Ring out the old
For the European project's enthusiasts 2008 has been a good year.
The European Union has extended its reach in foreign affairs. It brokered a ceasefire during the Georgian crisis and held a common position despite deep and obvious divisions between the 27 towards Russia.
The mission to Kosovo eventually got off the ground.
There's even an EU battle fleet on its way to African waters to deal with the pirates.
Despite the financial crisis the euro has weathered the storm better than the pound.
After a few false starts and the occasionally conspicuous absence of Germany there is agreement on a coordinated plan to stimulate the economy.
Countries are still queuing up to join the organisation. Iceland became a surprise new contender for membership. The most important country in the Balkans, Serbia, chose the EU and the West in elections that were widely seen as a referendum on its future orientation.
Just before Christmas national leaders and the European Parliament backed what has become a flagship plan, to cut greenhouse gases. True, it was much watered down in the teeth of the recession, but it still puts the EU well ahead of the rest of the international pack.
And yet, and yet.
The past year was perhaps even better for those who despise, distrust or just aren't totally convinced about the European project. No need here for a long list. One date.
On 13 June the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty. This was unlucky for some. At that time the Irish government was rather popular and the vote clearly wasn't on domestic issues. So it was clearly a rejection of the treaty itself, or the EU as a whole. But the Irish government claims the rejection was the result of specific fears about the practical effect of the treaty.
The EU's national and commission leaders managed not to have their greater project, of trying to do things that are relevant to people all over Europe, derailed by this blow. They put it on the back burner, knowing it would cook away on its own.
By December the leaders of EU countries and the commission had decided that Ireland should vote again. Actually most of them will have decided that, in the privacy of their own heads, within hours of the result. I was, at the time, far too hasty in declaring Lisbon dead. It's not that I am insufficiently cynical. I just didn't think a second referendum would be winnable, and therefore didn't see it as a viable political option. It still seems to me a huge gamble.
Lisbon was of course the treaty that rose from the ashes of the European Constitution which had been burnt to death by the Dutch and French people. To many the two documents looked suspiciously alike.
I am not quite sure who first used the phrase "They don't know the meaning of the word 'No'" in relation to the EU's plans for treaty reform, but it was a stroke of brilliance. It sticks in people's minds and strikes a chord. In political speak, it resonates. It was quite clear before and after the constitution that most national leaders feared referendums because they thought they would lose them.
The behaviour over the treaties gives the impression the European project is an unstoppable juggernaut. A few bodies in the way might slow it down, but not significantly alter its path, let alone stop it in its tracks.
Few of us will really think the Lisbon Treaty is the biggest issue of 2009, but the second Irish referendum, planned for the autumn, will be an important moment for the EU. If the Irish people back it, it will be the end of the story of institutional change for a while, but it will have done nothing to endear the EU to the people who live within its borders. A second rejection would mean hard choices for those in power. What would they do? Abandon the thing they say is so necessary? Introduce it by the back door or in some way, impossible to imagine at the moment, move on without Ireland? Who will find 2009 a good year in the EU?
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~06~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
interesting read, I dont know much about EU law but can the EU impose the lisbon treaty without the consent of ireland?
Complain about this comment
To TorontoChelseaFan (1):
The Lisbon Treaty, as other treaties before, establish and define the EU itself thus the treaty must be accepted in all member states for it to become effective.
Complain about this comment
Mark, a fair summary. Re the euro this will cause issues for Brit's travelling to the eurozone countries, will almost certainly lead to less going there next year. Also hardship for British pensioners living there.
On the upside should be a positive for British exporters and for retailers in Northern Ireland, who have already gained considerably from shoppers flooding up from the South to shop there. May see similar upsides for retailers in the channel ports.
Re Lisbon Treaty, cannot help think that the E.U. Parliament have scored an own goal with the working time directive. This has driven a coach and horses through what we were told was a cast iron guarantee of an opt out that the U.K. was given on the matter. By describing it as a health and safety matter the E.U. Parliament was able to breach this cast iron opt out.
I am sure the no campaign will be making comparisons with any opt outs promised to Irerland over the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish people are intelligent and and having seen the U.K. fooled, will not fall into the same trap of believing in promises which are subsequently broken.
Complain about this comment
The EU has long been criticised for having a "democratic deficit", which arises broadly from the wishes of the leaders of the major countries not to let their national electorates get in the way of what they want to do.
Whatever one thinks of the Lisbon Treaty, the sight of EU leaders avoiding referendums, on the pretext that a document that is substantially the same as the lost Constitution is not a constitution, has brought the EU into yet more disrepute.
Asking the Irish people to vote again, because they had the temerity to vote the "wrong way", only increases the sense of a set of institutions determined to neutralise the voice of the peoples of Europe.
I believe this contempt for democracy by the EU in turn feeds a contempt for democracy generally amongst the peoples of Europe. I believe that is potentially very dangerous.
It would be good if the Irish reaffirmed their "no". Perhaps then the EU would realise it should turn its attention to building a pan-European democracy instead of trying to stifle the voices of its peoples.
Complain about this comment
Surely, Mark, the biggest EU achievement this year has been the climate change package. It is not just about targets - it creates binding Europe-wide measures on carbon trading, emission limits for vehicles, renewable obligations, and so on. This is a good example of using the EU to do more than we can achieve just by ourselves, and where Europe is leading the world ahead of the Copenhagen climate change talks.
As to the EU being "an unstoppable juggernaut", come off it! It can only change its rulebook (treaties) with the unanimous consent of every single Member State. The dice are loaded in favour of the eurosceptics, who only need to obtain a single 'No'
Complain about this comment
Surely, Mark, the biggest EU achievement this year has been the climate change package. It is not just about targets - it creates binding Europe-wide measures on carbon trading, emission limits for vehicles, renewable obligations, and so on. This is a good example of using the EU to do more than we can achieve just by ourselves, and where Europe is leading the world ahead of the Copenhagen climate change talks.
As to the EU being "an unstoppable juggernaut", come off it! It can only change its rulebook (treaties) with the unanimous consent of every single Member State. The dice are loaded in favour of the eurosceptics, who only need to obtain one single 'No'.
As it turns out, Ireland, as the single 'No', has offered to reconsider (it's still their choice), in exchange for other countries trying to meet their concerns (e.g. on the number of Commissioners, on neutrality, etc). If it wants, Ireland can actually "bully" the other countries into making concessions, not the other way around!
Complain about this comment
Re post 5, British and European, so all the euro sceptocs need is to get 'a single no'. Apparently not they got this with Ireland, it appears they need to get another 'no'.
Complain about this comment
The key problem with the Lisbon Treaty was illustrated by the EU Parliament over the "Working Time Directive" which even if all the British MEPs had voted against it, would still have been passed and imposed on the UK. It makes Gordon Brown's "Red Lines" totally meaningless and therefore, the Labour Party has sold the UK into EU Bondage.
As to the Lisbon Treaty itself, even before that was signed, Brussels had already started to put in place all the measures intended under the EU Constitution, it is the way they work and always will.
The UK needs to negotiate a "trade only" deal with the EU first and then, put stay in or leave in a Referendum, it is time that democracy was restored in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Here's a litmus test of European democracy. Just how many of the European governments, including the UK and Irish, would be willing to re-run their general elections if they were told that the electorate had reached the wrong decision? Don't all rush..
Complain about this comment
The revision of the Working time directive is in mid procedure and the elected European Parliament is fully entitled to put forward amendments. It still requires the approval of the Council of Ministers where British government and others remain opposed to ending the opt-out (which is not just a British opt-out, by the way).
Or perhaps jordanbasset and popskihaynes (posts 3 and 8 above) think that European legislation should be left to the Commission alone, and not require parliamentary scrutiny and a double approval by both Parliament and national ministers?
Complain about this comment
@9
But that's based on the idea that referendums are the same as general elections, which is complete nonsense.
The Irish voted no to Nice and then voted yes, so no-one can claim they really thought that No to Lisbon meant "No definitely and forever and always" - Irish voters have got the experience of using a No to get concessions.
Referendums are a rough guide to people's views at a particular moment in time, nothing more. The idea that they are some sacred expression of holy popular will is rubbish - and impossible to live up to anyway. The Spanish voted yes in a referendum on the EU constitution - I don't see people insisting that the constitution must be brought in as a mark of respect for the people of Spain.
Complain about this comment
Oh please. The EU 'battle fleet' is an ad hoc body of ships working with NATO amd Commonwealth vessels. As for the brokered cease fire in Gerogia the EU let Russia get away with breaking the terms of the agreement, not surprising seeing that for instance Germany has a big national interest in keeping Russia on side. A truly common EU foreign policy is a pipe dream.
In 2009 the EU should come to terms with reality, slim its pretensions down to an effective free trade operation and sponsor of intergovernmental co-operation on things like the environment and maritime safety and drop its habit if picking our pockets while prodnosing our domestic affairs.
Pigs might not be able to flt this one but Cameron just might if he put his mind to it.
Complain about this comment
Isnt democracy great. You can vote as often as you like until you come up with the right answer. This is not the first time Ireland has voted no but no one listens, they will just keep coming back until we vote yes.
The comment that Ireland voted no just to get concessions is incorrect. It was never an issue. Every single major political party (the very people who would be negotiating any concessions) campaigned for a yes vote so who exactly was looking for concessions?
Complain about this comment
11. Anthony Zacharzewski
Your argument would have more force if those who voted Yes were given the same chance to have a second vote.
The only vote Britain has ever had was in 1974, when I was 8, I am now 42 and like half the adult population of Britain, have never had a chance to vote in any referenda on the EEC.
The fact that a near 40yr old mandate to join a 15 member trading block has been taken to be all the authority required to find ourselves in a nascent United States of Europe of 27 members with 80% of laws coming from that body, undermining centuries of parliamentary sovereignty and our ability to hold the executive to account for any laws negotiated on our behalf with the end of national vetoes, is the true scandal of the lack of referendums.
The powers being transferred, do not belong to the politicians who are transferring them, but are the rights of every individual in the country, vested in each parliament at the start of its term and handed back at its end to be disposed of as the electorate sees fit in an election.
That is why people need to be routinely asked in referenda if they approve such transfers of power and authority from 1 body to another.
Complain about this comment
Re post 10, British and European, my problem with the working time directive was that originally we were told the British Government (among others) had won an opt out that was binding and could only be given up if the British Government chose to.
Then it was later decided that as it comes under 'health and safety', it is subject to a decision by the European Parliament and council of ministers. Britain can be outvoted by other countries under QMV and so lose the opt out.
My issue is that this was not what was sold to the Birish people (and other countries) and the Irish people should take note and treat accordingly any 'opt outs' offered to them.
Complain about this comment
Happy New Year Mark!
A reasonably fair summary - with the exception of your contention that "The European Union has extended its reach in foreign affairs. It brokered a ceasefire during the Georgian crisis and held a common position despite deep and obvious divisions between the 27 towards Russia."
The EU was toyed with by Russia who accomplished all their objectives.
Luckily for those who see a EU acting in a supra-national role as a 'bad thing', when the going gets rough the EU is about as useful as a eunuch in a whorehouse.
Let's hope that 2009 is the year when the wheels of the EU juggernaut are truly shattered.
Complain about this comment
Until I get my vote I will continue to treat the EU and the British Government with the contempt they deserve.
Complain about this comment
re: 11
If what you say is true, what is wrong with holding a referendum on the subject in all EU countries, just to get "a rough guide to people's views at a particular moment in time" as you say? You can't have it both ways!
Complain about this comment
It's not so much that "they don't know the meaning of 'No'" as "if you don't get the result you want keep asking till you do". Through the Lisbon Treaty fiasco the EU demonstrably lacks democratic credibility.
Complain about this comment
Mark
I agree that asking the Irish to vote again is a high risk option to keep them on board. I think I have said this in a number of my previous postings on the subject. If Ireland votes no again it will be the end of the EU as we know it. Ireland with one or two other Member States may leave the organisation or be left behind. However, I think that the sheer scale of the economic downturn might make people realize -with enlightened political leaders, that on balance the EU offers some protection that has its advantages. To be out might be a worse evil. There is a cue of States seeking membership.
Love him or hate him I think the high point of the year was having an all action political leader at the helm of the EU. The successes you list were in no small part due to Sarko's political leadership. For the first time since the Mitterrand/Kohl and despite Thatcher the EU appeared to have a sense of purpose and acted responded reasonably well to world events. Brown should get some credit on the banking crisis front. The guy who made it possible however, was Sarko. He created the decisional arenas, focused minds and was not afraid of leading from the front.
People may remember that in 2009 especially if the upcoming presidency reverts back to low key, low public impact, low visibilibility politics.
Sarko demonstrated that the EU needs stable, highly visible and effective leadership. It can help shape the future and bring a degree of reassurance in a very unstable but open world in the mutual interest of citizens and States.
For my part I hope the Irish vote yes. I see no problem people being asked to vote again. They can confirm their previous vote if that is their view. It is also perfectly legitimate to change ones mind. We should not forget it is the sovereign decision of the Irish government to ask for second vote.
Perhaps this time they may inform the Irish electorate of exactly what the pros and cons of the Treaty and membership are all about.
Anyway.
I hope you have a happy new year Mark.
PS. Your thoughts on Fortisgate would be good. I am sure that the saga could not have escaped your attention over the last few weeks.
Complain about this comment
The only British referendum that should be held is "Britain fully in or completely out of the EU". The current situation with Britain three quarters inside the EU doesn't help anyone.
Complain about this comment
Re post 15, the Working Time directive was always health & safety legislation, from when it was first adopted with the UK (then under the Tories) abstaining. There was no treaty obligation, nor even a political promise, to allow any one to have an opt-out, but Britain and others anyway wanted one and got it. So, what's the problem? The UK will no doubt continue to ask for and get an opt-out clause (despite British trade unions and others being against it).
What the Irish parliament and government have said they want is not opt-outs from anything (they specifically said they didn't want that), but reassurances and clarifications about the treaty not having certain unwanted implications, along with a commitment to adjust the number of Commissioners (in a way allowed for in the treaty).
The demcratic (parliamentary) procedures of other EU countries have produced a clear 'Yes'. Which part of the word 'Yes' don't the Eurosceptics understand? The truth is that all countries verdicts must be taken into account (respecting their own internal procedures) and then a solution to bridge the gap between the 25 Yeses and the 1 No must be found.
Complain about this comment
2009 is going to be an interesting year:
- Second no vote; that would definitely kill off the Lisbon treaty.
- Parliament elections with an even lower turn out! Not surprising considering what the EU does is pretty boring for the masses (with the lack of transparency) along with the fact that the parliament is nothing more then a glorified rubber stamp with three options: Yes, No, Please Amend. Which sometimes can be completely ignored by the Commission and the council of the European Union... So why bother voting for it?
- Economic downturn; How will the Euro hold out? How will the European countries react to the highly likely protectionist reactions across the globe? Will they work together or go individually destroying the economy along with it?
EU vs Russia part II; If you think Georgia was bad... 2009 will be worse and a lot closer too:
- Russia is threatening Ukraine to close of the gas supply (again) which should serve a message to the European countries that rely on Russian gas. Of course because the EU is a cooperation between nations it means that EU won't have an unified stance against Russia because Germany is in bed with them in some sort of energy equivalent of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (bah I hate making World War II reference) unlike the East European countries and the West European countries don't give a **** because 'it's too far away'
- The Russian Black Sea fleet is currently located in Crimea in the Ukraine, the lease is running out and Ukraine doesn't want to renew it. Russia doesn't want that and to make things more interesting the local people do want the lease to be extended. Will Russia invade again?
Should be an interesting year, yet slightly worrying at the same time.
Complain about this comment
britishandeuropean @22 says:
"The demcratic (parliamentary) procedures of other EU countries have produced a clear 'Yes'. "
and asks:
"Which part of the word 'Yes' don't the Eurosceptics understand?'
Your EU made the rules, honey. And the rules demand Unanimity. One 'No' is sufficient (and you've had 3 already).
As ever, with the EU, when the rules don't suit their aims they attempt to bend them - or usually just try to steamroller any opposition.
Complain about this comment
re 24: No, the EU doesn't make its own rules: the Member States do, by means of treaties.
All EU members are democratic, and their democratic result is overwhelmingly in favour of the reform (Lisbon) treaty. But international law requires everyone to agree on any change, so the majority cannot have its way. The no vote in Ireland is being respected - no-one is trying to get the treaty into force despite the No - but it is not unreasonable to ask the minority of one to reconsider - provided its concerns are addressed. Indeed, it is Ireland itself that has come up with the proposal to have a new referendum next autumn, provided it gains satisfaction on a list of demands.
As ever, with the EU, small minorities are able to block the wishes of a the many if they want to. As ever with the EU, the result is patient talking to seek a compromise acceptable to all members. Slow and cumbersome, but far better than the views of a large majority being totally ignored, as the sceptics want.
Complain about this comment
I fail to see why we , and by "we" I mean our politicians, keep pretending we are a world power, proud of our history and independence, yet we want to be fiddling in the EU administration as well.
Instead of A PLUS B, shouldn't it be A or B?
And further to that, if we are "in" Europe, why do we need a duplicate government here at all? Some saving there Gordon.
Let's face it, these countries anxious to join the EU are after the cash handouts. The evidence is everywhere.
Now GB is well and truly in the fertilizer I trust we are no longer a contributor and we are at the front of the handout queue.
Just how much would we save by quitting?
I notice Gordon Brown is still giving away 7 million here, 10 million there, despite the fact we are broke, so I don't suppose it would last long.
Finally, isn't it about time Scotland, with their free universities, free medical prescriptions, and now free hospital car parking, subsidised England instead of England subsidising them. £1000 each we give them each year, isn't it?
SeniorC
Complain about this comment
22
"The parliaments have said yes, which part of 'yes' don't you understand" sic.
That's fine and dandy except Labour and the Liberal Democrats committed themselves to a referendum in each 2005 manifesto. Instead they bypassed the electorate taking for themselves the decision on the developed treaty thus rendering the UK 'yes' illegitimate.
Complain about this comment
No party promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. A referendum was only envisaged when the proposal was to repeal all the existing treaties (that we have already approved) and replace them with a Constitution. That new legal basis for the EU - a Constitution, instead of treaties - may have warranted a referendum. Keeping the treaties, but reforming them, does not. Britain has never in its history ratified international treaties by means of a referendum. We do not even settle major domestic issues that way. We are a parliamentary democracy. Our elected House of Commons scrutinised the treaty over several weeks of detailed debate and approved it by a large majority (as did the Lords, where no party has a majority).
Complain about this comment
22.
Your comment on parliamentary procedures is meaningless.
In all 3 referenda held, there were substantial majorities in the 3 parliaments of France ,Holland and Ireland in favour of the constitution.
That parliamentary consensus was rejected in all 3 with substantial no votes
There is now a complete disconnect between peoples and parliaments across Europe as consensus politicians give peoples in all the countries little or no choice in how countries are run leading to increased protests and the growth in the support for the far left and right.
In Britain this has led to the govt campaigning for a no vote in a referendum to provide directly elected mayors(a govt policy) precisely to avoid the far right gaining the positions created, elected police commissioners are being shelved for the same reason
With politicians across Europe running away from any vote they do not have to take, huddling together behind their Brussels ramparts, terrified of their populations excersing their right to vote, such is the state of 'democracy' in Europe
Complain about this comment
In my view the problem of referenda is quite simple:
the people asked to answer to a referendum should be at the same level of the referendum.
So if you do a national referendum you should ask to your national people, if you do an European referendum you should ask to European people. This mean that EVERY treaty, named or not "constitutional", should be eventually approved or rejected by a referendum, but not by the sum of 27 national referenda, what I am talking about is an European referendum in which the majority of Europeans who express a yes or no wins, not a referendum where you have to sum 27 little majorities.
The problem in such a kind of referendum is that even with a clear majority of Europeans voting yes or no, at a national level there can be local results not coherent with European one.
What happens for example if 51% of Europeans voted yes while 51% of French vote no? The treaty would become effective anyway and the French would be asked to vote again after 3 months with a difference in respect to the first time: the second time they will be asked to accept AND remain in the Union or to reject ANS go.
In this way the European referendum will have a real impact both with a positive or negative result, while the national freedom will be preserved: if you don't like the common rules you are not compeled to remain, you can go, freely.
Complain about this comment
28
In the HoL the Liberal Democrats didn't table a single amendment in the Lisbon Treaty debate and were thus the perfect patsies for Labour.
As for no referendum being promised for the Lisbon Treaty I'd agree with you if it contained no element of the Constitutional Treaty.
If Labour wanted parliament to decide they should have presented an honest manifesto. The smoke screen of "it's different" and "it's not revoking previous treaties" cuts no ice. Brown correctly deduced that there was no way the Lisbon Treaty could be adopted by the UK without sidelining the electorate. The experience of Ireland has done nothing but reinforce this view.
Complain about this comment
"In all three referendums held" (post 22) conveniently ignores the other three referendums where there was a "Yes" vote (Spain, Luxembourg, Romania). In total, more voters have voted Yes than No in these referendums (even if you discount Romania, which was only an applicant at the time).
So, what we have is not public rejection, but divergence of views - among politicians and among the public. Surprise, surprise... - divergence of views on a political issue, well I never!
The question is what to do about it. Abandon EU reform and leave the treaties as they are, or try to find a compromise solution that can be ratified by all 27 member countries. Following the French and Dutch No votes, despite a majority of member countries having ratified, the idea of replacing the treaties with a constitution was abandoned in deference to their misgivings. After the Irish vote, the Irish parliament has tried to identify their misgivings. Surely the first thing to try is to respond to Ireland's requests.
Complain about this comment
Regarding "no" means "no".
How many times did Ireland ask for independence from England only to be told "no"? Was Ireland wrong to refuse to take "no" for an answer?
How many people, I wonder, have asked someone to marry them, been told "no" and just left it at that?
How many people, I wonder, have asked their boss for a rise, been told "no" and just left it at that?
And so on and so on.
Is it really in human nature to be told "no", to shrug one's shoulders and just accept it? What happened to the reverence for that old British saying "if at first you don't succeed try, try and try again"?
Complain about this comment
Hmmm - First a very Healthy and peaceful new year to all readers around the world, and to the BBC and their staff for bringing us and keeping us up with the news globally.
My prediction for 2009 - is one which may have flashed through some astute minds and then diregarded as being "impossible", but I think it is very much on the cards. The pound will GO and the UK will accept the Euro. About time too. As British bankers are just as greedy and despicable as their counterparts in the USA, a change to the Euro would in fact have far reaching effects on their dirty laundry. That is an aside, however, because what we have seen is Brown's dillying and Darlings dallying with the financial apparatus in the UK, which has thrown the pound down the loo, and is threatening to at best bankrupt the country and at worst put joe public and his off-springs in lead boots for the next 20 years. So with aprity with the Euro, the pound could easily be ditched, and it would bring the UK where it should have been years ago, excepted for a bunch of toffee-nosed and titled bankers who were ripping the public off and even their not so astute counterparts around the globe. This will also have a very big impact on the Lisbon treaty and the Irish (bless them for having the blue b*lls to say NO!). It is going to be a tumultuous year in finance , and money makes the world go round!
Complain about this comment
#33
greypoliglot,
Your argument is true only if all the Irish voters actually participated in the referendum. With the low turn-up of the voters, it is likely that the result might be diferent if it is repated. A referendum only makes sense if all the people actually vote- otherwise the sample is not representative and the results can be biased. And where is the problem with repeating it- if this time the voters vote 'yes' that would mean that the pubic is not so strongly against the EU, as some people would make us believe. If the answer is again 'no' then there will be no room for doubt any more.
Regarding your 'no means no'- well, the Conservative party has received three 'no' at the last three elections, yet they are planning to ask the people for a fourth time at the next elections. How is that different from repeating the referendum? After all, there is no law specifying how often referendums can be held for the same thing.
Complain about this comment
35
"...the Conservative party has received three 'no' at the last three elections, yet they are planning to ask the people for a fourth time at the next elections. How is that different from repeating the referendum?.."
By law General Elections have to be held every five years. The Lisbon Treaty referendum was intended to be a 'one time event' according to the pronouncements of the EU President at the time of the first poll. Alas the Irish voted the wrong way. Would a second poll have been allowed if they voted 'yes'? What a joke. The EU concept of process could have come from the pages of Roald Dahl.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I'd disagree with the point you make about the government being popular at the time. Nobody really wants to admit how much Bertie Ahern's departure from politics damaged the 'Yes' vote. It was a messy episode and it hurt govt popularity.
The 'Yes' vote failed not because the Irish want out of Europe. Unbeknownst to us at the time one of Irelands biggest lobby groups was working against the new treaty. They gambled with our future well-bring to improve their own interests. And not only did they lose, we all did.
Complain about this comment
"What happened to the reverence for that old British saying "if at first you don't succeed try, try and try again"?"
Nothing happened to it.
Everyone is very clear about that. We understand, without any shadow of a doubt, that this is precisely how the undemocratic elite in Brussels see the situation.
Therein lies the problem, GP.
The EU, as it stands and as it has evolved since its inception, is a perfect case study in the manipulation and control of modern representative democracy. The most fascinating thing to witness is not the desire of the Europeans aristocrats to establish their vision of the future, but rather the fact that they haven't achieved it yet.
I am frankly amazed. I would never have thought the constitutions of the member states were strong enough to withstand the sustained assault on their power from so much propaganda over such a long time.
In fact, it almost seems to me that the people of europe are getting smarter, and that more and more people are looking to direct democracy in Switzerland and saying "Why can't we do that? Why can't we have the power to instigated referenda? Why can't we have more democracy?"
The democracy deficit is hardly the creation of the EU, after all. Europe has arguably never had a tradition of democracy. Look at the UK. You have a monarch and hereditary peers who make your law, you have a class system that hasn't changed much since the reformation.
I think the EU's biggest problem is the internet, and the way the world is changing because of information technology. If it is true that socialism and human rights was born of mass literacy, perhaps it is true that direct democracy will become a reality in europe due to the internet. Look at this blog, and tell me what you think of the idea that a journalist might hold court with people from the whole globe, and inform himself from them if he chooses.
Where did that come from? Technology. I suspect it will be the engineers, and not the politicians, who will make the Europe of tomorrow.
Direct democracy is a storm brewing slowly and surely in the hearts and minds of the new europeans.
Complain about this comment
38. democracythreat:
"Direct democracy is a storm brewing slowly and surely in the hearts and minds of the new europeans."
You probably won't believe it but I'm in favour of direct democracy. Why? Because I have so very little faith left in politicians. Does anyone remember Robert Kilroy-Silk, for example? He who was going to destroy the EU from within. What does he do now? Waste a lot of effort, time and tax-payers' money asking thousands of questions most of which are either irrelevant or nothing to do with the EU anyway. Or how about Tony Blair and George Bush?
However, direct democracy only works if you have an interested and informed electorate. If not, well, do you remember the hooligan mobs baying for the blood of a paediatrician in England a couple of years ago because they were so stupid they didn't understand that he was NOT a paedophile?
Should we restrict the right to vote? Would it be too much to ask for at least an "O" level or a GCSE in English? Or is it being elitist to expect people to even understand a question and what's at stake?
If I didn't get in first no doubt someone would suggest that really I'd like to disenfranchise anyone who hasn't got a first class degree from Oxbridge's or isn't a titled landowner. No, I'd just like voters to be a wee bit smarter than the baying mobs mentioned above.
Complain about this comment
There are what? 27 members of the EU?
27 members with roots deep in the ages of Europe. Members who have fought wars (God, so many wars!) over the centuries, swapped lands and enforced their boarders and kept their cultural identies intact, sacred. Members who have seperate languages and thus seperate ways of looking at the world.
The roots of each culture run deep and there is no doubt that any citizen of any member state will define himslf by his nationality. He is a German or a Frenchman or he is Dutch or Spanish or English or Italian or Greek or 27 times whatever. If he thinks about it, Europian is his second choice.
That the attempt to unify Eurpoe has gotten as far as it has is quite an accomplishment. Getting 27 such states to agree that it's in their best interests to co-operate on anything more than the order of the days in the week is remarkable. That there is a working Common Market and that there is any discussion at all about closer ties is almost defies belief.
But any such endevour is bound to take time. For goverments to make these sorts of commitments without the popular support of their electorates only extends that time frame. Goverments afraid of the opinions of their electorate cannot pledge their full support, because they derive their power only from that electorate, and what the people have instituted the people may later retract.
However, should a union of states be accomplished, as was the case in the USA, such a Union can not, must not, ever be broken. Our Civil War established that political fact.
There can not be any partial statehood. Either you are in the Union or you are not. No state can be a 75% member. So if that's the route Europe deems the path to her better collective future then up or down, in or out votes of the 27 electorates is required. Anything else is a sham.
Really, I would expect all this to take at least another century or so of talk, and contention. Let closer ties be brought in ever so slowly, so that everyman feels the benefits and finally sees that union is no threat to his concept of identity, much less his cultural heritage.
Of course, some threat from outside could bring about closer ties much quicker. But however I look at it no such threat is on the horizon. The Ottoman Empire is dead, dead, dead. There are many muslims living in Europe as peaceful citizens. The Muslim fundimentialist movement is small and dis-organized, and should remain that way if military actions underway prove fruitful, but that will be determined by the political will of states involved, both NATO and the USA.
The issue of Russia will be dealt with (perhaps) when the 27 realise that Russia would be the ideal canidate for membership, with some political reforms on both sides. If the EU does not draw political lines that exclude Russia, and if the EU holds fast to its own moral agenda in the face of sure to come provocations, then some sort of political union may be possable.
But it will all take many years. Talk now, talk tomorrow, talk for years on end, because as Winston said 'Talk talk talk is better than war war war.'
Complain about this comment
#39 raises an interesting point. Who, indeed, should be allowed to vote? Is there some standard, perhaps of literacy or inate intelligence or even education that should be met in order to enfranchise the voter?
In a word, no.
All those things have been used at various times and in various places to deny people their rights at the polls. Never has this had a good outcome.
Rather, it is the duty of the goverment to be able to explain to it's voters the issues involved. In plain and simple terms that can be understood by anyone. It is the duty of any opposing group to make it's case in the same way.
There are instances of goverment wording the ballot qusetions unfairly, such that a 'Yes' is disapprovial and vice versa. Such actions deserve the results they get, which is mainly the goverment not getting the result they wished and the voters remembering the event the next time they go to the polls in a general election.
All of this supposes a free and fair election, with both goverment and opposition having equal access to the voters, via the media. In that case the number of voters who will vote on knee-jerk reactions pretty much cancel each other out.
The collective electorate will always get the goverment it deserves. I cite the eight years of G.W. Bush. I look to the future with the coming Presidency of Barack Obama with great hope.
But nothing should come between the citizen and his ability to vote.
Complain about this comment
Re 26 At 1:33pm on 31 Dec 2008, SeniorC wrote: Finally, isn't it about time Scotland, with their free universities, free medical prescriptions, and now free hospital car parking, subsidised England instead of England subsidising them. ?1000 each we give them each year, isn't it?
It seems like a good deal for England then, given that London siphons out the North Sea Oil. In fact, the rational choice the Scots ought to make---and Mr Salmond knows something about it---is break free from the (old) Union, while staying in the (new) Union. That is the only possible way for them to realise fully their economical potential (see Eire). The myopic British "patriotism" (not joining the Euro, longer working hours with decreased productivity, large balance deficit, unregulated financial services, etc.) is just in the way of progress needed nowadays.
Complain about this comment
"The European Union ... brokered a ceasefire during the Georgian crisis."
Er, are you sure Mark? Even the article you link to only claims "helped broker". In reality I thought the far more influential 56-member OSCE, ably led by Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, made all the important early running to resolve the Georgia conflict.
As far as I recall, Sarkozy (on behalf of the EU) was humiliated when the Russians ignored his ceasefire deal. And then EU foreign ministers met to decide what to do next several weeks after the Russians had already stopped advancing! Stopping them being the important part. Of course, the EU has since installed some monitors, once everything had already calmed down. Not exactly a stellar role, is it.
Post-Georgia, people in the Baltic states are now saying that the EU would still be talking to itself long after Russia did anything similar in their countries. The Georgia conflict has in fact badly hit the EU's credibility as a foreign policy actor and boosted non-integrationist, genuinely co-operative organisations like NATO and the OSCE.
You also wrote: "Despite the financial crisis the euro has weathered the storm better than the pound."
Dare I mention Greece? I don't think there have been any riots here in the 'sterlingzone', have there?
No-one still believes the on-going unrest in Greece is still about the shooting of that young boy, for which the police officers involved were properly charged.
Greece needs major economic reform, which it cannot enact within the euro straitjacket. Rather than releasing economic pressure via a flexible exchange or interest rate, as we have beneficially been able to here in Britain, Greece is having to hammer down wages and companies are cutting jobs.
So much for these two big 2008 EU 'achievements' then!
Finally, about the Lisbon Treaty, you proffer an option that the EU might "move on without Ireland". That is an impossible scenario, though nevertheless one which will undoubtedly be used to scare-monger by the pro-Lisbon lobby during the second Irish vote.
If Ireland says 'No' a second time, the existing EU treaty will stand, in which there is no provision to expel a member country. There is no question whatsoever of the EU ever going anywhere "without Ireland" unless Ireland chooses to seccede from the current EU treaty. But that's not what any referendum will be about, and the Irish government are unlikely to take that action unilaterally.
So may I request that, in the interests of the accuracy and impartiality that we expect from the BBC, you please try to avoid repeating such baseless pro-EU propaganda points as that one.
Complain about this comment
Re: comment 43. I keep reading from people why Greece would be better off outside the Euro. I am an expat leaving in Greece and I can tell you everyone is glad that the currency is the Euro for had it been the old drachma is certai that it would be vulnerable in the current turmoil in the same way the Sweedish and Hungarian currencies have been (to name a few) let alone the sterling which has been devalued by 30%. A similar drop for a greek currency would be catastrophic given that it depends on imports a lot. So the Euro has helped the country a lot in weathering the storm.
With regards to the riots, for those that know about the Greeks they would say that they are not surprised given the fact that even before the crisis and long before the Euro anarchists were quite active and a number of times they have caused damages. The fact that there was an economic crisis aggrevated the situation. Nonetheless, just weekes after the events the city centre is business as usual, it has no traces of the events (within hours everything got repaired) and everyone here behaves as nothing happens and enjoys the good food in the festive days.
The EU membership has been a blessing in my opinon to Greece all these years and that is the reason even in this economic trumil the opinion polls still show a very high favour for the Euro here.
Complain about this comment
#41 -
Are you suggesting that it is really right for the carefully considered vote of a politically-savvy partner in this discussion to be cancelled out by some ill-informed 18 year old who reacted to some gossip that he heard in the pub?
Of course you are right about politicians having to explain their actions in words that all electors can understand, but that presupposes that a) people will listen, and b) that the politicians themselves understand what they are saying, rather than being nothing more than a mouthpiece for some party machine.
Successful democracy is much closer to dialog and diplomacy than to simple majority voting.
Complain about this comment
Dear #45-Yes.
I'm not only suggesting it I'm affirming it in no uncertain terms. The words "All men are created equal...' are old words but they still live, though the writer is long dead. If we look at the years after they were written we see that there was an enormus gap between the ideal and the reality. Only men could vote, for instance, and black men were counted as three fifths of a man, though most were disenfranchised out right.
One citizen, one vote. No person is more valuable than any other when in the voting booth. It does not matter how that voter got to his decision, if by reason and careful consideration or simple whim; the vote is his and must be counted equal to all other votes.
Complain about this comment
bobinaki @ 44 wrote: "I am an expat leaving in Greece and I can tell you everyone is glad that the currency is the Euro"
Yes, we can see how "glad" everyone in Greece is about the state of the economy on the TV seemingly almost every day. It's a bit of a stretch to try to divorce Greece's membership of "Economic and Monetary Union" from a role in such a situation, and loss of control over major economic levers like interest rates and the exchange rate.
It may well be that, so far, the government is getting the blame from the public rather than the euro. That's only natural. It will be interesting to see, if the government changes, what happens when the new administration find themselves similarly constricted in the economic actions they can take to boost the economy.
Then people might see their real problem is not so much which party is in charge during a crisis but the limited powers they now have without their currency.
Complain about this comment
re #47:
Greece used to have the control of their Interest rates before 1999 and as I remember it the economy was in even worse situation with a massive debt and everyihing being extremely expensive let alone a runaway inflation which thanks to the fact that they had to comply to rules to be admitted into Euro they managed (like Italy and other poorer nations) to put their finances in order.
With regards to the unrest here I can tell you that Greeks have always been demonstrating both before and after Euro. There is fundamental difference now. Police killed a guy and that triggered violence from anarchists. Had this event not being there Greeks would still keep going on demonstrating without destroying and having loads of strikes pretty much in the same levels as before the introduction of the Euro.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Out with the old stuff and bring in the New Year with the new [and returned of some of the old stuff] in to 2009..
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
46. willybedamned:
" The words "All men are created equal...' are old words but they still live, though the writer is long dead."
Really? Why then am I not an Olympic high jump gold medal holding winner of the Nobel prize for physics?
Complain about this comment
46. willybedamned:
" The words "All men are created equal...' are old words but they still live, though the writer is long dead."
Hold that thought. On Monday morning walk into your boss's office and tell him or her that you're his or her equal then let us know what the response was.
Alternatively, run for President of the US next time around. I think you'll find that if you haven't got a few million dollars behind you then you're not quite as equal as you'd like to believe.
Complain about this comment
I don't buy into the idea promoted here that the electorate should be filtered in order to get unpopular legislation passed (where a referendum is constitutionally required or mandated through manifesto).
Complain about this comment
52. royalgrounded:
"I don't buy into the idea promoted here that the electorate should be filtered in order to get unpopular legislation passed (where a referendum is constitutionally required or mandated through manifesto)."
What a lousy idea! Who wrote that?
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot, "all men are created equal -why then I am not an Olympic high jump golden medal holding winner of the Nobel prize for physics?".
oj oj oj. LOL. As a graduate of the Soviet !teachers' ! kind of academy - what a blaspheny this sounds to me! :o)
surely all kids are created equal. or were. at least, in the dearoldawful USSR!
And anyone can be and should be taught English! (I was taught to be a teacher with this original understanding for a base).
In reality of course I remember the practical approach at school of my own maths' teacher. He was saying "all those good-for-nothing lyrics and humanitarians who don't care for maths - not a word in my class. Hush, and don't interfere and interrupt classes standing in the way of those who want to know maths. I will put you all "pass". But don't squeek a sound. Read novels, do whatever. I can't lose time on you.
I demand here silence and concentration, for the ones with brains who chose maths as their future speciality."
That one was a very decisive teacher; some boys who stood in the way of his "concentration" he grabbed by the collar and threw down the staircase in one throw counting the stairs. The only one who complained and tried to fire him for that writing complaints to the education ministry round-o'clock was the school director. But she couldn't as he was the best maths teacher for St. Petersburg around, and all parents wanted him to stay. And she just an administrative.
The boys themselves thought it's fair, to be thrown away for unprintable swearing or coming drunk to the class. (besides, "a pass!" for maths)
Parents of the beaten boys also thought it's fair, and would be not bad if someone beats their 16 year olds a bit more, in fact.
So such an early segregation into "physics" and "lyrics" can work in practice, a non-aggression pact based on natural inclinations, not to go against nature, good deal.
________
With "come to your boss office and say him you are equals", greypolyglot, LOL.
I side with willybedamned.
Leo Tolstoy said long time ago,
"The great of this world look such only to the ones who opt to look at them from their knees."
Complain about this comment
The unforgettable teacher's name was Valentine Leonidovich.
We changed the patronimic slightly and addressed him "Valentine Ludoedovich", meaning Valentine Kannibalovich.
He was so wonderful, didn't mind.
Took time out with the schoolclass, always dragged us to places on weekends, in summer holidays, unpaid for that, simply for fun. To broaden our life horisonts, so to say.
Once in winter in minus 30 we were broadening them in the military base, on the boarder with Finland. Stationed in soldier barracks, where his friend was a captain. They drank with the captain 3 days throughout, while we rambled around the guns, talked to the guards about equipment, dined at soldier canteen and played in the forest in Russian-Finnish war-2.
Another time he took us in summer by train to the Caucases mountains up, and then we walked them down, from snow peaks to the Black sea to swim. Lived in tents on the beach, carried all food for a month ahead! in racksacks. I hardly survived. Was ill for a year after, I think. Total disaster. Remember was squeezing out half of the toothpaste to carry less, at some point.
Valentine had about 5 friends with him, and about 10 girl-friends, during the expedition, and seemingly was quite happy. Don't remember him much sober once, all the Georgian wine.
Was waking up at times and counting us after every 20 miles or so, at stop-overs, then swore that the pans for cooking on fire are not enough shiny, pestered all and gave hell around (demanded them to be cleaned with sand in some mountain rivers). Then began to drink again. Somehow we all survived and even made it back home in the same quantity. We were about 12-13 back then, I think. Was a great teacher.
Complain about this comment
I have listened to Prof. DR. Schachtschneider, his lectures on the EU con/treaty.
I found them most interesting.
I would highly recommend them.
If he is right Germany has yet to rattify the EU con/treaty.
Complain about this comment
Dear numbers 50 and 51;
All men are created equal.
What they do after that creation is another matter. Some, born into reduced circumstances, apply themselves in school (if they are lucky enough to be able to attend school), work hard at improving themselves and become more than whatever estate they were born into. Some, born into privilage and wealth go on to ever greater things out of a sense of duty to their fellow citizens. There are others, of course, of both varities, who do not.
Each and every human being is one of a kind. Even idenitical twins have (very small) differances. What we do with our lives is up to us. Thus you are not an Olympic/Nobel winner, I suppose, because you didn't choose the paths that would lead you there. Niether am I, of course, because my brain, though very interested in physics, can't process Maths very well, and I was not born with a lot of athletic ability, either.
I will go to my boss on Monday and tell him I am his equal. He will agree. We are very different in some ways; he is an Electrical Engineer with a Degree in Bussiness and I am a machinest who makes the parts he and others design. He cannot do my job and I cannot do his. But even though he owns the Company he has never asserted any claim to superority. That's one of the reasons I so enjoy working at my job. We are a small shop, but everyone working together helps us put out a superior product, and that keeps us in bussiness.
Anyway my point is that all people are equal on square one. They have the right to determine how they are governed at the ballot box. If their goverment does things they do not like they have the right to overthrow that goverment at the polls. Witness the last US election, where we saw the dis-organized by its very nature Demorcatic Party over throw the very much organized Republican Party in the Congress and the Excutive by a convincing majority.
Reprensentive democracy is not a perfect means of goverment, but there is no perfect goverment. Pure democracy, where everone votes on everything every day, is unworkable, but it is the theoritical ideal. A Republic of laws and not of men, with checks and balences, is about the best we can do.
However, any such system can be hijacked, if you will, by the Excutive on the abdication of the Legislative, being locked in partisian politics, and the acquisence of the Judical, being evenly split in ideology. Which has been pretty much the case in the US for the last eight years. Thus one political party achived almost total control, in my view a very bad thing.
Still, the election was held, freely and fairly, and there will be a new administration in some 18 days.
Mr. Obama will have his hands more than full, but I think he is up to the tasks. He will have lots of help, from very talented people, and I have hope for the future. I know he dosen't walk on water, and that there are limets to the power he will soon have.
The world ecomomy, for instance, is not a matter that can (anymore) be determined in or by the US alone. The IMF and the G8 and other organisations will have to respond or be redirected, reinvented or otherwise rebuilt in some form as yet unimagined, and the world will have to co-operate in unprecenidented ways to solve not only this crisis but insure stability in the markets in the future. Everybody has a stake here, and everbody has work to do.
The prospcts of peace in the middle east are remote at best, despite the best efforts of everyone involved. The war in Iraq may or may not be over, the gaza strip is in flames and Afagnistan, along with the lawless portions of Pakistan, are the current and next battlefield. The prospect of a nucular Iran in on the horizon. World peace is and has always been in the hands of the nucular nation with the least unstable leader/goverment. At the moment that would be North Korea, but Pakistan and India come a very close second. Nucular war is in no ones best interest; a fact that the US, Russia and China realised some years ago. But the genie is out of the bottle.
Without universial suffarage-one person, one vote- in free and fair elections, we citizens of the various states of the world are in deep shit. That's the only phrase that expresses the facts as I see them.
But I have hope that saner heads will prevail, and that the best days are yet to come.
Complain about this comment
Great teachers can do great good in the world. Bad teachers can do evil in the minds of their students. Most teachers are mediocre, I think; as are most people. The same is true of parents, of course, because parents are the untimate teachers.
That you had a great teacher is something to cherish. All I ever had were babysitters. They meant well, don't get me wrong, but they taught to the lowest common denominator. as it were. It was a long time ago; I'm an old man now, 60 years of age. But whatever education or knowldge I got from school I got on my own.
Things have improved over the years. My daughter, who will graduate 12th grade (High School here in the US) this year has had the best efforts of all her teachers over the years. They have been concerned with her education and have not shirked their duties to her. I have no complaints in that respect.
I would not want to be a teacher today. I fear that I'm too old to put up with any of the nonsense that goes with the job.
Complain about this comment
# 57. willybedamned:
"All men are created equal."
That is a beautiful, wonderful ideal but it just isn't true. What of those created severely handicapped mentally or physically? Sadly, nothing that they or we do will ever bring them even to the level of the average.
"I will go to my boss on Monday and tell him I am his equal. He will agree. We are very different in some ways; he is an Electrical Engineer with a Degree in Bussiness and I am a machinest who makes the parts he and others design. He cannot do my job and I cannot do his."
You are indeed a very fortunate man and I'm happy for you.
Now try a little thought experiment, imagine that you're a new recruit in the US Army and you've just played out the Monday morning scenario. Did your boss agree?
Complain about this comment
#59 Polyglot-
that is an extremely poor analogy. Every fool knows that a basic trainee in the US Army may have been born equal, but is in a temporary training situation where he is being completely re-made into a soldier (from a boy to a man in 6 weeks the fast and hard way).
How can anbody who has to be taught how to walk, how to run, how to brush his teeth, how to eat, how to dress, how to fold his socks and underwear, how to smoke, how to drink, even how to put his belt buckle on consider himself an equal. He would never dream of asking that question.
That said upon completion of Basic Training I personally felt prouder than anything else I have accomplished in life. I have been eternally confident ever since. I have a bond with the men, NCOs and Officers that are found no where in the civilian world.
Twice Sergeants almost lost there lives trying to save mine. Was I their equal? Probably not. But I can assure you in the Combat arms of the US Army there is an equality that is almost family like. We may scream and holler and call each other smart-### names, but the bond is like a brother.
Every study ever done shows that casualties amongst the Sergeants and Company level Officers are the highest in the US Army from trying to take care of their men and all to often fatal task. Don't believe all the garbage you see in movies.
Complain about this comment
equal men, un-equal, - a theoretical question, quite a Dostoevsky-type one.
Theoretically I'd still keep, and in a bulldoggy manner, that are equal.
Otherwise what are we all doing here and what is everything kind of for?
Practically, greypolyglot, if you're trying to prove that - "un-equal" - what are you going to do about it? it is at this level where an abstract discussion gains flesh and real troubles begin.
to kindergarten the less equal ones to the happy equal level?
I once got into an idiotic situation (well. "once"!) at a post-office in Chiswick in London it is, on the left side of the city. Went to pay some mysterious blue I think it was little paper TV license, my friend sent me to this small expedition. There was a line of people I joined and all and was close to the cashier window after a while. Then there walks in an old English babushka limping at all legs simultaneously, with a walking stick, and barely walks, and joined the line at the end. Now all stand still and don't look at her and pretend nothing happens and we are stand this way peacefully quietly for while. I also stand still and pretend nothing happens but then I think this is all awfully awkward and very stupid kind of dashed to this babushka and said something like let's swap places will be far better, meaning she goes where I am in line and I go where she is in line. Poor babushka looked at me like at a monster and the whole line lost excellent stillness and looked at me like at a monster, but as it was an English line nobody said anything only eyed me for a while then turned away. Babushka - mind it! was genuinly pleased but embarassed simultaneously, I put her into an idiotic situation as well. She fought tooth and nail to take my place in the line and of course didn't and I only wanted to vanish in the thin air and find another post office where nothing happens to pay this license. But collected nerves together, stayed on and all. Still, remember this.
There must be a way to put disabled babushka-s into the beginning of post cueues even in England elegantly and without violating the common peace but I haven't figured out yet how. Not enough training!
Complain about this comment
Anyway what are we talking about, there is a war on, isn't it? Ground operation already and all. Don't know who is right there who is wrong. Still thought last night viewing the shots very courageous of the Israeli to step into Gaza strip - ugh! just imagine! to fight there. Total Chechnya. Though Israeli seem to be better equipped... which draws sympathy for the weaker side... as the Gaza is losing to them.
Asked mum how did it happen the Jewish got into that very very wrong surrounding place in the first place, whose clever head put arabs and Jewish together there?
Mum says on the wave of the post-war sympathy for the Jewish a state was created for them by UN decision vote.
Naturally I asked how Russia voted.
Mama says Stalin was against the idea and withdrawed, and Russia didn't have the opinion or it was negative. That is until to the point when we had to make a decision to vote for or contra. Stalin was at a loss and asked his spies or whatever what's England - for or against. Somebody reported to him that Churchill is against.
Then he said oh in this case to be traditional we have an opinion, if England is against something - Russia is surely for! and voted for, and the matter was decided.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (62):
Actually the story on how the modern day Israel was formed is a bit longer than that...
Zionism, as in Jewish nationalism, was born in the middle of 19th century when it was very fashionable to favor the idea of a nation state and self determination of a nation. As Jews didn't have particular home land in Europe, the Jewish nationalism took strong religious elements to it and favored the restoration of the biblical state of Israel into holy land.
Unfortunately for Zionists the area consisting of their holy land was part of the Ottoman Empire and thus they were unable to immigrate to it in large numbers and unable to form a state in it.
Now the deciding moment for the formation of Israel and for the destiny of Jews in Europe came in the first world war. Remember now that before the first world war in Germany there was a more or less saying that there is no better German than a Jewish German. With the first world war this all changed.
At first the German military industrial machine beat both the French and British and advanced very quickly near Paris. Unfortunately for Germans as Austria-Hungary couldn't wage war effectively they had to put more forces to the eastern front against Russia. Even still the Germans had the upper hand and as the war transformed into war of attrition it was only the matter of time when either Russia, France of Britain would collapse.
At this point the British were more or less desperate. In their desperation they made deal with the Zionist known better as the Balfour Declaration ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 ). In it the British govermeant promised to support "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". As you can guess nothing in this world comes free and the British govermeant seek support for its war from both Russian and American Jewish population.
Now we know what the result of the war was. Germans lost the war when Americans joined it and started to supply equipment and troops to western front. Without them the Germans would have won the war. The Germans at the day knew what happened. They also started to blame Jews on not only putting America against them, but also sabotaging the German war effort at the home front. The blame for the German defeat was put more or less solely on Jews.
So what happened next... Well, the antisemitism on German society started to increase rapidly and eventually political parties started to take advance on it, including the Nazis. Now the fun part of this is that Nazis worked more or less together with the Zionist. Zionist wanted European Jews to immigrate to Palestine and that was greatly advanced by Nazis on being hostile to Jews. For example Reinhard Heydrich gave memorable quote on saying that "As a Nazi, I'm a Zionist".
Unfortunately for both the Zionist and the Nazis, the world war two began. The direct consequence of this was that it became impossible for Nazis to send Jews anymore to Israel or any other place in earth. Thus for Nazis to have a Jew free Germany and Europe the only left was to exterminate Jews, thus the final solution was introduced to the world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_solution ).
So, the history tells that the Nazis exterminated most of the European Jews and lost the war. As the Nazi crimes became known to the world, Zionist used that to gather sympathy for formation of their own state and to get Jews all around the world to immigrate into Palestine.
The British however had turned their minds about the issue. Churchill who was a strong Zionist had lost power and been replaced with a govermeant that didn't want to loose its control of Palestine as they feared on angering the local Arab population and thus destabilizing their power in the middle east.
In case of Stalin and the decision to form home state for Jews, that besides being great strategic mind he was also antisemitic. The attitude that the Nazis had against Jews were also shared by many in Russia and on forming Jewish home land they could deal with the Soviet Jewish problem quite nicely. And yes, there was a Soviet Jewish problem as you can't be in the same time Homo Sovieticus and a Jew: impossible combination.
So that's why we today have the state of Israel.
Complain about this comment
Well. ? No, Jukks, clever head, creation of Israel (from the Stalin's POW) did not "solve" the "Soviet-Jewish problem", at all, and was not the reason Stalin voted for creating of the state of Israel.
No Soviet Jewish person could emigrate to Israel as much as he/she wanted to in Stalin times. Soviet Jewish were not expelled to Israel. To the contrary, they were held home as much as possible.
What emigration to Israel in Stalin times, are you mad?
And later on we held Jewish at home. USSR began to gave way only as late as in 1970-s, letting the Jewish out a little bit, with horrendous problems and bureaucracy, making all problems for the crazy break-neck one who'd express his desire to emigrate to Israel as much as possible.
And USSR gave up only under the pressure from the West, you stopped signing some contracts with us, or buying some exports, there was a high pressure applied, and Kremlin gave way a bit.
For the creation of the state of Israel Stalin voted only to be contra UK, who had developed interests in the area and was starting to feel there way too comfortable, so to say! To limit British appetites and expansion by instituting there a natural problem. To make the place uncomfortable for Britain for years on. Like a check and mate combination.
Now you look at this and think damn, how much harm can one man make in the course of a life-time. Everywhere stick out Stalin ears, 60 yrs later on - still problems! August - his clever Georgia and Abkhasia and SO unification into a country, now you watch TV - another war, and again we remember him "with a kind good word".
And the autoritative way we are ruled now, who set the style to scare population to death not to oppose the power whatever it does.
Georgia! Georgia is to blame for all! LOL. Now I know!
and later on, this was a total no-no.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (64):
Ah, you are right about Soviet Union and Jews. My bad. I based my view on the knowledge that a quite large part of Jews in Israel are from Russia. I didn't know that the immigration into it only started in 70s and only in 90s became more massive.
Complain about this comment
Russia exported yesterday 178 girls from the Gaza strip.
Well, women and children, ex-USSR girls who married arabs and live in Gaza, by two airplanes. There were lots of marriages before because all the Arab world studied in Russian universities, in the USSR times.
So Russian off-spring there had to be evacuated.
A very risky expedition we all signed with relief finally, relatives in tears meeting them in the airport in Moscow.
Now they are shipped further homes, Ukrainian girls, Kazakh and Moldovian, and their mixed USSR-Arab kids.
Our favourite minister Shoigu did, head of Extraordinary Situations ministry. Stroke a deal somehow, a passage for 2 hrs cease fire, but was all very unsure, cease fire or not cease fire under fire, airplanes stood with motors on ready to take off any sec for 36 hrs! until the kindergarten finally was delivered to the planes by buses out of Gaza.
Kids speak Russian nice to see, various babushka-s rushed at them with embraces and they all replied "Priviet! Priviet!" in the airport.
So on the Arab side Russia extracted "ours"; done.
But to extract all "ours" from Israel - USSR Jewish emigrated there - you need to evacuate 1/4 of Israel!
Complain about this comment
Jukks, what a pity you don't have Rus. TV, yest was a great programme, St. Petersburg TV channel + Finland, done combined.
Memoirs of good-bad Soviet times, about Finns in St. Petersburg, stories times 1970-s, 1980-2, 1990-s.
Roughly the kind of stories you can imagine!
all Russian girls' related, and drinking expeditions to Leningrad-related, and strangely many love affairs when Russian men and Finnish girls, the other way around stories, lots of Finns interviewed who remembered all that ever happened to them in Leningrad.
Even a couple of retired Russian prostitutes were interviewed! For memoirs! And the heads of police stations in Leningrad, where poor Finns were ending up at times.
and the Intourist Russian-Finnish guides now retired, taxi drivers, bus drivers of Finnish tourist buses, many restaurant and hotel personnel.
All the black market memoirs, apparently many began their business careers by stealing 3 roubles from parents, buying badges with Lenin and Soviet symbolics other and trading them for jeans, etc. with Finnish tourists in the Hermitage! Early beginnings of Russian oligarchs!
All extraordinary funny. One taxi driver remembered a Finn he saw in a telephone booth at minus 20 in basically socks. Collected him and drove to the Pulkovskaya hotel, but then un-loaded him 30 metres before the entrance and gased away, afraid the security by the door would think it's him who did that to the poor Finn, so speeded away without expecting any money.
The head of the old "sobering up" station (there were such in Leningrad before, police delivered there over-drunk people there from the streets so that they won't froze up sleeping there, to take a shower and sleep a night. With a horrible paper sent to the work - a report about bad behaviour the next day!) fondly remembered Finns, saying "can't compare to our drunks! nobody fighting or swearing! best clientele, drunk, but very polite, obedient, sent us fines - from Finland! later on! dear to look at! law-abiding citizens!"
All the adventure stories in Finnish and in Russian, of late USSR times, "legends of the Nevsky prospekt."
Complain about this comment
I think the war is about to solve itself. I think a lot of the World was wondering how long Israel was going to allow a terrorist group to take over a government right on it's door step and fire rockets into it's country. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the US has no sympathy for terrorist groups at all. Fighting is to be done by Uniformed combatants targeting military forces only.
If a group adopts terrorism of civilians as a tactic/policy, they are going to almost gurantee that the US supports it's enemies.
The Israelis have full spectrum military dominance in this theatre of war, including nukes. The only restraint on their actions is public opinion. Since the rockets are comig down on their women and children I don't really foresee them giving much of a damned what somebody says in defence of the terrorist group.
Don't worry though, France, North Korea, Syria and Iran will all be lined up at the UN to defend the rights of the poor terrorists to shoot rockets at civilians, without being retaliated against by the forces of the agressive Israeli school children.
Hammas is an Iranian front group, so the real question is what to do adut them? As far as the US, I believe our policy is the same as it was with Britain before we entered WWII. What can we do to aid your fight against Fascism and seneless murder, short of a declaration of war that will involve a deate in Congress.
Complain about this comment
To politejomsviking (68):
Another mans terrorists are another mans freedom fighters...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)
"Lehi was an armed underground Zionist faction in Mandatory Palestine, whose goal was to forcibly evict the British authorities from Palestine, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state. Initially called the National Military Organization in Israel, the name of the group was later changed to Lehi.
"Lehi was described as a terrorist organization] by the British authorities and United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche. Lehi carried out the Nov 1944 assassination in Cairo of Lord Moyne along with other attacks on the British authorities and Palestinian Arabs. The newly-formed Israeli government banned the organization under an anti-terrorism law passed three days after the Sept 1948 assassination of the UN mediator Folke Bernadotte.
"Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949 and in 1980 the group was honored by the institution of the Lehi ribbon, a military decoration the organization's former members are entitled to wear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing
"The King David Hotel bombing was a deadly bomb attack by the Irgun, a militant Zionist group, on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, located at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The offensive was carried out on 22 July 1946 and was the deadliest attack against the British during the Mandate era (1920-1948). Many of the 91 killed were Jews, in spite of the historic proscription within Judaism of killing Jews. Supporters of the bombers justified this with the public argument that Jews had no business being around the British in a simple physical sense, as distinct from being in British employ. Similar arguments since in Ireland and sundry Muslim nations seem to boil down to this, that no person is innocent if any terrorist has killed them carelessly or accidentally.
And lets not forget that Osama Bin Laden was CIA recruit freedom fighter before turning against Americans and thus becoming a terrorist.
Another mans terrorists are another mans freedom fighters.
Complain about this comment
There are groups of Jews that have committed terror, just as there are Americans who have intentionally committed acts of a terroristic nature, but it is not the policy of the US government or Israel's Army to intentionally target the civilians. Nobody is encuraging anybody in the field to shoot expensive ordanance at the civilians, this is a result of classic marxist doctrine that encourages it's military commanders to hide their military forces within the civilian population, so that they get hit as colateral damage. Sick but true, read a little Che Guevara or Mao sometime, they want their civilians to get hit for propaganda purposes.
It should be pointed out that Israel puishes civilians who kill Arabs that is not Hamas's policy.
As to the Hotel bombing it was dispicable, but troop barracks and Officer Quarters are legitimate targets in war. The Israeli leaders who took part in that are revolting.
That said when I get checked at the airport it's not because of crazy Jews.
Osama Bin Ladin was never in the pay of the US, he may have fought the Soviets, but he was never a US allie.
It's amazing how much dumb garbage you read about the CIA and MI-6. The only thing that can be printed about either is pure garbage, because to print true information is against the law "State secrets " don't believe me try it sometime and blog me from a very remote prison. Anybody got a wierd fantasy can through that out there though, perfectly legal.
Complain about this comment
# 61. WebAliceinwonderland:
"equal men, un-equal, - a theoretical question, quite a Dostoevsky-type one.
Theoretically I'd still keep, and in a bulldoggy manner, that are equal.
Otherwise what are we all doing here and what is everything kind of for?
Practically, greypolyglot, if you're trying to prove that - "un-equal" - what are you going to do about it? it is at this level where an abstract discussion gains flesh and real troubles begin."
Alice, all that I can do is to try to help those who, through no fault of their own, are less fortunate than I am. That and try to get woolly-minded people to face up to the reality that, much as 'all are created equal' is a nice idea, the real world shows us that it's a utopian ideal not a reality.
I prefer to face the world as it is rather than as portrayed in fairy stories.
Complain about this comment
I've put myself a monument, un-hand-made
The peoples' path to it shall not grow over with grass
It raised up by the uncompromising top
higher
Than the Alexandrinsky column (in the Palace Square tra la la)
??? tra la. and every language existing in the country would know my name
And wild tungus, and ? someone else? and finn, and child of steppe - kalmyk.
(and why is so?) ... tra la...
But longly (after) shall I be pleasant to my people
For feelings kind I woke with my lyre
For - in the Cruel Age - I glorified the Freedom, and
Mercy for the fallen called.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice who wrote the poem?
Complain about this comment
#60
So according to you a boy is made into a man when he is thaught how to kill other people?! Oh dear, oh dear! That is a pure Amrecan-Gingoist-Militarist-Gun-Totting-Oil-Drilling philosophy.
'How can anbody who has to be taught how to walk, how to run, how to brush his teeth, how to eat, how to dress, how to fold his socks and underwear, how to smoke, how to drink, even how to put his belt buckle on consider himself an equal. He would never dream of asking that question.'
What is the age of the recruits in your 'brotherly' US Army? 18? If the American youths need to be thought how to eat, walk, brush their teeth and fold their socks at the age of 18 by a dumb sergeant, then the USA is in a pretty bad state indeed!
Complain about this comment
To Isenhorn (74):
I don't think that is necessarily just an American opinion, on subject of army's role on ones life. I would say more or less the same idea is shared here in Finland were we still have an conscription army where most of the youths go to serve from 6 months to 12 months.
For me army too was a life changing experience, but that wasn't necessarily for all the training that I had, just on simply leaving home for the first time, being out and being expected more than doing my homework and cleaning my room.
On the rest of it, that's a different story...
Complain about this comment
Rohila #75,
you don't have to waste your time explaining anything to that type. He is probably on to eating more of his fathers food or complaining that the government doesn't support him enough, maybe his 400th video game for the day. The falling birthrate in Russia and the Western countries comes from messes like that. I agree with nature they should not be reproduced. His country can't depend on him for anything but to broadcast weakness to the world.
I see he is not in favor of Oil drilling so obviously he travels by donkey, gathers worms and grubs to eat instead of farmed goods and lives in a wood burning hut. Wonder where he got his computer made of twigs and mud? In America we make them out of plastic a petroleum by product. How interesting to have an oil free life! Crude and stupid, but interesting. I know of no stores that sells anything made without oil at some part of the process.
He also says that I am gun toting. True and I will go another step farther and say that I don't support any government so paranoid that it it fears it's own citizens being armed for their common defence. Additionally, I defend my own family and property. That's right if you come to my house intent on rape, murder or kidnapping I will defend my family members. That shouldn't be a problem for anybody who doesn't commit rape, murder or kidnapping. If he has convinced himself that there is a type of human (uber-man)that is smarter than himself and better at making the life and death decisions when it comes to his family than himself, so be it, not every creature was meant to make it past extiction. In 1945 my grandfather was one of those gun toting Americans that helped liberate Buchenwald concentration camp. The amazing thing to US goofy Americans was how decent men could allow something as slimey as a government to take away their weapons, so that thy could do something like that? Did nobody care about their families?
I see I am jingo-istic too. Pretty broad statement for somebody who never met me. Admittedly there is a lot here worth fighting for. I have an excellent life, a government whose leaders I have acees to, limited restrictions on any business ideas I want to stick my money in, land lots of beautiful land, cars, telvisions, computers, low taxes and all the things that make life worth living. I guess I'm an idiot, because I don't want some foreigner driving a tank through all that or treating the female members of my family the way the Soviets treated the women of Berlin in 1945. Yah, I guess we are pretty weird in the US. I guess I am pretty jingo-istic.
I'm American, yah you got that right brother! I defintly don't belong in one of those Grey, soulless little, government monitored boxes, that people like him call home. I have no intention of giving away everything I earn to some goofy government in taxes, instead of helping my own family. I don't need anybody in government to tell me what to read, what to worship, what to wear, what to eat. My beach home in Florida was bought with money I would have been taxed out of if I had stayed i Socialist country.
What can we take from all of this? When I went away to the Army, it was all about me. What happened? Complete change, now it's about my Mother, Sister & her kids and dog Skipper. I developed the mental strength to know that somebody was going to have to defend all of this, somedays that might be with an M-4 Carbine, somedays by earning a good living and somedays by telling the stupids who want the government to be their Nanny that I'm not interested. Like a Viking Warrior of old standing guard in the night while others partied in the longhouse, I had discovered the importance of preserving the home and that maybe that was more important than personal survival or comfort. That was driven home to the entire country, except for morons on 911.
What Isehorn fails to understand about that volunteer Army that we take away from their family for 6 years and ship to Europe to defend his and our homes. We assume that the new recruit doesn't know anything and we try to cover everything so that everybody is healthy , because a soldier that is in hospital in Germany has to be replaced by one flown in all the way from the states when he is in a critical task. Why do all the sox have to be rolled in exactly the same way? Because planners have to know how much room is left in the soldiers equipment when a new piece of equipment is introduced. Why do we teach him how to run? When was the last time you saw a civilian run until he bled from the nose or threw up his lunch and continued to run, that's not natural and needs to be taught. Foreigners may watch the opening speech to Patton, or the Basic training scenes in Jarhead or Full Metal Jacket and laugh (we do too), but that is the price we pay for victory in places like the cliffs of Point u Hoc France, Iwo Jima, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Remagen Bridge Germany, etc. Those are l pretty ar from home.
Those People like yourselves who have served to keep your country free are owed a debit of gratitude by Americans and free people everywhere. Your country's fight against Stalin in the Winter War is required reading in our Officer's Special Warfare training. You can be very proud to have worn that uniform, indeed. Thank you
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
politejomsviking,
My response to you was deleted by the moderators- it appears they felt it broke the house rules. However, thanks to your response I have the confirmation I needed.
Complain about this comment
politejomsviking, easy, easy! Oh God.
polite aren't we? even when so passionate! no wonder Isenhorn's comment was removed by the moderators, can imagine what is there!
what's this Isenhorn's "watching video No 400 in a row" or "eating money earned by the fathers?", what gave you this ideas, to assault a man?
based on what, what were you irritated by, his comment US boys get taught to roll up socks and brush up teeth at the age of 18, when becoming army conscripts? that's all?
you couldn't explain the planning of place in soldier sacks whatever and therefore that damned paramount importance of spare socks being rolled up one way and not another - without getting aggressive, really? so easy to flame you up - surely it is dangerous! That Latin saying "Jupiter, you are getting angry - means you are not right!"
I do hope this is all really a "boys' fight" in the school yard, good people, and such an exchange. who would you have for friends, each of you, if you treat good each others, I dare say, reading your both previous comments' as some enemies, or whatever!
Politejoms you attitudes I admire but I keep in mind constantly and you would agree with me when you think about it - you are more militaristic than average! the world is not like you! why should it be? that's the same liberties you stand for for yourself and deny others! heaps of excellent men don't feel a need to arm up to the teeth to do what's right. Yes it often alas boils down to direct fight in this imperfect world, but when there isn't a war on - why to get so all shooting out in all directions like a walking Rambo or I don't know what?
it is such an old dispute, whether violence inspires violence, should "the good" be equipped with fists, etc.
I may be critical of course of the army ways simply because all violence is unnatural to females who are normally centered at preservation of things, not spoiling them.
but also on personal grounds; had a lovely admirer centuries ago, so nice boy in school, used to be a decent fellow! played piano, composed poetry, wore glasses, draw up whole albums of my pictures. once failed a literature exam at school and won over a pass at the re-sit with our teacher, by betting he'll say 900 poems of Vysotsky by heart. On the poem 25 I think she collapsed to the general class cheer and put him the "pass".
Then went to the Soviet army!
(there were wrong signs about him before but I didn't notice, LOL. Always despaired the war in Afghanistan is over and tried to run away a couple of times to join up troops there).
What did get out of the army? A total monster! As far as I observed he first would strike someone then think about it. And there was a constant, how to say, LOL slightly paranoical fire in his eye surveying the grounds around, who to kick. Forgot about all university plans, went to the criminal police, felt there like a fish in the water. sporting a pistol and exchanging kicks with their suspects or whoever they grabbed and beat up in the cellars. and that was a sickly thin supposed to be totally blind LOL intelligencia fellow!
Now, I don't know about your US army, but ab the Soviet army I know. It was a repression machine and when a young man got there he has only 2 choices - to be put down or to be the top dog. A la Soveit army style. Anyway that's all old school time news, rather hope it is slightly differenty now in the Russian one.
With you courteous comments about "fertility" in Russia, it's not "fertility" I rather hope, but the highest rate of abortions in the world. The female world went kind of on strike, seeing that the place is un-fit post your, by the way, Western-imposed Perestroyka, to raise up children. The state subsidy for a child until 2 years' ago for the un-working mother was 70 roubles a month. 2 dollars. If you think food in Russia is cheaper than in the US, or has been - change your mind. Total collapse, mess and poverty, the motto here being "why to multiply the poverty?"
A simple question of survival. And Russian men were nearly extinguished by the previous century, because all the best get killed first, in any revolution, Stalin repressions, civil war, in the first and second world wars, in absolutely all the troubles. They still stubbornly die at the age of 58, and are far less in number than women. YUes, and don't forget Russians' drinking habits. This all combined mounted up at Perestroyka and resulted in total no no for children. Like, "are you mad, in such a place? with such a future?"
Now it is better, surprise surprise, all statisctics get fixed, curves going up. Even Kremlin relaxed a little bit, that after all there still may be some population in this country, to rule over. After 2050.
All worlds are diff. And you try to transfer your world rules to other worlds' rules.
Diff. things work in diff. places, and don't be silly, that you are like a universal God, know what is best for all. Who is here among us, I don't have a clue what works in Texas as a viable life style. And will never know if you won't stop quarreling and start telling things in a er, ? whatever. manner. The poem you've asked about was Pushkin, of course, who else. To glorify Freedom! during "Cruel Age". only him we have, "Pushkin is Russian all." I apologise for telling you off.
Complain about this comment
Just to comment shortly as I have been too busy at the work.
I think one important thing in reading comments from politejomsviking, Isenhorn, WebAliceinwonderland or me is that we come from different cultures, from different parts of the world, and even thought we share the same medium of communication, the English language, the words that we use have different connotations and values attached to them, thus there is a real danger that we mix or misinterpret words and sentences that we presume to much from too less. This all leads more or less heated conversations.
For example, we have the word Warrior which has different connotations. Some may assume it means an aggressive person who is trained to use and uses violence. However a warrior can also mean something else, for example from politejomsviking's comment 76 I would assume for him warrior to stand someone who protects, who takes care, who takes responsibility not from only of his life but also from the life's of others, so in this context being a warrior is a good and a positive thing.
I know that I'm the last person to say this, as I have too many times been guilty of it, but before we comment we should take deep breath and think about again on what the other person said and what we really want to say to him or her.
I'm not suggesting having a wishy-washy lets-have-group-hug we-are-all-friends moment, but just on not letting carried away. And yes, this message was to everybody and to non particular. And yes, I know, I'm the last person that should say.
Complain about this comment
They say a week is a long time in politics, it seems an eternity in currency changes. It seems hard to believe that just a week ago people were talking about the sterling crisis and even possible collapse, including people on this thread. The BBC (and other news organisations to be fair) were screaming about it from the parapets. Since then it has made up about half it's losses of the previous 3 months (currently almost buys 1.13 euros. This is despite yesterday's B of E interest cut and a Government that would not be too worried if sterling did stay low as it helps exports in a recession. Still not where it was 3 months ago, but heading in that direction. Wonder when the BBC will make similar high profile but this time positive headlines about this, won't hold my breath.
That said a week is a short time, so is a month and I would go further, a true test of a currency is 10-20 years. It may well go down again, as I said before that's what currencies do. We are already seeing tensions in the Euro zone countries over monetary policy and interest rates, interesting to see how it develops. Still glad the U.K. can make decisions which it thinks is in it's best interest.
Complain about this comment
Jukka you must be right. I'm sorry politejomsviking, you must be indeed that, "protective" warrior. And I am simply badly brought up. I will count up to 10 in future.
Let's talk about something peaceful.
What was the subject of this thread, anyway?
oh, it's Lisbon Treaty. well.
but then, see - BP got up in value! there are good news afterall. the gas might be No, that's a bad subject as well.
BTW no one in this blog seems to be interested in the Gaza. may be we have nothing to say.
locally I heard a view that Israel will continue the war with the same intensity till Obama's election, who'd then speak to Hamas somehow and agree. so the time until is being used to the max.
Israel turned down Russian suggestion to mediate in talks with Hamas for cease-fire, like, thank you, we don't talk to terrorists, there is noone there to talk with.
Russian humanitarian aid people, docs, complained as far back as 4 days ago (Ministry of Extraordinary situations), that Hamas doesn't let them in where they are needed and fires at (not Israel, Hamas), they got the impression that Hamas opinion is "the worse - the better", like, more victims - bigger shout.
Since that the situation looks like have turned around, with 500 kg "target dot" bombs shower now Hamas does want humanitarian help, but now Israel fires at the int'l teams.
We have a "Russia-today" media station in Gaza, but it was kind of bombed out very well, so they are all full of impressions. Still it works.
Complain about this comment
Alice...
The situation in Gaza is just horrible. I have been tracking it via reddit and its understatement to say that I don't like the situation. Actually its just revolting, especially graphic imaginary of it. For example Norwegian newspaper Aftonbladet were so outraged on the situation in Gaza that they made an exemption on their publishing rules: the usual rule is to not show any dead people in pictures, and especially pictures of dead children. Aftonbladet printed an image of dead small girl whose head was only visible from the ruble. I'm not going to post a link to it as I almost vomited on that instance. Its just outraging.
The thing why are not talking about it in here is more or less because... a good question really... I don't really know on where to start really... so lets start from what should be done.
The EU should make an announcement that if Israel doesn't stop its military action and withdrawn to its positions, then the EU will freeze the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and if Israel still wouldn't stop its operations, then the EU would set up trade sanctions against it until Israel would stop its actions against Palestinians. That is what the EU should do.
The first problem of course is that the EU doesn't have ability to do this kind of decisions, we don't have common foreign policy with efficient unified decision making structure.
The second problem is that for some reason both European countries and the USA handle Israel with silk gloves. European countries especially Germany feel guilt over holocaust. Britain created modern day Israel with the Balfour Declaration. France helped Israel at first. Politicians in the USA get funding from AIPAC (US gives money to Israel, Israel gives money to AIPAC, AIPAC gives funding to politicians and parties, to all of them!).
The third problem is that people have gotten used on the whole conflict and that they really don't know the history of the whole conflict and why its continuing still. Essentially what we have and what has already happened is the ethnic clenching of Arabs, both Christian and Muslims from the whole area of historic Palestine.
This whole topic is so... extensive... and I have to wake up early tomorrow to baby sit my goddaughter... that its just futile to try to get things out of my head at this time.
However, some solution have to be found on the whole situation. The cycle of violence have went for so long in the middle east and there seems to be no end to it. It has to be stopped, that's a fact, but it will not be stopped by using force, it will be stopped by making compromises and trying to do historic wrongs right as much as possible.
Complain about this comment
Salute to peaceful baby-sitters!
Yes, all horrible. All I see on TV is by 15 min. lots Gaza/gas/Gaza/gas/Gaza/gas, round o'clock news. since? Dec 31st?
Don't know, may be something else happens in the world, but Rus. TV definitely not interested then.
Re "EU and USA handling Israel in silk gloves"; Russia is also in a tricky situation.
Traditionally our allies there are of course arabs. "Don't even go to a fortune-teller!" (to find out). as is phrased here.
We taught them all we could get hold of, LOL, in all Soviet institutes and universities (and military academies). I guess just for the hell to oppose UK and USA with their love of Israel.
Then, with the amount of Russian emigration to Israel, I mean it has reached must be by now the point that a quarter of Israeli are Russians. Need to look up in wiki. If not more. There were only 2 routes out of USSR and later out of modern Russia - to Germany and to Israel. (the rest is illegal immigration washing up dishes in some foreign cafe in the back doors and hope for an amnesty of illegal immigrants once in 5 yrs or something.) Well, I exagerrate of course, but roughly, true. Because other "official" places that accept Russians
I don't think took many (Australia, Canada, New Zealand).
So most Jewish to be exact - any Russian who could find in himself a 1/4 or 1/8 of Jewish ancestry - immigrated to either Germany or Israel. Depending if you like hot places and if you can morally stand Germany. Not much of a choice, so some went West some went East.
And now in Israel are hell of a lot of Russians, at that - not some pre-historical Russians, generations ago, but quite recent and these living generations. Max - 2nd.
Still however Russian allies were arabs.
But mind it, this Georgian war. All blamed Russia only a lazy one didn't. Even we blamed ourselves, like "replying to aggression" allright but still - replying - to who? to Georgia! not planet Zorg aliens, which would be morally much easier.
One of the few traditionally "Western" places who kept cool about Russia was Israel. Like, you were shot at (or not exactly you, but the grey zones under your protectorate), but the your peace-keepers (read - soldiers) were killed there in one blast dozens, so - justified.
We even kind of wondered why Israel is so allowing. But then remembered Israel traditionally replies by , say "a lot" per one thir soldier killed, so thought - they find it reasonable, natural.
Still, we kind of morally owe to them. There is such a feeling. They called off all Georgian army armament orders, absolutely all, stopped. That's a gesture.
And an independent gesture, not along US lines.
And now they fight, one day, 2nd day, 3rd day, OK. but no end in view, and so much cruelty.
Clever local heads say the idea underlying is critically wrong, Israel separately, Palestine separately. They should be joined into a Federation, one country. A hilarious view of course, but the only long-term survival solution.
Complain about this comment
Hamas had a ceasefire negotiated by Eygpt in Gaza. The Israelis did not attack Hamas, but individual rocket sites and only while flying, while the cease fire was on.
Then Hamas announced that the ceasefire was at an end and the Israeli's started to really catch the rocket fire.
This is the simplest thing in the world to solve. Palestine has to offer to stop shooting missiles and allow for foreign observers.
Complain about this comment
To politejomsviking (85):
Its not as you think it is, and it is not as simple as that...
First of all, CNN confirms that Israel broke ceasefire first... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4
The second thing is that Palestine is not a sovereign entity. Both Gaza and the West Bank are Israel occupied areas. People living in those areas are not Israeli citizens nor are they citizens of any other state as they don't have any state at all, thus making them virtual prisoners without any right nor freedoms.
The third thing is that both Hamas and Fatah are grassroots organizations that have sprung out of the need of the Palestinian people, out of the sheer desperation that they have on their situation.
But lets start from the beginning...
Israel was formed in 1948. What people usually don't remember about the formation of Israel is that the area were it was formed wasn't empty, it had already people living in it. Before the WW1 the majority of people living in Palestine were Muslims and there were major Christian minority and a Jewish minority. After Brits got hold of the territory, Zionist Jews immigrated into it with more coming each year.
After WW2, things escalated in Palestine. Zionist created their own private militias that started to not only exercise terrorism against the British authority, but also against the Palestinians. In short what happened was modern ethnic clenching were Jewish militias either by directly killing or with threatening on using violence drove the native Palestinians in masses away from their homes.
What you want to do is to read a letter written by Albert Einstein in 1948 warning of Zionist Facism In Israel... http://www.rense.com/general59/ein.htm
The formation of state of Israel was the end result of the first ethnic clenching and massive land grab perpetrated by the Zionist.
The second land grab happened in the Six Day war in 1967. Now people usually think that it was started by Arab acting against Israel. The truth actually isn't that. Israel made the first move and attacked the Egyptian troops... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War ...what is important to note that Egyptians didn't have enough troops in the Israeli facing border to invade it. Israel attacked first and claimed after first on defending itself. This Israel defense soon turned into yet another massive land grab where the current West Bank areas were occupied by Israel.
From then on Israel has created more settlement and extended them on occupied territories. They have evicted and destroyed Palestinian housing and villages to drive people away. The situation has gone into a point where over million Palestinians have had to retreat on the Gaza strip and on the West Bank majority of the areas are Israel controlled and only minority of them controlled by Palestinians.
Now Palestinians have damn good reasons on rebelling and fighting against Israel. The current fighting however isn't actually created by the history, but because Israel have made both West Bank and Gaza ghettos, virtual prisons for Palestinians.
For example Gaza. Israel have blockaded them. They had an airport, Israel bombed it so it couldn't be used. They have an seaport, but Palestinians aren't allowed to operate it, even in the supervision of the UN. The borders facing Egypt are closed too. Now remember that this was the condition of things when there were peace. Now how on earth can people live, work and do business in a place where your possibilities to make your living are drastically cut of? The answer is, its impossible. Formation of Hamas, it conducting both suicide terrorism and rocket bombings against Israelis are just acts of desperation. In this conflict, Hamas and the Palestinians are the winners if they aren't annihilated. They act on knowing that they can't drive Israelis away, they act as they only few options: to live as serfs of Israel, to leave and never return or to die with a fight. In their position I would fight too into the bitter end.
The miserable thing in here is that this whole conflict while be solved sooner or later. Israel is now at the highest state of its power, and it has all the cards to make an permanent peace with Palestinians and its neighbors: Saudi-Arabia already made an peace offer with this content. However if Israel don't make a permanent peace with Palestinians and its neighbors then I'm afraid the second Holocaust will happen when the state of Israel collapses. Israel currently lives only because of the money coming directly from US and its having beneficial trade agreements with the EU. When that money someday vanished, when US and the EU are not there to back them, they will collapse and the worst possible scenario is the second holocaust.
Complain about this comment
Colonel Vasin returned back to front-line
with his young spouse
Colonel Vasin collected his regiment and told them: Chaps, let's go home.
We're making war for 70 years already,
We were taught that life - is an eternal fight.
But according to the latest data of the reconnaissance
We were fighting ourselves.
Complain about this comment
..I saw generals, they eat and drink our death
Their kids are getting mad because they have nothing else to wish for
Meanwhile the land lies in rust, churches were mixed up with soot
And if we do wish to have where to return back eventually - it's time to get home - NOW!
Damn, this train is on fire! And we've got nothing to pedal down on.
This train is on fire! And we've got nowhere more to retreat.
This land - it used to be ours. Until we got stuck in the battle.
This land will die, if it continues to be noone's
Time to return it back to ourselves.
Around us torches flame - this is gathering of all units lost
And the men, who shot at our parents,
ARE MAKING PLANS FOR OUR CHILDREN.
We were even getting born - to the sound of war marshes, we were scared by prizon threat
Let's stop to crawl on the belly.
We have got back home already, haven't we?
Complain about this comment
Whenever I write something rhymed, a talk stops ! Can't we write to each other in verses, one says smth, the other replies, would be so wonderful. what a pity.
I guess we can. only nobody has any connotations arising from old well-known Russian quotes and things. well I agree to deal in English ones! oh anyway.
will say simply, Jukks I agree with what you say, but up to a certain point, I mean, didn't Israel withdraw from Gaza and the West bank its people, leaving it for muslims entirely? They surely grabbed it before, but I had a feeling that recently they left it.
But may be like you say, took their people out and blocked the connection ways for the muslims staying there.
Didn't know ab port and airport.
Who can prohibit to re-build airport.
How come they can't use their port? Who can forbid using ports?
Re the tunnels to Egypt, saw them a lot in Rus. TV. Looks like a hole hidden here or there inside living homes, inside open terrain, like you walk, and hop, in sand, an opening. A Rus. journalist used it for the hell of it, with the camera, to crawls through to Egypt. Was very scary, always smth happens with these narrow holes/tunnels. In size more like for foxes! You follow a plastic coloured rope, with a flash-light, crawl along it, and on the way back drag along your side a sack with smuggled goods, Marlboro cigarettes, etc. At that someone has to meet you by the hole, and lifts up the bag first, and only after that - the crawler. They said of 10 trips 2 end by death of a person but still these expeditions top popular, hundredth of volunteers, as all they smuggle is sold 10 times more expensive, perfumes, all, huge money made.
Complain about this comment
Jukka-Rohila,
I don't disagree that the position the Palestinians have gotten themselves into is very disagreeable. I also don't disagree that Israel could most of the times show more restraint as a nuclear power.
I do disagree though that a terrorist group digging a tunnel into another country for the purpose of kidnapping/murder during a truce is a truce violation. As is the shooting of munitions of war into the other country.
Such acts constitute a violation of the truce. If the offended party wants he/she can either respond diplomaticaly or militarily. If I had a truce with an enemy I just wouldn't allow them to emplace a weapon that could kill me. That is not what truce means. A truce is a temporary cessation of hostilities that can be cancelled by either party, ussually. on very short notice, ussually military action by either party constitutes a breach of truce.
A more permanent solution is a peace treaty. To go into a hostility the offended side then has to declare hostilities. Japan intended to deliver her declaration of war to the US right as her planes apperared over Pearl Harbor. Her diplomats were late and they arrived after thousands of US sailors and our Pacific fleet had been destroyed. This along with the atrocities committed by Imperial Japanese forces throughout the Pacific, became President Truman's reason for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Starting war without a declaration of war or notice of a state of hostilities existing is very dangerous.
All that said, I don't see what Palestein hopes to accomplish. Israel exists! It's there and like a lot of other countries they may not like it, but there isn't much you can do about it.
Can Germany hope to get rid of Poland? Could the US get rid of the big British colony in Canada in the 1800s? Can Russia eliminate Finland? Probably, but what would the worlds military retaliation look like, not pretty.
But Germany can be so damned nice that they are not an enemy. Just like Russia and the US. That is a good thing.
The US has given Palestein Billions too. The world forgets about this. The first Palestinian government and elections are a direct result of US giving Israel and Palestein a lot of money. We thought prior to Hamas, the suicide bombers and the rockets that they were well on their way to independence.. We even arranged for the Palestinian Authority to send their soldiers, policemen and firefighters to Israel for training. We also paid for training in Europe and Eygpt.
So for the first time in the history of the world a man is able to stand in the streets of Palestein and be recognized as the representative of the legitimate government of Palestein. The US delivers thousands of M-16 rifles and over 8 million rounds of amunition with the promise of more as the palestinian authority needs it to pursue legitimate defence needs. We even offer to let them attend joint military exercises with the US, Eygpt, Israel, Saudi Arabi and Jordan next time we set up an exercise.
So what do we do now? Well after sevaral decades of screaming to the world they want Yassir Arafat and the PLO to run Palestein as the ONLY legtimate government they pick an Iranian front group that is on the terrorist watch list of every country in the world. Hammas says they recognize the truce, but take Israeli soldiers hostage, start digging murder tunnels into Israel, start a daily suicide bomber campaign, shooting artillery rockets at nuclear armed Israel. But the absolute Coupe de gras we announce to the whole world that Hamas does not recognize the cease fire truce.
They were getting away with bloody murder under the cease fire? Why put your terrorists at risk by dissolving it? Why are you so intent on walking away from negotiations now? You had more autonmy than any time in Palesteins history. You gained more land by peace than all the wars since 1945. They had the Israeli Army removing Jewish settlers with force from Arab land. They had real quality weapons from the US and the promise of more if they would just form a legitimate government.
What did Hammas going to war accomplish. It killed the Isralie peace movement. It meant that Palestein would continue to be killers in masks instead of a country.
I think it was easier for Hammas to say they are fighting Israel than to do the hard stuff of Independence like build an economy, roads, jobs for their people,sign a peace treaty that includes trade agreements, educate her people.
Right now in Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida there are Palestinian protesters screaming back to the ovens to the jews.
So what happens next we sighn another truce to end the fighting, but neither side stops fighting? The Palestinaians go back to hijacking airliners, every nowand then we let throw a crippled man in a wheel chair into the ocean, can they shoot a US Sailor in peace time and throw the body on a air port runway, can they go to Germany and shoot at the police and kill an entire olympic team, maybe we should let them kidnap a German airliner and take it to Mogadishu, we could let them train terrorist groups world wide, or dance in the streets of Palestein at the murder of 3,000 civillians on 911.
Where does it stop? When they kill your family or mine in an Airport or a shopping mall?
Until they form a government and put their Army under the rules of war I don't see much future for them.
I wouldn't put too much faith in CNN, I was watching CNN interview Bagdad Bob the Iraqi information minister about the destrucion of the US Army outside of Bagdad then all of a sudden the Third Infantry Division"s tanks and Armored Personel carriers (US Army)started rolling by in the background. They are called the Communist News Network in the US, if they were a comic book it would be a step up.
Complain about this comment
from what I saw on TV last summer it's pretty hopeless to bomb out those tunnels. All is excavated there, like cheese, the whole border, by narrow holes. Each and every digs them. What happens is ground collapses down often and they get suffocated.
Complain about this comment
Why are they picking on Prince Harry again. It seems that there is always some humorles ***** giving him a hard time in the Press. I don't see him doing anything that every other high spirited young man would do.
I think he is a credit to the family and a role model for other young people who are probably otherwise underfoot and essentually vandals at heart.
I personally hope Harry lives long enough to become King. I think he would do wonders for the whole country's image. Maybe the best King, since Henry the Fifth. I think he is going to grow up to be a great man and loved by his countrymen for being one of the most fun Kings ever.
Hopefully, he will visit America then.
Complain about this comment
politejoms, you're a little bit wrong, thinking Russia likes to get rid of Finland, I mean it's natural to think so, a small "ex" positioned by the side of the big decisive bully, but this isn't the case in the case of Finland.
We aren't annoyed they exist independently. If someone were I'd know, it'll get through somehow, such an opinion, in voice, in speak, in gossip, in jokes. To say nothing of official media channels. If someone were annoyed, or jealous, or willing to join them back - it would be noticed. But it isn't.
We seem to gave up on the idea to assimilate the Finnish folk loooong ago, far earlier than the Rus-Fin war. (Jukks would disagree, he still thinks we were after them, all people, and the capital. We only wanted to clip off a bit more of their land. LOL. May be indeed A LOT. but not the whole.)
And anyway that was future war expectations' inflicted, that it'd be safer to have border with capitalists further off away Leningrad city. And we thanked God innumerous times during the siege after that we did clip off more land in time, and did move Finland off away our border.
Anyway they were always felt a particular its own kind of people impossible to assimilate. All the time they were a Rus. province, they were anything but Russian.
You build there churches - they still stubbornly go to own ones.
You build there schools - they say thank you and study in own schools.
They always spoke unundestandable language. A Russian province! three ha ha.
Own language, own education system, own laws, own habits and ways, own religion and absolutely all own Finnish way to do business, things and all. Not a single Russian custom. Own fairy-tales. Own epics. Own heroes. Own embroidery - you'd always be able to tell a flower emroidered on a towel or a table-cloth the Finnish way or a Russian way. Own idea how birds and animals look in emroidery. How to knit designs. Another culture existing in parallel, to put it simply.
At that, mind it, they were a darling province. Nothing like Poland Oh Save God!
Never revolted once, LOL, examplarous behaviour (Jukks would go sharpen some "Finka"/ Finnish knife, at this my statement).
Oh by the way Finnish knives also look differently. You can always tell a "finnka".
I have 2.
So, not revolting, no uprisings, revolutions for independence or anything - they'd simply look at every crazy Russian there reproachfully - and won't say a word! And will continue doing all stubbornly their own quiet way! And what they were thinking to themselves - no Russian was ever able to figure out. Extremely quiet and persistent in own ways folk.
No fun to supress and depress entirely! No resistance! (on the surface)
Seriously, we gave up. Hopeless.
To say nothing they like bath-house being dry and Russians like bath-house being wet, full of vapours, whereas the Finnish sauna idea is to get rid of all humudity, and Russian idea - to get added up as much humidity as possible! Even in that we don't agree. And you'd never see a Finn in the nearest 1000 years, guaranteed, abandoning his bath-taking ideas.
So, what's the point?
So, no, no hope.
Complain about this comment
Accoding to AOL, 69% of Americans don't see anything wrong with what good Prince Harry said and 59% of us have a very favorable opinion of Prince Harry.
I think that ecept for the Queen that is the highest ratings you'll get for th Royal family. I bet the Talliban's approval rating isn't near 59%.
The person who reported the call should be arrested as a peeping tom.
Complain about this comment
Politejoms (I hope noone from England is reading this now) (surely not) I don't share your fascination with good Prince Harry.
Quite an average youth, peckles-speckles, red-haired :o).
His fighting in traditional capitalistic places, where Britain-US combined choose to annoy local folk with democracy ideas I am afraid haven't added any points to the Prince, in Russian girls' eyes, that is.
However the overall idea of being in the army does, how to say, good he was where fights go, bad that the place is Britain's choice.
With what he is pestered for now of course silly, and very lowly, base, someone reporting on him. The problem is he isn't allowed to say what all around can in everyday life because a prince, so under too many telescopes/microscopes turned at him.
Not sure the system will survive Latin, to turn it around - what's allowed to a bullock is not allowed to Jupiter. And that, French one, something "obliges", etc.
The swastika fooling around was far nastier.
Anyway not to worry, lots of time, in 30-50 years, with the English tradition "never unless a pensioner", when he'll become a King - you simply won't recognise him!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Politejomsviking, pity your post disappeared, anyway congratulations with the new USS George Bush (the senior), biggest in the world, wow, entered into the service officially today.
90 airplanes/helicopters, nearly 6000 of crew on board, very impressive. I watch the ceremony the whole day today, repeatedly.
Complain about this comment
Apparently we are very jealous.
Well, not until it's completed, LOL. But since next summer - def. yes.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
yes I forgot to put in front of it that the Americans are the ones causing all of this. Everybody take a group hug now.
Yes, once before the Americans came Europe was a beautiful tropical jungle from end to end. There was no Capitalism, Communism, or Nazism. Also militarism and Imperialism did not exist. All those evil ideas came from Chicago.
We all ate a well balanced diet of oatmeal, macaroni, eupoean tofu and crepes. Food was plentiful, because living with nature and using no oil or metal the crepe crops were plentiful. No tribe ate quickly, no fast food everything took at least a year to make.
There was total equality, anyone could be a chief he just stood up and announced that he was starting a peace party and would take the peace party to raid wherever peace or plenty was needed. Some of the tribes were so concerned about peace in the 1800s that they marched all the way to Moscow under a peace chief named Napolean Bonaparte, spreading peace and low cholesteral French tribal food.
While there his wife Josephine (from the Americas) started a giant crepe fire and burned Moscow to the ground. Additionally, many members of the tribe caught cold from a cold front blowing over the arctic circle from the Americas. Luckily, European tribal medicine was perfect at this time and some recovered to invent the curent and perfect European religion, BUREACRACY. A great unseen father called the Department head was all knowing and made all decisions freeing the people from independent thought, offending words and reason. Great Spirit/Department head provided for all, to each according to his need, from everyones ability to produce.
All people were equally, good looking, equally wealthy, eually happy, equally intelligent. No one had any preference as all cultures were equaly valued and all people equally attractive to all other people.
TURN IN FOR FUTURE INSTALLMENTS WHEN EVIL GIANT WAR CANOES ARRIVE FROM AMERICA.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
Glad you pointed out the new aircraft carrier with the name sure to make friends wherever it goes. Nothing on the US news, but some on you tube.
What is the 16 or 17 carriers? Who knows I am sure it will be greated with the same enthusiasm as if they came on TV an announced the purchase of one more tank.
Last I looked Americas enemies were out squirtitng Acid in the faces of little girls to prevent them from going to school. I'm not sure how the US Navy intends to take out the squirt bottle with a 100 F-22 Raptor fighter Planes armed with state of the art missiles. Right now the problem is getting the hooligans to stop putting explosives on the roads where the old men, women and children walk.
When that is done we have to get companies to put some jobs in the country, establish Labor Unions, ensure women can vote, create a police force and minimal access to hospitals and schools. Basically everything we had to do in Japan. But quickly, because these places aren't fun like Japan and their climates are miserable.
Complain about this comment
Then it was time for us to choose
When evil giant war canoes
Came from the west, in ones and twos,
Amidst their trans-Atlantic cruise -
'Do you stand with us, or against?'
Demanded they, in tones incensed;
What choice is this? Our bodies tensed,
To realise how we were fenced:
Should we say Yea, take up our capes,
And leave behind our crop of crepes?
Should we say Nay, draw down our drapes,
And wait for Death, in all its shapes?
Neither choice looked rather pretty;
Both seemed, on the whole, quite gritty.
In the end - and more's the pity -
'Twould be chosen by committee.
In conclave twenty-seven fled
To see what sacred acquis said.
Could anything from A to Z
Shine light upon the looming dread?
The wise had entered grave debate
On what would be our present fate;
'Would it be just to sit and wait?'
'Perhaps we ought to mediate?'
The talks continued, hour by hour;
The mood would sweeten, then would sour.
At long last one who wouldn't cower
Emerged so he'd speak truth to power:
'After long deliberation
And by common proclamation
We now make this declaration:
"Thirsty elders need libation!"'
At once the tribe had things to do:
To fetch the liquors, old and new.
The macaroni and tofu
Would, with the oatmeal, form a stew.
Now, those canoeists knew the score;
The feast would take a year or more
To cook; but what about the war?
Disgusted, they put out from shore.
Then it was time to throw our shoes
At evil giant war canoes,
Once they had paddled from our views
And we were fortified with booze.
- Old Man Gander
Complain about this comment
politejoms, come on! What Russians other think I don't know, most probably forgot about it the second after they saw the ship.
I simply come from a Navy ship-building family, and where you are in such a surrounding for years you don't skip a ship, esp. a new one, and survey it with a very practical eye. And the ceremony, and the commands, and the uniforms, all the details.
I am jealous straightforward, without any hind thoughts, and give credit to the ship-yards.
Surely people from the Rus. ship-yards watched same attentively. I assure you - and everyone here else - if we could - we'd build the same or a bigger one immediately!
Ships are good. Can't explain why.
And they are beautiful. When you see the high side like a wall rising high, bending sideways, standing on a pier, the graceful outline, wow!
I don't joke. The motto of my father was "One must simply work, work and work. One must simply build the ships."
I heard this a 2-3 thousand times in my life, in a reply to any "query" I placed to father.
Starting from "Shall we go to the zoo tomorrow?" to "How will I pass graduate exams in the uni?" Whatever I asked I only heard - see above.
Complain about this comment
Jan_Keeskop, thanks for explanations; I wouldn't know where tofu and canoes come from. I thought politejomsviking is getting poetical, a "canoe", hm! or hungry. crepes. LOL. well, then, indeed, getting poetical, in fact!
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
Polite Joms viking is making fun of European history as told by Socialsts. In short, I told the story of Europe being discovered by the real Americans, the Creek, the Sioux, the Cherokee (American Indians you would call them), etc., instead ofthe other way around.
Most Continental Europeans seem to blame us for every problem they have, bad job, high taxes, mean wife, all wars between Europeans, pollution, Mc Donalds, why each of their little countries is not super power, in short tons of nonsence.
I just wrote down lots of fantasy nonsence I heard on the blogs, to show how silly it was. Ask any Saucier, there is no such thin as cholesteral free French food. The secret ingredients to French food is lots of real butter, tons of sugar and fattening sauces. They would probably benefit from eating fattening garbage at McDonalds.
Was your father a Captain, Naval architect or a ships chandler?
My dog Skipper is named for the affectionate name of Captain of a combat ship. My Dad owned a Deep Sea Diving Company (why we lived all over) and his men always called him the Skipper. H was a very popular Boss. On my desk at home I have a giant shipp's compass that came from my Father's ship/desk.
He would come home and anounce he was going to sea and my mother would pack his chess set and some hisory books. He would write us kids, my mother and her parents every day. One day 6 or 7 months later the door would open he ould throw his gear bag in the door and walk in like he had been to he mail box. Everything would be in order, maintained by my Mother.
When I had my first really serious girlfriend I could not understand what Vibeke's (Danish) problem was, because I would come home from Korea with the Army after 3 months and she would be mad as hell. By my way of thinking at the time I was 3 or 4 months early.
I assumed
Complain about this comment
politejoms,
So the Europeans have bad jobs, high taxes, mean wifes, wars between countries and pollution? Let's see:
Bad job- 9 to 5, 25 days paid holiday, 7 days paid sick-leave.
High taxes- taxes that pay for free top of the range health care, with the so called 'clinical governance' in the hospitals.
Mean wifes- the name of the American John Bobbit springs to mind.
Wars between countries- you mean more wars that USA is leading at the moment?
Pollution- obviously you have never been to Europe. Please, get a passport and come and visit. You will be surprised.
Now compare all of the above to the American system of working 12 hours a day, having two-weeks holiday, no free helathcare, taxes spent on aircraft carriers and wars, and the fact that USA is the biggest producer of CO2 emissions in the world.
PS. Do not forget John Bobbit!
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
Do you see what were dealing with? Isehorn is so mad at me that he will not even read the entire post. I clearly state that I have lived all over the world, because of my Father's diving business. So pardon, if my observations offend, but they are based on first hand experience.
The reality is America has only come to Europe twice for the purpose of war. Once when Germany tried to get Mexico to attack us (WWI) and once when Hitler declared war on us. Other than that nothing really. We have better things to dowith our time and money.
If he had taken the time to read the post he would have understood that I was making fun of the lefts view of the world. Their reaction to everything is one of two things. This is a problem, because the Americans are involved or this is a problem, because the Americans won't help. Whatever buddy, we said we would save you from Fascism, we never promised to become your nanny, your partner, your wife, or your psychiatrist. You don't like what were doing leave. Nobody is forced to be in NATO. If wars have been raging across Europe, since 1945, by all means change the system.
America the Imperial power! Correct me if I am wrong, but after the American Army pushed the Nazis out, didn't we let you locals pick your own form of government (as long as it was not Nazism). I mean you guys are parlimentary democracys, with prime Ministers and all that (your system).
Nobody forced anybody to accept a President or join the Democratic or Republican party, did they? We didn't remove any Monarchs did we? Did we take anything we didn't pay for?
What about Central Europe, surely prior to the Americans there were no piles of bodies there. Where is the country in the world that has they history of slaughter of Europe. The seven years war, the thirty year war, the Hundred year war. Romans, Prussians, France, France, France a endless list.
For somebody so traveled Isehorn doesn't know that Americans work an 8 hour work day. Anything over 8 hours is time and a half pay, so it is pretty desireable. That is a Federal law, so it applieas to all 50 states.
My Federal taxes are some of the lowest in the world. Additionally, I regularly donate to the poor, charities and the Church, so I get a deduction for what little I do pay. Addtionally, all US taxpayers got two incentive checks last year.
Although I am not one, I live in a Republican State in the South, so my State taxes are very low, as they are in all the States of the former Confederacy. The government here is purposely kept very small, by cutting off its revenue. In Florida, Texas and Georgia there is no such thing as a state tax. When I lived lived in New York almost 50% of my income went to the governments goofy Socialist programs. I have invested the money I saved, under the lower tax rates in real items, land, machinery, weapons, cars, energy stocks. I hate socialism, because it destroys the human spirit. I belive it is my right to spend my money as I please, Indian War Bonnet, pet Buffalo, Asault rifle, new viking sword, Mustang GT, Wii system, however I want to waste it is my decision. Yesterday, I watched the movie Tombstone and when it was over went to town and bought a 20 inch, 12 Gauge, double barrel shotgun, my governments ok with that.
I regularly insult all politicians who come near me and consider them a major threat to freedom, exept for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
If the French government or people who think like that government do not want to help me hunt down people who killed 3,000 of my neighbors in New York, stay home, we need warriors right now, others will just be in the way. We are not going to ask your permission or by our leave to do what we think is best when we catch up with these people, be strong, we settled that in the American revolution.
Thank Great Britain, Denmark, Poland, and numerous others who are helping us build a world without terrorism. Your warriors are appreciated.
Complain about this comment
OKs, the situation seems to be "every sandpiper praises its bog."
Politejoms and vikings Inc, I'm very glad you're happy where you are happy, how to say, and all. Even that you are improving your arms' stocks on a daily basis, LOL, a two-barrel, you said ? inspired by movies.
If that's the way you feel comfortable in, I mean, what?
And surely we all desire we continue to be content with own respective countries thinking them far better arranged than anyone else's.
(well, i don't think Russia is "organised" best ! LOL but I can see a few handy things at home still )
And if we all continued to sit in our respective bogs surely the foreign manner of life wouldn't concern anyone a bit.
Isenhorn wouldn't even start thinking if it's so good that Russians love being obedient to an all-powerful "Tsar". and what possible consequances of that on-going obsession for the neighbours.
However since we freeze him off on a continuous basis, his thoughts turn over to Russian organistation involuntary! and I can understand that.
Likewise dear politejoms have just seen handshakes btw your president leaving the office and our Georgian neighbour Mr Saakashvili, having signed an intra-country agreement on "military help."
Georgia would be of invaluable "military help" to the US no doubt, LOL.
Quite a headache for the new president Obama might turn out in fact, at ony moment, don't you think.
Anyway Obama is yours. with all his presents left over by the leaving president in the best intentions for his future cloudless presidency, no doubt.
But as we think troubles in the border have ended purely temporarily for the duration of the winter, and will re-start again in spring - when forests get leaves, easy, and one can hide in the terrain and start sporting around the querilla war tricks. we are interested in the US participation in the spring revival of "activities".
There are un-avoidable connections btw countries, that make one start thinking about "not one's own business".
As to dad he would absolutely answer such a question as "a naval architect". as min this is what I was to fill in all the questionnaires and forms all my life, LOL.
granddad was surely a naval architect all his life, headed our shipyards. Not "headed", directors were diff. people, for all the 30 yrs he was the chief naval architect of the shipyards in St. Pete. Until unfortunately it became an absolute choice either to take Communist party membership or to quit. The fun is until this day nobody understands how he managed to keep the job not being a communist, when the fact became known a great deal of people got a stroke and got fired. the unfortunate negligence was hushed down as it was in noone's interest to advertise. and also various shipyards' directors covered him up.
So granddad quietly quit, took a low profile naval design work, built himself a dacha and self-exhiled kind of. He knew various ideas may arise post-factum, and in fact shortly after somebody did have an idea, so it was an adventure. A grandma's friend suddenly explained herself as being KGB (an interesting finding, LOL. that one can make of an old friend) and that she saw a paper on the table for granddad's arrest.
"This night". All fun, as you realise, Stalin's time. Granddad packed a bag, went to his office at night, signed for himself a business trip paper to a naval ship trial expedition to the Polar circle, and took the night train to Murmansk. Where boarded a vessel immediately and commanded that trials start "NOW". When people came to take him in the early morn. hrs grandma nicely explained he is on business trip and will be back surely shortly, in about half a year.
In effect poor granddad hopped over from vessel to a vessel for the next 1 yr and a half! (Russia has one great advantage - it's BIG! if one wishes to get lost - you still CAN)
Always taking care it all takes place as close to the Northern Pole as possible, with as many ice fields separating him from the nearest KGB office as possible. And friends in the fleet he lacked not.
While he travelled all pushed var. buttons so eventually the man who wrote a report on him was arrested himself (no doubt on somebody else's "report" as well. was a very healthy atmosphere, in Stalin times) and granddad was cleared up of whatever it was, but just in case he kept a life on board for a haf a year more, until finally decided can return to the dacha. And then he simply worked teaching naval architecture, to students, in our ship-building institute.
Complain about this comment
politejoms,
Yuo seem to ignore the majority of the facts that I presented-free healthcare, paid holiday, pollution. Instead you concentrate on the old 'we saved you in WWII'. The reason I have mentioned them was the hope that you might for a moment realize, that the American corporate capitalism you are so proud of is not the only answer. Ok, it works for you. But did it work for the 1,800 poor people who died during the hurricane Katrina? Does it work for the millions of poor without health insurance? Do your 'right to carry a gun' work for the 15 000 people killed every year by gunshots? Has your 'double-barrel shotgun' helped liberate the Guantanamo bay 'concentration camp'? Does your Wii make it easier for the ordinary Americans to find their own country on the map? Does it help Sarah Palin learn that Africa is not a country?
All the arguments on the world about who saved who in the WWII are not going to hide the fact that the USA is not without problems. I am not mad at you, I am mad at your 'Yankee' narrow-mindedness, I am mad at your 'whoever is not with us, is against us' set of mind, I am mad at your patronizing attitude towards the Europeans, I am mad at your 'I'm-alright-Jack' opinion about everything. And because of that, I find myself unable to have a proper discussion with you. Perhaps other people, more patient than I, would still respond to your posts.
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland: I'm not sure what was explained by my last comment, but you're most welcome.
politejomsviking: Thank you for comment 99, particularly for its third paragraph and the phrase evil giant war canoes. For some reason, that phrase immediately brought the first line of my last comment to mind, and I thought that I might explore what rhyming improvisation would lead to. May I ask how you define socialism, and which aspects of that definition you view as destructive to human spirit ?
Complain about this comment
politejoms, congratulations (i hope you understand it is sincere by now , when I say - "congratulations" :o) have you seen how your aiplane landed on river now, having avoided the banks and all safe says my TV must have been a great pilot.
sure Jan_Keeskop glad as well as all are
Complain about this comment
Web Alice, will assume sincerity. The pilot was American, a former US Air Force, F-4 Phantom Pilot, but the plane was a French AirBus. No American would name an air plane Bus. Bus has awful conotations in America. America hates public transportation, we associate it with poverty and a lack of individuality.
One of the things we have never been able to accomplish is to get Americans to think of the other people in a space shuttle as Astro-nauts. To most of us the Pilot and Commander up front are the astro-nauts. The rest are passengers. A lot of Congressmen who did not want to build the space shuttle used to call it the space bus, but NASA called it the Shuttle, because that was what the small space ship in Star Trek was called. And we all know what fantastic adventures Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock had going down to little planets from the big Star ship the USS Enterprise!
Hopefully, in the future we will all be Trekkies who "Boldly go where no Man has gone before" instead of bus riders.
Complain about this comment
Jan-Keeskop,
thanks for giving me credit. One of the projects my fathers company worked on (1960s) was a small submarine for the US Navy that did some really amazing things. When the Navy heard what General Electric and my Father's plans were for the submarine, they made a lot of helpful suggestions , one of which was paint it bright yellow, so they could find it if they had to recover bodies.
When the sub actually worked the newspapers were full of the phrase "a yellow subarine", which was considered funny at that time, because naveys paint submarines grey or black.
I doubt if most people realise that there really was a real "yellow submarine" at the time the Beattles were singing about.
I currently, have the oh-ne- shee which is Sioux, stuck in my head, because it is 14 degress and that means "COLD" .
Complain about this comment
Politejomsviking and Jan_Keeskop,
there is a huge discussion of your plane at "Echo of Moscow" radio station site (traditional gathering place of wrong people opposing most of Kremlin ideas).
An editor started by article "Hero of Competence", saying the pilot is the hero by all means - but far better is the US system itself that made it possible to produce such a competent pilot.
Pointing out
1. when in US airforce - apparently he had no lack of fuel to train (unlike Rusian airforce pilots who train mostly "theoretically", country saving up money on fuel for their trainings)
2. he was able to leave army and become a civillian pilot without 10 times loss in salary
3. he was able to start an own company on safety for airplanes - without giving the bribes size of his 10 year income to the authorities for the papers to start up own business
So far so good.
But then a hundred Russians reminded the editor that in USSR times, in 1963, a TU Rus. plane landed down on Neva river here in our Leningrad between 2 bridges, with all passengers and crew safe as well, like, big deal.
The Editor reminded the bloggers that Hudson Airbus is 3 times heavier than that 1963 year old relic TU. Carried twice more passengers on board. And far wider and larger in size, with more options to touch at things (river banks or boats).
The bloggers reminded the Editor that our pilot Victor Mostovoy was 27 yrs old, didn't study in any military schools, and overall was a young light-minded chap who was punished for this adventure and forbidden to work as a pilot for 2 years. Simulateneously was awarded "An Order of Red Star" for heroism, to sweeten up the pill a bit.
(I didn't know all that in 1963 was not yet born. There are older people disputing there)
So, the main idea "we have had not a worse "system" in USSR times" allowing pilots to learn the business to water down btw 2 close standing bridges without any fuss.
Here joined other bloggers, supporting the Editors' original idea of "a better US system" by pointing out why our pilot had to land on Neva river, in the first place. That no, not all was so pinky and darling in USSR times.
The think is the plane was new and in its first flight. It had to land in Tallinn. When trying to land in Tallinn the crew noticed one of thise wheels doesn't get out, stuck.
So they were re-routed to Leningrad airport, that has a "soft" stripe specially kept soft for years for landing "on the belly".
Tallinn didn't have that and they ought.
En route to Leningrad the crew tried to push out the wheel by all means, ending up by making a huge hole! in the plane bottom! by poking in the fuel with a pole or smth! Which was later classified as kinder-garten approach and ruining a good plane.
So they were told to circle over Leningrad, at the height of just 400 metres! because they were all in that hole air by the time, to burn up all fuel before landing "on the belly".
The fuel meter didn't work accurately but at the level "below 2 tons fuel left" was to be set manually. They mis-calculated the left-overs (later classified as "criminal negligence of duty") and at one point gave out a shout "both engines switched off as zero fuel somehow left". At which point they were too far from their "soft stripe", looked around, saw Neva river, closed the eyes and landed on it, trying to plane down somehow btw the brifges (9 in a row opp Hermitage, this is city centre). In a very un-graceful way, first touched by the tail, then hopped off a bit up, then splashed down by the belly, then craned a bit sideways and broke a wing in half, then finally plumped down onto the belly safely.
The prev. bridge they did 4 metres above, all people on it scattered around. And the plane landed within 70 metres of the next bridge.
The TU didn't drown, but floated. There was a lonely tug-boat in the river, pulling behind that? tree branches tied together, like a wood platform on water, transporting wood caravan. The tug boat captain first thought "oh it's cinema folks shooting a movie". Then he had a second thought and came near. Through the upper roof hole the pilot climbed out and shoted to the tug boat it is a crash. They broke the glass in the pilots' cabin, tied over tug-boat ropes over the pilot's wheel. But the best first idea actually saved them, as the boat captain made a circle and tugged his wood floating platform under the broken wing of the plane, to give it kind of a life-belt. Then he tugged the airplane to the embankment, and hopping over from the roof of the plane onto the wing onto the wood onto the embankment they all got out. Hilarious.
Most hilarious is the pilot was punished for damaging the state equipment (that hole in the belly of the plane), that made it take up water and by the morn. the plane drowned.
Then they lifted it up cut for metal and sold the "soft and confortable" chairs to anyone willing - at 15 roubles a chair.
So, like, there was something wrong in the system that punishes good young pilots who have to fly the planes with no meter of fuel left-over and whose plane's wheels don't get out in the first place.
then all said - and how about NY airport birds' management? Not a negligence?
then others said - and how about that day being the coldest in NY for the past 5 year-record? may be birds got intensified to fly away.
etc.
it continues. pity you don't know Russian
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (113):
In fake French accent...
"No! No! No! Ze credit belong to ze French design, ze magnificuent Airbus! Ze heroes captain wouldn't have done it with out ze suberp Airbus! Ze Americans and Russians should study ze French art of airplane design system."
Okey, my fake French is bad, very bad, so I will stop it now.
In all seriousness the planes captain is a true hero, as is his crew. However I would add that crash landing the plane successfully into the river didn't make him hero, it was his and his crews actions after the crash landing: the captain himself made sure that there was nobody left in the plane before leaving it.
And of course we should find what went wrong...
In fake French...
"It was ze damn Americans! Can't make ze damn motor working! Ze fault is theirs!"
Complain about this comment
Jukki, silly, silly of us!
Rus bloggers missed the point "what company make" entirely.
We are still very, very bad capitalists.
From the very beg. of a news appearance - thoughts go in the wrong way!
Airbus glory then.
Though good that Airbus don't read Rus. blogs. One post definitely pointed out that "the same was done by an Indonesian pilot, in Boeing."
(Boeing No what? the number of good Boeing. didn't pay attention need to look up again)
So it appears all the 3 companies had a successful river landing once. Tupolev, Boeing, Airbus (in time order).
Posting links here is a waste of time, but I'll look up again and post in a separate one.
For the mods, at least! to admire the pictures.
LOL Tupolev company was maybe thinking in "company renome" mode back in 1963, as they tried to prove to the Central Communist Party Committee that their new plane is good! see how it swims! any ship would drown with a hole in the belly, and our plane floated excellently, is even -"tug-gable", like a boat!
To which Communist Party replied "You were placed an order for a plane! to fly! WITH wheels that get out. and WITH the fuel meter. NOT a ship!" so the TU construction bureau also had a hell of a time.
Funny our aviation designers keep mixing up their duties with ship designers, who keep mixing up their duty with train designers, but that's another story.
Complain about this comment
Jukki and of course the American pilot is a hero not because "checked three times."
Well, that is good, like a ship captain he became. but provided there was something to check on, in the first place! and he did it, so that there was - who to check upon!
and if he listened to what airport tells him - to fly to that other airport? I think that was the most scary point for him, to settle on own way to do it, when the ground says differently.
I think many would obey the ground. His teaching previously must have given him moral confidence he knows himself better.
to say nothing to manage the technical part, to plane down, to plane where he wanted to, water hard impact, tricky to level
the plane.
The Rus one turned white-haired in one go, and he was a young one. and wasn't reported as a very sensitive chap later on, when he continued study in the pilots Academy in Leningrad.
kind of developed a superiority fame complex, skipped classes, they fired him.
But overall of course this spoiled his life, the investigation, they suspected him of boyish bravety behaviour, why was above town centre when fuel ended and not above the airport. was it intentional he landed on the river. He was also told to go to the airport, where fire-extingishing machines have gathered, ambulances, airport ready to take the "landing on the belly." And he opted for the river.
Rivers must be good! One would think.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
It is funny we are discussing this on a British web site. I was a Civil Air Patrol aviation cadet when I was in High School, so I got to meet alot of the famous US Army Air Corps B-17, Flying Fortress Pilots and Crew Members who flew the daylight bombing missions against the Nazis out of Britain.
These crewes were famous in the US service for bringing their B-17s back shot to pieces by the Luftwaffe and the Flak Artillery, because we insisted on big formation, aimed bombing (the famed Norden Bomb sight)in the daylight instead of trying to just hit the whole city.
Every one of them said the same thing when asked how they felt about their planes, "IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING!"
These guys were legends and knew how to bring a plane back to England with three engines out, a wheel up and a wheel down, and half the controls shot away or as we say in this country "On a wing and a prayer".
Go to you tube and see "the Memphis Belle". I agree "If it's not Boeing I'm not going, either". I like to think my plane doesn't need all those wings, tales, wheels, control panels either when I fly to bring me home safe, so I prefer Boeing.
PS. the girl on the side of the plane is for good luck, and it must work, because whoever saw a B-17 with a hole through the girl?
Complain about this comment
Politejomsvikings, "on a wing and a prayer".
"Tail is hit,
Nose is hit
But the plane goes on tra la
on honest word, (that the plane has "promised" it will)
and on the single wing!!
" ... and why is so? - because we are - pilots!
sky is our, sky is our native home,
As a matter of priority - the airplanes!
- No! and what about girls?! (the choir)
And girls? And girls are - later on!"
Complain about this comment
Politejomsviking, I tried to see the Memphis belle but my PC is old and slow, loading 27 minutes takes it an hour, and show it it simply shows me shadows sloooo-ly moving on the screen. No sound either of course, so I'll have a look from an internet cafe when I pass by one. I got a very approx. idea by reading the commentaries to the various inserts named "the Memphis belle."
Was it the name of one particular plane from the serie? With one particular crew? What happened to them? Is the plane now in a museum?
Overall looks like youtube contains various pieces of a documentary film done about that crew and their machine. ?
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
your country's Air Force has produced some pretty impressive Pilots, itself. Do you not have any big monuments to he Stormovich pilots in your town?
From what I heard they were quite daring. I'm sure they understand the One wing and a prayer concept. They probably thought both wings were nice to have, but not essentual.
As for the writing on the side of the plane, what 18 year old would write "For Stalin
", I suspect a political commissar. No GI would paint a politician on the side of a war vehicle. A girl, Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse, yes! Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not likely.
Do you fly a lot. I have to, because of work. We call it "eating crackers", because of the lousy food on US Airlines. Actually crackers are the best of it, ussually horrible little peanuts and pretzles.
Complain about this comment
Politejoms, in fact was looking up pics now, in youtube, of war time films about war! very good ones many in war they went to war and shot about the same war! 1943 etc. Didn't see any "For Motherland, for Stalin!" (a standard hurray back then) but 2 crocodiles very funny on those airplanes, one wolf with teeth cartoon like, no girls, alas. lots of red stars guaranteed. As self-improvised by pilots' decorations.
I tried to find for you that song above, in sound, but as my PC has no sound I only stare silly at the old films trying to figure out which one they sing there exactly!
There is an excellent film "Into the fight go -the elders only!." "V boy idut odni stariki".
A commander saying, when selecting who to fly that time.
The irony of it were "the elders" he had available were the ones arrived to the destroyer regiment, say, 2 weeks ago, therefore "experienced" in military flights.
As compared to the "youngsters", who'd have fighting flights experience of 2-3 times only.
Given the commander himself was a very very experienced "old wise man" of about 19 years, the rest junior, you can imagine.
With heroic pilots certainly no lack of, big war, long war, many air fights.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
the "Memphis Belle" was the name of a particular B-17 and they made two movies about it. One is a US government movie that flies along with the crew on the last mission and was shot to show that the Bombers had a tough job, but with courage and a goood old "can do" American attitude, it could be done, even though we lose 6% of the B-17s and their crews on every mission.
The other is a Hollywood movie that points out that the numbers were most often 25% per mission on raids into the then Nazi Germany to places like Schweinfurt.
Let me explain. Everything the US used in the war in Europe had to come from across the North Atlantic. So it had to run a gauntlet of U-boats (submarines), before it ever arrived in the area. This resulted in a high number of lost ships, crews and cargoes. Also it had to be shared with the US forces fighting Italy, and Japan (also Vichy France, which we were not at war with but actively fighting), which we were also at war with. The US also had to build and ship equipment to the British, Free French, and all the Governments in exile. We also shipped 100s of tons of steel, oil, Air cobra aircraft, boots and SPAM to Russia, etc.
So it was important to make sure as many of the Bombs as possible hit Nazi factories and didn't just destroy citys. The RAF had tried daylight bombing, but found that the losses in air crews and planes was unacceptable, so they were doing there bombing at night.
Complain about this comment
what is Bugs Bunny, is it a hare?
no I don't fly a lot at all. Used to, when worked in mrkt, by work. since teaching English, all at home, no fussy "business trips" anymore. Besides menagerie, cat and dog, who will walk Jolly Ro. He isn't tiny that acquaintance would pick up gladly, to say the min. Became totally untravellable with the dog. And teaching' money of course, compared to marketing.
Overall we don't fly in Russia much. people aren't mobile here as on your side. where born there you stay all life in 80% of the cases. if not 90. expensive outrageously air fares, to mid-Siberia, or, OK, Urals, from me would be 900 dollars one way. And to Berlin - 300! on foreign airlines. Your airlines charge far cheaper than ours, and we don't allow foreign ones to fly domestically. So for any Russian it's cheaper to fly hell knows where then between two own Russian cities.
To drive also very tricky. No cafes, motels and highways. Roads, say. Or, as we determine "places where you can drive through."
This is a heritage of the Russian past, in tsar time, and in communism time, the idea was that "the enemy", once getting inside, won't be able to drive through!
will get lost and stuck mid-wheels of a cart or a car or a tank in some nearest hole.
So far it worked, you know ;o) so modern Russian government seemingly in no hurry to connnect own cities and towns either!
Really, the only thing here that works in connection practically are trains. When we travel, we tend to opt for a train.
Trains our tsars were not afraid of, you know, you can always blow up rails or bridges, every Russian is a born partisan ready to retreat into the woods and start protecting the dear Motherland!
In fact we aren't good partisans.
The tops in the world are Belorussians, their brandmark.
After Germans killed every 3rd of them or approx., the civil population, they all developed excellent skills of winter life in the forests. The home recepies how to send off a train down rails must be passed over in Belorussian families! from generation to generation!
Interestingly, Belorussian Military HQ must be the only ones in the world now, that have divisions split not into "ground forces" and "navy" and "airforces" etc. That is they have all that PLUS "the partisan division".
Seriously. Academy teaches it, ranks in the partisan troops, tunnels excavated must be under the whole of Ukraine for comms in case of another German, say :o) invasion.
They firmly decided to not repeat own mistakes under occupation and put the art onto scientific approach. Train for it.
Complain about this comment
Now, I thought, of Russian pilots, in that war. In fact all fades away compared to the "Night Witches" airforce regiment. Named so by Germans. In German sounds differently, what is it in German? You can see some photos of them in youtube "The Night Witches", and references in the wiki, if you dial "Night Witches" in English.
A known war phenomenon, the only in the world night bombers full - girls' airforce regiment.
Nicknamed here "The un-kissed regiment".
They were collected, from amateur pilots-related-aviation clubs and various societies, like if you once jumped with a parachute! from an entertaining ? place in a theme park
approx. these much "pilots". When we had men beaten out a lot, Stalin decided it's time for the women to fight as well.
Not in airforce only, many kinds of troops.
Anyway the famous became them. And mind it most of them volunteered when officially it was announced such a regiment will be created. Dreamed of beating the Germans, girls were very patriotic here. In any case far better than to be occupied and killed anyway. Or die under bombardment silly at home.
They flew hell knows what, as better planes were kept for men, and girls were thought - ah! one-off time material. Only they didn't want to work as kamikadze, but instead managed quite surprisingly well, so even Stalin gave up and the regiment began receiving better planes.
But for the most time they flew those pre-historical ? that look like a book-shelf. Made of veneeer carcass. Burned like match-boxes of one hit from the ground. Not one fell down to the ground. They all burned in air up before.
The commander of the regiment in memoirs was saying the shout "Mama!" simply stands in her ears, as her friends were burning alive.
They were night, because day time easy target, useless. But long cloudy autumn and spring nights - perfect. They flew to German positions very low - at 400 metrs height, mostly, with not a single light, like shadows, and as the planes were so light made up say of nearly paper, with a very small motor (speed - for a sec 70 miles per hour! with the wind forward they stopped in the air!)
The pilot girl would switch off the engine on approaching the German positions, and plane over without a single sound. This allowed for 100% exactness of the targeting what they want. The height they tried to keep was 400 m., as lower - own bombs' pieces from the ground up would hit them.
The girl sitting behind simply carried bombs on the knees, in hands, opened the lid, and threw it down!
The height also saved them on return trips, as Messershmidts hated low height, but overall the reyrn after the blast was problematic, as you understand, big hunt every time and the whole sky in projectors.
They did enormous amount of ruin to the enemy forces. Moved with the front line, as could fly only very near. But didn't require airstripes, any field would do for take-off and landing. At day time the planes were camouflaged in the forests. At night they flew - 4 to 8 bombing flights - a night! each. When the length and the weather allowing. And thus moved as the front-line moved, the whole war.
The head of that regiment is of course the Hero of the Sov. Union (top military star that was available here).
For a sec. - think about HER luck. She did 8. hundred. bombing. flights. And returned back.
I saw her on TV progr., years ago. She was trained first in a men's unit, for 2 weeks. Where is what in a plane, and all.
Said was standing on sentry now.
There walked towards her 2 officers.
She didn't learn yet the military rules adress book or whatever manual, so was at a loss how to greet. Collected all mental abilities together (they were 2 at once. how to salute to equal in rank at once?) said she put her hand to a beret on one side, and another hand in salute to her head on the other side. And keeping bot hands up to her ears nicely bowed down, first to the one on her right, then to the one on her left. They both nearly had a stroke and she says she was punished, by 3 days off the airplanes, but cleaning potatoes instead.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
Night bombing was safer and saved crews and expensive bombers, but Eisenhower needed the Nazi Oil Facilities, Ball bearing factories, rail-roads and weapon factories destroyed, so D-Day (the Invasion of France) could be launched, before the Nazis won in Russia.
So the US decided on precision daylight bombing. The theory was that we could train crews fast enough, and build bombers fast enough that the Luftwaffee and the Nazi war industry would collapse.
We did it by flyingthe Bombers in very tight formations (so their weapons supported each other)and equiping them with .50 Cal machine guns (almost twice as big as normal aircraft armament), also the famed Secret Norden bomb sight, that our Airmen bragged could "put a bomb in a pickle barrel at 10, 000 feet".
Sounds like a good plan right? Now for the things that the German-American Generals like Eisenhower and Spatz didn't take into those exact calculations.
1. Stalin was suspicous of the US also and had no intention of letting the US bombers fight their way across Nazi Germany and land in Russia to refuel and re-arm. That ment the Luftwaffee got to shoot at the bombers all the way to the target, over the target and land re-fuel and re-arm , so they could shoot at the crippled bombers all the way back to the English channel.
2. The weather over Central Europe is ussually cloudy, so it doesn't matter how good the bomb site is half the time you lose a lot of planes and men to get to the target just to have to do it again tommorow.
3. The Luftwaffee had it's own ideas and own German Generals. Some of theirs were Jets, Rocket propeled aircraft and planes that had automatic cannon on them.
4. Anti-aircraft artillery is pretty easy to use when the Americans are nice enough to fly in one huge tight formation. Shoot at the formation and your sure to hit something.
The big result lots of shot up Bombers and crews, but we had to keep giong, because it was also destroying the Luftwaffe and the Nazi war industry. Really unfortunate for the crews, because they had to fly 25 missions, before doing something else, but statistically you would be killed three times in flying those missions.
The movies both showed the first crew to complete 25 missions to show that it was possible to do it. Still if the civilians had known that it cost 40,000 American lives I doubt if they would have liked the idea very much.
Sothern girls are called Belles as in "the Belle of the Ball (a large formal party)", so the airplane is named after the pilots girlfriend back in Memphis, Tennessee. For years it was on display in a large city park in Memphis, but some worthless teenagers on drugs vandalized it one night and the Government took it away for repair.
Army vehicle crews still name beloved vehicles for ladies. I dated a French-American girl from New Orleans named Anastasie, so there was a small but nice painting of of her in a bathing suit by the crew compartment holding a parosol with the phrase "Silly Soldiers". The first inspection our Unit Commander asked why there was a painting of Martha Quinn (a star of MTV) in the vehicle, so we called the vehicle Martha, but the of course the picture was Anastasie. The Army called the vehicle two Charlie one, but the crew called it Martha, which is also what the crew called Anastasie, too.
The first Atomic Bomb was dropped by a plane named "Enola Gay" the pilot's mom.
Complain about this comment
Very sad that Stalin didn't give the permission to fly all the way to us, I never heard of those close formation (tight one nearby each other as I understand, many at once at a go? long-haul flights, or your intentions to re-fuel etc. on our side.
Stupid of course if true, may be he was scared by this mass arrivals indeed. British pilots were landing here allright, but then they didn't arrive in those formations.
Or may be with the British we have developed by that time an idea about each other. Yours was steel, and they trained our pilots, more live contacts.
So how many would fly at once, a 100?
40,000 pilots lost in those long-haul missions is incredibly way too much.
So they would fly from England, to get to the sky of Germany, then to return back over still occupied Europe?
One thought is from Germany to Russia definitely not a shorter way than back to England.
But then may be we have liberated Belorussia already or Ukraine by that time
and your planes could have been re-fuelling there?
Eastern Europe would still be same bad to fly over as the rest of Europe, as this was liberated the last minute.
No, Russians def. without tradition to name airplanes after beloved girls. Or mums.
Boats - yes, this happens to boats. Small private ones. Can't think of one "she-plane".
_______
Dear politejomsviking,;o) with all the respect, "to be able to launch the D-Day, before the Nazis won in Russia." keep in mind we kind of disagree with you in this strategically.
Namely we didn't require much help with Europe since 1944.
And def. - the last thing we needed was any help with Russia.
1943 here is called the break of the war, when we understood we win.
From Nov 1943 there was a roll back, we
began liberating regions one after another.
Those insriptions on the tanks "For Motherland, for Stalin" were re-painted into "Na Berlin!"
How could we possibly need anyone to liberate us by your D-Day, when we have already liberated ourselves and Ukraine and Belorussia and hwo only not and were in Europe?
My understanding was since 1944 Stalin didn't want any allies much, would only stand in the way in Europe.
Complain about this comment
Though of course whatever thought Stalin, every Russian who is not mad realises it was mighty great of the allies to liberate half of Europe.
We paved with bones and poured with own blood our half. Certainly no desire to double the losses.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (126):
Just a quick run on history...
Its pretty hard to say would Soviet Union been able to defeat Germany all alone. If we look just to key statistical figures, like steel and coal production, then the answer would have been yes, but it would have taken much more time. We should note that WW2 was also much about technology, Germans had almost in every aspect better equipment and machinery than allied countries that quite effectively would have tied any advantage in production capacity between Germans vs. UK and Soviet Union.
However when US joined the war effort in Europe, it made the Nazis loose the war.
1) US material help kept both UK and Soviet Union from collapsing.
2) Germans had to contribute enormous resources on fortifying the Atlantic coast, dedicating submarines and air-force in the western front, and in D-Day they had to divert a lot of their man power into west. That all was away from the eastern front.
3) Although the allied bombing runs didn't have almost any effect on the German industrial production, resources had to be spend air defense and on repairing production facilities, thus decreasing the overall war-effort.
In my mind there is no question of the part that US played in WW2, without them Nazi Germany wouldn't have been defeated, but they would probably had a made tie with the Soviet Union. The US war effort divided German forces and that was the push over the tipping point that made them to lose the war.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (127):
Actually if it wasn't for Eisenhower and his buddies, allies would have liberated the rest of the Europe too. For example General Patton would have liked gladly to continue all the way to Moscow with his tank army.
At the end of the war Germans were pegging to surrender to western allies if they just would give them free hands to continue fighting in the eastern front.
In away it is sad that Patton didn't have his way, as with US atomic bombs the liberation of the eastern Europe would probably been less bloody and quite short war. If the alternative history would have performed, we would have had a very different Europe noways, more developed and united... But I'm not complaining for the result and course of the war.
Complain about this comment
Jukks this is all very well, contributing here and there, Russians find it extraordinary sweet :o) and helpful of the allies.
The simple truth is 75% of German forces were done away with by Russians.
Complain about this comment
as to General Patton, he might have desired to "go with his tanks all the way to Moscow". LOL. Only who would allow him?
Eisenhower permissions, not permission...
We didn't crawl to Berlin gasping and limping on one leg. We blasted into it.
Because by the beg 1944 all own Rus. military factories were re-set behind the Urals, in 100% safety, mind it - from air, from sea, from land - and conveyors spit on own tanks, own airplanes, own bombs and gun-loads. No lack of tech. anymore.
Not like first 2 war years when we fought with bare hands, meat grinder. By Kursk we were equipped already. And then had more than needed.
And as to live force - as min we had enough to start the 2nd war, in China, 3 months later. By fact.
Re your nuclear blast ideas, to "liberate" Eastern Europe, at far earlier a stage of the war. Jukks darling. First of all you are way too fond of nuclear stuff. What is it, really?
The English Channel you've suggested to blow up recently ;o) now poor Eastern Europe. aj jaj jaj.
Second it was not ready. For a sec.
Complain about this comment
Overall who cares. USA can think they were the key to the victory, Russians think they were the key to the victory.
All the rest side with either one or the other - and far more share the US opinion in the world, BTW. The "West" - quaranteed.
One might say provided we leave it in the past and don't quarrel about past things - who cares?
Still, Russians care. We can't allow ourselves to cherish false ideas. Anyone who thinks can allow itself, any country - most welcome. Sorry we won't.
It's a simple issue of survival, in case of future any wars. Who can Russia count on, historically?
How soon will the same very allies come to help?
When you scream "Help!" and shout blue murder.
Purely symbolically, say, China invades Russia.
From this point it becomes not an abstract issue, for historians to shaffle papers and movie folks to shoot movies.
You understand my idea Jukka, very simple one?
Experience tells Russians that - on their land - when a cray-fish whistles on the mountain top. When pigs fly.
How soon will the abstract future allies get to the heart of the enemy, onto the enemy land?
In 4 years. From the moment we are invaded by "China".
Overall as you see it becomes a piece of cake.
Ourselves we'll have to liberate again ourselves, not even to hope on anything, and after we cross the enemy border on return roll - the allies would enter the enemy from the other side.
Well, at least, something.
On USA we can count on tech supplies, on steel and food, and all the infrustructural support. Not little, by the way, one single but soothing thought.
The English would certainly try to do something on the water side, and might take up on themselves the sea battles. Not sure how it is appliccable in case of abstract "China", LOL, but you never know, and it is good to know where you can rely upon someone.
This kind of thinking does not let us forget.
The sad fact is 100% guaranteed the first 3 years most that we'd receive will be encouraging letters. While others will be pondering whether it is good that Russia wins or bad. For them.
Theoretically last time it was explained by the fact that we are dangerous plague communists bred in the bone.
Next time Save God something else will be figured out, that we have vicious Putin-ism bred in the bone, or whoever will happen to rule Russia by the time bred-in-the-bone.
Meanwhile all'll be meaningfully busy liberating own colonies hell knows where, securing capital investment. As far away from enemy capitals as possible, various atolls and Indonesia would keep absolutely all ally forces occupied for 3 years granted.
We aren't complaining. Nobody owes us anything, or owed us - back then.
Why should un-invaded USA and un-invaded Britain dive into the Russian battles?
They weren't invaded. Technically - no reason to make war. By own Russian standard.
Especially - on the antagonistic system's side. Which we were, granted.
This is for us to know, stating the fact. In our interest, for ourselves, to have it straight.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
no insult to the sacrafices of the brave Russian people who fought to defend their homes and later chased Hitler into his bunker.
But in the west we view the Communists and Stailn differently from the Russians. We assume that a lot of Russias problems were made by bad government. Be it the Communists or the Czar neither government did much to help Russia in the rest of the world.
Russia had a very hard time in the second world war. Her military forces were spread far and wide across her country, ussually right at her border by Stalin. Why was this?
In 1939 Hitler and Stalin fought signed a treaty allowing them both to attack and swallow neighboring countries. This allowed Hitler to go to war with Britain and France. Also in 1939 the Communists had launched wars of Aggression against the following countries:
1. Latvia
2. Estonia
3. Poland
4. Finland
In 1940 Uncle Joe rolled into Romania and took several provinces (Besarabia, where is that). During this whole time the people he murdered the most were Russians. He killed them in his political prisons in big heaping masses.
Britain went to war with Hitler in 1939! The Soviets sent no aid, in fact they sent Hitler Oil, Wheat, Cotton and steel right up until June 22, 1941. On that day Stalin's policys came home. Hitler crashed across the border and millions of Russians started losing their lives, just like the people listed above. Remember that date June.
When did the US replace it's Cash and Carry policy with the Lend Lease policy; March 1941. So three months before Hitler attacked, the US offered Russia Allied aid, but she had to abandon Hitler, she didn't have to help Britain, France or Poland, but she did have to leave the little countrys alone. For that she gets free military equipment if she wants it.
STALIN STUCK WITH HITLER AND 3 MONTHS LATER WAS INVADED.
The US gave the Allies 50.1 Billion dollars in military aid in 2007 dollars that is 700 Billion dollars.
It should be noted that 60% of Americans at the time had some German Ancestory, so our fight really wasn't with Germany or her people really. It was with Nazism. Our aid was offered to Russia, Communism was equally repulsive to most Americans.
The aid breakdown was:
Britain 31.4 Billion
USSR 11.3 Billion
France 3.2 Billion
China 1.6 Billion
How did this help Russia?
During the war most Russian military goods moved by Train.
Soviets built 92, and the US gave the Russian People 1,981 locomotives.
The US gave the Russian people 18,700 airplanes, that is 14% of all Airplanes in Russia at the time or 19% of her whole Air Force.
Of the Trucks that moved the Russian Army 2/3 of them came from the US.
All the while Germany had her Army and industry pounded from the air by the US and Britain.
Meanwhile Russia sent nothing to them.
Had the other Allies not fought every Me-262 jet, Me-163 Rocket plane, every V-1 buzz bomb, or V-2 rocket aimed at the west would have fought Russia. The oil fields at ploesti bombed by the US would have continued to produce 1/3 of Hitlers oil. If Britain's Royal Navy had not been there to secure the sea lanes the mineral wealth of the Americas, Africa and Asia would have flowed into the the Nazi war machine.
I know the Communists talk down about the other countries, but Russia without them Russia would not have survived.
Russia and the US were lucky Churchill was there or the war would have ended in 1941, with Nazi victory.
The decisive Battle was the Battle of Britain, because if Hitler had knocked Britain out of the war, most of us would never have been Allies.
Complain about this comment
I went to see the movie "Valkyrie" and what Staufenberg and Truskow did was as noble as what anybody did in any of the countries, because not only was it physically dangerous, but it involved a moral decision that must have been horrible to make. Had they succeded they might have saved millions of Allied and German lives.
Complain about this comment
Russia and the US were lucky Churchill was there or the war would have ended in 1941, with Nazi victory.
Excuse me?
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10
I mean, politejomsviking surely we can't quarrel. as you are the only American here with who I haven't yet.
Purely symbolically, turn it around in your mind, for a try.
"UK and the USA were lucky Stalin was there or the war would have ended in 1941, with Nazi victory."
No? Where would Hitler turn his attention to, you think, having taken Moscow in October 1941?
The deicisive Battle was the Battle for Britain because if Hitler had knocked Britain out of the war, most of us would never have been Allies.
Aha.
I'm afraid we don't share the fascination. For the enormous importance of the Battle for Britain for the future of Russia.
Wiki
"British historians date the battle from 10 July to 31 October 1940.
German historians place the beginning of the battle for Britain in mid-August 1940 and end it in May 1941, on the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the Campaign against the USSR on 22 June 1941."
In my view, I mean, I trust the enemy /German archives and war writers, re what they wanted to have done and when. Whenever you look, German records are always very very accurate and detailed.
How about if the "bomber units" would stay in the sky over Britain? And not go to the sky over Russia?
______________________________
To say nothing, I think, all sides agree Hitler, having burned his nose off once, did not persist full-heartely in "conquering" Britain.
Rather, constantly pondered how to join forces with it against "Communists".
And more and more so, the more he realised Barbarossa failed, and he badly needs allies himself.
I appreciate you're able to mentally segregate the two in your mind - "Communists" and "Russians" but I rather wish you wouldn't.
"Communists" - were Russia.
And half-hearted friends in war is, well.
Next time, if God save us all it will ever be, make up your mind please in advance - do you wish Russia to win or to lose.
As a country. Not as a regime - whatever it will happen to be.
Interesting hesitation in the path of war.
__________________________
Another thing. Why so small-heartedness.
"what will happen to us all..."
How about USA speeding up to save Britain, when it needed it most? Should it have been bombed to the ground, Barbarossa delayed?
Why would you think the British will surrender, even bombed away? I mean - surrender, in the course of the land troops invasion, should the Battle for Britain be lost?
Look at even the worst scenario. Britain "is" taken by German land troops.
For how long? Forever?
An invasion is not the end of the story. Any continental European country will tell you.
If we lost Moscow, with Stalin contained in it, in October 1941. Big deal. And good riddance.
We have been surrending Moscow in history before. Moscow - isn't Russia.
Nothing of practical use was in Moscow by October, we have re-packed all that can be of any war application to beyond the stone wall, Ural mountains. Evacuated all factories, all able industrial workers, all archives, country's gold, all museum contents. From Moscow and St. Pete.
Away off. We have re-packed the country, in 2 weeks. Not without a loss. But - still.
What use practically was Stalin. Morally, only. But keeping the whole regular army around precious him for 5 years, in a ring around Moscow, was surely an expense we could do without.
The war, in effect, was fought by the population mixed with less value troops. All the best there were protected precious him.
Really, polite joms. That's our way to win wars, by volunteers and fresh recruits. I don't know why but it was a fact twice. Napoleon and Hitler.
You simply scare me "oh what would happen to us all". Nothing would happen. We would win.
Complain about this comment
US aid to Russia. We know. Remeber. Are thankful. Will not forget.
In practical terms, politejomsviking, keep a correction factor, on what you sent. and what arrived. and when.
You sent 18,700 airplanes. Of which we recieved 3,384. Tanks. Jeeps. Food. Steel.
How?
I'll tell you. 3 entry points.
1. / To Iran and over the Caucasus.
2./ To Vladivostok.
3./ To Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, by Polar convoys.
No 1 - when we took Caucasus back.
No 2 - when Japan stopped drowning Allied ships. And cotrolling the sky.
No 3 worked from the very beg.
Polar Convoys.
QP-9
QP-10
PQ-12
PQ-13
PQ-14
PQ-17
PQ-18
It might not tell you much. It tells much here. Every abbreviation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Web Alice,
you do realise that while the other Allies were shipping all this badly needed war material to Russia, their own Army's in the Pacific and China, Burma, India theater of operations were being destroyed by Japan, because of lack of convoys supplying tanks, aircraft, Artillery and trucks.
Some of the fiercest fighting of the war took place in the Pacific. Some of my relatives were killed defending Corregidor and Battan in the Phillipines trying to hold out out for convoys that never came, because the eguipment went to Russia. Just a few of those tanks might have saved the Philipino and US Army fighting on the Battan peninsula. The Imperial Japanese Army fighting the Australians and Americans in New Guenae (mispelled) even resorted to canabalism rather than give up. The US and Phillipino Army captured in the Philipines was sent on the Battan Death march for the purpose of killing them.
The Philipine Scouts fought to the last bullet and then fought hand to hand alongside the Americans. Even then the Japanese beheaded several Philipinos for refusing to take down the US flag after they surrendered. The British and Empire troops captured defending Singapore were equally mistreated.
No we weren't sitting around waiting for Russia to fall, with fighting in New Guenae, Guadacanal, Greece, the Middle East, the Aleutians, the Philipines, Wake Island, North Africa, Italy, Burma, Sicily, El Alamein, Morroco, Merrells Marauders in China/Burma, the Air war over Europe and probably most important the war against the U-Boat( the U-boat came closer to winning the war than anything else the Allies faced).
All that went on while Churchill convinced the Americans that the priority was shipping to Europe,(Roosevelt and Churchill agreed on a Hitler first policy).
Anybody who thinks the Brits and Americans had it easy, might want to look up the word Chindit or Wake Island.
hile her factories were being moved east and Hitler was capturing huge Russian Army's that Stallin had deployed at the border instead of a more logical in depth defence
Complain about this comment
Politejomsviking,
pity my post was taken away, no doubt for copying large junks of Rus. sites' contents in English on convoys.
Listing what, when and how arrived, under what fire of which German subs and Luftwaffe.
Will re-write bits in my far worse English later, convoys can't be moderated by definition.
Those quotes may be an Englishmen translated or an American, there are societies here, trips to places at sea, survivors came then their relatives, doing research, to mark where are the ships on the sea bottom, depths, etc. Many found but not lifted, pity at allright depths, 30-40 metres only.
On the war in Pacific nobody in his right mind says you had it easy.
But what has that to do with our war against Germany? You fought there Japan.
Do you feel you owe Russians much for fighting, I don't know, Finland? Latvia, Lithuania, Esthonia? Western Ukraine? They were also a German ally but you didn't even notice, because you haven't fought them.
Same thing.
We fought so different geographical fronts, never met together in battle against someone "common enemy" until last days of the long war. I mean you held joint operations with Britain, planned actions together, fought physically, side by side, in Italy, for example, in France at the end of the war.
But Russians haven't seen a British or an American soldier alive, even one, during our 4 year war.
With the only exception - convoys - Murmansk and Archangelsk Russians working on the ships to guard our part of the route and working on the piers. But that was cut away from the rest of the country, small amount of people. And the rest I am sorry to say were not even sure you exist.
You were very abstract for us, abstract Allies who send tinned meat and steel and high octane number gasoline for airplanes - but we haven't seen a soldier here. In 4 years of war.
When Russian troops finally met Americans on Elbe all wanted to look at you like at aliens from Mars. Soviet powers kept telling us we have allies but nobody saw them in the battle.
Sorry, Russian ex-peasants and workers, esp. given our separation from the world by the iron fence, had serious doubts you exist.
I think this geographical fronts' cut added a lot to post-war mis-understanding of each others' role, because who cares what books write, it's what people remember themselves and tell families returning home from war.
There wasn't a single Russian of 30 million plus in the army who'd return home and say "Fought together with an Englishman". "Fought side by side with an American." Same on your side. You understand what I mean?
And even when we met on the Elbe, we didn't fight together. Drank vodka together for several days, right.
A brief war episode un-noticed by you but here all know it as "The Great Meeting on the Elbe!". Exactly because this is where we finally saw the allies, and rumours how you look, and what you wear, and what you talk about, and uniforms, and guns - were passed around, all were inquisitive as hell!
Same alas with the joint operation on Berlin. You flew above in the skies and pre-bombed. And we walked the ground.
When troops met in Berlin on the ground the war was already over. And they were not troops, but officials, top generals, etc. Also having parties, not fighting together.
And Berlin was split immediately at control zones, American zone, French zone, British zone, Soviet zone, with only fieldmarshals and generals able to cross, to bla-bla with each other.
All that Russians keep in the combined national memory about the mysterious allies
is Convoys and Great Meeting on the Elbe.
I mean, in practical terms, when we saw you alive.
Then the iron curtain slammed down again - and moreover, "noone heard of them everafter."
You are wrong thinking the Allied help was played down here. 100% wrong during the war time. Stalin tried to boost the so much needed confidence in the troops and population. Every piece that arrived from you, would be, I don't know, labelled twice in plain Russian LOL, if you can't immediately see on a gun load by abbreviations it is an American one. The constant message was "We are not alone. We have allies. Have faith."
One US tank would be photo-taken by war correspondents from all the sides in the most heroic positions possible and published in all newspapers on front pages.
"Here pls see a heroic British airplane instructor teaching a heroic Soviet pilot how to fly the invaluable American airplane far better than anything German sent by us by heroic Americans because we are Allies."
This was the constant message.
Complain about this comment
Inauguration is attractive but one has to "work, work and work. You must simply build the ships!" Back to convoys.
Lend-lease, US Congress, 11 March 1941.
Intention to lend or lease weapons, strategic raw materials and food to the countries of the anti-Nazi coalition.
June 21 war began for Russia.
June 22 Churchill greeted USSR as Britain's ally in the war against Hitler.
June 23 Roosevelt told specially gathered media that ready to provide material support to the USSR.
Agreement on delivery from Western powers to USSR, 1 Oct Moscow.
Northern route from US ports and British Atlantic ports.
Eastern from US Pacific ports to Vladivostok
Southern to Iranian ports and further via Russian "Transcaucasian" region
In the hardest early years Northern brought in the bulk.
First batch in Nov went straight into the battle: 79 light M-3 tanks, 59 Curtis fighter planes.
1,000 trucks. 2,000 tons of barbered wire.
British Hurricane fighter planes and Mathilda and Valentine tanks.
First convoys went along the edge of the Barentz sea ice, stopping in Iceland for re-fuelling. Since Dec skipped Iceland instead went from Britain up North to avoid huge mine field btw Scotland and Iceland and then down South to Murmansk.
Arkhangelsk better port than Murmansk but out of the question mid-Dec till June as frozen.
Polar convoy way varied btw 1,500 to 2,000 nautical miles and 10-14 days of 1-way journey. Tankers for fuelling accompanied convoys to and return. Transport ships could serve themselves but fighter ships couldn't do even 1-way without re-fuel, depending on how often they met enemy on the way.
Tankers British Aldersdale and Black Ranger, Blue Ranger, Grey Ranger, Oligarch, Azerbajan, Donbass.
Grey crashed ice-floe, Aldersdale sunk by Germans; stayed 2 rangers, one oligarch, Azerbajand and Donbass. Soviet met convoys in mid way then accompanied back to Britain so carried oil enough for escort ships for 1.5 route.
Bad work as tankers very explosive in lieu of German bombers and torpedo planes furious and interested in tanketrs.
Northern route the most dangerous of the three.
Several German aircraft bases in Norway.
Norwegian fjords became Norwegian, Finnish and German U-boat bases.
Plus Kriegsmarine forces transferred to that part of Norway since 1942: Tirpitz battleship; Admital Scheer, Admiral Hipper and Lutzow - 3 heavy cruisers; Koln light cruiser; 2 flotillas of destroyers; 20 subs.
Very bad company settled nearby in Norway en hunt for convoys.
Complain about this comment
Web alice,
the war is very much like a group of blind men describing an elephant. One grabs a nose and says elephants are long and tubular like a snake, one grabs an ear and says they are flat like a pan-cake, one grabs the tail and says long and skinny like a rope, one a leg and says thick and round like a tree. All are correct and all are incorrect.
For the US the Nazis were one opponent, but we never threw at Germany the weapons that hit Japan. The B-29 Super-fortresses never flew a mission over Germany. No aircraft carrier raids hit her North Sea ports, no unit trained to drop an A-bomb on Germany, Napalm was never used on her Army. In short we thought that if we get the Army on the coast of France that we would have little problem liberating the occupied countrys of Europe and getting the Germans to throw the Nazis out. To a certain extent they did. The German Army tried to kill Hitler twice, Geman POWs actively worked in the US war industry for wages that they spent on ice cream, fried chicken, Coca-cola and movies. Recently German POWs came back to Missisippi for a re-union. Some stayed here and got married. After the war the Federal court in Mississippi even ruled that , since the POWs were legal residents of the US that the government could not legally prevent them from enlisting in the US Army and obtaining their US citizenship. Even during the war the US doctors and Wehrmact doctors often worked together to treat the wounded of both sides.
Now in the Pacific that was another story as both sides ussually fought to the death after the fightng in the Philipines. We fought large fleet actions in the Pacific that was the largest theater of war ever. Iron bottom bay off Guadacanal, Midway, Corral Sea, Leyte Gulf and 100s of seabourne Invasions. We destroyed multiple Carrier fleets, fought a couple of huge cruiser battles and even a battleship fight off the Phillipine (when Macarther returned with the Pesident of the Philipines as promised to re-establish a free Philipino Government). But even Japans smartest leaders like the Emperor, Admiral Yamato, General Kurbiashi had advised against ar with the US, because it made no sence, and was harmful to Japanese interests. Despite what the crazys predicted, Japan was not destroyed by the US, she was re-built, women got the vote, workers unions were recognized by law, the Emeperor told the nation he wasn't a God, assassination of politicians by right wing groups was ended.
We also liberated Rome and Tokyo knocking Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan out of the Second World War. Italy even fielded an Army to help us drive the Nazis out. Our Army captured Hitler's home the Bertchesgarden. Had we captured him, he would have probably been turned over to an international or German court.
Complain about this comment
All very true and very right.
What Japan did to the USA in the Pacific islands and coasts, and what USA did to them in response in the Pacific war theatre -is beyond Russian scope of interests and understanding.
You were fighting each other for the control over the Pacific. We never aspired for influence in these world quarters, two big spiders enough, only an idiot would interfere.
I am happy to leave it at that, should USA not try to claim the credit for the victory over nazi Germany. Persistent tune, given in reality you joined the action in the European theatre at the final stage.
What exactly prevented USA to land in France in summer 1941 instead of summer 1944 ?
I am asking as a Russian.
As an English I'd ask - why not in 1940?
Fond memoirs of German POW assimilating in USA? You haven't got any German POW in USA before 1945.
Lack of desire to harm Germans, as you wrote, they constitute the bulk of the USA people ancestry? Nice explanation dating 21 century.
Russian view is you joined in seeing Russia crossed its border and en route to take the whole Europe.
The Roosevelt-Stalin deal in Yalta, who takes what part of Europe, was not yet done. There was a year before that to happen.
You were unsure how far the Russian appetites re Europe would stretch.
Simply seeing that post-war Europe slips out of your control if you won't urgently pack and go.
Then suddenly German relatives became allright to bomb.
All fought, all right. For a sec even Russia fought Japan, since 1st Aug 1945. As a return favour to the USA, with ZERO own desire to declare war to Japan.
You are forgetting Russia was not at war with Japan, not at all. Not in 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945. Japan were careful not to fire a single shot in our direction.
When we declared war to them, an exactly a minute before the midnight when 3 armies armed to the teeth from 3 directions at once blasted into China occupied by Japan, and Russian ships opened artillery fire at Japanese islands - their Emperor got cataleptical. Labelled this as Russia's treason. The Japanese still can't forget us that, "playing on US" side.
Ground operation is never a piece of cake, it's you who prefer flying over the head and bomb. China lost 10 million people to Japan when occupied by them, you think Japan had little forces in China? They digged into the ground there like moles, and were extremely hard to pick out. For the record we continued to fight Japan on your behalf a month longer after you dropped the nuclear boombs and the Emperor surrended. Japan surrendered. But Japanese army commander in occupied China didn't give a fig about own emperor, internal competition. He labelled the Japan official surrender as treason of Japanese interests and expressed no desire to give up on China.
So we fought in China, where the bulk of the Japanese troops were, mind it.
Exclusively because Stalin swapped West good-will and absence of interference into the way USSR rules its half of Europe post war - for the destroyal of Japanese army in China. A deal is a deal.
The dirty work - ground operation - Russia took up on itself.
Still we don't shout on all corners "oh we fought and defeated Japan, look how much of their army in quantity was in China and how much combined on all the Pacific isands and tiny Japan itself". It's a dirty deal we stroke, with no noble intentions re the Eastern and Central Europe future, for a dirty piece of work, nothing to boast about.
What is missing in your stand is the sense of proportion.
Complain about this comment
Self-correction.
When Russia broke into Japan-controlled China in summer 1945, Japan overall was already a goner.
They shrank back to Japan and China only, having lost the battle for the Pacific to the US.
Not exactly the proper "Japan only" size yet,
China being their big field, but Pacific control they lost, so were cut of supplies and comms btw their two properties.
Especially with competition btw Japan emperor and Japan commander in China, control split.
I think USA would have done over with by 1st Aug 1945 with? 60? 50? of Japan military force?
A matter of time really.
Though it didn't make Russian task in China easier. Still we took half of China in 2 weeks. (gives us some very vague and shaky hope for future ;o)
I view USA part-taking in the European war theatre in similar proportions.
When USA and Britain opened the infamous "2nd Front" - 75% of what Nazi Germany have had has been munched by Russia. In a very life-spending and ineffective manner, with enormous unproportional losses, by defective guns etc.
One way or another but we arrived to this result.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (142):
The importance of Battle of Britain is that if the British has lost it, if Germans had either made an ground invasion to British islands or the British government seek peace with the Nazi Germany then there would have been no staging ground for the US to make an invasion to continental Europe.
Its just logistically impossible to make straight invasion from US to continental Europe as the transit times are just so enormous and amount of transit capacity needed not only to transit initial troops, equipment and material needed to make invasion, but to continuously supply them. The fact of the matter is that without Britain it would have been impossible for the US to invade continental Europe. And no, North-Africa wouldn't have been sufficient as there were no industrial and civil infrastructure to support the troops and equipment. So in this sense, if there wouldn't have been Churchill and his insistence, the US wouldn't just have any chance to join the fight in Europe.
Actually I have to add in here that if Britain would have given up or been taken by the Nazis, then it would have been probable that the US would have chose to be either neutral or even assist Hitler. Before WW2 there was much sympathy for the Nazis in US in both political and business cycles. The main enemy then were Communists and many in US would have gladly helped to wipe the world off from communists. Remember that both General Motors, Ford, IBM and several American banks throe their German or Swiss subsidiaries assisted actively German war efforts. Germans didn't even nationalize American firms during the war and Americans on their part didn't violate industrial patents owned by German subsidiaries. Using many of those patents would have considerably aided and made US equipment better, but due to respecting intellectual property, they effectively chose to fight the WW2 with only a one hand.
In case of German POWs, the Americans did start to get them as soon as they joined the European theater. The British started to send them their POWs straight away and the stream of POWs to US just grew bigger and bigger due to collapse of German war efforts in Africa and due to US invasion to Italy. So yes, from 1941 onwards Americans got their German POWs.
In case of Germany and Europe. Yes, the D-Day came when everybody was sure that the Nazis would loose the war eventually. In that sense it was a race to Berlin and a race to secure as much Europe as possible to western side. Stalin did this too, he could have ended the war in 1944, the Soviets had enough man power and material to make the push for Berlin, but Stalin rather used his forces to take down rest of the eastern Europe first, which wasn't actually necessary in order to get to Berlin at all, but purely to secure as much of Europe under Soviet control. Also in places like Poland Stalin didn't assist at all the local resistance, but waited for the Germans to destroy and finish the resistance before moving in.
In essence, Americans were hugely important on how the WW2 ended. Without them the Nazis and the Soviets would have duked it out in Russia, and just looking at the different situation and the industrial output, Nazis could have won the war without the American intervention.
And yes, the Soviets did bulk of the fighting in WW2 and without Soviets Europe would have been taken over by the Nazis, that is also very clear. The same is true with the Americans and British. WW2 was a group effort and the thanks of defeating the Nazis belongs equally to both Soviets, Americans and British.
Of course in the end, the Germans won the WW2. Yes they did. Why? Well, the usual phrase to say in 70s and especially in 80s when visiting West Germany was "Oh! Wau! These guys really did win the war". That was what my parents repeated several times when we visited West Germany in the end of 80s, and they already had got used to living standards of Sweden and Finland and even then the country just blew the mind off.
Complain about this comment
Jukks, thanks for joining the electrified discussion, dear "neutral" friend LOL.
Some Finnish snow coolness might be used.
No, I didn't think of that, I mean you're right, re Battle for Britain, that, should that be lost - the USA would have nowhere to put a foot down, no platform 4 years later.
We could live with that ;o) no doubt. As min. by summer 1944 were not fascinated with the idea. Russians don't even know the abbreviation "D-Day", that is in schools it's taught who did what and where, but no special importance attached. What would have happen, could have happen, "if and whether muchrooms can be grown on one's own nose". ;o) By fact, by summer 1944 US landing or not landing - won't change the result for us. We had enough on own side to defeat Germany.
However, as I wrote earlier, sure thing ordinary people were glad of US arrival, better late than never.
As had no interest whatsoever in occupying Europe, Stalin's idea that we need it was not shared by masses, I'm afraid.
So from ordinary people point of view - the more the Allies liberate themselves - the better, less losses for us, and will they want to keep it later or not - none of our business.
The idea was "same kin, imperialists, sure it's only reasonable they liberate each other."
I don't know how we'd manage Italy if we ever had to... well somehow. Not Stalingrad battle after all. But France I think we'd manage and far easier than Italy.
One sure goner would be if indeed Britain joined up with Hitler. Pure speculation though, Jukka, on your side, how about "on the beaches... will never surrender" oj oj oj
"Would join up with devil himself if he is against Hitler." etc.
The USA joined up with nazi Germany? Haven't thought of that. Jukka, well.
Don't scare the modern Americans with this er well outcome. They've got their own Arlington full. and no looking back. and all.
You lead me astray again! on purpose? Jukks, into speculation field!
History Has No Subjunctive Mood full stop.
Which also means you can look back on it and see it for what it was, mind it.
Your 50/50 per cent kind offer with regards the in-put in defeating Germany is turned down.
With regards to who was the winner overall, Germany or Russia. I don't think any German in 1945 would share your opinion they were.
In "waiting extra time", "to get Eastern Europe under control first", "USSR could take Berlin in 1944", "USSR could go to Berlin straight skipping Eastern Europe" - Jukks get a grip total hallucination.
No we could not. We made war dearly, at a strain. You don't understand this as anyone else in the West, because you don't know what was that war expense for Russia.
Thanks for the kind offer to go to Berlin straight, Jukks have a merci on fieldmarshals don't take a job as their adviser.
Red Army is no batman. It's US flies. Cities are taken on the ground. Before we crossed the border we cleaned it up here. Somehow we wanted Caucasus oil fileds for the tanks and finally get some salt! from Ukraine ;o). Russia had 14 republics, how do you think - to go to Berlin leaving German troops behind in Ukraine and Belorussia? In Moldova? Look at the map. There is no other way to Berlin than the one we went. And yes we were leaving no un-done German troops behind.
And no, we didn't take our time in Eastern Europe. A week for a country I won't call we stayed there en route way too extra.
And we didn't walk. We moved forward, Germans retreated. It was a wall pushing a wall. And the closer to Berlin the bigger the resistance. Berlin had the strongest reserves around it, do you wonder why? same while our best were kept around Moscow. Zeele heights operation on approach to Berlin was a nightmare, 2 mln.
The honour was again nicely let for Russians to do, all Allied fieldmarshals knew it would come way too expensive for any own army to withstand.
Any way
Complain about this comment
Politejomsviking I think we should leave the war where it was.
I am not going to be fair. You simply didn't talk to me on war in these blogs and don't realise what others did long ago. Talking to a St. Petersburger, city with a 1 mln mass grave. Of 2 mln people there were. You cannot find a worse person in the whole BBC.
I am not fit to read even how German POW enjoyed ice-cream, coca-cola and movies. I think - why did you have Coca-cola, in the first place? Did you spend for the victory 4 trillion roubles, as we did?
Same focused, all country in the effort, to the last drop of blood, last penny?
"All for the front, all for the victory"
No. There was a newspaper interviewing American soldiers in Europe. Expecting an answer to "Who is your worst enemy?"
Hitler? three ha ha. Some singer, forgot the name. All worried girls at home love him way too much.
You weren't committed in any similar degrees.
Here POW had bread. Russians traded it from them for clothes, because POWs were better off, by int'l convention.
The very position - we provided you with means, you fought. A swap. Russia provides you with NNN tanks and airplanes and 10.2 million dollars. And washes hands up from European front till summer 1944.
USA takes up Nazi Germany.
You can! Only have to sacrifice don't know what would be your number. Forget about 405 thousand, for the beg. This won't buy you victory over Germany.
For the orientation, can use Russia's number - 36 million. Sure, without Stalin over your head.. still
You won't find many Russians fair to the Allies regarding their in-put into the war. Sad as it is. You can have more true figures, but this isn't the point. Rus. historians, "to play down", jingle numbers - not the reason.
There is a memory, a combined nation's feeling, of disappointment with Britain and USA. That we waited, waited for you to open the infamous "2nd front" - and you were late.
Why we had so high expectations of you - nobody in his right mind can explain. Seriously, why should capitalists suddenly turn mad and ran over, risking their lives, to save communists? USSR itself didn't ran to save Britain under bombardment in 1940.
Poland - we did split with Hitler 50/50.
You also keep a grudge to us on the Baltic States and Finland. Honestly, we don't blame ourselves for taking any of these countries. Not for a sec. All of them were ex Russian provinces. We didn't think we did an invasion, rather, home re-location. Own property places for centuries, that mistakingly ran away for a while, while we were living through the Revolution and Civil war and Hunger of the 30s. We didn't back then realise they are "independent." 17 years independence? 20 max. was thought a joke and mistake.
That we didn't help Britain - yes, this we feel guilty about. Now, and all along, and that was common feeling among ordinary people - back in 1940.
So why did we expect Britain and USA to come to our help - critically - beyond reason. May be because Stalin played the theme so much - "We've got Allies." This is a phenomenon, of masses of Russians' high expectations, that was not looked into yet.
Did France expect Britain and the USA to start liberating them in 1941? Did anyone else in Europe wait for you every day, to come fight along? I think no. We were the only ones, wondering, literally, every second day - No? Not here yet? having the least grounds for that, I must say.
However it's fact. Must be because others surrendered and we fought.
You simply don't know about this deep-rooted feeling, of disappointment.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
there is no doubt that the Russian people suffered greatly in the war, just like Germany.
But a large part of that suffering was the waste of human life, because a politician with no military talent was handling the tactical and strategic decisions for Russia. The decision not to evacuate Lenningrad and Stalingrad exposed the civilian popultaions to needless suffering and death, for cheap propaganda. Had Stalin evacuated the civilians ALL the food in the cities could have been used for military, the local leaders would have been freed of the burden of trying to run a live city, and 100% of the energy resouces could have been used by the military.
Everybody in the world thinks running a war is easy, but it's not and Russia only began to win battles when Stalin let the Generals lead. The opposite of Germany that only started losing battles when Hitler started to take over operational control from the Army.
Both sides could have saved millions of their own peoples lives by letting the proffesional Military run the war. Russia had copmetent strategists General Tukhacheviski concept of deep battle was even more developed than the Blitzkrieg concepts. Stallin refused to use them and Russian soldiers paid with their lives for this ignorance. As for Hitler, the Corporal proved he was no soldier at Stalingrad, no professional would make that mistake, unprotected flanks, inadequate logistics , fighting on exterior lines, inadequate intelligence, no attempt to establish a naval or permanent position to interdict the re-supply of his opponent across the river, inadequate logistics for his supporting troops (Rumanians/Hungarians). Don't ever count on such an incopetent running Germany's affairs again, it is unlikely to happen.
As for Berlin why not besiege it instead of wasting 100, 000 Russian lives on the last couple days of the war. Eisenhower was right not to grind up several US/British/Allied divisions just to capture a wrecked city that the Politicians have already divided up. For what? Just to say we got Hitler? To capture a German Parliment that the Nazis didn't use or believe in?
War is too serious a business to leave to amatures.
I would like to Give you a quote though "Despite the Chronic disunity at the top, disaffection amongst the officer corps, and disloyalty in the rank and file, despite the accute lack of weapons, ammunition, fuel, transport, and human reserves, the German Army seems to function with it's old precission and to overcome what appears to be insupperable difficulties with remarkable speed. Only by patient and incessant hammering from all sides can it's collapse be brought about. The cause of this toughness, even in defeat, is not generally appreciated.
OFFICIAL US WAR DEPARTMENT
Handbook on German Military Forces
March 1, 1945"
That doesn't sound to me like an Army that was beaten in 1943 nor does it appear that only one country was destroying Nazism.
The decent treatment of the German POWs in Missississippi, ensured these young men would continue to aid the US by working and required little to no guards. Later they helped us rebuild Germany useing the skills learned in the US. Most of them were Africa Corps guys who had fought with honor and not Nazis, but Germany's regular Army.
Complain about this comment
Somebody ought to write urgently to the Guinnes book of records and tell them to make corrections to The Battle for Berlin.
Currently they keep it as the biggest battle so far in the world history, by the amount of military forces. Instead it should be marked as "Damn sour are these grapes No 1!"
Can't speak for Americans, very likely in fact you didn't want nothing of the kind.
As you write "what was the point of taking, it was already pre-divided on paper into control zones." Pleasant to note the Allies trusted Stalin's word as good as gold ;o)
Still, seems a kind of a relaxed attitude... in military matters, that you write "should not be left to amateurs".
"Who needed that useless Reichstag building anyway where nothing important took place."
Apparently that's why USA had a year in Europe to reach Berlin and didn't.
On the opposite, Russians were very interested, in many many useless buildings.
Fancied to see Hestapo HQ since 1941; had a strange obsession to carve Hitler out of his bunker (un-shared by anyone else in occupied Europe since 1939, granted), Imperial Chancellery, places - all looked worthy for us, to fight 63 German divisions on the ground.
Of these divisions you won't find a trace in wiki in English, that of course says we fought scared to death German youngsters, retired SS pensioners and other half-dragging-their feet separate formations.
Love that Rus picture of an SS pensioner; decorates most of the English-speaking sites explaining who exactly Soviets fought to get to Berlin. A poor darling dressed up in torn away pieces of cloth, every Christian soul weeping at such a sight. Dress him up and feed smth immediately!
Those elderly and children!
Must be because of them Zhukov's army during 16-18 April, 6,500 tanks was it? was able to make only a shameful 2 kilometre advance.
Of the 60 kilometres they were to make.
To reach the useless buildings.
Why did crazy Russians want to deafeat Germany, anyway? What gave them the very idea?
As you write in 2009 "Germans as good as liberated themselves, there were 2 attempts to over-throw Hitler."
No doubt you feel 27 EU countries minus 1 were in no hurry to wait until one other self-German attempt becomes successful.
USA not occupied, neither Britain, so what's the haste?
Europe waited 5 years, could have waited 5 years more.
One person only I know for sure shared strange Russian obsession for Berlin.
Churchill listed "the most important of all we must have Berlin", as one of the objectives/bullet points in his "Operation Unthinkable" plan in April 1945. Zhukov was mighty glad to know, no doubt.
What a plan, in true, how to say, comrade-in-arms, spirit. Sets moral heights, can be used as a model for orientation.
So, Churchill fancied Berlin.
No wonder it eventually became "sour grapes."
I think it is good we took Berlin.
I seriously doubt you would be able to.
I think it's
pired by "Operation Unthinkable" By now I doubt start
Complain about this comment
Overall I mark with interest the appearance of 2 new concepts, in the 2nd world war PR affairs:
"Good regular German army times 1939-1945" different from "Nazi"
"Germany won the war."
The social sciences never stop in the place, progress is constantly in progress, old fashioned views are re-viewed.
Why do you need these 2 new concepts in the field, intrigueing.
Is it a development of the old school of thought, "yeah, Soviets did do... a little bit" "but nobody asked them, mind it.
all we wanted from them is weaken Hitler so that the chap would become more agreeable, or be re-placed by any of his worthy generals. With who we'd strike a deal, turn 3 combined armies on their heels, and jointly get rid of Russia."
The "Unthinkable" plan even Churchill titled "un-thinkable" back in 1945... come to think of it...
It was later re-viewed again, Sep 1945, by 2 more authorities, Montgommery and Eisenhower. Famous secret meeting on board a yacht at US shore. The commanders' verdict was "If Russia wishes to take whole Europe - USA and Brititish forces combined won't be able to hold them."
Now, Churchill, Eisenhower, Montgommery - shining names. If these weren't authority on Russian military force of 1945 - who was.
In spite of the flaming desire to knock Russian bear on its naughty nose - on second thought all of them dropped the matter as dead.
Fieldmarshals normally know the difference btw winning a war and winning a PR war.
So what is this new invention "German regular army was not Nazi army", will it soon lead to "Bad Russia attacked good Germans"?
the beg. is already there, "Russians suffered as much as Germans."
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (149):
Just quickly as I'm doing late evening food...
About the German forces...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht
Wehrmacht was the German army which consisted from ordinary Germans and persons not accepted to other forces. They were not Nazis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-ss
The fighting force of SS... You probably now say "Ahaa! Nazis", but actually they were not so much Nazis, but an elite force of volunteers from which some had deep sympathy and liking of Nazis. So some of them were indeed Nazis, but again they weren't bad Nazis as Waffen-SS didn't commit organized war crimes: they were acquitted after the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
Now these guys were Nazis, they were the paramilitary force of the Nazi party.
After the war in the West Germany the country was more or less build under the guidance of ex- Waffen SS and SS men as those forces had more or less gathered all the best and gifted people. Of course they were no longer Nazis as they had been throe denazification ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification ).
Complain about this comment
Like I said, here it began, the classification, into "slightly normal", "comparatively allright", "decisively good for all!"
With the view to get a sediment of "Nazi by all means alas" and bring it down to the desirable 3-5% - or what is the target percentage you've got in mind?
Huge work ahead. The pilots who bombed the food stocks of Leningrad, Badaev warehouses. Jukks, when you have a minute - don't forget to fish out the names on those flights - and trace the allegiance of those, acc. to your classification.
Then tell me. On getting happy news "oh these were simply Option 3 - Wermacht!" I'll collect other girls available and start dancing in a ring singing cheerful songs.
Bon appetite, liebste Germany's admirer. Bred in the bone.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (149):
The phrase "Germans actually won the war" is more of an nod to the ability of Germany to not just to rebuild their country, but to exceed the allied countries. Its also an dis especially to British who fell behind the Germany and are still behind it in development: many exchange students have described that after you leave main tourist attractions, you are dropped almost instantly into third world.
The phrase can also be extended on to phrase of "how could have they lost the war when the war never was there". You see after the war all German towns were not as much as rebuild but restored to the pre-war town plan. This actually even happened in East Germany. When I was visiting Rostock I visited a tower which hosted museum of the history of the town and from the post-war pictures it seemed that the town was completely and utterly destroyed, but when I looked at the town it seemed like it had been always been there. They are even now building an old palace to Berlin that was destroyed in GDR times.
The phrase also could be explained by looking to current Europe and the reasons on why there were two worlds wars: Germans being ganged up (WW1) and Germans doing something to it (WW2). Now the current Europe, the European Union, is all what the Germans wanted: others working with them and not against them, and Germany being the natural heart of Europe.
The other thing of course is that in the west, I would claim, the only thing that counts is the current and future track record. It only counts on where you are now and where you are going, everything else is meaningless.
Of course one could go all philosophical about this and say that winning the war without winning the peace is loosing the war, which is more or less true also.
Complain about this comment
Ha! Should have checked the Wikipedia before writing out my memory. Waffen-SS in Nurenberg Trials were judged to be an criminal organization! ...However I stay more or less in my case: they weren't all Nazis, some them yes, but not all.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (151):
Alice, lets turn the question around...
Were all Red Army soldiers communists or were only some of them communists?
Complain about this comment
Jukks, dear complicated friend.
First, in my regular easy-to-understand and un-complicated manner I'll answer the last.
Hell knows how many Red Army people were communists. I am happy to agree to the number of 100%. All right?
Do you think those with Comm party membership tickets should have backed away into the corner on German invasion, close face with hands in shame, and say "Sorry, I'm not fit to fight the invasion.
I thought about it - I am no better myself. Kill me if you please, my hand won't lift for you armed."
Then in the best Russian tradition you tore out the white shirt on the breast and say "Shoot!"
Communists-un-communists, what the hell the difference. They were on own land, in own right, invaded. If you can get the angle?
Now, re your @150 As you wrote "Now, regarding the German forces....
Jukki, did you really think I'll be opening the links, reading particulars who was Wermacht who Nazi?
Oh Jukks. That I'd dirty my hands pressing links, to know more, of such titles?
I'd rather take, I don't know, a live cockroach.
_______________
I noticed you've corrected yourself, but I had the answer without looking. The answer is the same - DOES NOT MATTER.
7 million of them, whoever they were, by rank and origin and ways and shape up of career and talent or skill or fortunes - that brought them the uniforms - they crossed our border.
And before that they flattened out the whole Europe. There was an idea already, OK? what type of guests are coming.
But nevermind, we had own impressions.
While there is one Polish, one Russian, one Belorussian, one Jugoslavian (sorry I'll call them the war time-name because it is a glorious name) alive - the idea "there were some good ones, some bad ones" - won't pass through.
No passaran, comprenez?
Complain about this comment
Overall this reminds me, and I guess I know from where the desire for revision of the past, stems from.
Several years ago, there was an exhibition, of photos, for the first time in West Germany, some local project, not ours.
The reaction was stunned crowds. In disgust. Of roads in snowy steppe, would be simply a road, with those poles, people hanged up. Or a village central square, decorated by the "monument", that's when they took someone, un-dressed, tied to a pole, and poured water upon, to froze alive, become a dead ice statue. Photos German own, taken "for the record".
People were shuddering away, saying like "No, my granddad wouldn't do this! It was somebody else's granddad." Bitter recognition about the cruelty to civillians doesn't settle down well, does it? When you are en route to own high expectations, un-pleasant to find such resources in the nation.
Re Germany "won the war". Like you say, "we in the West look only at present and future, past doesn't count."
Look then at present and future, don't try to "correct" the past. Very awkward attempts.
To mix one with the other, because you suddenly desire to build a myth, of some inherent "goodness" in the German nation...
Really, Germans can't move forward without it? What a damn pity.
But rather I think the idea isn't German because they don't see Russia as a competition, and have no desire to play it down.
I object only because Russia is tied in it. When you pull the blanket onto one side, it is missing on the other. Only one war, one blanket, sorry. It's stretchable, as we've all noticed, but still isn't made of rubber.
I know this won't discourage a really minded enthusiast, LOL, but the war figurine being shaped is very falling onto both legs.
OK, you leave USSR out of the picture as insignificant affairs.
How do you plan to put it together - Britain won and USA won and Germany won? Must be all of them fought Japan. ;o)
Pity noone Japanese here at the forum, I'm sure we'd get more enlightments.
It is kind of weird to have the round table without all due. That's an exercise in self--glorifying, similar to the free time USA and Britain had on the matter in the world for 50 years. Discussing war results with each other. USSR water-tight sealed away behind the Iron Curtain.
On the German re-construction out of ashes, the spirit is admirable, no denial.
The practical aspects of re-building the country I won't be so much fascinated with.
Our side we re-built, don't know what did the West do with theirs. No Marshall plan stretched onto Western Germany?
And yes, it is the Russian way, to reconstruct "exactly as before." We did whole palaces here, Peterhof, Petrodvorets, Pavlovsk, all St. Pete suburbs, by old photos, up to a centimetre "as before". After tourists see the Catherine palace and stumble upon the room showing post-war ashes in the place of the palace, they ask second questions - where are we? So, is it all not real?
Same approach in East Germany.
Pity you don't admire Russian character, who also re-built itself from ashes, and with no help from outside, but here what to do.
I think if Germany lost 28 million civillians to Russians, as we did under them, or were occupied in any time comparable to what we experienced, at that we'd methodically destroy all on their ground for 4 years to ground-level - my view the restoration process would take Germans couple of more decades. But your heart Jukka is with liebste Germany uber alles,
and as a poet said, to finish this off nicely
tra la la
...because you shouldn't pick live flowers
and keep birds in cages
..because you can not hold your love
by falling in front of it stretched! ;o)
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
Russia was also offered US aid under the Marshal Plan after the war It was hoped that Stalin's government would accept the offered food, money, building materials.
We allowed the European countries to come up with the plan for the economic recovery and distribute the US money. France and Britain met with the Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov and he refused their terms accordig to Wiki.
Our goal in the war was to destroy the Axis powers Germany, Italy and Japan, because of their political party's, we had little interest in destroying their people, again just the Nazi.
Complain about this comment
Alice, my most dearest friend...
There is a good reason to revisit and revise history, namely that the history that was written post-war wasn't objective nor described what happened and why. If one is to take a position about a matter when its on hand or straight afterwards, one gets somethings else than the objective truth.
For instance Finnish and especially the Finnish leadership from the beginning of the war assumed a view that it was the god himself who had put the nation under a test and that the real enemy behind the godless communists was the devil himself. Thus to avert gods anger and to save the nation, not only the people and leadership prayed constantly, but severe restrictions were put up to guide and straighten the moral of the people. Thus the state declared that all dances and other indecent and immoral activities were totally forbidden by law: even talking about such things were forbidden. Instead of amusement the state organized patriotic get-togethers to honor the fallen. So should we let the history just be and assume the position that the wars were religious wars against the devil and his armies of godless communists, that it was the god who was testing us or should we perhaps revisit and revise the history?
Now I asked you were all Red Army soldiers in your mind communists. The reason why I asked was to see how would you classify them as at least in the west there is little difference nowadays made between Nazis and the Communists. Both Nazis and Communists are seen as failed ideologies of death, destruction, oppression and suppression. There is even little point of discussing on which one them were worses, they were just so worse. The French of course have written an excellent book in the 90s about the subject called The Black Book of Communism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism ).
Now how should we view Red Army? Were they all communists? Were they all responsible for war of aggression against Finland, Baltics and Poland? Were they all spelled by evil doctrine of death that made them in the end to pillage their way into Berlin and conquest half of Europe, to enslave eastern Europe for an half of century? Do we do that or do we remember that they were just humans caught and dominated by a suppressive dictatorship? If you simply equate that all German forces were Nazis then you have to judge the Red Army by the same standard.
I'm sorry, but I disagree quite strongly here, we have to separate the dictatorship from the people and we have to remember that people serving in different armies did what they were told, did what they were expected to do, did what the situation need, from there we have to start the classifying process.
The next question of course is why to do, why revisit and revise the history so much, why not let it be what it is especially if the only things that matter are this day and tomorrow. Why is so important?
Well for starters for the pursuit of the truth, for curiosity of the mind. Secondly its important to discuss and debate about the past to form an common view about the history so that it comes an unifying and not separating thing. Thirdly we learn from the history more when we our view is closer to the truth on what happened and why.
Now in regards of common history, this is a thing that do needs work. In post-war times western allies and Germans were very active on discussing about the war, for example former soldiers, officers and generals from both sides visited and had get-togethers with each others, wrote books about their experiences and on what they thought had happened and why. In this regard the Soviet and eastern European views have been more or less sidelined from the pages history, but of course that has started to change in time, for example handling of western allied war crimes and crimes against humanity post-war.
Now I do also need to address one thing and that is how to view history. If one wants to see what happened in history, to understand who did what, what you need to do is to dive archives and look on statistics. Modern wars are more or less about industrial production and technology, thus looking and working with statistics gives a pretty good picture. Now by asking what if and doing changes to statistics accordingly one can start to deduct on what happened and why.
Complain about this comment
Alice, here is the official tally...
USA won the war and won the peace, but Americans made the mistake on not restricting their military-industrial complex.
Soviet Union won the war, but Russians lost the peace as they were still enslaved by the Communist dictatorship.
British won the war, but only managed the peace as they missed to do something other with it than an endless serious of documentaries about the war.
Nazi Germany lost the war, but West Germans won the peace as they were liberated from enslaving dictatorship and were able to integrate with the French and other Europeans.
France lost the war (defeated nation!), but they too won the peace by finding out that with their new found German friends they could dominate Europe and the world again (hence the creation of EU).
Empire of Japan lost the war, but Japanese won the peace by becoming an economic powerhouse and one of the cradles of the global culture, just think about what world would look like without Hello Kitty!
Finnish... we won the defense battle but lost the war, managed the peace barely, but won by becoming accepted as Europeans and as been able to enjoy all the benefits that America has given to the world from Coca-Cola to Donal Duck.
And as I said before, to win the war, you have to win the peace, so in essence it seems that everybody won and everybody lost. That's a happy equal ending to the war.
And Alice, my most dearest friend, you estimate me wrong. My actual love is deserved for the American culture, while French and Japanese come as equal seconds. Of course I'm pro Europe and quite critical of many US policies, but that is only because having a stronger and more prosperous Europe allows me to joy, buy, products of American culture. Of course Germany is a nice and admirable country and Germans are easy people to be and work with it, but going for a holiday into Germany is like going to a course of how to build a working country 101.
And Alice, I'm happy to learn the Russian side of the story too. When the motorway from Turku to St. Petersburg will be ready in 2015 I will for sure visit your city if not sooner and especially want to visit a museum or two not only about the history of the city, but also about the war and post war reconstruction. Like I said the Russian side of is quite unfamiliar to my western eyes, but I'm happy to find out more.
PS. Of course you don't have to open any links that you don't want to. I just have to wonder how it is bad to find out and know more. Information has never harmed anybody.
PS2. What cockroaches have ever done to you for you to even compare them to Nazis. Shouldn't we give some honor to cockroaches too ;-)
Complain about this comment
Jukks, there are many thoughts here, I've marked one so far outstanding will comment. That is that you admire America. Good! that the regular bloggers who know you these past months don't look into this corner often - otherwise there'd now be an overall sound of tumbling bodies!
Well, I always said we, Russians, were never able to figure out what quiet mysterious Finns keep thinking about in their quiet mysterious way, go figure! LOL
Then simply take care not to love America so very much, because if you'd love it just a bit more - it might tumble down by the weight of your critics! ;o)
Complain about this comment
And next thing, what? Mavrelius says he loves Europe?
Complain about this comment
Statistics. Here is a sample. Took full quote, mind it, without "clipping" the "bad beginning" or "wrong ending", full - from disgusting, humuliating, playing down USSR part in the war wiki in English.
Even that defective version (that I assure you has nothing in common with the same wiki page in Russian) (in fact would be proper to look at the German variant) says:
"The number of military forces at the disposal of Nazi Germany reached its peak during 1944.
By D-Day 157 German divisions were stationed in the Soviet Union, 6 in Finland, 12 in Norway, 6 in Denmark, 9 in Germany, 21 in the Balkans, 26 in Italy and 59 in France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
However, these statistics are somewhat misleading since a significant number of the divisions in the east were depleted due to intensity of fighting; German records indicate that the average personnel complement was at about 50% in the spring of 1944."
So, Jukks, who likes stat. analysis. Go figure the weight of German force distribution, within the time frame June 1944-May 1945.
_____________
Russia I assure you finished off its 157.
Elsewhere English wiki says 9 divisions protected Berlin. You might wish to add that.
21 Balcans no brainer ours.
_____________
Who fought your "6" in Finland you'd tell us. I think nobody did touch them with a finger. Surrended.
In Norway Russia fought. But alone or with Allies no idea. This to be found out.
Overall, I think the Norwegian amount and the Denmark amount self-surrendered, like the ones stationed in Finland.
_____________
Allied forces 26 in Italy finished off, nobody ran away. Destroyed or surrendered, clean.
59 Allied forces in France, Belgium, Netherlands.
The first surrender taken by Britain, May 4th I think.
Your int'l approach tends to skip this but our defective Russian history gives credit for the first German troops surrender taken by Montgomery in Netherlands. And finds it very morally appropriate that Britain picked up the glove first, and got the first surrender, fair.
He tried not to take it, apologised and all, consulted the Allies, behaved as a modest Englishman, understanding the inappropriatness of taking surrender without Americans. Still had to accept it, LOL, because Germans simply won't leave him alone, were moaning and insisting and besieging his door "Please take us."
Russian history also has an opinion why they were so nagging, but I'll skip it.
Don't know how many divisions there were in Holland, of 59.
How many in France and Belgium?
Anyway combined 59.
Even if to take your preferred English wiki option, do the maths and conslusions yourself.
______________________
Needless to say Russian wiki gives different numbers, but we are here based on the English-speaking world view.
For example the total distribution takes into account those German divisions of which zero was left in the USSR in the first 3 war years, and Egypt and places where there were scattered Germans done away by the Allies during the war, many "watery" ones. Still the ration is 30/70 or even 25/70.
An interesting feature is in the Battle for Berlin Russians think they fought 63 German divisions, and English-speaking wiki believes that just 9.
Where would our 63 fall down from the sky from? Russian view is they ran away from the Allies, retreated from "Belgium, France and Holland." The Allies didn't do with them clean, I mean making either dead or POW.
Also can have something to do with the fact
that clearly English-speaking wiki has a clear slide defining the "Battle for Berlin"
as the battle for Berlin itself, or mentally counts from suburbs.
Whereas for us "Battle for Berlin" means Zeele heights and worst times at 60 km off the German capital, has not much to do with the city itself.
The city was a problem only because it was not tank-able, walk-able, pass-able. The raids before turned it into piles of ? stones? ruble? like there wasn't one street 20 metres plain view, everywhere hills of pieces piled one upon another.
This was a very un-pleasant surprise on entry, as it meant you couldn't pull forward an artillery piece, go by horse, by American jeep, by tank, by nothing, only climbing up and down by foot.
Complain about this comment
With your prohibition of dancing and praying instead, didn't know. That you had to "clean" yourself, definitely from the stand you are subject to the immediate danger of falling into the Devil's hands, just kilometres away in my dacha, LOL. And the vicious influence might somehow creep over with the poisoned wind from the Communist side.
Dear me. No, had no idea.
Jukks, it's a no brainer Finland back then took a somewhat too maximalistic stand re the Communism, equal-ling it to Devil himself.
Devil would be offended, I don't think he'd agree to be equalled even to the Nazi either (remember we differ with you; good communists would be very offended to be equalled to Nazi-s) (luckily nobody here en mass ever heard about this Western stuff)
(unless one of our leaders ever finds the time right to inform masses, LOL. Can imagine what will happen).
Back to Devil and communism. I think his Dark Majesty existed good deal amount of
time before Marx and Engels invented the thing, and then Germany sent us our own thing, re-packaged and sponsored, another Jewish chap and admirer of Germany, oh those great philosophers, to switch Russia off from the 1st WW. And will exist couple of ? thousand years? milleniums? after the Perestroyka.
So you have clearly over-done this a bit.
Complain about this comment
I paid attention in the Obama's speech, "we have fought nazism, we have fought communism" separated just by a comma.
To me it seems silly to explain, so obvious. To you - at max "OK, let's hear some explanations heard."
I never thought about it, like you wouldn't sit and think about the diff. btw things that seem to you un-comparable.
First of course in death incurred.
We didn't go to foreign countries with the view to make them Russian or kill. There are lots of survivors in these blogs from the Eastern European countries that will confirm to you "Soviet occuptaion" was not so troglodite as you wish to interpret it, and in fact no different to any country where US now holds a military base. Same thing - influence, and control zone.
When Nazi-s occupied a country, they vampired its resources for Germany's benefit. Noone would accuse Russia we pulled the blanket onto our side, depleting other people's economies, carrying away their property, belongings, natural reserves or whatever, making them work for the benefit of Russian nation uber alles.
Zone of military and political influence - yes.
But not to undermine them for own benefit. On the opposite - we invested, and many lived for decades at Russian expense.
Badly, worse than in the West - but ANYONE THERE - BETTER THAN ANY RUSSIAN IN RUSSIA.
Nazi ideology, to the opposite, somehow resulted in the massive offensive operation
on Europe, in a manner far from "we take what was pre-agreed in Yalta conference btw the 3 world leaders." No warning, I guess, and no agreements or discussions held prior Germany attacked Britain or places or whatever. In fact, the whole Europe with the exception of Britain lay under them within a very short time.
I think Russian manner of getting its piece of Europe was different.
Second. Stalin here was not held a communist, surprise, surprise, but a vicious Eastern monster, a relic like a disnosaur of pre-historic wild past. A troglodite. First 10 years at power that he hi-jacked, he was doing away with opposition - which were Lenin commuinsts', for a sec.
he did not succeed to Lenin. It was a coup, that you didn't care to notice. On death bed (which lasted with Lenin for half a year, after a stroke, he commanded the country from bed, he left 10 thousand directions to the Comm Party committee - when I die - anybody - but Stalin. There is a written Will and kind of last testament, who he leaves in his place. Names listed - vote chose for any by a vote - but take care it is not Stalin. Because he is "cruel Eastern monster, has no idea what communism means."
Stalin meanwhile plotted and intrigued, collecting forces for an internal country coup, and that Lenin's dear written good-bye - simply grabbed out and kept secret. Was found in his papers, hasn't destroyed, apparently spent many a pleasant hour looking at it and chuckling, type ha ha ha.
Nevermind from the outside world view that's irrelevant details, since what would Lenin do with communism had he have more time at powwer and not several years post 1917 only - nobody knows. May be worse things than Stalin, in fact. Though, must say - HARDLY POSSIBLE.
Still, during "comminism" Stalin times - you wouldn't exactly accuse even all Russians combined under the vicious whatever it was the regime by that time - in killing anybody but ourselves. We have focused on self-murder, not aliens. 30 millions Stalin destroyed of internal opposition, or 40 million Russians unhappy with whatever the regime.
I never heard of Nazi focused on self-murder. Rather, they thought they are a supreme german Arian nation, without a spot by definition, superior to anyone else n the world.
Didn't they have grades - 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd category "passengers" ?
Surely yes. While even the Stalin's variant of "communism", to say nothing of communism itself - the motto and the practice - all races all people equal.
That's fascism - when one race worse than the other.
Not communism. Nobody 2nd rate, neither by Marx, nor by Lenin, even not by Stalin.
Well, sorry, forgot. By Marz and Engels slavs are inferior nation. LOL.
The distant vision, plan for the world development, all this idealistic crap that never happened, I'd say was also different in the two "philosophies".
By Hitler's plan Germans were to rule the world, with other nations subject to the pure Arian folk as serfs. The disabled - to be destroyed, as spoiling the genes, the slavs, Jewish and Gypsies - destryed, as defective "half-breeds" by definition, some more or less genetically allright - to serve as German allies or serfs.
I am sorry I never heard that within the communists' theory. "All people in the world -equal, all produce what they can and get - what they need, a society of divine happiness where the strong help the poor and carry the weight, because they can do more - so should do more than the weak ones, regarding the in-put to the common good. Money - to be cancelled, open access to resources from the common pile. Roughly, the idea. Everyone has to work - only capitalists make money out of money and money is eveil, as they are not food or practical good, abstract paper. Making them on other people's labour is evil. Etc. Won't expand.
No I think if you put the slogans of the two systems together, granted ours never worked, nobody lived as long as to see that un-achievable utopia paradise, LOL, we haven't introduced it into practic, sorry. Failed.
Must be it is un-attainable by definition.
But honestly to exploit other nations, or put down other people on the base of their race - was never an idea here.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (162):
Alice, Alice, my dear, you are looking it from the wrong view... Think big, be more abstract!
My book recommendation for you, for looking at the war is Paul Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000. Its a bit tedious book, even for me the early chapters were not that interesting, but the book really builds up itself to the end. I also give you another good reason to read it: after you have read the book it will change your perception about Russia and Soviet Union. When I read the book I realized that without Communism, the 20th century would have been Russian century, not American century but a Russian century. That is how big the negative impact of the communism had.
Now if we go back to the subject. As I wanted to totally convince you, I took the liberty to invite two of my very best friends, comrade Stalin and mr. Elvis, to comment... I give the keyboard to them.
...
Hello Alice! This is uncle Joe here. You have this discussion about the war and what is important. I'm not going to give you the answer straight away, but as your KGB files say, you have been a good girl, so I'm giving you a hint... In Russian my name means... Man of steel... Man of Steel!
/with Russian accent
Howdy Alice! Elvis here! I'm going to give you hint too. You know, when you gotta burger and a another burger, the bigger with bacon and cheese is the better one, you want to eat that, and then the another burger. So bigger is better. Bigger is better!
/with southern accent
...
Okey, Jukka here, Elvis wanted to get a kebab so he and Joe left for a smoke, so I will finish of the argument.
Page 257, Iron/Steel production of the Powers, in millions of tons, in 1938:
US: 28,8 (in 1930 it was 41,3, so the capacity was there)
Germany: 23,2
Russia: 18,0
Britain: 10,5
Japan: 7.0
France: 6.1
Italy: 2.3
Page 258, Energy consumption of the powers, in millions of metric tons of coal equivalent, in 1938:
US: 697
Germany: 228
Britain: 196
Russia: 177
Japan: 96,5
France: 84
Italy: 27,8
Page 259, Total industrial potential of the powers in relative perspective,UK in 1900 = 100, in 1938:
US: 528
Germany: 214
Britain: 181
Russia: 152
Japan: 88
France: 74
Italy: 46
Page 259, Relative shares of the world manufacturing output, in 1938:
US: 31,4%
Germany: 12,7%
Britain: 10,7%
Russia: 9%
France: 4,4%
Italy: 2,8%
Now in all these statistics you can see that Germany had more or less slight advantage to Russia and a bigger one against the UK. Now relying to this view, if Germany and Russia would have only fought, it would have been slow but eventual German victory. With Britain and Russia together it would have been a slow but eventual British Russian victory. With the addition of US into the mix it was sure defeat for the Germany.
Now of course what is missing from this mix is populations where Russia had a definite advantage and as it can be seen from what happened in WW2, that advantage was used by throwing just more men against the enemy and suffering huge losses. This doesn't also count tactical advantage that the Germans had at the beginning and more or less during the whole war.
Because of these statistics and because of how devastatingly the war started out for both Britain and Russia, I view that without US intervention, the Nazis would have either won the war in Europe or it would have been much longer and ended in a tie.
This is the view from which I look at the WW2.
Complain about this comment
Jukks, how un-? LOL un-spiritual!
Economy-based, I mean. What a materialist you are, aj jaj jaj ;o)
Also, why didn't they sit down btw them, uncle Joe and uncle Churchill and cousin Roosevelt and nobody's uncle Hitler, and compare the statistics on the table? Instead of trying ther luck.
There wasn't uncle Jukks there, that's why!
To tell them, listen, chaps, don't even start, first sort btw each other who teams up with who and when, tell me - and now you can start signing the surrender conditions. Skip what's in between, really, listen to old wise Jukks, will save us all hell of a lot of trouble and your precious time.
Honestly the first thing that follows from the statistics, is Russia could have managed Germany alone. The diff is in-significant, within the statistical error more or less. Given more indeed human resources on the Rus. side - the diff. becomes not only zero, but Russia was better equipped for the war.
In reality such expectations wrong. Because all the above true - at one condition - if both armies clashed and kept clashing on the neutral playing field. Neither in Germany, nor in Russia.
Unfortunately for us our clear advantage, I would say, was reduced to nearly the same percentage but with the sign "minus".
Because of the unexpectedness of the attack, nearly light-speed of German advance, you won't have time to say "Mama" and in a month we were occupied. Mind it, the most populated side of Russia, with all the industries and factories, supposed to produce that steel and that energy and all listed in the stat. above. Became void, in one sweep.
Population raidly carried away by trains to work in German factories, from age 9 up - may I remind you - nowhere to make a bullet or carry a piece of steel to the factory. Rail-links cut, delivery from the ?Urals stopped, Leningrad - main industrial centre of USSR - in the siege ring as of Sep beg.
BTW politejoms was asking why didn't Leningrad population was evacuated, not to lose lives. The answer is children and un-working women and the elderly were evacuated, only too little, as the ring was closing rapidly. Ask Jukks, why we couldn't run towards the "neutral" Finland.
Then, "un-working woman" was a very, very rare sample in USSR. And working population was not evacuated. Because who would make tanks, airplanes and gun-loads, for a sec? Leningrad continued to make armament, every day without interruption, in siege. Who would?
If you evacuate all behind the Ural mountains stone wall - where would the armament come from? Population was also becoming army, as the regulars were either smashed in the first month or collected around Moscow. Moscow was the capital. But not heavy industry capital, money, government, papers. All ship-building, all tanks - Leningrad.
From the gates of our Kirov factory tanks rolled out of production line, through the yard, the crew would take their place at the factory gates - out to the battle. 3 years.
And children without parents - only very few
would agree to part with - and send away with school and kindergarten groups.
My father was sent away with his kindergarten. 2 attempt successful, if not to count that he went under ice in the Ladoga lake, eventually got to the shore on a floating trunk with clothes, and then post war my grandma (evacuated later and separately, as "un-working woman") and grandfather searched for him in all the orphanages of the USSR.
I very much hope what they found was their child. As when drowning in the Ladoga lake, as the trucks with evacuating kids on the "road of life" were shot at by the glorious German airlines, he was 4 and we all hope he learned his name right.
So Jukka, statistics, orginally in Russian favour, can be turned upside down quickly.
In another direction as well. 1938 does not take into account heavy industries re-set from scratch behind Urals, who again began to make things. These have eventually made so much stuff. That I think what Ukraine is trading now, sending to Somali pirates, LOL, can very well be old un-used stocks of T-34 vintage 1943.
By the same statistics we should have lost within the first several months, first year, first 2 years. Never had a ratio in our favour, no people, no regular army, no armament. Germany - as listed above. Russia - a joke. What makes it out of the besieged Leningrad, plus pathetic amounts on the Polar convoys.
We can't explain it to ourselves why we haven't lost the war in the first 2 years.
No statistician will be able to back it by numbers. And many people tried to find how come. Finally we gave up and refer it to "the Russky God". LOL.
Complain about this comment
Stalin also added his share to turn Russian advantage pre-war, to the dis-advantage.
Statistics right, but who and how would use all this equipment?
Would you count on your population to fight for your government, if your government had just put ab 30 million people in concentration camps in Siberia? Much use to count them as "human resource".
Hitler apparently ran his numbers and crossed these out.
Then, look what Stalin did to the army. The lists of fieldmarshals, generals, aviation commanders, Navy, all regular army tops he put to the wall and shot in the pre-war years goes for pages and pages. He was always hallucinating of the Army coup and kept getting rid of anyone who ever graduated a military academy in a maniacy way. Really, how can you start a war be-headed.
The only type of troops who didn't lost its upper sixth quarter was - horse ? how do you call it. People on horses with sabres.
Stalin had fond memoirs of these somehow from the Civil war time. Had a friend there, or trusted them, anyway these were pampered and "trained for the war".
These exactly spectaculat troops were put by Stalin in charge of protecting Leningrad from the advancing German forces. Army of the 19th century against the Army of the 20th. Dearly they looked at horse attack towards the German tanks. With the predicted result, ring of siege on Leningrad closed up in a sec.
Not that Stalin was so much an idiot, because strangely he didn't demand the horse regiments to protect precious him in Moscow. Rather, he kind of shared Hitler's idea that it wouldn't be bad to get rid of Leningrad. He never visited here, afraid of St. Petersburgers tendency for revolutions.
As easy as that - 2nd city in the country - Stalin wouldn't come.
Anyway, what he thought I don't know, we think didn't think, simply scared to death, and didn't give any commands, first month of the war we had no commander. As he was supposed to be one.
He thought Russians won't fight and won't protect him. Had grounds to believe population will say "Aha!" and gladly surrender to Hitler.
So Stalin figured out no mercy either way to expect, neither from own people nor from Hitler, neither side would be gracious to him, and simply chickened out. Was speaking of himself of 3rd person singular "Tovarisch Stalin would like to eat. Bring him some breakfast." All personnel was scared he turned nuts.
Livened up and crawled out only when Zhukov assured him Germans won't take Moscow, like, come on, get out. Stalin asked for Zhukov's honest word! That he will be able to hold the capital. Clasped at his word as a child. Kept repeating, "Zhukov knows, if he said he will, he will."
As Zhukov indeed did, on which nobody in the world in Sep 1941 counted, Zhukov's star began to rise.
Disaster it was, total disaster.
The engineers, the constructors, designers, people who headed military complex factories - were shot or packed to Siberia. To start production again behind the Urals, they were collected and searched for, and released from concentration camps and prizons, who still alive. To be grouped into "sharashka-s" - design small bureaus to work as prisoners still, but kept in good conditions.
Surely Hitler knew that.
Our own Soviet spies, reporting to Stalin of the war beginning, were shot as bad messengers, predators of Motherland.
One last radiogram from our chap in Germany, telling exact hour of the attack, not even day - hour! Stalin tore to pieces in disgust.
Really in the first months of war we were such a mess, that everyone decided for himself what to do. You want to go to the army - go find yourself where the army is and join. You want to run away - run away, if you know where. Many ran to the forests, to taiga. Post war we were finding people in taiga, who didn't know the war ended. In Belorussian forests as well. One woman was discovered in 1980. As they went to Siberia, so they lived there in the forest, until she was the last one from the family left. When she was told the war is over she didn't believe. Journalists besieged her and tried to convince her to get out.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice and Jukka Rohila,
Ok, everybody in Europe sit down, because this will probably upset some people, but you can look it up on Wiki and on CNN. Hitler was somebody's Uncle. In fact his brother married a British national and they had a son William Patrick Hitler.
Luckily, this Hitler ws different. He tried to enlist in the US Army at the begining of World War II, but was turned down. He then wrote to President Roosevelt requesting his help. President Roosevelt (America's greatest Pesident equaled only by George Washington and Andrew Jackson) felt sorry for him and got him into the US Navy. He served as a Medic and was wounded in combat. He survived the war, married and raised three sons. He ran a business that analyzed blood for doctors after the war and generally lived the American dream.
Oddly enough when he reported to the US Navy for service he told the man at the desk that his name was Hitler, the sailor stood up and shook his hand and said "my name is HESS" Young Hitler was inducted into the US Navy by a relative of Hitler's number 2 man Hess.
The point is why keep hating Germany? Obviously there were a lot of Germans or German-American's like Hitler, Dietrick Bonnhoffer, Martin Niemoller, Count von Stauffenberg, Treskow, Marlene Dietrick, Lindberg (became a combat consulant to the Army Air corps), Admiral Nimitz, General Spatz, General Eisonhower and Captain Timmerman (led the Charge over the bridge at Remagen, Germany, that clearly made significant contributions to destoying Nazism.
Complain about this comment
For today Germans.. "hate" .. no, I won't say so. not the proper word for today at all.
No, Russians don't hate Germans.
These Germans, modern ones, that is.
The ones vintage 1939-1945 - rest assured.
Politejomsviking, I am sorry, you are like a baby. All Americans are like babies, another planet. I think this is the case "fed one doesn't understand hungry one".
And you will never understand we all hope, and good.
Your people may have a go at it, in 50 years, an attempt to understand. Then ask a child of your American who stayed in the ground zero what are his/her feelings towards the terrorists.
Someone might write then, say, like you do now, - Oh, see, among that nation who gave the world the killers, there were also talanted people, let me see, yes, a scientist, a good writer, a popular actor.
And still that won't give the condition.
Imagine for a sec ground zero doesn't end up by two buildings, but creeps in the same mode, throughout Manhatten, one building after another collapsing, goes out of New York and stretches half of your country. Picking up 40 million people, not 3 thousand.
Imagine your America put at the brink of extinction, with all your dreams, history, culture, all that you have accumulated for centuries, that you lose your best, the blossom, outstanding talanted people, cut, like by scissors - click - and gone. And the ordinary people, all someone relatives, every fourth in the country. That whenever you dig - it is a shell or someone's mass grave. And then you live on this ground, and re-invent yourself, but your best are gone. You wouldn't have hard feelings, towards the ones who came to you un-asked for, and destroyed your America?
With all respect, it is for the ones who bore it to decide, what should they feel. I assure you, in such a case no Russian will dare to recommend you not to worry. I think it is between us and Germany, their own matter what to think, and our own matter, what to think.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
do you think that maybe, just maybe the Communist myth makers saw it to their advantage, to portray to their own people that they and they alone were the only ones who cared about saving Russia from the Nazis?
Maybe they portrayed all Germans as bad, because it was in their best interests not Russias.
Maybe it is also in the best interest of the Communists to make Russians fear the US and Britain? Maybe it is in the best interst of the Communists to keep Russia locked away from the West. Maybe in the best interst to shoot any Russian or German who tries to go over the wall. Maybe in the best interst of the Communists to keep the people under their control thinking everybody in the world is trying to get them.
Could it possibly be that the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans, and Vietnamese are being told that the whole world is against them for the selfish purposes of a few bad men at the top who live like kings. From what I have seen all these guys have re-distibuted is war and poverty and they are a national tradgedy wherever they go.
The best I can say about them is they are such a group of bunglers that they kill their own people though starvation and murder police a lot more than they do any foreign countries people.
You have to judge people as individuals. A German who fought Nazism was a better human than a Communist who invaded Poland. Communist or Nazi, whichever one is Goose stepping by seems to be a threat to freedom to me, whether that freedom is American, Russian, British, German, or Finland.
If you want to belive some national myth that you guys were the only one in the Second World War and it makes you happy, wonderful for you. If the modern German can get some cheaper gas by playing along thats good to. If he can sell a few more Volkswagons to France by saying they are buddies, that is good for Americans who own Volkswagon stock. It doesn't matter what a few Communists or Nazis do if they get too big for their britches we are capable of putting them back to the proper size.
As for the ground zero crowd right now their Attorneys are fighting extradition back to their own countries for fear that their own countrymen will torture or kill them. That hardly sounds like universal support.
Maybe the terrorists can be released one day when they are old and grey if they stay in the hands of the military. If they end up in the civil courts they will be tried and spend the rest of their life in a small cement cube in Colorado (The Federal Prison called the ADX) or be executed like American terrorist Timmothy McVeigh. Not a very bright future I don't enjoy getting up at 6:00 AM to make my bed and clean my toilet.
Complain about this comment
See, politejomsviking, we are kind of polarised in views. somehow it happened that a Rus. and an American are. anybody 3rd side wonders why? ;o)
Of the effectiveness of communist propaganda, you're of too high opinion of it.
You transmit your own understanding, that people are normally agreeing with their Government, from America - into Russia. And it doesn't fit. Russians have never been at such degrees of accord with own Government as you were, throughout the 20th century and now into the 21st. We are more critical than Americans; Russian tradition demands a good share of poison, black humour, time to be lost in gloomy philosophical pondering type that? German? you know total sunset of the gods, good amounts of time spent in torturing self-reflection and looking into the mirror, and basically it is simply un-acceptable here to call oneself "a patriot".
A Russian has only 2 questions pre-set for the whole life: "Who is guilty" and "What to do". "Kto vinovat i chto delat." Classics. Also because our rulers gave us more grounds, LOL, to question what Kremlin says.
To the opposite, as min the standard media picture of an American does not give an image of such self-discontent.
Good if you think you can subject to critical srutiny what your Government thinks it is doing, but would you even start?
You know communists propaganda didn't survive Perestroyka. Granted we live in a society and are subject to whatever the prevailing notions circulate in it. So which propaganda we had post 1990? Gorby's, Yeltsin's, Putin's views. What's called "new Russia", overall.
I don't think either of them was/is a "true communist", LOL. What they pushed/are pushing - is our national interests position.
Somewhat LOL mixed up to various degrees with own individual interest. One must realise that, and constantly sort "flies from the meat cutlets."
How do you think your Government does not tell you what to think? That Americans weren't and aren't subject to the same brain-washing? Or is it that your accord with the powers is such you gladly accpt all you are fed, without questioning it? Like, what can good US Government possibly want us to do wrong, all good by definition? Very drastic brain-washed conditions you are in then.
Rather hope it isn't the case.
_________________
Now, that was abstract.
Practically. As min one point you think about our rulers - we think about yours - that it is America carrying war whenever it goes.
Of the other one you mentioned - "carrying poverty whenever you go" - it is true of our rulers, but not true of yours.
The system you are in - (as minimum until the recent crisis) - used to be more effective.
Duration 1903-1991 I find long enough time to prove it.
In 1903 Russia and US were at equal start.
Russia even richer, I think. Both approx. same size big countries.
By 1991 we lost the race, kept spending 80% of budget on military spend to keep parity with you, until we had nothing left to eat any longer. Meanwhile, to keep the same parity and over-run Russia, you spent far smaller amount of uour national budget.
From which simply follows that your total budget was much much bigger, and our system was able to make less money.
A communism system failed to a capitalist system. One having produced more wealth than the other within a century span.
So far so good. But now we live in modern history, seemingly - in the same systems - and still Russian interests somehow cross American.
What follows and how come - has to be thought of separately.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Web Alice,
the whole principle of patriotism in this country is that the country is great, but all Government is essentually evil, requiring constant limits applied to it's power. Our whole Constitution is a long list of things the government is limited in doing.
On my desk at work I have a coffee cup that says it well: "I love my country, it's the Government that I am afraid of."
Complain about this comment
Politejoms, a coffee cup? ;o)
You would laugh, just read the news, ab a protest in Moscow.
We've got here for years a protest movement, called "Movement of the Ones Who Don't Agree". They arrange peaceful marches, on one occasion or another.
Various groupings join in, Garry Kasparov, Apple party, Citizens' initiative, Save native city (when historical buildings are pulled down), depends on the occasion, who is in every time.
Anyway the infamous "Disagreeable Ones" are pestered and accused of violating peace of mind, city traffic, ? anyway criticised by mainstream media.
Now today in Moscow there was a new small protest, a march, under the banner
"We Agree For All!"
They carried a Russian flag, portrait of Putin, and posters type: "Higher! Higher! We demand higher apartment bills!"
"Let's help bureaucracy rule us!"
"Yes! To the 12-hour working day!"
"We say - Yes! To the rise of prices."
"We Agree For Everything"
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
I think when citizens who own Assault Rifles legally, pistols and tons of Ammunition, have a mug on their desk expressing discontent: The government makes more of an honest effort to keep them happy.
That said both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have led several big marches on the US capital that were not covered in the European press. The major television networks refused to cover both campaigns. Instead they chose to cover Obama,s basketball and McCain's torture. YAWN!
Duringthe Presidential debates they asked Kucinich "Have you ever seen a UFO?" and Ron Paul "Why are you a Republican, you don't agree with anybody else on stage?" The US TV networks are a joke, comic books are more intlligent.
Both Dennis and Ron are probably more American than Obama or McCaine. Ron Paul's web site is the Campaign for Liberty. Obamas and McCain's are just about them. Which one sounds more American.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
Do they have the TV show Hogan's Heroes in Russia? Surely, Russians don't feel threatened by the Sergeant Shultz character. I mean it is kind of symplistic, but you know there is a pretty big difference between the Gestapo characters and the Luftwwaffee charcters.
I mean surely Russian audiences don't watch the same show and hope the Gestapo will catch the English speaking prisoners and shoot Sergeant Shultz and Colonel Klink?
If you haven't seen this show they have clips on you tube. I would be interested in hearing if you think helping Klink and Shultz avoid the Russian front is appropriate behavior.
Complain about this comment
politejpmsviking @ 175.
pity my 172 was removed for 2 words in Russian. I never know, sometimes as much as 10 words in Russian pass, sometimes "violated house rules" verdict at once.
My BBC Russian roulette! LOL
I was very peaceful-minded there and proposed to forget it all for the benefit of USA, Russia and Germany combined. and to drop the subject. Not meant to be. ;o)
Dennis Cucinich alas no idea will keep an eye.
Ron Paul quite famous even Russians know.
Looks like a pleasant man?
Assault rifles - good point! never thought.
an enlightment. I thought it's bad as people tend to kill each other more, having means, but as you write, as a symbolical check for the governments, that they'd think twice before doing smth, having an armed population - I mean. wow.
plain jealous.
Here several attempts were done to change the legislation, but three ha ha.
At times the question arises and is always busted. Though must say Russians themselves last time asked in opinion polls only, of course, alas, no referendum, 68% were against the right to allow all hold guns at home. (my father used to violate the law by about 25 pieces, LOL) (but the nearest so well equipped apartment would be in Chechnya some place I think, there it is normal, in St. Pete - was a one-off I am sure).
Knives can be owned but not taken out of the house. Even with a kitchen knife in the street you can be arrested, unless you carry a receipt that you just bought it in the supermarket.
The blade of the knife taken outside of the house should be not longer than 10cm and special requirements re the quality of the steel. I once had a trouble with a Japanese kharakiri knife, as I thought it'll do nicely with my pirate outfit for a New Year party, but alas not all thought so LOL.
Overall I think you own rifles historically and got used to live so; Russians, if would get a sudden happy access... As all say first half of the country shoots up the other half of the country, and then what is left will learn how to live with rifles. Though that opinion was prevalent in Perestroyka, when there were still visible divisions into ex-repression side and ex-repressed. Now all got mixed up you don't know who is who, so I don't think half of the country will go revenge the "other half".
Still even Lenin Government is afarid to excavate out of the Mausoleum. But this is rather not to offend the pensioners, not because anyone would object. Waiting untill all who might get offended will die out naturally, then he'll be extracted no doubt.
Awful making a cemetery in the main square, gloomy. Problem isn't Lenin, who cares, but there is a whole "Kremlin wall" of people in it. And while some were excellent folk, I mean, others - ugh. Still there are so many, scandals won't be limited by Lenin personality only, I think exactly his relocation - troubles anyone in the least.
Complain about this comment
PS Why people here still advocate for the right to hold guns at home is because the criminal world has rifles without any rights aplenty, they say there is a well-working black market, and normal people don't and can't protect themselves.
Police here can't protect citizens very much at all; at the stage when you are threatened you can't get any police sympathy; standard reply "when you are killed - then come", laws are very allowing for the killers. Someone who stole a pig sits in the prizon for year and years may be 10. Murder charges have short prizon terms, cut by 1/3 for the good behaviour, in effect they get out quickly. Disproportionate seemingly punishment, the less you do - the longer prizon term.
You might have heard, no, you wouldn't, well anyway a man who killed a Chechen woman served in prizon and was released. A Russian army Colonel, for a sec. Huge scandal because that 90% of the country who cared at all were sure his place is in the prizon for another 2-3 hundred years. For the absence of a death penalty.
But he was released, not because a special allowance was made for him, simply because prizon terms for murder of anybody are short, by law.
Journalists traced him from the prizon gates but he quickly disappeared.
In several days the lawyer of the killed Chechen woman was shot in cold blood in the street in Moscow. Together with a young girl, a student, accompanying him from the press conference regarding the early release of the murderer. The girl trained in a well-known newspaper, to become a journalist.
So the lawyer cannot own a rifle, a journalist can not, but the killers can.
All lawyers Moscow community in hysterics, because the murdered lawyer was a very famous one here, member of many associations, handled very public and high-importance law cases.
All think it was done of course not by the killer of the Chechen girl, but by some admirers of him.
Now, imagine, a colonel! shame upside down. but many in the army supported him, Chechen terrorists were a plague here.
He claimed the woman he killed was a sniper. The judge thought she was rather a normal population of the village that his unit attacked. Russian army was in huge scandal and quarrels about the case, because the colonel had zero military achievements in the Chechen war, was never noticed in doing one good military operation or a brave I don't know, anything. Nobody could remember a thing about him. Besides, his leutenant refused to command the troops raid into that Chechen village, dis-obeyed the order, and the colonel simply threw him out of the operation, bullied his way through. Horrible story and didn't end at that.
Complain about this comment
Our government hunts theChechens too. They are allies of the Iranians and supporters of terrorism worldwide.
The tactics they used in the theater attack, the school attack, the suicide bombers and the hospital attack make them criminals not soldiers.
I ussually think Putin, like Bush a dangerous person, but his statement to "murder them in the #### house" seems like the correct idea.
The right to own guns comes from the Bill of Rights in the Constitution and was put there in case the citizenry ever had to overthrow the government. The actual ammendment says it's purpose is for a well regulated militia, but all the Founding fathers speeches on the subject were about the great advantage in overthrowing a tyrrant if everybody had their own weapons.
I like the pirate costume idea. This country was founded by pirates! I think they get too little credit in history. It wasn't mayfower pilgrims who prevented Florida from becoming another Spanish colony like Cuba, it was British pirates. I have a cannonball from a pirate ship, that my Fathr bought up from underwater in Florida.
Complain about this comment
Politejoms, to answer your question @176.
Hogan's Heroes wasn't run on Rus. TV in full but separate films were. I am sure I saw it and laughed mad. I think it was something old black and white, some harrison at night with separate buildings, and some card-playing scenes, and meetings held bt conspirers, and some wireless transmissions, overall all were busy-bodies, the place humming like a bee-hive at night, always some sneaking round the corners, and crossing at night open places btw the buildings. Some barbed-wire entaglements like a wall, and lamp posts. (Youtube sorry won't see, slow computer will take a century to see one person to move a leg over.) I have the idea anyway.
But Politejoms this is a fairy tale, Germans looked total harmless idiots there, I mean, in fact, everybody ... LOL...
Who can get angry at imaginary characters in a fairy-tale?
Your "simplistic" o:) idea is "if there were good Germans - don't be cross with all."
Politejoms, really. Sure a nation is not homogenious. Nobody never is. Ask people to agree a rose is a good flower - you'll get 15% against! guaranteed. This is the same everywhere but it doesn't change the fact what has a country done.
The existence of small amount of "I am against the main line" - does not help the ones who suffered from Germany. They suffered by fact. What some separate Germans wished, to kill Hitler, whatever - wishful thinking. That does NOT change the development and the impact.
You really think it is enough in war case, so far the worst war in Europe, "to blush, apologise and leave"?
Practical example.
Prague spring. The Czech wanted to break free. We supressed the up-rising. Amount of human loss - excuse me, tiny. Moral assualt - very high. They thought they can do it, and we put them under the boot. Great Expectations, hopes, all trampled.
A moral trauma for the nation.
Now, during the events in Russia. Moscow university was buzzing. Leaflets were distributed around Moscow. Student girls went out to central Moscow with a short protest. Russian intelligencia in tantrums.
All the kitchen talk across Russia - how evil of us, poor Czech.
Mind it - the opinion was unanimous across the country's thinking circles - we do an awful thing, a crime.
11 people made posters "For Yours and Our Freedom". "Hands of Czechoslovakia".
Said good-bye to families and went out with then to the Red Square.
Modern equivalent of their courage. How to explain you. OK, North Korea, 11 North Koreans go out with posters that they are against own government and walk out into their whatever central square under the Gov. windows.
Result predictable in both cases.
When friends asked them Why will you do it - so that Russia clears itself in the eyes of the world. No hope to change anything, mind it. Only to be killed for that.
So. How are the Czech feeling now? Much grateful to Russians? Forgive and forget?
Whatever took place here - did it change things for them? No.
That's the answer.
Complain about this comment
Correction.
No, of course Red Square wasn't as brave as any square in North Korea.
I am sure I hope nothing so far in the world beats N.Korea, LOL.
Still, 1968 Red Square was pretty nasty.
_______
(forgot to add.
the "we agree for all" were all grabatised. LOL)
Complain about this comment
@179, polite joms.
flush down in the loo ("v sortiere") it was, LOL.
another pioneering methaphor was applied when forgot who of the Baltic states wanted to re-dress borderline with us, to snip off a piece.
- ??? !!!! "From a dead donkey ears - that's what they'll get!" (not the Pytalovsky region).
Sure Kremlin Protocol dpt. gets cataleptical every time, about the protocol/ceremonies' standard they are to keep. but what can they do.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS