Antti Kuusela wrote:
> > Antti Kuusela wrote:
> >> I could not believe my eyes today as I read BBC news
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4517683.stm
> >>
> >> **snip**
> >> Russia has made defiant remarks on the issue of the occupation.
> >>
> >> "There was no occupation. There were agreements at the time with
the
> >> legitimately elected authorities in the
> >> Baltic countries," the Kremlin's European affairs chief Sergei
> > Yastrzhembsky
> >> said on Thursday [5th May 2005].
> >>
> >> **snip**
> >>
> >> I understand that many russians are very reluctant to admit
> > atrocities
> >> commited during the glorious Soviet times
> >> but that they would degenerate to this point is just unbelievable.
> > While it
> >> is just natural that during dictator****p the Truth
> >> is often twisted so that serves the regimes objectives, this kind
of
> >> rhetoric from a Kreml official in present day is just absurd.
> >>
> >> I would like to know is there anybody who could explain why would
> > Russian
> >> government let out
> >> such a blatant _LIE_. There is no question whatsoever that
whatever
> >> elections there were held in the Baltic states, were
> >> fraudulent.
> >>
> >> The Soviets drove the nazis away, no doubt about it, but then
stayed
> > so one
> >> cruel occupier was just replaced by another.. almost as cruel.
>
>
> <targon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1115375756.567470.4870@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Why do you bother?
>
> Because i'm interested why intelligent person (gotta be intelligent
if
> you're high official in Kreml)
> speaks out a lie like that. Does he really believe that himself or
was it
> meant to be somekind of provocation?
It was not more lie than "elections" in Afghanistan or WMD in Iraq. In
fact, concept of truth depends on the context.
> I'm not trying to point out every evil deed USSR did, but insted
focusing to
> find out is that official and un-official truth in Russia
> that Balts WANTED in free will join the Soviet Union?
Who knows that Balts did want so many years ago? Again, interpretation
of history depends on context.
> > On my side, Western press if full with "funny"
> > contradictions and misguiding articles. E.g. they blame USSR for
the
> > non-agression pact with Germany holding back about the earler
> > non-agression pacts between Germany and GB, for example. But of
course
> > they don't blame USSR for asking GB and France to attack Hitler
c.a.
> > 1936 - they pass over in silence.
>
> I believe the reason for WW2 was because Britain and France
humiliated and
> robbed Germany in the Versailles treaty.
In part, I think so, too. On other hand, there was a classic trade (or
colonial) war between GB and Germany. Once upon the time Britain became
the world best industrial country, its trade was nearly unstopable.
Later, other countries (most notable, US and Germany) challanged world
trade near-monopoly GB held. In both cases Germany was forced to fight
at two fronts - and lose. But wars are rarely due to imaginary reasons
like "democracy", "independance" etc. - there're always some strong
economical reasons.
> They actually blamed Germany for the WW1 which was of course total
crap:
> there was no single country guilty for that war.
> I think the British and French are hypocrites while they are just as
guilty
> for BOTH wars as the Germans.
WW1 was a trade war: Germany, the new industrial country on rise,
wanted its share in trade with colonies. Older colonial empires (e.g.
France and GB) wanted to restore the status quo. Hence they kicked poor
Germans so hard. They forgot about the German patriotic and warfare
traditions...
> >Or... but why do I need to
> > re-brainwash Western people? It could be dangerous for they mental
> > health, after all.
> > On other hand I'm (and the majority of Russians) quite ignorant
towards
> > the rains of dirt Western media is trying to pour on us. In fact,
the
> > more you critique as, the more we're sure in our position.
>
> Why do want to swallow everything in just one huge mouthful? You
sound like
> a fanatic muslim with your black and white thinking.
> Would you agree with this one:
> "okay USSR did crush the nazis, which was good thing, and did take
couple of
> little countries like the Baltics by force, which was a bad thing".?
No. Everything we did in favor of our country was "good thing". By
definition. Why do we need a couple of little anti-Russian countries
just near our border? Uncle Sam would inevitably place military bases
at their territory.
> >West wants
> > Russia to be weak, punished, confessed and eventualy extinct. So
they
> > recomend us the best way to do things they want.
> > No way.
> > So live with you history and let others live with their.
>
> Nope, West wants Russia to be strong and healthy.
Good joke. Strong and healthy Russia would ask its share in the world -
the thing West won't tolerate.
> But what it wants even
> more is Russia to ASSIMILATE. West wants you to become western.
> West wants you all to have cars and fridges and electronic
toothbrushes and
> mobile phones and you to eat at MacDonalds.
Just globalization. It's the way wars are waged today.
|
