanov did (which, granted, isn’t saying much, but still).

        And the only reason Finland even joined the Axis in WWII was because of the Winter War. It would have preferred an armed neutrality favorable to the Western Allies, but the German occupation of Norway sadly put paid to that idea.

        • [Which was precisely why the Finns stopped their advance]

          Don’t be so clownish.
          Finnish army just was quite weak and wasn’t able to advance anyway. Of course they didn’t want to save anyone.

          [And the only reason Finland even joined the Axis in WWII was because of the Winter War.]

          No, the only reason of the Winter War was becaouse Finland allienated with Germany.
          Anyway, entering the war they had to do everything to win. Finland could easily cease existing in 1945. Do you belive finns are so stupid?

          • @No, the only reason of the Winter War was becaouse Finland allienated with Germany.

            Yeah, the “quite weak” Finland alienated Germany indeed. That’s why Hitler gave them to Stalin.

            And that’s why the Allies (Britain, France, Poland) planned to help Finland against the Nazi allies the Soviets.

            • Alternative history?

              • No moron, Britain and France were intending to send troops to aid Finland against the main Nazi ally, Soviet Russia.

                Britain provided aircraft, munitions, and food.

                It is also widely believed that the reason why Russia went to the negotiating table with Finland, rather that overrun the whole country was the fear of Anglo French intervention.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

              • Obviously you have not studied plans the Western Allies made to ship troops overland through Norway and Sweden to help the Finns, with the bonus help of cutting Swedish ore shipments to Hitler.

                • I have even studied plans of US of sending in marines to help Saakashvili finally conquer South Ossetia in 2008.

                  Or allying with Hitler and starting a Crusade against communism.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

                  Have fun.

                  Discussing these plans and their possible consequences is exactly what they call “aternative history”.

                  • Alright, this is just rediculous. I MIGHT be able to swallow plans for a Western (or at least American) intervention into the Caucasus alongside Georgia against the breakaway Republics, but the fact that you are citing that monumental idiot Pat Buchanan as a serious source. To cite only one of the most obvious problems with his thesis is that the entire idea that Hitler would stop at Poland is bunk, if for no other reason than even if he suddenly lost all desire for expanding the territory of the “Aryan Race”, he still planned to topple the British and French as the predominant powers of their day and replace them with his Reich. And I could go ON and ON and ON here.

                    AU is one thing. But GOOD AU at least operates within the bounds of the plausible or at least believable: as in if you twist your neck to adjust to the realities of the universe you could plausibly see it playing out.

                    And plans for a Western Allied/Nazi German attack on the USSR barring the effective subjugation of one or the other without Stalin doing something unbelievably rash (as in Red Alert One rash, like annexing large portions of Eastern Europe and China singlehandedly) is effectively so when you realize that one major reason Hitler historically gave the possibility of an alliance with Poland very short shrift is because he realized such an alliance in the context of a greater war against the USSR would give the Poles an opportunity to forge Pilsudski’s long dreamed of Federation (whose name I forget at the moment), which was in direct contradiction of Hitler’s desire for living space.

                    • @as in Red Alert One rash

                      Haha. I just wondered if anyone else would hear “Hell March” in their heads while we’re discussing this :)

                    • Yeah, I think I like the original best: no shortage of additional scenarios and say what you will, but it had the most realistic and “gritty” feel to it. Ah, good days.

                    • “but the fact that you are citing that monumental idiot Pat Buchanan as a serious source”

                      “Buchanan was a senior adviser to American Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan.”

                      Well, it seems they say you are who your friends are?

                      So, what do you think of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, who needed an advice from a “monumental idiot”?

                      May I refrain from further commenting your evaluation of the Nixon policy adviser?

                    • Oh, I’d like to withdraw italics from the word “your”. Thought I was talking to another person.

                      Surprisingly, I would welcome your opinion on this Buchanan – would you care to give some explanation why exactly he’s an idiot.

          • “Finnish army just was quite weak and wasn’t able to advance anyway. Of course they didn’t want to save anyone.”

            Your own sources contradict you: the Soviets denuded their Northern front at Leningrad to the point where it was dangerously thin. If the Finns had made any sizable attempt to attack there, they would have broken through. instead, they remained immobile. Not because they did not realize what was happening, but precisely BECAUSE they wanted to be distinguished from the Axis proper.

            “Anyway, entering the war they had to do everything to win.”

            If they had done that, we would have seen full-blooded attempts to cut the Murmansk railroad and to kick the Soviets out of the territory bordering them to the East, which would have given them a far more defensible frontier. They didn’t. Because they knew any cutting of the Murmansk line wold have placed them beyond negotiation with the West, whichwould have been fatal to Finnish independence regardless of who won WWII.

            • Sunshine, answer one simple question, please:

              Did Finns want to annex the territory of the city of Leningrad to the north from Neva river in 1941?

              • Yes and no.

                Yes they wanted to annex Leningrad if it happened in a vacuum with no greater negative repercussions.

                However, they were not willing to go to open war with the Western Allies to do so and they (save for a few fringe nutcases) did not want to do so by being involved in open genocide.

                • Um, so here’s the next question. It’s going to be a little complex, sorry.

                  A) Germans agreed with you, and said Finns wanted to have land of the city.

                  B) Germans also said Finns did not want the population.

                  C) (The question itself) What was the reason why Germans claimed that, taking into account

                  D) In autumn 1941 they had absolutely no plans of losing the war, and

                  E) Were the worst enemies of every Allied power, and

                  F) Were not exactly afraid of the people of the Reich not voting for them next elections?

        • [It would have preferred an armed neutrality favorable to the Western Allies]

          How could Mr. Mannergeim build his ‘Great Finland’ with the ‘armed neutrality’?

          • Oh, well, as usual – invade Karelia. As Finland did since it was created.

            After all, Karelia belongs to noone, and is not populated at all, isn’t it?

            That’s the way every democracy should behave.

            Pilsoudsky’s “Poland od morza do morza” did, and “Greater Finland”, and even the freedom-loving “Greater Georgia”. And only democratic Turks decided simply to massacre several millons of Armenians on their own territory to get some lebensraum.

            • Dima, I wanted to write something, but then I realized you’re just too stupid and not worthy of my time.

              But that’s quite rich, Russians accusing others of expansionism. It’s like their faked crying about Grad rockets.

            • Um, no, the last Finnish invasion of Karelia prior to the Winter war was in 1923. Indeed, the Finnish government clamped down on such freelance armed adventurism on its own. It was Stalin’s aggression against Finland in 1939 that brought the Karelian issue back to the forefront.

              • To use your logic, dear,

                It were several Finnish invasions of Karelia in the 1920ies, that made Stalin think Finland is an enemy, and would gladly ally the Nazis to finally conquer Karelia?

                • Maybe in his fevered skull, but we have long established that the same person who came up with such artful creations as the famed “Doctor’s Plot” might be even less in tune with reality than the normal human.

                  For one, had he been so concerned about the shenanigans of a few hundred Finnish nationalists waltzing around the woods, he would have noticed that said expeditions mainly occurred in the early 1920’s, when the more extreme Whites from the Finnish Civil War were still in power. By midway through that decade, however, power shifted to the moderates and the center left, and by the end of that decade, the Finns were actually ARRESTING such “volunteers” and shipping them to the USSR on charges of terrorism and attempted murder.

                  • “in 1923 […] the Finnish government clamped down on […] freelance armed adventurism”

                    “Stalin’s aggression against Finland in 1939”

                    Using charged words to promote a POV? Sorry I have a poor English vocabulary, I’d give you a master-class:D

          • Mannerheim was not a subscriber to the push for a “Greater Finland.” That mainly came from some of the more rabid parts of the military.

            • No, he wasn’t a subscriber, really. But the whole nation was, and you know that. And interwar governments needed to use nationalistic and expansionist agenda to stay in power in Finland.

              But I can’t hear you defending Pilsoudsky, as a not subscriber of Miedzymorze, how come?

              • Ah, so THAT’s what Pilsudski’s brainchild was. Thanks for that.

                Regarding the role of the Greater Finnish idea, that was certainly the case in the early 1920’s and amongst the more rabidly nationalist parts of the population, but as I mentioned before it had considerably petered out during the post-Civil War reconciliation in the late ’20s and 30’s.

                And the reason I am not defending Pilsudski is because I am infinitely less fond of him. While I can somewhat accept that some part of him was still an idealist who sought to free the various minorities from the Russian Empire (both in its Czarist and Soviet incarnations), at the end of the day the man still sought to impose upon these very liberated peoples an extremely uneven and often harsh relationship with Warsaw that would see their coffers directly sapped to feed Poland while they lacked any ability to directly influence the very policies that governed them due to the general monopoly on power held by the ethnic Polish heartland of the federation which was struggling with the dominance of the Pilsudskite military itself. The Finnish irredentists at least had the decency to propose a direct annexation of said “rightful” territories to Finland as full and equal citizens. Pilsudski was not so generous.

                While that arguably was the better of the two alternatives that we know of (Soviet domination and German colonization), it says a lot more about the outright horror involved in those two alternatives than it does about Pilsudski’s generosity.

                • Turttler,

                  Are you sure you don’t confuse Pilsudski with Dmowski?

                  http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/polish_baltic_history/59810

                  Yet amid the diversity of the numerous political movements, two major political leaders emerged. From the First World War to the 1930s, Polish politics was dominated by two strong personalities: Jozef Pilsudski and Roman Dmowski. While both shared a love for their homeland and a desire to see it thrive as an independent state, the methods they used to achieve their goals were very different. And while one’s philosophy would dominate the interwar period, the other’s be influential during the crteation of the postwar state.

                  Roman Dmowski was born in the Warsaw suburb of Praga in 1864 to a poor, working-class family. Having earned a degree in biology from the University of Warsaw, he felt resentment for having to compete with the many non-Poles in the Polish lands. He became politically active for a number of nationalist causes, some of which were anti-Semitic, even spending time in prison in 1892 for organizing a nationalist demonstration. Throughout his career, Dmowski would be known for his conservative, nationalist, anti-Semitic, pro-Polish philosophy.

                  Jozef Pilsudski, on the other hand, represented a more liberal ideology. He was born in Wilno (now Vilnius, Lithuania) in 1867 to a noble family. He, too, was sent to prison: He was sentenced to five years in Siberia in 1887. Pilsudski worked with the Socialists, helping to found the Party of Polish Socialism and editing the revolutionary newspaper Robotnik (The Worker) Pilsudski, being from an outlying area of what was historically known as Poland, believed in a country that would accept all who were loyal to it, Poles and non-Poles alike. The events beginning in 1914 would allow both him and his rival to help build the Polish state according to their own ideologies.

                  • No, I was not confusing Pilsudski with Dmowski. Dmowski was even worse.

                    While Pilsudski’s plans for the union were fatallly flawed and generally concentrated power in Warsaw to the detriment of the other members of the Federation, at the very least he tried to form something of a Confederation. Dmowski was not even so generous. He more or less desired a Polish Empire in the East in which the other minorities were wholly subsurvient to Warsaw to a degree even Pilsudski was horrified at.

                    The most ready ccomparison I can make is to the two schools of Yugoslav thought: the Federalists and the Serbophiles (for lack of a better term). The former wanted to create an equal union between the constituent South Slav “nations”- even when they were within the Austro-Hungarian or Turkish realms- , and whom the most ready example is perhaps Tito, while the Serbophiles- namely most of the Chetniks and to a far lesser extent the more moderate Serbian leadership before the idea of a separate Greater Serbia arrived- wanted to create “Serbia and the outlying territories.” Only that’s not the best.

                    A better analogy would be that Pilsudski wanted to recreate something along the lines of the Austro-Hungarian empire in the East with Poland serving as Austria while Dmowski wanted to form something akin to Francoist Spain.

                    Of the two, I probably prefer Pilsudski because for all his manymanymany flaws he at least made some effort to make a commonwealth work. Dmowski not so much.

                • “While I can somewhat accept that some part of him was still an idealist who sought to free the various minorities from the Russian Empire (both in its Czarist and Soviet incarnations), at the end of the day the man still sought to impose upon these very liberated peoples an extremely uneven and often harsh relationship with Warsaw that would see their coffers directly sapped to feed Poland while they lacked any ability to directly influence the very policies that governed them due to the general monopoly on power held by the ethnic Polish heartland of the federation which was struggling with the dominance of the Pilsudskite military itself.”

                  Oh, what a sentence.

                  You didn’t need to use so many words to describe a very simple thing: ethnic Polish empire.

                  • True, of course I can use fewer words, but after sitting at a desk so l ong I generally eee no need to restrain my fingers, and besides I have learned through experience that if one is too generalized someone will either get the wrong idea or use it as a billy club on you. And besides, somebody needs to compete with Robert for the title of Bandwith hog on this site. And besides, is it not more fun to go on and on for quite some time anyway?

                    (Yes, I am being ironic).

                    • Damned Westerners. Can’t talk to them.

                      When you’re laughing, they are serious.

                      Then they’re lauhging when you expect it the least.

                      The boldman should have nuked them back in 1962.

  8. Independent journalists and commentators continue to monitor the murder of Polish President Lech Kaczynski. In course of their own investigations, independent journalists noticed some interesting historical facts that highlight some aspects of Russian-Polish relations.

    Thus, a blogger living in Greece, tracing the case of the murder of Kaczynski, recalled that the first Communist president in postwar Poland had been also killed by the Russians. He writes:

    http://euromar.livejournal.com/231065.html

    “It is somehow strange and suspiciously quiet now, with no information about the records from black boxes of the TU-154M of President of Poland, which crashed in Russia. It is somehow strange how quickly the Russian media forgot such a tragedy.

    There are still no answers to many questions.

    Alleged lack of understanding in radio communications between the air controller and the pilot.

    Sudden appearance and then also sudden disappearance of a fog.
    I, personally, flews 200 times in the past 10 years. 3-4 times I found myself in a situation when the plane landed at zero visibility; it is when I could not see from the window of the plane even the wing of the aircraft. I, of course, felt great fear, realizing how fast we were flying and approaching the land at zero visibility, but the landing was carried out very professionally, and even gently.

    No official of the hosting country met such a heavyweight delegation. They just sent just a representative of the president of the federal district and the governor of the Smolensk Region to meet the delegation of the President and the elite of the Polish state. In general, this is an indescribable boorishness. Respectable people do not act like that!

    Why media imposed censorship on publication of materials on this subject.

    … and a lot more.

    In any case, the hosting party bears responsibility or a part of responsibility for creating a dangerous situation, which ended in the disaster and the death of many people.

    In Roman law, one of the main principles was “who profits?”. If you look from this angle, Putin and Tusk are the main suspects.

    A significant part of the leadership of Poland died with Kaczynski, and it was the right wing of Polish politics.

    For Poland, this means the strengthening of leftists, whose leader is Tusk. For Putin, it means having more comfortable negotiating partners. Kaczynski urged for the deployment of US ABMs and supported the Georgian President Saakashvili. But here are the facts from history. Naturally, as always, the Kremlin rejects all of this.

    Wladyslaw Sikorski was the head of the Polish government in exile.

    On 2 May 1943, when Sikorski was flying from London to Cairo, an anonymous person phoned two of his deputies with a message of the plane crash with Sikorsky in Gibraltar. However, this did not happen then, but on the way back, on July 4, 1943. 15 people died, but the pilot of the British Air Forces survived.

    Shortly before the death Sikorski, he was at the center of an international scandal involving the discovery of mass graves in the Katyn Forest. He demanded a detailed investigation from the Soviet Union. In response to that, the Soviet Union broke diplomatic relations with the Government of Sikorsky.

    It is symbolic that the last president of this government in exile, Kaczorowski, died in the plane with Kaczynski.

    Boleslaw Bierut was the first and only president of the Communist People’s Republic of Poland, and he died under mysterious circumstances on March 12, 1956 in Moscow, where he was a guest of the XX congress of the Communist Party, the independent commentator indicates in his blog.

    Meanwhile, in the circles of open haters of Poland in Moscow, no one doubts that Lech Kaczynski was killed by the international terrorist organization of the FSB Russia. An officer of the FSB, a full-grown Zionist and Stalinist Mukhin, the editor-in-chief of the Stalinist anti-Polish paper “Duel”, for example, writes (his own people will understand him correctly):

    “Sikorski flied for inspection of Polish troops in the Middle East. On the British military base in Gibraltar, his plane got up from the runway and immediately fell into the sea. Some of the people on board survived, but Sikorski safely drowned. The British wrote off all this to an accident, but the results of the investigation of this disaster had been classified.

    And if in the death of the Polish elite at Smolensk, nobody has a finger in the pie, then it is a fate, and a surprisingly fair one”.

    Semen Vendrov, the editor-in-chief of “the Anti-dictatorship” website, living in New York and consequently not afraid of the FSB, also does not doubt that Kaczynski has been killed by Russian terrorists from the FSB. He writes:

    “Two secret services – the Polish and Russian, took part in the operation for the elimination of the presidential aircraft. A patriot and hero of his people, Kaczynski was betrayed by insiders and outsiders”.

    Meanwhile, Polish media outlets reported that Polish pilgrims, who went to the site of the destruction of the presidential plane by the international terrorist group of the FSB Russia, found small pieces of rotten human flesh – such powerful was the explosion, arranged by the FSB.

    Having found one such piece of decomposed human flesh in the size of a palm, Poles buried it in a dry place, and a priest, who arrived with them, read prayers.

    Also, the pilgrims found in the dirt an intact passport for the name of Gabriel Zyh. Back in Poland, they found out that he was the chairman of the Society of Families of Katyn Victims. A local Russian sold them for 100 euros a large piece of the shell of the presidential plane.

    • @A significant part of the leadership of Poland died with Kaczynski, and it was the right wing of Polish politics.

      No, hardly just this. Even the socialdemocratic (SLD) would-be presidential candidate died in the crash.

      @a full-grown Zionist and Stalinist

      Incompatible.

      @Sikorski

      Yeah.

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1073791.ece

      @Bierut

      Also true.

      Btw the Soviet agents caused the crash which killed General Zia (military leader of Pakistan during the Soviet war in Afghanistan), possibly using the same gas they later used to kill more over 100 people in Moscow in 2002.

      • “@a full-grown Zionist and Stalinist

        Incompatible.”

        You bet! It’s just beauty is in the eye of the beholder:D

        “Stalinists and Jews are the greates foes of Lithuania”. Remins me of Bohdan’s beloved Bandera somehow…

        BTW, on Bandera’s heroic kampf: “The image of the Jews as collaborators with the Soviets was probably also reinforced by the traditional Ukrainian nationalist image of the Jews as inveterate collaborators with the Ukrainians’ national enemies.”

        To sum up, “Yuids, Moscals and Lachs are the Ukraine’s worst enemies”. As well as Lithuania’s.

    • @Oleg: “Thus, a blogger living in Greece, tracing the case of the murder of Kaczynski, recalled that the first Communist president in postwar Poland had been also killed by the Russians.”

      Thank you, darling to state that in the second paragraph.

      I’ve saved two minutes of my life instead of reading your post.

  9. Voice of Reason

    Below second picture: “Check out that reverse view image of Stalin in the window in the background. Yikes! What a country!

    Actually, it is the same image of Stalin that is seen in the foreground of the first picture, only seen from behind. That’s why it’s in “reverse”. Yikes!

  10. Pretty sad state of affairs , when in a country
    such as Moscovy , with high ambitions of
    superpowerism and dreams of empires , the best
    thing they can do is turn to a bygone , beastly ,
    degenerate like Stalin , who was not even a
    moscovite .
    Surely , they have ” heroes ” from the past , such
    as Ivan Grozny , who delighted in murdering
    not only his subjects but in a true spirit of
    fairness and equality tortured and murdered
    members of his immediate family as well . Or
    how about Peter the ” Great” who with great
    affection tortured his own son to death .
    Or in a sense of equality , why not Catherine
    the ” Great ” , oops I forgot , she was a foreigner
    too . Oh well , the moscovites are used to have foreigners rule them , the harsher the more the
    moscovites seem to revere them .
    Just look how they love good old Koba .

    • Maksym, when you call Russia a “Moscovy” (which is not offencive, really, for the unity of Russian land was achieved by Moscow’s princes),

      when you call it such, it makes me think you’re deeply offended by the fact your country is called Ukraine and you’re a Ukrainian.

      You must just feel it not fair you live in a country named literally “near the border region”.

  11. It is deeply shameful that one of the great mass murderers of history should be “honoured” in this way.
    I am not Ukrainian but I have been dismayed by the racist remarks made by their fellow Slavs. Now, I understand why Ukrainians wish to run their affairs completely independently of others.

  12. Thanks for giving your ideas. I would also like
    to mention that video games have been ever evolving. Better technology and enhancements have aided create
    authentic and interactive games. These types of entertainment video
    games were not really sensible when the real concept
    was first of all being tried out. Just like other forms of
    technological know-how, video games also have had to develop through
    many decades. This is testimony to the fast progression of video games.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s