sad thoughts on poly posters

[Velociryx]

Seeeeerb! I'm surprised at you! All this talk about what bada$$es the Russians are, and here, *finally* you get an American agreeing with you, and you think I'm kidding?!

Mystifying....



-=Vel=-

[Dry]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Americans work more than Europeans. In Spain, their "siesta" time is a 3 hour nap. We get enough time to eat a sandwich for lunch, and then keep working. That's why we are more productive. We aren't lazy and we don't have nearly as much welfare as Euros.

Frenchies wear berets and bread under their arm;
Germans wear lederhose and eat sauerkraut;
Dutchies wear clogs and live in windmills;
Productivity has mostly to do with hard working;
You're a distinguished ethnologue
and a brilliant economist.
And I am the queen of England.

[Velociryx]

You forgot one, Dry....tsk, tsk

Americans are arrogant chest thumpers who think they know everything



-=Vel=-

[Dry]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Americans are arrogant chest thumpers who think they know everything

Yes, or what about this one:
Americans wear cow-boy hats and guns. They eat hamburgers and drink cola (coca or pepsi).
They are obese, member of KKK, puritan or black. Those who aren't, are late immigrants.

[Velociryx]

That's US! Gun-totin' cowboy puritans! WhoooHoooo!

-=Vel=-

[Tiamat]

And I thought the world's perception was that only all of us down here in Texas were the ones wearing the cowboy hats and totin' guns

[Velociryx]

Nahhh, Texans look stylish in their hats....*everybody knows* that Americans tho, by and large, are hicks and rednecks....

-=Vel=-

[Tiamat]

May I just say phhhhbbbbffftttt!

[Velociryx]

-=Vel=-

[Serb]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Seeeeerb! I'm surprised at you! All this talk about what bada$$es the Russians are, and here, *finally* you get an American agreeing with you, and you think I'm kidding?!

Mystifying....



-=Vel=-

Of course you are kidding. Even the worst US-basher will never say that USA is responsible for all evil things on this planet since 1776.

[Serb]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis


Damn, i didnt think youd say anything about that, but you did and now you made me waste my time with google . Just to be sure im not completely losing my memory.
Qoute from one of the sites:
"At the beginning of October 1939, the Soviet Union faced Finland with certain territorial demands. The ensuing negotiations in Moscow, lasting about two months, were inconclusive. The reason for the lack of results was that loss of the areas concerned, the Karelian isthmus and the naval base on the Hanko peninsula, would have critically undermined Finland's defence. At the time, the Soviet Union already had control of Estonia."

There it is, Hanko naval base. Found many sources with google, if you doubt me you are free to search too.

In 1939 SU didn't controled Estonia or any other Baltic state. In 1939 the treaties (about collective defense or something of that kind) between SU and 3 Baltic states were signed. In accordance with these treaties, SU had right for military bases in these countries, and btw, SU gave some territories to those countries in exchange for this. Does it mean that those countries were controlled by SU? Today USA have military bases all around the world. Does it mean that every country wich has US military bases on its territory is controled by USA? Officialy Baltic states were annexed by SU (after referendums in those countries, btw) in 1940. Six months after Winter war.
Next, this base you are talking about suposed to be on territory wich SU wanted to took in exchange for it's own territory, in other words on its own territory after exchange. SU didn't demand right to put its forces on Finnish territory or right to create military bases on Finnish territory. It's different from Estonian case.
Anyhow, it was your legal right to decline SU proposals. Why should you sign treaty if you didn't wanted? Your deny of SU proposals didn't gave right to attack Finland to Stalin.
BUT... thinking that Stalin wanted to conquer all Finland looks very suspicious too. First of all, in that case it means that he wanted war vs. GB and France (if Red army moved further into Finland territory in 1940 GB and France declared war on SU for sure), wich he didn't wanted. And second, why he didn't done it when Manergeim line was broken and way for conquest was clear? Why he signed cease-fire treaty and took only territories he wanted to exchange peacefully?

[tinyp3nis]

Whoa! I just wanted to point out the incorrect information about the base( i didnt even mean to put that estonia part there). But i started this by asking about your opion earlier, so i guess its my fault

Originally posted by Serb


In 1939 SU didn't controled Estonia or any other Baltic state. In 1939 the treaties (about collective defense or something of that kind) between SU and 3 Baltic states were signed. In accordance with these treaties, SU had right for military bases in these countries, and btw, SU gave some territories to those countries in exchange for this. Does it mean that those countries were controlled by SU? Today USA have military bases all around the world. Does it mean that every country wich has US military bases on its territory is controled by USA? Officialy Baltic states were annexed by SU (after referendums in those countries, btw) in 1940. Six months after Winter war.

Im going to point out some misinfromation, if you disagree i hope you check this time before you reply. Then again you dont even need to reply because i allready got what i was after

I hope that we define the word "control" the same way. The qoute i gave you said estonia was controlled by SU, is accurate, it was. It was under SU control, not officially part of SU but it was under their control, thats all. Estonia was annexed later, yes. This next link tells about that, only read the content if you dont believe me, because its boring and long. You can also find another sources

http://www.genocid.lt/GRTD/Konferencijos/eng/magnus.htm

Next, this base you are talking about suposed to be on territory wich SU wanted to took in exchange for it's own territory, in other words on its own territory after exchange. SU didn't demand right to put its forces on Finnish territory or right to create military bases on Finnish territory

Actually SU wanted to rent Hanko. Hankoniemi is not far from finnish capital btw, but it is far from russia .

BUT... thinking that Stalin wanted to conquer all Finland looks very suspicious too. First of all, in that case it means that he wanted war vs. GB and France (if Red army moved further into Finland territory in 1940 GB and France declared war on SU for sure), wich he didn't wanted. And second, why he didn't done it when Manergeim line was broken and way for conquest was clear? Why he signed cease-fire treaty and took only territories he wanted to exchange peacefully

And yes, Stalin did want all finnish territory, but he didnt want war with France or GB. Why do you think he wanted both? So he had to compromise and only get some land and no war. And Stalin did try to cut Finland in half in the war, so id say thats suspicious enough to say he had something else in mind.

I have to admit that personally i think GB and France would not have done anything, but thats just me