Why has the West boycotted the parade by those who saved the world from Nazism.

BoJack Horseman · 13-05-2015 05:35PM

gandalf wrote: »

LOL I knew this place was rife with Putinbots but it appears they are also Stalins Cheerleaders as well

Some people get boners for tyrants.

It takes all sorts

robindch · 13-05-2015 06:11PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

No, the Soviets and the Nazis were never allies.

And Russia didn't invade Crimea or East Ukraine either. And airdropped little picnic baskets into Grozny too - sure wasn't the place full of angels?

Nice chaps, the Russian army.

:rolleyes:

Egginacup · 13-05-2015 06:29PM

robindch wrote: »

And Russia didn't invade Crimea or East Ukraine either. And airdropped little picnic baskets into Grozny too - sure wasn't the place full of angels?

Nice chaps, the Russian army.

:rolleyes:

Repeating the same old lie about a Russian invasion of East Ukraine isn't going to make it true anymore than repeating the lie that Saddam Hussein brought down the twin towers. But if you want to dig up that corpse again then go for it.

BoJack Horseman · 13-05-2015 06:33PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Repeating the same old lie about a Russian invasion of East Ukraine

Tell that to the families of the dead Russian soldiers who fell there.... (While on holiday, of course).

Saddam Hussein brought down the twin towers.

Tis only you saying that stupidity eggy.

Elmer Blooker · 13-05-2015 06:44PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Tis only you saying that stupidity eggy.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/the-plain-truth.html

BoJack Horseman · 13-05-2015 06:47PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/the-plain-truth.html

Indeed.... Eggy & Bushey.... Which is more deluded?

Reiver · 13-05-2015 07:32PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Are you ware that Stalin offered to place 1 million troops on the border with Germany in the Summer of 1939 to contain Hitler? The British of course refused to accept the offer (or pretended that they needed more time..either way Hitler could have been stopped before he got going). The Poles were betrayed by the West before the war.

And now you have clueless individuals on here spouting utter gibberish that Russia allied with the Nazis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

What border was Stalin going to put his one million troops on? I don't recall the USSR or Nazi Germany sharing a border at this time.

Was it the Finnish-Norwegian -oh wait, the former didn't work out.

Let's be real here Eggus Cuppus Maximus, no way the Poles were going to let the Red Army just saunter in when they'd fought a bloody war against them in the 20s.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-05-2015 09:32PM

dubscottie wrote: »

The other reason why the west may have boycotted the gig in Mosscow..

Of the 200,000+ Germans taking as POW's in Stalingrad.

How many came home?? 10,000? No..

less.. In the thousands, Murdered by mother Russia..

More like 300,000 surrounded but only 90,000 alive to surrender. Most died soon after from effects of starvation and diseases like typhus.

Survival rates varied greatly depending on rank.

circadian · 13-05-2015 10:07PM

gandalf wrote: »

Nope China is seeing a desperate economically fragile resource rich country and by being "friendly" it can get access to those resources at bargain basement prices.

In the long term I would classify China as a far bigger danger to Russia that the EU or Nato. Russias so called leaders either don't see this or are so desperate that they are ignoring it.

If Russia gets into trouble that affects resource supply to China I'd fully expect the Chinese to start distancing themselves.

WakeUp · 13-05-2015 10:37PM

circadian wrote: »

If Russia gets into trouble that affects resource supply to China I'd fully expect the Chinese to start distancing themselves.

as you rightly point out here , among and aside from a whole host of other reasons, Russia in "trouble" affects resource supply to China so as opposed to the Chinese distancing themselves from Russia the opposite would infact happen. as it would be in their national interest to do so. Russia is one of the largest energy exporters on the planet. China is the worlds largest importer of petroleum products its a match made in heaven from a business/consumer point of view and all the more convenient as they share a massive land border. an extremely well matched economic opportunity for both of them but the sticking point has always been about the price. years and years of negotiations and it always fell on the price. an opportunity presented itself for the Chinese to strike a deal on terms more favorable to them they went for it and they go it though they have always wanted to do business with price being the deal breaker. now that the Chinese are heavily invested in Russia well that means all sorts of other things come into play. too believe the Chinese are only doing this to lets say exploit Russia that just ignores political facts and geopolitical consequence of what they are doing together. and it isnt just from an energy point of view. then factor in the US and their stance against Russia and their pivot to pacific Asia in attempt to contain China and its obvious it makes sense for these two countries to forge closer ties be they economic, military or otherwise. if the US/Nato ( EU) continue on their present course vis a vis Russia and China it will eventually push Russia and China into an open alliance against them. too ignore that this appears to be and is starting to take shape to me anyways is just ignoring reality and ignoring whats happening. but sure each to their own.

New Russia-China alliance latest diplomatic, strategic blow to Obama

From the moon to the Mediterranean to the heart of Moscow, China and Russia in recent days have announced a striking number of moves to strengthen military, financial and political ties, raising the specter of a deeper alliance between the U.S. rivals.

Adversaries during the long Cold War, Beijing and Moscow have increasingly found common cause in challenging the U.S. and Western-dominated order in Europe and Asia, finding ways both symbolic and concrete to challenge what they see as Washington’s efforts to contain their rise.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/30/china-russia-alliance-challenges-us-western-domina/?page=all

Egginacup · 13-05-2015 11:09PM

gandalf wrote: »

LOL I knew this place was rife with Putinbots but it appears they are also Stalins Cheerleaders as well

Whatever you want to call the Molotov-Rippentrop agreement it doesn't take away from the Russians actions. Stabbing a neighbouring country in the back in their hour of need. It does sound familiar doesn't it.

Back to the topic in hand. Eggy if you cannot understand why people stayed away from Vlad's Moscow Military love in last week then you really have issues

Ought you not refer to anybody who doesn't subscribe to your views regarding Russia a "stalinbot", or a "Gorbachevbot", or a "Khrushchevbot" ... or something consistently profound?

gandalf · 13-05-2015 11:20PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Ought you not refer to anybody who doesn't subscribe to your views regarding Russia a "stalinbot", or a "Gorbachevbot", or a "Khrushchevbot" ... or something consistently profound?

If I was honest I would refer to them as something pornographic but I don't want to get banned from here

circadian · 13-05-2015 11:27PM

WakeUp wrote: »

as you rightly point out here , among and aside from a whole host of other reasons, Russia in "trouble" affects resource supply to China so as opposed to the Chinese distancing themselves from Russia the opposite would infact happen. as it would be in their national interest to do so. Russia is one of the largest energy exporters on the planet. China is the worlds largest importer of petroleum products its a match made in heaven from a business/consumer point of view and all the more convenient as they share a massive land border. an extremely well matched economic opportunity for both of them but the sticking point has always been about the price. years and years of negotiations and it always fell on the price. an opportunity presented itself for the Chinese to strike a deal on terms more favorable to them they went for it and they go it though they have always wanted to do business with price being the deal breaker. now that the Chinese are heavily invested in Russia well that means all sorts of other things come into play. too believe the Chinese are only doing this to lets say exploit Russia that just ignores political facts and geopolitical consequence of what they are doing together. and it isnt just from an energy point of view. then factor in the US and their stance against Russia and their pivot to pacific Asia in attempt to contain China and its obvious it makes sense for these two countries to forge closer ties be they economic, military or otherwise. if the US/Nato ( EU) continue on their present course vis a vis Russia and China it will eventually push Russia and China into an open alliance against them. too ignore that this appears to be and is starting to take shape to me anyways is just ignoring reality and ignoring whats happening. but sure each to their own.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/30/china-russia-alliance-challenges-us-western-domina/?page=all

I honestly do not feel China is interested in any sort of conflict. It's all about cash and resources and they are continually spending more than most in renewable energy, electric powered high speed train networks etc. Essentially China requires large resources from elsewhere to support its growth, but eventually it will be largely self reliant for energy.

In the meantime it serves them well to cosy up to Russia and keep that relationship going. China does not need to be as friendly with the west as the west needs China as much as China needs the west.

Both of these relationships are convenience for China and I seriously doubt they'll aid anyone in times of need. Chinese investment does not denote a stronger friendship, it's just their means of increasing influence and control. Look at the African nations that gain massive Chinese investment. Plenty of resources and cheap labour there, this may well be a similar case in Russia if sanctions continue.

garra · 13-05-2015 11:53PM

Because it's not too soon for history to repeat itself.

Egginacup · 14-05-2015 02:14AM

The thread has most likely drifted from the original premise what with the allegations of an horrific Russian invasion of just about every neighbouring country. The fact that Russia is now a "nazi" dictatorship whose dragoons boot down doors and send defenceless millions to the gulag to spend their days gazing at Solzhenityn's graffiti and how Putin is not only a kleptomaniac but a mass murderer.

Leaving aside all the clear facts, I would still like to know why the heads of western nations didn't attend the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism.

Egginacup · 14-05-2015 02:21AM

Reiver wrote: »

What border was Stalin going to put his one million troops on? I don't recall the USSR or Nazi Germany sharing a border at this time.

Was it the Finnish-Norwegian -oh wait, the former didn't work out.

Let's be real here Eggus Cuppus Maximus, no way the Poles were going to let the Red Army just saunter in when they'd fought a bloody war against them in the 20s.

"No way the Poles were going to let the Red Army saunter, yada, yada"

And you know this? You can state categorically that Poland would rather have 22% of their population massacred by the Third Reich than chance having a Soviet protection force with French and British backing hold back the Wehrmacht? Is that what you are attempting to say? That Poles would rather be slaughtered than take the risk of staying alive?

They must be really thick.

Grayson · 14-05-2015 05:29AM

Koreans fought against the nazi's too, we're not all lining up to watch marches in Pyongyang.

And for what it matters most people arer sending some kind of representative. Merkel herself is going the day after the march to lay a wreath.

More important people might go to the march if the russians didn't keep calling everyone west of them Nazi's.

gandalf · 14-05-2015 08:15AM

Egginacup wrote: »

Leaving aside all the clear facts, I would still like to know why the heads of western nations didn't attend the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism.

It's been answered multiple times in this thread Eggy already. But given you repeat things over and over and over until you believe they are true I will humour you.

The reason most of the worlds leaders didn't attend the Goosestepaton in Moscow was because they disagreed with the behaviour of the current Russian regime with their nazi like behaviour towards a neighbouring country.

noway12345 · 14-05-2015 09:28AM

gandalf wrote: »

It's been answered multiple times in this thread Eggy already. But given you repeat things over and over and over until you believe they are true I will humour you.

The reason most of the worlds leaders didn't attend the Goosestepaton in Moscow was because they disagreed with the behaviour of the current Russian regime with their nazi like behaviour towards a neighbouring country.

Why isn't the same done to America or Britain?

gandalf · 14-05-2015 09:45AM

noway12345 wrote: »

Why isn't the same done to America or Britain?

I don't believe either of those countries had a goosestepping "Triumph of the Will" type event like the Russians did.

noway12345 · 14-05-2015 09:56AM

gandalf wrote: »

I don't believe either of those countries had a goosestepping "Triumph of the Will" type event like the Russians did.

With other events silly.

gandalf · 14-05-2015 10:45AM

noway12345 wrote: »

With other events silly.

You mean solemn remembrance events and not the Military Willy waving that occurred on the streets of Moscow last week?

noway12345 · 14-05-2015 10:52AM

gandalf wrote: »

You mean solemn remembrance events and not the Military Willy waving that occurred on the streets of Moscow last week?

Oh so they would have gone if Putin started crying while laying some wreaths?

gandalf · 14-05-2015 11:21AM

noway12345 wrote: »

Oh so they would have gone if Putin started crying while laying some wreaths?

I'm sure they would have considered going if Putin had withdrawn Russian Troops, agents, military equipment, finance and other assistance to the so called Rebels and allowed the Ukraine to restore the integrity of its borders.

noway12345 · 14-05-2015 11:24AM

gandalf wrote: »

I'm sure they would have considered going if Putin had withdrawn Russian Troops, agents, military equipment, finance and other assistance to the so called Rebels and allowed the Ukraine to restore the integrity of its borders.

Oh right, so back to my original question. Why don't others attend similar events held by America and Britian?

Fratton Fred · 14-05-2015 11:35AM

noway12345 wrote: »

Oh right, so back to my original question. Why don't others attend similar events held by America and Britian?

What are Britain and the US currently doing that would require such a boycott?

indioblack · 14-05-2015 11:37AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What are Britain and the US currently doing that would require such a boycott?

Just existing would probably be enough!

gandalf · 14-05-2015 11:39AM

indioblack wrote: »

Just existing would probably be enough!

That seems to be the Russian reason to attack the Ukraine alright, because it's there

gandalf · 14-05-2015 11:46AM

noway12345 wrote: »

Oh right, so back to my original question. Why don't others attend similar events held by America and Britian?

Because those countries didn't de-stablise their neighbour, send in mercenaries, finance them, send in heavy arms and then send in their own armed forces into that countries sovereign territory.

Also as I have said numerous times already I don't recall either Britain or the US having massive Military Parades to commemorate the end of WW2 in Europe.

Reiver · 14-05-2015 11:50AM

Egginacup wrote: »

"No way the Poles were going to let the Red Army saunter, yada, yada"

And you know this? You can state categorically that Poland would rather have 22% of their population massacred by the Third Reich than chance having a Soviet protection force with French and British backing hold back the Wehrmacht? Is that what you are attempting to say? That Poles would rather be slaughtered than take the risk of staying alive?

They must be really thick.

I live in Poland now Eggy. The Soviets are remembered with as much disgust as the Nazis. When they came back through the country in the 40s, any places left standing got levelled by them. For the average Pole here, there was no difference. The only thing was that the Nazis were here for five, the Soviets, quite a bit longer.

Look at what the Soviets did during the Warsaw Rising. Oh, that's right, sweet FA.

The USSR stole a huge amount of Polish territory after the war. The population movement was immense. Lwów and Wilno are still in their national consciousness.

Considering the actions of the Armia Krajowa I think the Poles did choose to "be slaughtered" as you so eloquently put it, labelling them as "really thick". I guess the Volunteers in our Flying Columns were gob****es too then by your reckoning.

Your knowledge of eastern European history is quite faulty. I suggest you examine the actions of partisans and resistance movements in the post-war years. Also to educate yourself further on Poland, Norman Davies writes some great books.

Why has the West boycotted the parade by those who saved the world from Nazism.

Comments