Russia: No CFE treaty for you! - Page 3

Saras · February 10, 2004, 08:11

Idiots who, because of their immature political beliefs, ignore that Russia has invaded, performed genocide and violence against hundreds of thousands of innocent poeple don't deserve courtesy.

Az · February 10, 2004, 08:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

This mean war then.

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 08:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Saras
And Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are in Antarctica?

Ok I'll call it Norden then. The countries you mentioned are not in the Nordic language group.

Quote:

Not a great display of brilliance, eh? AES sold out to RAO UES

You mean that the American company was sold back to a Georgian company? When was that?

Saras · February 10, 2004, 08:18

To a Russian company, RAO UES, http://www.rao-ees.ru/en/. WAY before the "coup".

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Napoleon only went after Russia when the Tzar started to penis-wave at him. If Napoleon would've won, Russia would be in a much better state today, together with all of europe. His victory would prevent the emergence of Germany ( the little states wanted to join the empire, and many of them were taken into Napoleon's army ), and would release the slaves in Russia a good couple of tens of years earlier, and if Napoleonic rule would emerge in Russia, it would clear out the stables that is Russian Tzarist Bureaucracy.It would also prevent WWI, and WWII.

The failure of Napoleon is a great tragedy to all of Europe.

Napoleon went after Russia because, I think, that Russia would not conform to Napoleans continental system. This system meant that all habours in Europe were closed to the trade from the British Empire.

The longlife objective of Napolean was to defeat the hated British. It was essentially the British who financed the military operations against Napoleaon, and bribed the monarchies of Europe into joining coalitions (hey!) to overturn the Napoleonic republic.

This the invasion of Russia was not a mission to conquer, but to force the Russian Czar to accept a peace on the term that any co-operation with Britain be halted. With so few men at his disposal Napoleon could never have conquered Russia.

Serb · February 10, 2004, 08:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Saras
Idiots who, because of their immature political beliefs, ignore that Russia has invaded, performed genocide and violence against hundreds of thousands of innocent poeple don't deserve courtesy.

Show me country who is without sin, I'll give you a candy.

You've said your Great Duke mr. Fancy pants or something, burned Moscow to the ground four times. I don't remember a single case when Russians burned Vilnus (futhermore Stalin took it from Poland and gave it to you). So you're winning 4:0 I don't like this score. Perhaps we should correct this?

Serb · February 10, 2004, 08:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Napoleaon went after Russia because, I think, that Russia would not conform to Napoleans continental system. This system meant that all habours in Europe were closed to the trade from the British Empire.

The longlife objective of Napolean was to defeat the hated British. It was essentially the British who financed the military operations against Napoleaon, and bribed the monarchies of Europe into joining coalitions (hey!) to overturn the Napoleonic republic.

This the invasion of Russia was not a mission to conquer, but to force the Russian Czar to accept a peace on the term that any co-operation with Britain be halted. With so few men at his disposal Napoleon could never have conquered Russia.

Ha! When he invaded he had 600 000 in his Great army. Russians had 240 000 and their forces were separated. The goal of Napoleon was to defeat both Russian armies one by one, but he failed. Both Russian armies had joined their forces.
Numbers were 3:1 to his favour.

gopher · February 10, 2004, 08:32

Uhh.......Finland 1940?

Serb · February 10, 2004, 08:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Read "War and Peace".

Serb · February 10, 2004, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by gopher
Uhh.......Finland 1940?

Uhh.......Finland 1941? Uhh.......Finland 1921 (iirc)?

DinoDoc · February 10, 2004, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I think Bush's unilateral withdrawl from ABT has something to do with this.

At least he inspired Putin to do this.

Let me try my hand at this.

I think the expansion of NATO under Clinton has something to do with this.

At least he inspired Clinton to do this.

Az · February 10, 2004, 08:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Read "War and Peace".

priznayus: ne chital. yest u menya doma, da nikak ni vozmus. takih mnogo knig. proklyatiy telek .

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 08:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Ha! When he invaded he had 600 000 in his Great army. Russians had 240 000 and their forces were separated. The goal of Napoleon was to defeat both Russian armies one by one, but he failed. Both Russian armies had joined their forces.
Numbers were 3:1 to his favour.

A lot of these 600.000 were Prussian and Polish allies, who were not really reliable.

Well Napoleon was partially succesful in that he did conquer Moscow, but supposedly an accident seet fire to the whole city. That meant that he had no winter quarters for his troops. Napoleon used the Churches in the Kremlin as stables btw.

On the retreat Napoleon was attacked on all sides by cossacks and guerillas. If Napoleon had been able to conquer Russia he would have been bogged down in guerilla warfare, just like in Spain.

He would never have been able to win.

Saras · February 10, 2004, 08:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Show me country who is without sin, I'll give you a candy.

You've said your Great Duke mr. Fancy pants or something, burned Moscow to the ground four times. I don't remember a single case when Russians burned Vilnus (futhermore Stalin took it from Poland and gave it to you). So you're winning 4:0 I don't like this score. Perhaps we should correct this?

How about Caveman Ugskij beating the living crap out of Caveman Ugas 8000 BC?

CerberusIV · February 10, 2004, 08:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Well the Austrians attacked Serbia. And then it all went downhill from there. The Russians had to mobilize early because their mobilization procedures were painfully slow, due to the lack of railroad track. Had they waited, the Germans could have simply waded into France.

It was the almost suicidal Russian offensive into Eastern Prussia which forced the Germans to send divisions eastwards. Had the Germans had these divisons aganist France, she would certainly have fallen.

That would have meant a United Europe under feudal leadership.

BS. At least get your facts right. Russia wanted to mobilise against Austria. There was only a plan to mobilise against both Austria and Germany. The Germans warned Russia that to mobilise against them would mean war. The Russians went ahead. The French were obliged by treaty to support Russia (and wanted a crack at avenging the Franco-Prussian war). The British were obliged to defend France. So everyone got dragged in partly because of crap Russian planning.

Az · February 10, 2004, 08:50

Yeah, you europeans were still cavemen in 8000BC. figures.

Serb · February 10, 2004, 09:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

A lot of these 600.000 were Prussian and Polish allies, who were not really reliable.

Austria send its 30 000 corps. This corps was more like smoke screen, they surely could send much more troops. It was success of Russian pre-war diplomacy acually. Yep, Alexandr I knew about incoming war and about Napoleon's attempt to create wide anti-Russian coalition from Sweden to Turkey. Russians did their best to preven this coalition and succeded.
As for Polish, I don't remember exact number. Anyhow in his army were representatives of almost whole Europe. Russian called Napoleon's army- the army of 20 languages. It was most of the Europe vs. Russia. Btw, the population of Russian Empire in 1812 was about 32 millions, in France (I mean France within its modern borders) alone was about 28 millions.

Quote:

Well Napoleon was partially succesful in that he did conquer Moscow, but supposedly an accident seet fire to the whole city. That meant that he had no winter quarters for his troops. Napoleon used the Churches in the Kremlin as stables btw.

He was completely unprepared for war vs. Russia. His army suffered thousands of non-combat casualities during first weeks of invasion, not to mention they lost 10 000 horses at summer. He won battle, Russians won war. Napoleon was brilliant tactitian, Kutuzov was strategist. The first lost the war, the second won it.

Quote:

On the retreat Napoleon was attacked on all sides by cossacks and guerillas. If Napoleon had been able to conquer Russia he would have been bogged down in guerilla warfare, just like in Spain.

And he was, from the first weeks of invasion.

Quote:

He would never have been able to win.

As no one will.

Serb · February 10, 2004, 09:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Saras

How about Caveman Ugskij beating the living crap out of Caveman Ugas 8000 BC?

Then you guys should stop whining about 1940. It 2004 already.

Serb · February 10, 2004, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV

BS. At least get your facts right. Russia wanted to mobilise against Austria. There was only a plan to mobilise against both Austria and Germany. The Germans warned Russia that to mobilise against them would mean war. The Russians went ahead. The French were obliged by treaty to support Russia (and wanted a crack at avenging the Franco-Prussian war). The British were obliged to defend France. So everyone got dragged in partly because of crap Russian planning.

Germans need this war as no one else, since they still had edge over Russia (esp. in heavy artillery). 1916 (or 1917?) Russian army should have been re-armed and would reach tech level of German army. Germany didn't have much time, esp. considering their only ally A-H King was about to die. As for warning, it was formal anyway. IIRC Kaizer, gave the secret order for mobilization of German army at the same day when he send warning to Russia.

Tripledoc · February 10, 2004, 09:11

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The British were obliged to defend France.

The British were obliged to defend Belgium, not France. It think that the Germans had forgotten about a British defensive pact with Belgium from 1850 or so. So when the Germans invaded France through Belgium the British had to react.

So there was perhaps also bad planning on part of Germany.

TheStinger · February 10, 2004, 10:05

Everyone knew that Germany would go through belgium to get France therefore an attack by Germans on France would bring britain in. The Germans were well aware of this

CerberusIV · February 10, 2004, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

The British were obliged to defend Belgium, not France. It think that the Germans had forgotten about a British defensive pact with Belgium from 1850 or so. So when the Germans invaded France through Belgium the British had to react.

True. My mistake.

The Germans were rather more interested in (and concerned about) war with France than with Russia though. The British were looking to side with France rather than stay out.

Coming back to the point of the thread, is the real issue where US units are based? I can't see Russian being too concerned about the armed forces of the new NATO members. The real question is how much nearer the Russian border US units may be located. Wasn't there some talk of moving the US forces in Germany further east for cost reasons - and to spend the money in countries that didn't oppose the invasion of Iraq?

Serb · February 10, 2004, 10:16

Quote:

The Germans were rather more interested in (and concerned about) war with France than with Russia though.

All alliances were done long before 1914, so it doesn't really matter. The time was against Germany.

Saras · February 10, 2004, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Yeah, you europeans were still cavemen in 8000BC. figures.

so i missed a zero, big deal

Saras · February 10, 2004, 10:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Then you guys should stop whining about 1940. It 2004 already.

At least one more generation will eat the bitter fruits of 1940. So no, we should not stop expecting Russians to take responsibility for their countrys actions.

DinoDoc · February 10, 2004, 10:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
So there was perhaps also bad planning on part of Germany.

Agreed. They should have started the war in the summer of 1905 if they wished the conflict to have gone in thier favor. Russia was still reeling from the ***** slap they got from Japan and the UK had not yet allied itself with France and Russia leaving the French all alone.

Serb · February 10, 2004, 11:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Saras

At least one more generation will eat the bitter fruits of 1940. So no, we should not stop expecting Russians to take responsibility for their countrys actions.

Your problem then. Nazi's invasion of 1941 bring much more suffering, than capture of Baltic states by SU in 1940. And? Now I drink beer, listen Ramstain and don't have a thing against German people, just like absolute majority of Russians. The past is past. Let it go. I mean there is no reason to encourage hostalities between our countries. Had Soviets taught their new generations, since 1945 in hatred towards Germany, we would still hate Germans. But it's really stupid and it leads to nowhere, except new war. Why raise new generations in hatred towards Russia?

Sprayber · February 10, 2004, 11:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Dolg platezhom krasen

We have our reasons to be paranoid.

Excessive amounts of alochol maybe?

edit: I see someone already mentioned that

GePap · February 10, 2004, 11:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

The British were obliged to defend Belgium, not France. It think that the Germans had forgotten about a British defensive pact with Belgium from 1850 or so. So when the Germans invaded France through Belgium the British had to react.

So there was perhaps also bad planning on part of Germany.

The Germans were obliged to defend Belgium as well in that treaty..treaties can be ignored.

The UK leadership was not going to allow the Germans to beat the French and gain even greater accendency in Europe at the same time the German's were beginning to challenge the terms of UK power.

They used the Belgium issue to get popular support for the war and to justify it on terms other than "balance of power"

Saras · February 10, 2004, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Your problem then. Nazi's invasion of 1941 bring much more suffering, than capture of Baltic states by SU in 1940. And? Now I drink beer, listen Ramstain and don't have a thing against German people, just like absolute majority of Russians. The past is past. Let it go. I mean there is no reason to encourage hostalities between our countries. Had Soviets taught their new generations, since 1945 in hatred towards Germany, we would still hate Germans. But it's really stupid and it leads to nowhere, except new war. Why raise new generations in hatred towards Russia?

There's no hatred for Russia - au contraire. But you don't see Germans on internet boards even joking about how cool the they were in butchering millions of poeple. I don't know how it looks to you from the inside, but for me, it seems that there is a significan minority (maybe a majority?) of people in Russia that yearn for the old days when the pesky balts were under a firm boot of the red army. And not only yearn - vote for people who at least speak like that.