Return of the Soviet Union

PS why didn't anyone intervene in the Rwandan genocide?
Are Africans less valuable than Europeans?
Why did it take so long to intervene in the Balkans? Where were the Europeans?

I don't understand a lot of things...

 

There's nothing inconsistent in criticising the U.S. for not helping when asked by a friend and ally and being critical of US intervention that was not requested and for which the only real justification seems to be the economic interests of the US. Gassing the Kurds has no impact on US interests, threats to its energy supply do.

Me neither.

 

Going back to the main subject of the thread, i.e the Soviet Union, I see there are rumours that they may cut off or reduce the oil/gas supply to the rest of Europe. This could be an interesting move and one - if I was Russian - I would think strongly about doing. At this moment in time they have a tight control over Europe's use of natural resources (their's being the third largest stock of oil in the world) and they could use this to their advantage. However they must act now because I believe in a decade or so's time this advantage may be reduced due to an increased use of other alternative energy methods due to progression in the development of newer cleaner technologies.

Of course a reduction in energy supplies would lead to a possible escalation of the current European situation.

In other news Russia also tested a missile the other day capable of avoiding the US missile defence system ear-marked for Poland.

 

the balkans was a shameful episode in EU history. we create a common foreign and security policy so that we need never have a problem 'in our own backyard' (to quote someone i can't remember) and then we ignore an issue to the point where the US has to act somewhat unilaterally through nato because of our complete ineptness.

the european commission did a study about a year ago i think into the effects of a russian cut off and it was found that italy, germany and france woulf suffer. we don't get any of our energy directly from russia so we'd be ok. apparently norway and holland would be expected to ram up production and heavy industry would be expected to change energy source (perhaps to oil? i can't remember). in all after a year when reserves and what not run out and the cut off becomes noticable, we'd be more or less covered, save an increase in prices which apparently would spur the private sector to invest in other energies, such as renewable. but who trusts the eu these days? however, if russia was to make such a move their fragile energy based economy would self destruct without revenue. it'd be suicide on their part.

as for the missile, a comedian at reading i watched (not the most reliable source) said that the star wars project required a whole new classification in auditing from congress so that it would get budgeting without any clear objective, such was the absolute failure of it. it seems to be a case of people pushing it forward because they make so much silly money out it, when all the tests on it show that firing more than one missile at a time (or using decoys) renders the system useless

 

I tell you another area to watch out for some European warlike action is the Crimea in Ukraine. The key to this area is the naval base of Sevastopol where the Russians have a deal to have some of their navy there until at least 2017, thus giving them access to the Med. President Yushchenko has threatened to rip up this agreement due to Russia's actions in Georgia, this combined with the Ukraine's move towards the west is definately something that will get up the motherland's nose. You watch, given time I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen.

 

Not meaning to once gain diverge from the thread topic, America's view on it's own actions in WWII does actually p!ss me off somewhat.

I have little doubt that without the US, Europe would have been goose-stepping right into the 21st century, and for that all of us here in Europe should be grateful because we have kept our 'freedom'.

However some (i.e not all) Americans appear to think they were the righteous saviours of all of us Limeys and our mates, which is just wrong. America only got involved when America got threatened. It did not aid us when we needed it, because we needed it from day farking one! If America hadn't been attacked, then they wouldn't have got involved and would have watched everyone in Europe get nazzied.

If America had decided that we were worth defending earlier, then hundreds of thousands of British casualties could have been saved, letalone the Ruskies et all. If Germany had concentrated all it's military on us we would have been flattened within days. We were very fortunate that Hitler decided he hated the Russians more and only concentrated his airforce on our little island.

America was, and still is, a very big, powerful, introverted, xenophobic, selfish and dangerous superpower, without any insult implied to those who live there. It is insulting to us to suggest America 'saved our asses in the war', because that was only a by-product of defending itself, and I think we owe more to those who gave their life to defend this country even though they were hideously outnumbered and had little hope doing anything more than prolonging the inevitable.

So there you go. My slightly biased thoughts. I have very mixed feelings on America's intervention. On the one hand, incredibly grateful, and on the other, very bitter.

 

Please view and listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpKRd2xQeq8

 

But if you base all opinions on 'some' Americans you're going to end up with a completely skewed view. For example, my brother used to work in the War Rooms branch of the Imperial War Museum. He would regale us often of American tourists saying things like 'I didn't realise you guys were in the war too'. Of course, this goes to show that some Yanks are dumb ***** who should have to pay for their air; however, this is a disproportionate sample of the Yanks, as I'm sure many go around the museum pondering the deep intricacies of the war and the strategies involved.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with anything, please continue with your discussions on war. I have nothing to add, but am learning a lot.

 

I agree completely, I was in no way saying that all Americans think this by any means, its just usually they are the loudest ones, like all idiots.

America has a proportion of complete tools, just like we do and every other country does.

I was just pointing out that this is the view we get from the vocal minority on occasion, and it annoys me greatly.

 

Estonia is not mainly russian. We've got 1,1mill estonians and 0,4mill others(mainly russians) in here. Worrying is though that more russians travel in than we can "produce" estonians.
And somebody else in this thread mentioned earlier, that Russia is using the same passport handing out thing in Estonia: this is not true either, the russians, who stayed here since the collapse of the soviet union, never took the estonian passport, new immigrants already come with russian passport and the chance of an estonian taking a russian passport is very minimal. Instead we are trying hard to integrate the ones living here .. not the best idea it seems, as this means more will want to travel in again.

Our location is very nice, perfect place to have war games between russia and europe. We've been kissing big european countries asses for over 15 years, mainly to make sure they are with us once Russia thinks it is ready to extend its border to the sea.

sorry to dig up an old post while you are merrily away arguing between allies

 

According to the Parliamentary speaker of one of these disputed regions he's been told his territory will be merged into a United Russian and Belarussian state in the next few years. Belarus going home?

 

Inspiring!

 

Here is an example of the return of the Soviet Union, albeit in a different form. Alas communism isn't the main issue here anymore. Some kind of new CIS (commonwealth of independent states) could be forming, although technically I read the other day that the CIS does still exist. Does anybody remember Euro 92? After the fall of the Union many of the states played in that tournament as the CIS.

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

It's the return of the Union..........or CIS!

 

With regard to 'Hollywood' version of movies, if you believe it, you are truly an idiot, and there are a lot of idiots. Still, it's hard to know what is and isn't true until you go out and find out for yourself.

I know there are lots of idiots in the world, and the USA has a unique brand of ignoramus, one that is hard pressed to locate itself on a map clearly labeled with USA.

Still, all jokes about the 'We saved your asses...twice" comment aside, I think most Americans who are worth talking to know that Britain fought the good fight and surived against all odds to play an important role in finishing the war they didn't start.

What absolutely does not have common understanding, and I venture to say even in Europe, is the contribution of the Soviet Union to defeating the Nazis. Compared to the scale of the Eastern Front, the battle for France and Britain was a garden party. As Stuboy pointed out above, once the German 6th Army was destroyed, the Soviets crawled, then walked and then ran to Berlin. In my opinion, and let's face it, I am talking about counterfactual history here, if there was no D-Day, the Soviets would have met the British at Normandy. After being almost totally down and out in 1941, the sacrifice the Red Army made, the brutal conditions of their war, the savagery the Nazis unleashed on them, the tremendous distances combat took place over, the need to completely rebuild their industry out of the reach of the Wehrmacht, the tiny amount of assistance the allies could give them, yet they still punched the Germans in the face and kicked them in the ass over and over and over again in the end. It's absolutely astonishing.

I do not think that if the US hadn't entered the war, you would be Nazi goose-stepping...there would be little Stalin faces on your Rubles in Potsdamer Platz and the Champs Elysee, and everyone's favorite football player would be Lev Yashin. Britain would probably be a giant checkpoint charlie, and those damn Irish would still be neutral.

Incidentally, the only way that would have happened is if the Japanese had decided to concentrate on Asian/Siberian continental gains and forgo dominating the Pacific, effectively ceding hegemony over it to the US. The Japanese had demonstrated the ability to defeat Russia and China already in two wars 30 to 50 years earlier. Since only a fool fights on two fronts, the likelihood that US and Japan would ally themselves at that point, even for just a short time, would be very high. What a strange world it would have been, eh?

 

How concise. You should work for the History Channel. Brilliant explanation.

You may well be right about the Soviet domination. Their contribution is always overlooked as to the outcome of the war, even if they weren't looking to bring in a united and free Europe with it...

I believe somewhere in the region of 25 million Russians were killed in WWII, which is a toll that will probably never be matched in a single theatre of war. at least if/when the first nuclear weapons come into play.

Stalin was by far the worst dictator in modern history. The Russian people were treated horrifically, impossibly inhumanely, and yet absurdly this directly led to Western Europe getting the opportunity to win it's freedom back.

 

I find it quite worrying that in the related videos, second in the list comes this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk&feature=related

 

I've just turned on that national anthem a bit too loud. I then realised that I am today wearing my CCCP t-shirt with the hammer and sickle. What would the neighbours think?

While we're here I may as well remind you of Eastern Europe's favourite cat and mouse team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nviaWnxwo

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the next Vice President of the United States, Sarah Palin!

How could I have doubted you, USA!


USA! USA! USA!

 

I thought about airing my views here, but decided to make an entirely different thread on the matter. Feel free to vent your thought out puns and anecdotes on that.

 

cheers for that - I must of got the wrong end of the stick when i was out in Estonia - Maybe it was just the specific suburb of Tallin they were talking about. Apologies.

 

thats quite possible, we have two cities in the east which mainly hosts russians and also one eastern suburb in Tallinn, where russians have the majority.

Apologies accepted

 

Oh, say can you see...:]]


Nice.

 

i thought they did? not with direct military support mind, but such are the consequences of a checked and balanced government

 

The US did indeed take our side from day one, selling us weapons and food at knock down prices and refusing to do the same for the other side.

 

If you wanted you could defend anyones action but whats the point of sticking up for american other then just for the point of it. They should of got fully involved from the start. Perhaps america know this and thats why now there allways the ones who start invading places.

 

Why exactly should they 785? America was in the midst of an isolationist phase politically, it was doing well for itself and it's economy was ok. Moreover the chances of being attacked were slim to nothing if they stayed out of it. You don't naively think countries go to war for silly old 'right and wrong' do you? :]]

America went to war because the silly Japs attacked them, because their economy had a lot to gain from producing and selling all the necessities of war and because they realised the British Empire was ripe for picking. They knew we were flat broke and that a vacuum was about to be created in the world order which they could fill.

 

You of course have been around to see the affects of a world war going on and its me who is the naive one. loads of people dieing on a massive scale everyday is going on around you ,and you think its ok at the time to because your safe do nothing. Its like watching someone get raped down an alley and just walking past as if you did not see it. america was needed from the start and when there is a world war going on its no time to be selfish. Yes they should of joined in for silly old right and wrong. what would have happened if hitler and co won the war things then would not look so rosey for america who sat back and did nothing.smiliey face smililey face lots of smilies faces.

 

Would have been a first for any country ever in the history of the world!

 

I urge you to really look into the history, Mr785. I will also point out that your country didn't really help the Czech's when Hitler took over a part of their country in 1938...why not? You didn't do anything to help China when the Japanese began conquering the cities on the coast there. You even had a large presence there in Hong Kong and Singapore and a huge Colonial outpost nearby in India. Why not? Aren't Chinese people real people that need help, too? Millions died there, you know. Nor did you declare war on the Soviets when Molotov & Ribbentrop engineered a gobbling up of two sides of the turkey there. Didn't you want to help the people of eastern Poland? Maybe there were other things to consider? This phase of the British war effort is known as 'the phoney war', 'sitzkrieg' or as Churchill delicately put it, 'the twilight war'.

In that era, England and France were very very far away from America...a week's journey by boat. Imagine, NO INTERNET!? There were big powerful colonial countries in Europe with massive navies and armies that could clearly take care of themselves, right? Getting involved in a war at that time was a direct reflection on a countries desire to gain territory in a theatre of war, we had no territorial ambitions in Continental Europe.

Remember, nobody expected Blitzkrieg to be able to be done except a few military strategists like Germany's Heinz Guderian, England's BH Liddel-Hart, USA's Billy Mitchell, and France's Charles De Gaulle...nobody in their countries gave a crap, except Hitler in Guderian's. 'Blitzkrieg' was a shocking development, and most rational people would say France's imposing Maginot Line was an absolutely unconquerable unbeatable fortification. It wasn't and that took everyone by surprise.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, US president at the time, respected the right of the people and congress to declare war (unlike ALL presidents since). They wouldn't without declare war unless the US was in peril. FDR recognized the peril and so did a growing number of people who could see the writing on the wall. When the Nazi's absolutely rolled up the continent in record time, it grabbed the world's attention.

A few times a year, FDR would hold 'Fireside Chats' on the radio, and people would stop what they were doing to hear the words of the President, who was a very good and persuasive speaker. He would calmly tell the US people what was going on in the economy (as we were just recovering from the depression) and then the war as Hitler's menace grew, he discussed what Britain was doing and how we needed to help. December 29th, 1940, nearly a year before the US entered the war, FDR had this to say to the American people:

By July 1940, the Atlantic resembles a war zone between the US Navy and the German Kriegsmarine with all the pieces in place for a massive confrontation. From that point on, the US Navy conducts fierce and deadly anti-submarine and anti-surface vessel warfare on the Kriegsmarine's 'German Raiders' which has been gobbling up convoys of supply ships feeding and arming the people of Britain.

Further, FDR gave very explicit rules of engagement ultimately designed to provoke the Germans into an incident that could be seen as casus belli or 'a reason to go to war'. They sank some American shipping vessels and such, but the real smoking gun never came as the Germans were keen not to lose their Raiders in a blunt confrontation. As the war progressed and as the Battle of Britain looked ever more desparate, FDR too cast aside any regrets he may have had for being overly belligerent if it meant preventing the surrender of Britain to the Germans.

The situation settled itself with the Pearl Harbor attack and when by Dec 10th, 1941 the Germans had declared war upon the US based on the Tripartite treaty they signed with Italy and Japan.

Ever since 1940, mere months after the blitzkrieg rolled over the continent, the US Navy and Army, which were on a frankly rather naive peacetime footing, began a massive expansion. Classes of ships were designed and commissioned to replace the WWI era antiques we used. Classes of aircraft were designed and built to meet the threat of the Messerschmits and Focke-Wulfs engaging Britain. The military knew there was to be a big battle, and soon. The question was how could you convince the American people thousands of miles from any harm that they needed to get involved.

I admire FDR for respecting the constitution enough NOT to kick the door in and start shooting like Dubya does. And I admire him for recognizing that sitting around and waiting for you to defeat the Nazi's was not going to work. The US virtually gave through 'the Lend-Lease act' Britain enormous amounts of supplies and resources to pursue the Battle of Britain and the rearming of the Royal Army after Dunkirk.

By September of 1941, "down at the bottom of the sea lay the merchantmen Robin Moor (May 21); the Sessa*; (Aug. 17); the Steel Seafarer (Sept. 7); the Montana*; (Sept. 11). Damaged at a pier in Suez lay the Arkansan (Sept. 11). Unscathed, somewhere in the Atlantic, was the U.S. destroyer Greer, which a Nazi submarine had tried several times, unsuccessfully, to torpedo."

FDR then clears the confusion with another Fireside Chat where in plain English, he clarifies the instructions he's given to the US Navy for a public growing concerned about the losses, and the New York Daily News reports it the following day with the headline "SHOOT, FDR TELLS NAVY".

This phase of US History is known as 'The Undeclared War', which the quote above was lifted from.

 

An excellent post there Fitz. Wasted on it's target though I fear!

 

I think Mr785 may have a little more than going on than the typical yobbo. My opinion is solely based on the fact that he had some good puns in the Turkey-Germany thread. If I thought it was going to be wasted, I wouldn't have posted it.

Don't prove me wrong, boyo!

 

Just going to take issue with this little bit. We just finished paying it back less than 2 years ago.

 

'Gave' may be the wrong word but are you saying the terms were bad?

 

i found out today that nato membership is conditional on a nation having no internal disputes. if true, this provides an almost catch 22-esque motive for georgia.

 

I think its fair to say every country has a different way of looking back on history, and a different way of telling stories to benefit them. I was not looking for a history lesson but it was worth a read anyway and now i do see a different angle.

thats big of you to say that. i have got in conflict with you before. i understand you dont want to be a mod all the time. every now and then you like to have a pop at me what i dont mind. what i dont like is when i have a pop at you back then you like to be a mod again. Im not going to argue with you because your only use powers i dont have to your advantage as you have done before.

typical yobbo? boyo? talking about me as if im not going to read this thread why?

I dont know what you think of me, but people can see what they want to see, and paint incorrect pictures in there minds of how events took place, and it seems like you have not got the full picture. why call me a yobbo? im just interested i never thought i came across that way before.

to be honest i have allways felt your a little up yourself, but i do enjoy reading your posts, and generally would say your a top forum member.