What are the most powerful and influential countries?

[Heresson]

"Oh, man. I've never laugh so hard. '
founded by the Vikings 1100 years ago'?
You think that we are decendance of
Vikings?"

This site is fool of historical ignorants. But it's You the one to be laughed at at this point.

"it's really strange claim, considering that we always speak on Russian language but not on language of Vikings. "

idiotic arguement.
Bulgaria was founded by Turkish Bulgarians and Bulgarians aren's speaking their language now.

"It was never conquered by Vikings"

But it was founded by them


"Polish 'panovy' were sure nice guys and
mercyfull masters. "

Not worse than Russians. Anyway, they weren's quite Polish. Note; Cossacks were ukrainised Poles. Feudls of Ukraine were polonised Ukrainians.

"So, if Russian Empire is so terrible then
why Bogdan Hemelnitsky choosed to join
Russia? Perhaps, because it was much
better alternative then to be under Polish
or Turkey rule."

Chmielnicki, of Polish origin in fact,
turned to Russia only after 6 years of rebellion, when he lost any hopes for
some compromise with Poland. Cossack emissaries were saying they feel a part of the Republic.

"Yep.
But, I guess later they regreted about this
invasion. (When we kicked their asses). "

You just took back your capital. It didn't help You to loose several next battles and Czernichow, Smole?sk and Siewierz at this time. It was us that won that war.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
This site is fool of historical ignorants. But it's You the one to be laughed at at this point.

You are Number 2 then.

idiotic arguement.
Bulgaria was founded by Turkish Bulgarians and Bulgarians aren's speaking their language now.

So, what?
Today we are not speaking on language of ancient Slavs too, the language is changed during centuries, but of course it has no Vikings roots. Some Viking influence (as well as influence of languages of other our neighbors) may be, but not roots. Russian language as well as Ukrainian, Belarusian and Polish languages is belonging to group of Slav's languages, not to group of Scandinavian languages.

But it was founded by them

Bullsh!t. This “Normandic” theory was crushed in 70s.

Not worse than Russians. Anyway, they weren's quite Polish. Note; Cossacks were ukrainised Poles. Feudls of Ukraine were polonised Ukrainians.

If they decided to join Russian Empire instead of Poland then Russians were better.

Chmielnicki, of Polish origin in fact, turned to Russia only after 6 years of rebellion, when he lost any hopes for some compromise with Poland. Cossack emissaries were saying they feel a part of the Republic.

So what, it changes nothing. The fact is that he turned to Russia, and WE lived in one state with Ukranians since 1654 until 1991, not Poles.

You just took back your capital. It didn't help You to loose several next battles and Czernichow, Smole?sk and Siewierz at this time. It was us that won that war.

Oh really?
Perhaps that's why Chernigov and Smolensk (btw, very old Russian cities founded in times of Kiev's Rus) are Russian cities now, not Polish. I don't know what you mean by "Siewierz", but it does not matter really, we returned everything you took and later made your country a province of our empire. You might win battles (like Napoleon and Hitler), but in perspective we always win wars.

[Heresson]

So, what?
Today we are not speaking on language of ancient Slavs too, the language is changed during centuries, but of course it has no Vikings roots. Some Viking influence (as well as influence of languages of other our neighbors) may be, but not roots. Russian language as well as Ukrainian, Belarusian and Polish languages is belonging to group of Slav's languages, not to group of Scandinavian languages.

Which doesn't change the fact that your state was viking in its roots.

Bullsh!t. This ?Normandic? theory was crushed in 70s.

That's what Russians think

If they decided to join Russian Empire instead of Poland then Russians were better.

Really? What Katherine II did to Cossacks?

So what, it changes nothing. The fact is that he turned to Russia, and WE lived in one state with Ukranians since 1654 until 1991, not Poles.

We lived in one state too. Only half of Ukraine was ceded to Russia after Andruszow cease-fire. Even later, after the partages, we lived in one state too.

Oh really?
Perhaps that's why Chernigov and Smolensk (btw, very old Russian cities founded in times of Kiev's Rus) are Russian cities now, not Polish. I don't know what you mean by "Siewierz", but it does not matter really, we returned everything you took and later made your country a province of our empire. You might win battles (like Napoleon and Hitler), but in perspective we always win wars.

You never had all Poland. And defeated us only with help of Austria and Prussia. And note; during Polish-Russian war 1830-1831
when You fighted alone or after ww1 You were so hopeless against Poland, much smaller. You won in year 181, true, but it's just like with Tchechenia- that You will win it was obvious from the start. You just have won in a quite hopeless way. I's like a human would fight with a fly and return of this fight without a leg and an arm...

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson

Which doesn't change the fact that your state was viking in its roots.

Really? May be you prove your claims with facts? Give my just one, single prove that Kiev was founded by Vikings. The thing that people who lived in Kiev's Rus talking on Slav's language, but not on Scandinavian dialects proves a lot. Why everyone spoke on Slav's language in Kiev's Rus if it was founded by Vikings, who by definition speak on Scandinavian language?

That's what Russians think

Not only Russians. The major ideologue of "Normandic" theory (Don't remember his name) in 1960 in Stogholm said that “Normanism” is dead.

Really? What Katherine II did to Cossacks?

What do you mean?

We lived in one state too. Only half of Ukraine was ceded to Russia after Andruszow cease-fire. Even later, after the partages, we lived in one state too.

I don't know what you want to prove by that. Let me guess perhaps you think that Ukrainians are ethnic group of Poland?

You never had all Poland. And defeated us only with help of Austria and Prussia. And note; during Polish-Russian war 1830-1831

I know about that, Poland was divided between 3 countries.

when You fighted alone or after ww1 You were so hopeless against Poland, much smaller. You won in year 181, true, but it's just like with Tchechenia- that You will win it was obvious from the start. You just have won in a quite hopeless way. I's like a human would fight with a fly and return of this fight without a leg and an arm...

Hopeless? That's why Poland (Ok, part of Poland) was a province of Russian Empire for about 100 years; you took freedom only because of Bolsheviks and Bolshevik's revolution.
After WW1?
I don't see how we were hopeless. After Bolshevik’s revolution gave freedom to you, you attacked Russia with company of 13 other foreign invaders and all this during terrible Russian civil war.
Hopeless warriors? My ass.
Do you have any example that any other country resisted and survived intervention of 14 foreign countries at once and all this during Civil war, which means that big part of population fought on invader's side?
Of course you might say that Poland took part of Russian territory during intervention, but Stalin returned those lands in 1939.


P.S. I don’t see any logic in your claims. First you said that Poland was a huge Empire a quote from you-

“On the west, Poland got as far as Elbe river.
On the south, as far as Donau , on the east
to Black Sea and Volga.
Parts of;
Germany, Russia, Austria
belonged to Poland for some time.
All/almost all of;
Czech Rep, Slovakia, Ukraine, Moldavia,
(Romania), Byelorussia, Lithuania, latvia,
Estonia belonged to Poland for a shorter or longer time.”

then you said that Poland is like a fly in compare with Russia. Can you explain your logic?

[Heresson]

Really? May be you prove your claims with facts? Give my just one, single prove that Kiev was founded by Vikings.

Kiev wasn't, but princedom of Rurykowicze was.


The thing that people who lived in Kiev's Rus talking on Slav's language, but not on Scandinavian dialects proves a lot. Why everyone spoke on Slav's language in Kiev's Rus if it was founded by Vikings, who by definition speak on Scandinavian language?

Again, I summon Bulgarian example.


Not only Russians. The major ideologue of "Normandic" theory (Don't remember his name) in 1960 in Stogholm said that ?Normanism? is dead.

It is commonly known that Ruryk was Scandinavian. Even name "Rus" is of Scandinavian origin though deformated and means
sth like "a team".


I don't know what you want to prove by that. Let me guess perhaps you think that Ukrainians are ethnic group of Poland?

No, just that that if two nations live in one state it doesn't mean they are one nation.

Hopeless? That's why Poland (Ok, part of Poland) was a province of Russian Empire for about 100 years;

You kept it with biggest effort and only with help of other states involved in Polish matters.

you took freedom only because of Bolsheviks and Bolshevik's revolution.

Bolsheviks were much more dangerous than old and pathethic tzarate.

I don't see how we were hopeless. After Bolshevik?s revolution gave freedom to you,

I guess Trocki and Stalin were marching on Warsaw to hand it over to us...

you attacked Russia

No, Russia attacked us.

with company of 13 other foreign invaders and all this during terrible Russian civil war.

Poland was in even worse situation than Russia. And it managed to defeat You.

Hopeless warriors? My ass.

You couldn't anect much smaller Poland or Finland by yourselves. You have no military
spirit, it's just about your number. As in ww2, your armies weren't doing any good job.
You just have luck You are so big. You are like an elephant that is almost killed by a bee.

Do you have any example that any other country resisted and survived intervention of 14 foreign countries at once and all this during Civil war, which means that big part of population fought on invader's side?

Yes. Poland. During Swedish flood, we were fighting with every our neighbour and though
practically all Poland was occupated, managed to liberate it.
Anyway, most of the interveniants were either too far from You to fight effectively,
or were just weak, recently organised little states. Anyway You count everyone on the territory of former
tzarate as an intervenant it seems. Do You count f.e. Armenians as a great threat to Russia's souvereignity?

Of course you might say that Poland took part of Russian territory during intervention, but Stalin returned those lands in 1939.

Only with help of Germany. There's no way that Poland could loose a war with USSR only in 1939.
And that's no Russian territory.

P.S. I don?t see any logic in your claims. First you said that Poland was a huge Empire a quote from you-
then you said that Poland is like a fly in compare with Russia. Can you explain your logic?

Yes. You see, You have to treat it all having some proportions; Polish base is pretty small, still
we managed to conquer for a shorter or longer times enormous territories. Russia has enormous
base, and it has difficulties with conquering smallest nations.

Anyway, in year 1830, the part of Poland under tzar/king rule was like a fly compared to Russia.
There were Russian forces prepaired for war (with Belgium), and Poles managed to kick your ass many times
and not be defeated until Ostroleka battle, which changed everything.
You, Russians, are in a very comfortable situation. Nothing to the north, pesky, but not lasting for long enemies
on the east and south, little nations to the west.

[Ned]

Serb, et al., I found this on the web. Do you agree with it?

The Foundation of the Russian Empire

It was the invasions of the Vikings or Northmen which forced a union of northwestern Russian principalities under a Scandinavian chieftain named Rurik. The very first warlike expeditions of the Vikings had been directed against the Slavs. The Vikings established themselves on the east coast of Sweden and sent frequent expeditions to the northern frontier of Russia.

The Slavs and Finns of northwestern Russia came to have great respect for the bravery and power of the Scandinavians and finally decided to call them to their aid - a move which would protect them from the crueler invasions of the Mongols and Turks. They sent to Rurik, a great Scandinavian chief, saying, "Our land is great and has strength in abundance, but it lacks order and justice. Come and take possession and rule over us."

In response to this invitation, Rurik gathered together his kindred and a company of armed followers, and established himself on the northern frontier of the Slavs. He soon became very powerful and about the year 862 made Novrogrod (about 100 miles south of the present St. Petersburg) the capital of an empire stretching from the lakes in the north to the sources of the Dnieper in the south.

In the meanwhile, two Viking chiefs by the name of Askold and Dir had wrested Kiev from the eastern Slavs and established Scandinavian rule over them. The first certain date in Russian history is the year 865, during which Askold led an expedition against Byzantium. This expedition was successful, and Askold's fleet was destroyed in the sea of Marmora. The barbarians attributed this disaster to the efficiency of the prayers of the Christians, and, as a result, Askold and many of his followers embraced Christianity. In the following year, the Church was established at Kiev.

Kiev - The First Capital of Russia

The death of Rurik occurred in 879, when he was succeeded by the oldest member of his family, Oleg. This ruler conquered the eastern Slavs, put Askold and Dir out of the way by an act of treachery and made Kiev the capital of the Empire. The great Byzantine city, Constantinople, was now the goal of the Russian Monarchs. In 907, Oleg reached the gates of Constantinople and obliged the emperor to pay a large ransom for the city and to agree to a treaty of free commerce between the Russians and Greeks.

The kings descended from Rurik gradually consolidated the monarchy, which was destined to become one of the foremost powers of Europe. The state came to be called Russia, from Ruotsi (Corsairs), the name given by the Finns to the Norse conquerors.

In 988, Vladimir I adopted the Greek Orthodox Church as the official state religion. He ordered that churches and priests be established in all towns, and that the people be baptized. Thousands of people formed lines at the river Dnieper and were baptized en masse.

Although it was a forced Christianization of Russia, it was beneficial to the progress of the society in general. From this time, monks from Byzantium and architects, artisans and merchants from Germany, Italy and Greece, spread languages, customs and ideas of the Christian nations of the East and West. They brought their culture to the fierce tribes of the North until by the eleventh century the Russians were on the same level of civilization as the people of western Europe

Ned

[Heresson]

It should be; Ruthenian, not Russian.

[Bereta_Eder]

Fact is, if Russia wants you screwed, you ARE screwed

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, the Vikings did form modern Russia. They were the founders of the Russian state. There was a reason Vladmir (the one that threw off the Mongols) had blond hair and blue eyes .

[The Vagabond]

Heresson, now you seem to resemble Luke a lot. I thought of you as a much more moderate Pole.

[Natan]

I saw Chemielnicki mentioned, and I want to ask a question about him. How is he remembered in Poland, Ukraine, and other eastern European countries? Also, how is his name pronounced? khem-i-elnitzki?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Serb



Oh, man. I've never laugh so hard. 'founded by the Vikings 1100 years ago'?
You think that we are decendance of Vikings?

Perhaps you can explain why Ros is the name of a Swedish tribe and not of Slavic origin? You are not descended from Vikings, your state was founded by Vikings and ruled and influenced by them for several hundred years. They taught you about the world outside of the forest.

[David Floyd]

That is very true, serb, if you need someone else to tell you so

[Ned]

I find it very interesting that a citizen of Russia does not know his own history -- or that he denies it.

Serb, if you still do not accept the facts as we, the West, know them to be, think about the fact that your were TAUGHT history.

Ned

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tau Ceti

He is from Mississippi. The pride of the South.

Alabama exists soley for Georgians to look down on. Mississippi exists soley for Alabamans to look down on.

[KrazyHorse]

That's okay: you exist only for us to look down on.

[loinburger]

I would never in million years have expected to see Russian chest-thumping on a thread like this!

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's okay: you exist only for us to look down on.

Doesn't matter. We still have bama...

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
Kiev wasn't, but princedom of Rurykowicze was.
It is commonly known that Ruryk was Scandinavian.

I never deny that princedom of Rurik was a variag (a viking). That's what I mean when I said that -
" As for Vikings,
I don't know how to explain it properly, but some of those early medival states indeed asked for Vikings to be their rulers. And Viking's princes agreed to rule those states, but Vikings didn't found those states (cities) they already existed during centuries."


Three was three brothers: Rurick, Sineus and Truvor. The only source about those events is a first Russian chronicle called "Povest vremennyh let" (It's very hard to translate this on English). According to this document, Rurik is one of the three brothers (Rurik, Sineus, Truvor) whom the Novgorodian Slavs invited in to stop intestine wars. Rurik settled with the Ilmen Slavs, Sineus - between the Chud and Vesi on Beloozero, Truvor - with the Krivichi in Izborg.
It is known that Rurick was a Variag (Viking), it is known that he is a founder of Rurickvich's dynasty, it is known that he become a prince of Novgorod, BUT no one know nothing about two very important things: 1)WHO was he before he become a prince. 2) How he become a prince.

1) Who was he?
a) He was a chief of Viking's tribe.
Then why after he become a ruler of Slav's cities he did'nt add those very rich Slav's lands to land's of his Viking's tribe?
b) He was a leader of band of wandering Vikings. The leader of non-organised military expedition. Such bandsof Vikings existed and pilaged cities all over Europe. Those bands were well known by their surprise attacks and by their pilages of defeated cities and cruel murders of citizens of those cities.
Using the factor of surprise attack he might capture one city easily, other cities prepared a defence. Also in that case he should faced a great resistance, because everyone known what Vikings do with defeated enemies. But he took cities without ANY battles, without any resistance. So version of conqest could be easealy denied.
C) He was a mercenary of the city of Novgorod.

In that case he might already lose all conections with his Viking's tribe and his military band might include people from different tribes, from different Viking's tribes and Slav's tribes.

2) How he become a prince of Novgorod?

a) This version based on first Russian cronicle "Povest vremennyh let": The citizens of Slav's cities themselves asked him to become a ruler of their cities.
Then again why those Slav's cities was not annexed by Rurick's tribe and those land's was not added to land's of Rurick's tribe?
b) He took those cities by force.
Why those cities was not pilaged? Why there was no mass murders of citizens of those cities and why there was no any resistance?
c) Rurick as being a leader of mercinary band hired by Novgorod, due his brave behavior and personality or because of political conspiracy was legetimely elected by "Veche" or by other more wide meeting of Novgorod's citizens to be a prince of Novgorod.
In this case as being a legetimely ruler he can easily took other cities.

You kept it with biggest effort and only with help of other states involved in Polish matters.

Biggest effort?
What a bullsh!t, the biggest effort for R.E. to hold a territory was the Cuacas. You didn't make a 1/100 part of Caucasus attempt to gain freedom. And you dare to speek about Polish superior military spirit you remained serfs of R.E. for about 100 years.
Voiny huyevy.

Bolsheviks were much more dangerous than old and pathethic tzarate.

It doesn't change the fact that only because of them you took freedom from Russia.

I guess Trocki and Stalin were marching on Warsaw to hand it over to us...

If only Budenny was fallow the orders of Tukhachevskiy, then Poland become 16 republic of SU. Its his stupidness what saved your asses this time.

No, Russia attacked us.

Oh, sure.
Poor, peacefull Polish panovy. Allways a victims.

Poland was in even worse situation than Russia. And it managed to defeat You.

It's realy interesting to hear how it was in worse condition then Russia, why you joined the intervention against Russia if so.

Yes. Poland.

Why I'm not surprised that it was Poland?

During Swedish flood, we were fighting with every our neighbour and though

During civil war? How many neighbours?

Anyway, most of the interveniants were either too far from You to fight effectively,

Germany, Austria, Great Britain, France, USA and Japan sure is weak countries and pathetic warriors. Say it to Brits or to French that they can fight efficently on big distances. (Notice, I'm not included the rest of intervents like Chehz, Finns, Baltic states, Ruminya and Poland).

Do You count f.e. Armenians as a great threat to Russia's souvereignity?

WTF is f.e.?

Only with help of Germany. There's no way that Poland could loose a war with USSR only in 1939.

That's why Red army didn't faced any serious resistanse?
Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia and Bessorabia isn't a Russian lands? Fine. Next thing youl say will be that Brest is the Polish city.

Yes. You see, You have to treat it all having some proportions; Polish base is pretty small, still we managed to conquer for a shorter or longer times enormous territories. Russia has enormous base, and it has difficulties with conquering smallest nations.

You, Russians, are in a very comfortable situation. Nothing to the north, pesky, but not lasting for long enemies on the east and south, little nations to the west.

What a nice pice of pure bullsh!t.
Do you realize that is super sillyness to think that Russia always was so huge country as it is now? You think that core Russia- the Moskovie state is a enormous base?

You couldn't anect much smaller Poland or Finland by yourselves. You have no militaryspirit, it's just about your number. As in ww2, your armies weren't doing any good job.You just have luck You are so big. You are like an elephant that is almost killed by a bee.There were Russian forces prepaired for war (with Belgium), and Poles managed to kick your ass many times and not be defeated until Ostroleka battle, which changed everything.

All your speeches are just a whine of looser, all those " we were always stronger, we were always better, we always kicked your asses, we always win wars, but then something happens, the luck turned away from us and you win, it's all about luck". Look at map to realize what remains from your Emipre now, and think about how this happen that so superior (as you beleive) Poles live today in small country, and why so pathetic (as you beleive) Russians living today in the largest country of the World.

Anyway, in year 1830, the part of Poland under tzar/king rule was like a fly compared to Russia.

You will always like a fly in compare with Russia.
Suuuckkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers.

[Serb]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Fact is, if Russia wants you screwed, you ARE screwed

Exactly!

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
Serb, et al., I found this on the web. Do you agree with it?

See my reply to Heresson.

Just whant to add about Kiev and Ascold and Dir. As I remember you said that Kiev was founded by Vikings, that's not true.

"Passing by, they saw the town on the hill and asked, "Who does this town belong to?". And they (the inhabitants) said, "Three brothers - Kyj, Shchek and Khoryv made this town and left. We are sitting in their town and paying the tribute to the Khasars. So Askold and Dir, two of them were left in this town, and gathered many Variags, and acquired the land of Polyany".

"Russian Chronicle by Ipaty Manuscript", about 862.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sikander
Perhaps you can explain why Ros is the name of a Swedish tribe and not of Slavic origin?

Perhaps you can explain why Vikings in their core land, in Scandinavia for taxes used word "poludye" the word of Slav's origine, originated from Slav's words "lud" which means "men" (btw, in modern Russian it have the same meaning) and word "po" in that case it have the meaning- "every". The word "Poludye" used by Slav's for taxes, why Vikings don't have the word for taxes and used Slav's word if they were much more advanced as you think.

You are not descended from Vikings, your state was founded by Vikings and ruled and influenced by them for several hundred years.

At least you realize that Slavs are not decendents of Vikings.
As for influence, I do not deny it.

They taught you about the world outside of the forest.

Oh really?
When Variags (that's how we call a Vikings) apeared, there were a dozen of big Slav's cities. We do not lived in forests as you try to portray us.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
I find it very interesting that a citizen of Russia does not know his own history -- or that he denies it.

I think that persons who think that Slavs are decendents of Vikings and that Kiev was founded by Vikings don't know much about our history.

[Serb]

Originally posted by loinburger
I would never in million years have expected to see Russian chest-thumping on a thread like this!

Why?
Do you think that only Americans could chest-thumping in treads?
Some Russians are no less arrogant bastards.

[Heresson]

"Heresson, now you seem to resemble Luke a lot. I thought of you as a much more moderate Pole. "

I am. My intention is to say that Russia owes its might to her geographical location
and what comes out of it, to the number of her citizens, and that's no reason to boast
as Serb does. Serb thinks all lands on the east of Poland are Russian.

You will always like a fly in compare with Russia.
Suuuckkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers.

Suckers with money, not wardrobes or panties as a payment


All your speeches are just a whine of looser, all those " we were always stronger, we were always better, we always kicked your asses, we always win wars, but then something happens, the luck turned away from us and you win, it's all about luck".

no. It's not about luck. It's about geography. I never said anything about luck.

You think that core Russia- the Moskovie state is a enormous base?

it' much bigger than Polish base, still,
and we lost our richest provinces to Germany

That's why Red army didn't faced any serious resistanse?

In another thread You can see the answer;
Poles were ordered not to fight with Soviets. Only citizens of Grodno welcomed
Soviet tansk with baricades and they were executed by being runned over by the tanks
(You barbarians), and though the city actually should belong to Poland after ww2
(according to Curzon line), Stalin didn't accept that.

Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia and Bessorabia isn't a Russian lands?

No. It's Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Romanian land.

Fine. Next thing youl say will be that Brest is the Polish city.

It is a Polish city, of course.

WTF is f.e.?

for example.

Germany, Austria, Great Britain, France, USA and Japan sure is weak countries and pathetic warriors.

Austria and Germany were crumbling.
USA was loosing interest in this region
(vide Armenia case), Japan is very far from the core of Russia. France and Great Britain
are too far to fight with You effectively.

Say it to Brits or to French that they can fight efficently on big distances. (Notice, I'm not included the rest of intervents like Chehz, Finns, Baltic states, Ruminya and Poland).

It's all because You treat all lands belonging to the tzarate as Russian lands. This way every try to get free from your occupation is "foreign intervention"

During civil war? How many neighbours?

yes, during civil war and after a serie of other wars and civil wars.. Enemies;
-Swedes, Russians with Cossacks,
Tatars of Crimea, Romanians, Brandernburgians, Prussians.
All strong and next to us, not behind the seventh sea.

It's realy interesting to hear how it was in worse condition then Russia, why you joined the intervention against Russia if so.

It wasn't intervention, it was fight for freedom. We didn't want lands where there were no Poles. In fact, we resigned of several regions in Byelorussia, Latvia and Ukraine where Poles were large minority
though USSR and Latvia offered it to us.
Unlike You, we never were greedy. A-ha.
You never paid us promised contributios.


Oh, sure.
Poor, peacefull Polish panovy. Allways a victims.

Not always, but most often. And this time for sure.

If only Budenny was fallow the orders of Tukhachevskiy, then Poland become 16 republic of SU. Its his stupidness what saved your asses this time.

You see! You can't fight properly.

It doesn't change the fact that only because of them you took freedom from Russia.

Not quite. If You haven't lost Poland to Germany during Iww...

Biggest effort?
What a bullsh!t, the biggest effort for R.E. to hold a territory was the Cuacas. You didn't make a 1/100 part of Caucasus attempt to gain freedom. And you dare to speek about Polish superior military spirit you remained serfs of R.E. for about 100 years.
Voiny huyevy.

Caucasus is mountains, it's much easier to fight there. And again, I encourage You to read what I wrote earlier.

Fact is, if Russia wants you screwed, you ARE screwed

Not quite. But if Turkey wants You screwed, You are screwed ;P
Russia wanted us screwed many times until
1795 and it failed. It failed after ww1 too.
Russia can screw itself.

and poludye - perhaps they were taking taxes from Slavs. From Russians...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Auto-congratulation ...

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
I am. My intention is to say that Russia owes its might to her geographical location and what comes out of it, to the number of her citizens, and that's no reason to boast as Serb does. Serb thinks all lands on the east of Poland are Russian.

No you are not, you are just like Luke. All you Poles are the same- a Russia-haters. Jealos Polsh panovy, who apolgaise that they were unable to destroy Russia when they had opportunity.

Suckers with money, not wardrobes or panties as a payment

Still,
Suuckeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrss.
Without nukes, spaceships and any political influence.

no. It's not about luck. It's about geography. I never said anything about luck.

A quote originaly posted by Heresson: "You just have luck You are so big. "
"There were Russian forces prepaired for war (with Belgium), and Poles managed to kick your ass many times and not be defeated until Ostroleka battle, which changed everything. "

it' much bigger than Polish base, still, and we lost our richest provinces to Germany

All your claims about good geografical position of core Russia as for me sounds like looser's whine. At the down of our history we was not big and we have no big population.
You have lost your riches provinces to Germany?
Oh, no what a tragedy, poor Poles.
Do have any idea how many times Russia was invaded by foreign conquers? Don't you realize the fact that Russia formed as united country only after we kicked Mongol's asses after almost 300 years of their ocuppation of our lands?

In another thread You can see the answer;
Poles were ordered not to fight with Soviets. Only citizens of Grodno welcomed Soviet tansk with baricades and they were executed by being runned over by the tanks (You barbarians), and though the city actually should belong to Poland after ww2
(according to Curzon line), Stalin didn't accept that.

Barbarians you can see everytime when you walk on Warsaw's streets. I know nothing about things you described about Russian atrocities in Grodno, may be it's only my lack of knowledge (more lickely a Polish propaganda), but I'm absolutely sure that your invasion forces at begining of XVII acted like real barbarians- burn cities, killed womens, chilldren and elders.

No. It's Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Romanian land.

That's why you took those land? Because you have more right for those lands then Ukrainians and Belorussians. Both of those republic was two of the 4 founders of Soviet Union. If you took those lands it means that you took Soviet's land. That's why it's intervention.

It is a Polish city, of course.

No comments.

for example.

Thanks for explanation.

Austria and Germany were crumbling. USA was loosing interest in this region (vide Armenia case), Japan is very far from the core of Russia. France and Great Britain are too far to fight with You effectively.

I don't want to waste my time. You deny pure facts, you call those countries a weak warriors or too distanced from Russia. It's a bullsh!t. Show me more powerfull countries of those times or more greater colonial powers (who by defenition have a huge experience of wars with distanced enemy).

It's all because You treat all lands belonging to the tzarate as Russian lands. This way every try to get free from your occupation is "foreign intervention"

Don't twist facts.
Now you gone say that there was no foreign intervention after Bolshevik's revolution.

yes, during civil war and after a serie of other wars and civil wars.. Enemies;-Swedes, Russians with Cossacks, Tatars of Crimea, Romanians, Brandernburgians, Prussians. All strong and next to us, not behind the seventh sea.

Wich years? I guess you are talking about beggining of XVIII century?

It wasn't intervention, it was fight for freedom. We didn't want lands where there were no Poles. In fact, we resigned of several regions in Byelorussia, Latvia and Ukraine where Poles were large minority though USSR and Latvia offered it to us.

You might call it anyhow, nbut as for me if someone comes to my country with arms to concqer it, then it's called an intervention.

Unlike You, we never were greedy. A-ha.

Poles are perhaps the most greedy people I ever so in my life. Russians never was greedy, sometimes I consider this as disadvantage.

You never paid us promised contributios.

We never will pay to you any contributions.

Not always, but most often. And this time for sure.

If you said always, then I consider you as insane person.

You see! You can't fight properly.

I said "it save your asses this time", and it's true. But in perspective you suck as warriors in compare with us.

Not quite. If You haven't lost Poland to Germany during Iww...

Enlighten me please when we lost Poland durinng WWI, in wich year?

Caucasus is mountains, it's much easier to fight there. And again, I encourage You to read what I wrote earlier.

I talking about resistance not about actual conquest. When we conqered Caucasus there was a lt of resistance there for decades. You remained as province of Russia without such resistance.

Not quite. But if Turkey wants You screwed, You are screwed ;P

*waiting for Paiktis*

Russia wanted us screwed many times until 1795 and it failed. It failed after ww1 too.

But then they didn't failed and made Poland a province.
Poles wanted to screwed us many times, but they always failed and will always fail.

Russia can screw itself.

That true.
No one can screw Russia exept Russia itself.

and poludye - perhaps they were taking taxes from Slavs. From Russians...

No, perhaps they known nothing about taxes and learn it from Slav's.

[Pekka]

Uhh what a fight! between Poland and Russia. Are we talking about your whole histories, or what period of time? I'm confused. I don't really know the history between your relations, but the main stuff (i'm arrogant ).

But come on, face it, you both suck .

[Serb]

Oh,
One more representaive of another former Russian province arrived.
Welcome to our club.

[Pekka]

Thanks. I feel good to be here. Very welcomed.
Of course, i could tell you about the truth, so your statement about us being really former province of Russia wouldn't be quite true.. But i'll save you all, my theories are sometimes hard to follow .
Anyway Heresson, your mighty warriors just failed miserably yesterday, ending the epic battle 8-0.. for finns .