Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That could be true. I knew a man who was paid by the police to infiltrate groups and cause big disturbances to make them look bad. He showed me a video of him getting hauled away by the police. He said 'so I sold out...'
ichoro: The police planted undercover officers among the Occupy Wall Street protestors to lead them off the permitted area where there were paddy wagons waiting to pick them up. The Cleveland Occupy protestors had an undercover FBI who plied them with alcohol and convinced them to change a peaceful protest to one that vandalized several downtown banks. The Russia 'protest' was staged to create a photo opportunity.
Truman was a senator at the time. His comment doesn't make it the position of America.
Prove it.
Truman was not just a senator, but a head of the Truman Committee- Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program" that propelled him to presidency. So he was quite an influential figure in American politics, not just a "senator."
So yes, prove it that his approach didn't "make it the position of America."
Quote:
Sweden had no choice in the matter, it was supply the iron or be invaded and supply the iron under force.
And all these poor souls didn't have any choice either I suppose.
Quote:
Well aware of Trotsky's assassination as I've been in his home in Mexico City. You can still see the bullet holes...
Then you should know that it was not Stalin's goal - to spread "communist revolution" around the world.
Quote:
Yeah Stalin never wanted to spread communism by force to Europe... oh except he did just that in 1945!
Oh but he didn't have any choice.
See, after Stalin saved his state twice already from destruction - first time after the civil war, and second time after the WWII, here comes the country that was barely touched by the war ( namely America,) that rather profited and benefited from the war, with the idea to PURCHASE Europe, where Russians fought so long and hard, to assure their future survival. And not only the US wanted to PURCHASE Europe with potential benefits for itself, but it wanted to install the regimes there beneficial to itself, eliminating the forces beneficial to the Soviet state - namely the Communist parties of Western European countries, that existed independently from Russia ( after all *Communism* didn't come from Russia to Europe, but from Europe to Russia.)
So obviously Stalin responded accordingly, drawing the line in a sand and establishing the regimes, benefiting the security and economic interests of HIS state.
Quote:
USSR apologists have those pesky facts always in their way!
You are confusing "facts" with your propaganda, pointing at Russia as an "aggressor" yet again.
It's very fashionable in the West I suppose to plot behind the scene against Russia, to taunt the Russians, and once they respond to all these plots and taunting in a very direct and forceful manner, they are immediately labeled as "aggressor" with "imperialist ambitions."
Sort of like nagging wife that broods and plots covertly, receives a smack on a head, because once the man's patience is over, comes his natural reaction.
But yeah, as I've already said - it's fashionable to accuse Russians of all the troubles of the humankind, going all the way back to Adam and Eve)))
Oh bullchit. Hitler and the general staff discussed invading Sweden but came down against it because they knew that it would be a disaster. The only real reason to invade aside from some industrial capabilities of limited value was the iron ore mines and there was no way the German army was capable of preventing the Swedes from blowing them up. Sweden could have went fully neutral but them being Swedes they saw a opportunity to make some Krona. He who can destroy a thing, controls that thing.
And why did the USSR invade Europe in 1944/1945? Did you already forget?
I think it’s pretty clear to see that Stalin wanted to take back the lands that Russia lost during WWI, just like Hitler originally started his invasion to take back the lands Germany lost during WWI.
I think it’s pretty clear to see that Stalin wanted to take back the lands that Russia lost during WWI, just like Hitler originally started his invasion to take back the lands Germany lost during WWI.
I think it’s pretty clear to see that Putin wants to take back the lands that Russia lost during the breakup of the USSR, just like Hitler originally started his invasion to take back the lands Germany lost during WWI. The difference is Russia is still too weak to directly occupy them so he's stalling for time... Repeating the Sudetenland scenario several times over. Russia is getting weaker as time goes by though as its share of the world economy has dropped back to 2%. So the occupied countries are also waiting for Russia to weaken enough to reclaim their territories.
You are confusing "facts" with your propaganda, pointing at Russia as an "aggressor" yet again.
It's very fashionable in the West I suppose to plot behind the scene against Russia, to taunt the Russians, and once they respond to all these plots and taunting in a very direct and forceful manner, they are immediately labeled as "aggressor" with "imperialist ambitions."
Sort of like nagging wife that broods and plots covertly, receives a smack on a head, because once the man's patience is over, comes his natural reaction.
But yeah, as I've already said - it's fashionable to accuse Russians of all the troubles of the humankind, going all the way back to Adam and Eve)))
It's also very fashionable in Russia and Eastern Europe to point the finger at someone else and look for ways to deflect at every turn.
If I had a dollar for every instance that an Eastern European grandma said something along the lines of what you just did on countless occasions on CD, I'd be a millionaire by now.
It's also very fashionable in Russia and Eastern Europe to point the finger at someone else and look for ways to deflect at every turn.
If I had a dollar for every instance that an Eastern European grandma said something along the lines of what you just did on countless occasions on CD, I'd be a millionaire by now.
Your criticism is pointless in the face of the fact that the destruction of the Russian Federation is a strategic goal of American policy. Efforts to this end are ongoing and are relentless. Russia must take steps to defend itself. Period.
I think it’s pretty clear to see that Putin wants to take back the lands that Russia lost during the breakup of the USSR, just like Hitler originally started his invasion to take back the lands Germany lost during WWI. The difference is Russia is still too weak to directly occupy them so he's stalling for time... Repeating the Sudetenland scenario several times over. Russia is getting weaker as time goes by though as its share of the world economy has dropped back to 2%. So the occupied countries are also waiting for Russia to weaken enough to reclaim their territories.
Russia has always been concerned with the North European plain. Poland, Belarus, Western Ukraine. It's the route armies
from Europe throughout history Have taken to invade. With the hostile influence of NATO in Eastern Europe and the power hungry political systems there don't try to tell me there is no threat.
Generally, that's what the US is doing when it's claiming Russia has been invading other countries. It's meant to deflect attention away from the US' recently failed invasions and all the countries the US has invaded since the fall of the Soviet Union. US press has been full of articles of the decline of the U.S. empire.
Russia does occupy territory in 3 former Republics without the consent of their freely elected (ie, legitimate) governments. But in 1 country, they are more than occupying territory, they are literally engaging in violent hostile acts against the central government. You can frame it as a response to secret plots by the West all you want but the sanctions will continue until this stops.
I think it’s pretty clear to see that Stalin wanted to take back the lands that Russia lost during WWI, just like Hitler originally started his invasion to take back the lands Germany lost during WWI.
Grega look at all the territories Stalin had in 1938 ( and all the constructions/reconstructions/projects) that he had to undertake there, and ask yourself, why did he need some ADDITIONAL territories on top of that?
P.S. Hitler's ultimate invasion goals were really not "taking back the lost territories" - it was only a pretext to something else. So it doesn't really make sense to equate Stalin to Hitler (as it's often done.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
