Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ustrello wrote:
Well to be honest they decided to choose hitler over the man and country (stalin russia) who left them to die (via not evacuating western ukraine and kiev) and starved them to death (holodomor). Then again why would you trust a man who literally destroyed and edited out Trotsky. Who in my opinion was the true hero of the russian revolution (probably more than lenin). My guess is depending on when you were born (assuming you lived in russia) you dont even know who Trotsky is.

Uhmm, holodomor was in Eastern Ukraine and Western Russia, not in Eastern Poland (which is the area that now is Western Ukraine). And Stalin left them to die because he didn't evacuate everyone? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. How could they have evacuated anyone? And why would they? It is not normal practice to evacuate populations if the enemy advances. In fact, that would probably have been more harmful to the people than Nazi occupation. And last but not least, the Western Ukrainians didn't want to be evacuated even if it had been possible. They were doing just fine helping their Nazi friends with exterminating the Jews and Poles. Do you know how Lwow became a Ukrainian city? It wasn't very pretty. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/10/lviv-ukraines-monument-to-ethnic-cleansing/
The Western Ukrainians sided with Hitler because they thought Hitler offered them a chance to have an independent Ukrainian state without the much hated Poles and Jews, who had ruled over the Ukrainians for centuries. The Soviets and Russians really had little to do with it, they had just moved into the area for the first time in 1939, after it had been part of Poland and the Austrian Empire for centuries.

Also, everyone knows who Trotsky is. He is like really famous. He might have been erased from photographs, but he played too big a role to be erased from people's memories.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well to be honest they decided to choose hitler over the man and country (stalin russia) who left them to die (via not evacuating western ukraine and kiev) and starved them to death (holodomor). Then again why would you trust a man who literally destroyed and edited out Trotsky. Who in my opinion was the true hero of the russian revolution (probably more than lenin). My guess is depending on when you were born (assuming you lived in russia) you dont even know who Trotsky is.

Uhmm, holodomor was in Eastern Ukraine and Western Russia, not in Eastern Poland (which is the area that now is Western Ukraine). And Stalin left them to die because he didn't evacuate everyone? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. How could they have evacuated anyone? And why would they? It is not normal practice to evacuate populations if the enemy advances. In fact, that would probably have been more harmful to the people than Nazi occupation. And last but not least, the Western Ukrainians didn't want to be evacuated even if it had been possible. They were doing just fine helping their Nazi friends with exterminating the Jews and Poles. Do you know how Lwow became a Ukrainian city? It wasn't very pretty. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/10/lviv-ukraines-monument-to-ethnic-cleansing/
The Western Ukrainians sided with Hitler because they thought Hitler offered them a chance to have an independent Ukrainian state without the much hated Poles and Jews, who had ruled over the Ukrainians for centuries. The Soviets and Russians really had little to do with it, they had just moved into the area for the first time in 1939, after it had been part of Poland and the Austrian Empire for centuries.

Also, everyone knows who Trotsky is. He is like really famous. He might have been erased from photographs, but he played too big a role to be erased from people's memories.

Really? Because that is kinda why most of the baltics and ukraine hate the russians because of how often the russians left them to die. As for trotsky you probably have had the blessing of a non soviet education or are a lair because stalin erased Trotsky from the soviet narrative.

 Ustrello wrote:
Really? Because that is kinda why most of the baltics and ukraine hate the russians because of how often the russians left them to die. As for trotsky you probably have had the blessing of a non soviet education or are a lair because stalin erased Trotsky from the soviet narrative.

Dude, you need to stop living in the past. The Soviet Union was dissolved nearly three decades ago.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Really? Because that is kinda why most of the baltics and ukraine hate the russians because of how often the russians left them to die. As for trotsky you probably have had the blessing of a non soviet education or are a lair because stalin erased Trotsky from the soviet narrative.

Dude, you need to stop living in the past. The Soviet Union was dissolved nearly three decades ago.

And the third reich has been dead for 70 but it still has repercussions to this day and is often evoked by the russians as "they deserve it because they are nazis".

 Ustrello wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well to be honest they decided to choose hitler over the man and country (stalin russia) who left them to die (via not evacuating western ukraine and kiev) and starved them to death (holodomor). Then again why would you trust a man who literally destroyed and edited out Trotsky. Who in my opinion was the true hero of the russian revolution (probably more than lenin). My guess is depending on when you were born (assuming you lived in russia) you dont even know who Trotsky is.

Uhmm, holodomor was in Eastern Ukraine and Western Russia, not in Eastern Poland (which is the area that now is Western Ukraine). And Stalin left them to die because he didn't evacuate everyone? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. How could they have evacuated anyone? And why would they? It is not normal practice to evacuate populations if the enemy advances. In fact, that would probably have been more harmful to the people than Nazi occupation. And last but not least, the Western Ukrainians didn't want to be evacuated even if it had been possible. They were doing just fine helping their Nazi friends with exterminating the Jews and Poles. Do you know how Lwow became a Ukrainian city? It wasn't very pretty. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/10/lviv-ukraines-monument-to-ethnic-cleansing/
The Western Ukrainians sided with Hitler because they thought Hitler offered them a chance to have an independent Ukrainian state without the much hated Poles and Jews, who had ruled over the Ukrainians for centuries. The Soviets and Russians really had little to do with it, they had just moved into the area for the first time in 1939, after it had been part of Poland and the Austrian Empire for centuries.

Also, everyone knows who Trotsky is. He is like really famous. He might have been erased from photographs, but he played too big a role to be erased from people's memories.

Really? Because that is kinda why most of the baltics and ukraine hate the russians because of how often the russians left them to die. As for trotsky you probably have had the blessing of a non soviet education or are a lair because stalin erased Trotsky from the soviet narrative.

That is complete and utter nonsense. The reason many Balts and (Western) Ukrainians dislike Russians is because of Soviet opression, and Russians were the most common and dominant ethnic group of the Soviet Union (for Balts the situation is actually more complex) They don't hate Russians because the Russians did not evacuate them during WW2 or something, that is one of the most silly things I have ever heard. And if you believe that, would you please explain how it is that the Balts and (Western) Ukrainians hate the Russians, and not the Belarusians or Russians who also weren't evacuated?

And on Trotsky, even if he wasn't in the official Soviet school books, people learn stuff outside of school as well, you know?

 Ustrello wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Really? Because that is kinda why most of the baltics and ukraine hate the russians because of how often the russians left them to die. As for trotsky you probably have had the blessing of a non soviet education or are a lair because stalin erased Trotsky from the soviet narrative.

Dude, you need to stop living in the past. The Soviet Union was dissolved nearly three decades ago.

And the third reich has been dead for 70 but it still has repercussions to this day and is often evoked by the russians as "they deserve it because they are nazis".

So? They are nazis in the present. If they had only been nazis 70 years ago like with the Germans, there would not be a problem. Those western Ukrainian groups are still nazis today, and that is the problem.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well to be honest they decided to choose hitler over the man and country (stalin russia) who left them to die (via not evacuating western ukraine and kiev) and starved them to death (holodomor). Then again why would you trust a man who literally destroyed and edited out Trotsky. Who in my opinion was the true hero of the russian revolution (probably more than lenin). My guess is depending on when you were born (assuming you lived in russia) you dont even know who Trotsky is.

Uhmm, holodomor was in Eastern Ukraine and Western Russia, not in Eastern Poland (which is the area that now is Western Ukraine). And Stalin left them to die because he didn't evacuate everyone? That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. How could they have evacuated anyone? And why would they? It is not normal practice to evacuate populations if the enemy advances. In fact, that would probably have been more harmful to the people than Nazi occupation. And last but not least, the Western Ukrainians didn't want to be evacuated even if it had been possible. They were doing just fine helping their Nazi friends with exterminating the Jews and Poles. Do you know how Lwow became a Ukrainian city? It wasn't very pretty. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/10/lviv-ukraines-monument-to-ethnic-cleansing/
The Western Ukrainians sided with Hitler because they thought Hitler offered them a chance to have an independent Ukrainian state without the much hated Poles and Jews, who had ruled over the Ukrainians for centuries. The Soviets and Russians really had little to do with it, they had just moved into the area for the first time in 1939, after it had been part of Poland and the Austrian Empire for centuries.

Also, everyone knows who Trotsky is. He is like really famous. He might have been erased from photographs, but he played too big a role to be erased from people's memories.

Really? Because that is kinda why most of the baltics and ukraine hate the russians because of how often the russians left them to die. As for trotsky you probably have had the blessing of a non soviet education or are a lair because stalin erased Trotsky from the soviet narrative.

That is complete and utter nonsense. The reason many Balts and (Western) Ukrainians dislike Russians is because of Soviet opression, and Russians were the most common and dominant ethnic group of the Soviet Union (for Balts the situation is actually more complex) They don't hate Russians because the Russians did not evacuate them during WW2 or something, that is one of the most silly things I have ever heard. And if you believe that, would you please explain how it is that the Balts and (Western) Ukrainians hate the Russians, and not the Belarusians or Russians who also weren't evacuated?

And on Trotsky, even if he wasn't in the official Soviet school books, people learn stuff outside of school as well, you know?

 Ustrello wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Really? Because that is kinda why most of the baltics and ukraine hate the russians because of how often the russians left them to die. As for trotsky you probably have had the blessing of a non soviet education or are a lair because stalin erased Trotsky from the soviet narrative.

Dude, you need to stop living in the past. The Soviet Union was dissolved nearly three decades ago.

And the third reich has been dead for 70 but it still has repercussions to this day and is often evoked by the russians as "they deserve it because they are nazis".

So? They are nazis in the present. If they had only been nazis 70 years ago like with the Germans, there would not be a problem. Those western Ukrainian groups are still nazis today, and that is the problem.

I never said it was the only reason just a very very very long list why they hate the russians. As to your question about the russians that died because they weren't evacuated, they probably were angry but they are from russia (belarus doesn't care probably because they are under a dictatorship and you know how that can effect dissent and anger) so it was diffused or they were sent to a gulag when they voiced their anger.

As for trotsky I have talked to russians even 10 years ago that had no idea who he was and that was more than a decade after the fall of the soviet union.

The Baltic nations hate Russians because "they left them to die"?



Also that "GULAG" idiotism again?

We should probably need a separate thread about Russian history so you would stop posting your very questionable statements and learned a thing or two.

To be fair, pretty much everyone lets the Baltic nations die, which is why the Baltic is such a messed up place these days Tends to happen when you're entire region is proverbially caught in a massive game of international tug of war. (and the war part is literal)

Also, it's is official. Gulag denial can now join the ranks of holocaust denial in sad ridiculous things that exist in the world.

Gulag? Okay, Trotsky knew what is GULAG. He wanted not only to turn the whole country into a GULAG, and turn the whole world into a GULAG.

 Ustrello wrote:


Really? Because that is kinda why most of the baltics and ukraine hate the russians because of how often the russians left them to die. As for trotsky you probably have had the blessing of a non soviet education or are a lair because stalin erased Trotsky from the soviet narrative.

Stalin may have removed him but I'm pretty sure he would have been put back in under Kruschev's de-Stalinisation.

I mean we here in the West still knew about him and still had the original photographs so I'm sure some people in the Soviet Union could re-insert him after Stalin died.

 Yaraton wrote:

We should probably need a separate thread about Russian history so you would stop posting your very questionable statements and learned a thing or two.

well... the creation of satellite buffer states between Russia and it's long time adversaries Germany and Poland could be viewed in that light. Casualty rates as a percentage of the population also would seem to reflect this (Russia is down around 4th or 5th for WW2's Eastern Front at 12%). The Russian Ministry of Defense estimates for WW2 that were released in 1993 suggest that half of WW2s Soviet military casualties came from places like Latvia, the Ukraine, etc. This is contested in other sources, as the truth is no one is entirely sure how many people died on the Russian front, it's all best guess estimates.

Though personally, I think they just hate Russia for having conquered them, Stalin, a variety of forcible relocations, extreme poverty, etc.. There's a fairly direct correlation between how unpopular Russia is in a given former soviet republic and the remaining percentage of the non-Russian ethnic population of it. Since the Russians, to make up numbers, brought in loyal Russians to replace those dead and disloyal slavic/baltic/turkic/etc dogs.

I love talking history. Scroll back to Iron_Captain's lively discussion of said with myself some pages back.

 Yaraton wrote:

We should probably need a separate thread about Russian history so you would stop posting your very questionable statements and learned a thing or two.

I totally support this. Most Western people are so ignorant about Eastern European and Russian history it is shameful. Altough it should probably be solved through better, more broad history education in Western countries rather than a thread on Dakka

Yep, let's just forget about Ukraine

 Ustrello wrote:

I never said it was the only reason just a very very very long list why they hate the russians. As to your question about the russians that died because they weren't evacuated, they probably were angry but they are from russia (belarus doesn't care probably because they are under a dictatorship and you know how that can effect dissent and anger) so it was diffused or they were sent to a gulag when they voiced their anger.

So why were the Russians and Belarusians sent to gulags but Balts and Ukrainians weren't?
IIRC, there were plenty of Balts and Ukrainians in the camps. Certainly they could have fitted in a few more?

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Yep, let's just forget about Ukraine

It is not like there is any new developments there...

Yep, "ukrain" keeps ignoring Minsk Protocols and now occupies the neutral-designated territories with it's troops and heavy armour. It shells daily surrounding areas, which are mostly civilian infrastructure there anyways. People die or get injured in the DNR/LNR daily from the Nazi bombardments. OSCE doesn't see any of that and doesn't do anything about it. "No new developments" indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Also, it's is official. Gulag denial can now join the ranks of holocaust denial in sad ridiculous things that exist in the world.

The term “GULAG” is an acronym for the Soviet bureaucratic institution, Glavnoe Upravlenie ispravitel’no-trudovykh LAGerei (Main Administration of Corrective Labor Camps), that operated the Soviet system of forced labor camps in the Stalin era.

You can't be freaking sent to "G.U.Lag" and die there, get it already.

I love talking history. Scroll back to Iron_Captain's lively discussion of said with myself some pages back.

Why doesn't the board just have a general History thread? We have one for the mess that is politics in like, 4 different parts of the world at this point. My knowledge of Russian history is pretty much limitedsome class on 20th century Russia, some documentary I saw on the Romanov dynasty, and stuff I learned when studying the Byzantine/Ottoman Empires XD

Altough it should probably be solved through better, more broad history education in Western countries rather than a thread on Dakka

It's funny because there's a professor at my college, who I think is still there, who every year wants to teach something on Russia. In the four years I was there he only got to teach one class on 20th Century Russia (that realistically delved back into the 19th for context). Meanwhile there's a class on the American Civil War every other semester (I hate the American Civil War so much at this point), 2-3 classes on American history general, one on some Western European state most years, and if we're lucky the most bad ass professor who ever lived gets to teach something on the Middle East. To quote;

"I proposed a class on the Seljuk's last year but everyone thought I was talking about my Game of Thrones fan fiction."

Pretty much the only class my school regularly teaches on history outside the US is the World History general education course, which speaks about everything so briefly an eight year old could bull gak their way through.

 Yaraton wrote:
Yep, "ukrain" keeps ignoring Minsk Protocols and now occupies the neutral-designated territories with it's troops and heavy armour. It shells daily surrounding areas, which are mostly civilian infrastructure there anyways. People die or get injured in the DNR/LNR daily from the Nazi bombardments. OSCE doesn't see any of that and doesn't do anything about it. "No new developments" indeed.

And the DNR/LNR guys haven't been doing the exact same thing right back the whole time? Lets not pretend like all the evil is on one side here, it's not, and neither side has full control over the actions of the forces present, corruption is rampant on both sides, and revenge is a motive on both sides. Acting like the Ukrainians are the singular monsters here is absurd, ceasefire violations and indiscriminate use of weapons that injure and kill civilians is a problem with the DNR/LNR groups too.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

Also, it's is official. Gulag denial can now join the ranks of holocaust denial in sad ridiculous things that exist in the world.

The term “GULAG” is an acronym for the Soviet bureaucratic institution, Glavnoe Upravlenie ispravitel’no-trudovykh LAGerei (Main Administration of Corrective Labor Camps), that operated the Soviet system of forced labor camps in the Stalin era.

You can't be freaking sent to "G.U.Lag" and die there, get it already.

In conversational English, which is what this board is using, Gulag is understood as word unto itself, stop trying to be pedantic about this just for its own sake. It's far from the only term to evolve in that manner.

 LordofHats wrote:

Altough it should probably be solved through better, more broad history education in Western countries rather than a thread on Dakka

It's funny because there's a professor at my college, who I think is still there, who every year wants to teach something on Russia. In the four years I was there he only got to teach one class on 20th Century Russia (that realistically delved back into the 19th for context). Meanwhile there's a class on the American Civil War every other semester (I hate the American Civil War so much at this point), 2-3 classes on American history general, one on some Western European state most years, and if we're lucky the most bad ass professor who ever lived gets to teach something on the Middle East. To quote;

"I proposed a class on the Seljuk's last year but everyone thought I was talking about my Game of Thrones fan fiction."

Pretty much the only class my school regularly teaches on history outside the US is the World History general education course, which speaks about everything so briefly an eight year old could bull gak their way through.

That is pretty much exactly how history education in the Netherlands is too (but with Dutch and Western European history rather than American ofc). Russia is actually quite lucky because it usually gets some kind of attention because of the Cold War (usually just a short paragraph on the Russian Revolution, Stalin and communism.) The rest of Eastern Europe doesn't get any attention at all, much less the rest of the world. In Russia, history courses generally at least also pay a lot of attention to (Western) European history next to Russian history, altough coverage of China, Middle East or rest of the world is also minimal. With history being so important to understanding the world, it is a damn shame when most of the people in developed countries know so much more more about the House of Stark than about the House of Seljuk
Especially for politicians additional history lessons should be mandatory.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's funny because there's a professor at my college, who I think is still there, who every year wants to teach something on Russia. In the four years I was there he only got to teach one class on 20th Century Russia (that realistically delved back into the 19th for context). Meanwhile there's a class on the American Civil War every other semester (I hate the American Civil War so much at this point), 2-3 classes on American history general, one on some Western European state most years, and if we're lucky the most bad ass professor who ever lived gets to teach something on the Middle East. To quote;

I had a history Professor that wanted to do 19th Century Germany and WWI but the only classes he could really get interest in were WWII related. Of course after students pnly showed interest in WWII classes they then complained that he must loved Nazis since he taught so much WWII. Of course the Venn diagram of students complaining to the students struggling due to the difficult nature of the course (well it wasn't really hard but you had to actually, you know, think) had a fairly sizable overlap.

 Ahtman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's funny because there's a professor at my college, who I think is still there, who every year wants to teach something on Russia. In the four years I was there he only got to teach one class on 20th Century Russia (that realistically delved back into the 19th for context). Meanwhile there's a class on the American Civil War every other semester (I hate the American Civil War so much at this point), 2-3 classes on American history general, one on some Western European state most years, and if we're lucky the most bad ass professor who ever lived gets to teach something on the Middle East. To quote;

I had a history Professor that wanted to do 19th Century Germany and WWI but the only classes he could really get interest in were WWII related. Of course after students pnly showed interest in WWII classes they then complained that he must loved Nazis since he taught so much WWII. Of course the Venn diagram of students complaining to the students struggling due to the difficult nature of the course (well it wasn't really hard but you had to actually, you know, think) had a fairly sizable overlap.

Don't get us started on this current group of....students. I had one claim I am a Nazi lover because of my theme SS Waffen Tau..

Yeah. pretty much unless you go to a major school like Columbia or Georgetown (which have huge history departments) you're gonna have really limited non-US history courses in my experience (in the US that is).

 Jihadin wrote:
Don't get us started on this current group of....students. I had one claim I am a Nazi lover because of my theme SS Waffen Tau..

That's actually a really fitting theme for the Tau XD I know the stereotype is that they're Space Commies, but you know Space Nazi's is a pretty good fit given the Tau's seeming love of eugenics and desire for "living space"

and a range of other life forms fighting for them.....like the real Waffen SS...
I even broke them down to....Waffen Units lol
Of course...
Wittman unit of four Hammerheads

 LordofHats wrote:

I love talking history. Scroll back to Iron_Captain's lively discussion of said with myself some pages back.

Why doesn't the board just have a general History thread? We have one for the mess that is politics in like, 4 different parts of the world at this point. My knowledge of Russian history is pretty much limitedsome class on 20th century Russia, some documentary I saw on the Romanov dynasty, and stuff I learned when studying the Byzantine/Ottoman Empires XD

Altough it should probably be solved through better, more broad history education in Western countries rather than a thread on Dakka

It's funny because there's a professor at my college, who I think is still there, who every year wants to teach something on Russia. In the four years I was there he only got to teach one class on 20th Century Russia (that realistically delved back into the 19th for context). Meanwhile there's a class on the American Civil War every other semester (I hate the American Civil War so much at this point), 2-3 classes on American history general, one on some Western European state most years, and if we're lucky the most bad ass professor who ever lived gets to teach something on the Middle East. To quote;

"I proposed a class on the Seljuk's last year but everyone thought I was talking about my Game of Thrones fan fiction."

Pretty much the only class my school regularly teaches on history outside the US is the World History general education course, which speaks about everything so briefly an eight year old could bull gak their way through.

I was talking to some people at work and mentioned someone looked like pictures of Henry the 8th. I was asked who that was.

Relapse wrote:

I was talking to some people at work and mentioned someone looked like pictures of Henry the 8th. I was asked who that was.

There was one at my work who didn't know who Moe Howard was.

 Vaktathi wrote:
And the DNR/LNR guys haven't been doing the exact same thing right back the whole time? Lets not pretend like all the evil is on one side here, it's not, and neither side has full control over the actions of the forces present, corruption is rampant on both sides, and revenge is a motive on both sides. Acting like the Ukrainians are the singular monsters here is absurd, ceasefire violations and indiscriminate use of weapons that injure and kill civilians is a problem with the DNR/LNR groups too.

There is huge difference though: armed forces of DNR/LNR consist primary of the local population and when they retaliate they don't do it by firing on the Kiev-occupied civilian objects like houses, hospitals, schools, shops etc. deliberately. Unlike the Kiev Junta forces who terrorize daily the population of separatists regions because it's their main goal. Even right now, the rebel forces only return fire when it becomes dangerous not to answer in kind in order to hold their own positions from being obliterated. The Russian information sites very often quote the local separatists military men saying that sometimes they are more afraid of their own chain of the command who would have no problem arresting and sending in the military prisons those who hadn't had enough of a reason to fire back when they are fired upon by the Kiev Nazi forces. The Nazi force have no such problems, they fire all they could when they are drunk and they are drunk all the time. Their own ukranian media calls the zombie-look alike "ukranian patriots" Avatars because they are blue from drinking so much vodka.

In conversational English, which is what this board is using, Gulag is understood as word unto itself, stop trying to be pedantic about this just for its own sake. It's far from the only term to evolve in that manner.

That "conversational English" term came from the Cold War propaganda, trying to set up a Russophobic stereotype with a Russian-sounding but easy to pronounce and remember word that in reality has nothing to do what it stands for. This needs to be changed and giving enough of effort it will be changed.

Anything about military history the current generation of recruits.....not fimiliar with.....one did not know who John Wayne was

 Yaraton wrote:

There is huge difference though: armed forces of DNR/LNR consist primary of the local population and when they retaliate they don't do it by firing on the Kiev-occupied civilian objects like houses, hospitals, schools, shops etc. deliberately.

Please explain Sloviansk then? or the bus attack? The Luhansk Library torture dungeon? Kramatorsk where Catholics were attacked while attending mass?

It's funny, for being anti-Nazi, last April 20th they were broadcasting some fairly hard core anti-Jewish material on the captured TV tower near Sloviansk.

Face it, DNT has just as many dangerous fruit loops as the Azov Battalion. The only good thing about Azov is they wear how crazy they are on their sleeve.

Just change every instance of the word "gulag" was actually "Main Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Labor Settlements". Would that suit you?

 Jihadin wrote:
Anything about military history the current generation of recruits.....not fimiliar with.....one did not know who John Wayne was

You know, I've always suspected that the US military forgets every war but the last one. That rather confirms it. Hell, the littoral combat ships use a design that went out of vogue in 1905 because it has a tendency to sink. "But it's SOOO RADAR STEALTHY!'

That last guy, make him watch Sands of Iwo Jima. or The Longest Day.

 Yaraton wrote:


There is huge difference though: armed forces of DNR/LNR consist primary of the local population

Minus the Russians, Chechens, Serbs, etc that have been seen fighting amongst their ranks in far higher proportion (by several orders of magnitude) to foreign fighters in Ukrainian forces, to say nothing of the great amount of evidence pointing to Russian involvement on at least *some* level. Very large numbers of foreign fighters are involved, including many of the ostensible leaders. Igor Strelkov sure as hell didn't come from the local population.

The "self defense forces" in Crimea turned out to not be local either

and when they retaliate they don't do it by firing on the Kiev-occupied civilian objects like houses, hospitals, schools, shops etc. deliberately.

That's a rather hard claim to back up from either side definitively, but both sides are freely firing area weapons into populated centers without regard for what's there, and there's zero evidence that it's simply retaliatory attacks from the DNR/LNR.

Now, this isn't to say that the Ukrainians are perfect or blameless, they're not, they absolutely have done some bad things and used area weapons indiscriminately, and have massive problems with corruption and control of their forces, but if they're worse than the DNR/LNR, it's only because they've got more ammunition and the DNR/LNR guys might have to ration it more.

Neither side is particularly stellar in this conflict.

Unlike the Kiev Junta forces who terrorize daily the population of separatists regions because it's their main goal. Even right now, the rebel forces only return fire when it becomes dangerous not to answer in kind in order to hold their own positions from being obliterated.

And your evidence of this is...what?

The Russian information sites very often quote the local separatists military men saying that sometimes they are more afraid of their own chain of the command who would have no problem arresting and sending in the military prisons those who hadn't had enough of a reason to fire back when they are fired upon by the Kiev Nazi forces. The Nazi force have no such problems, they fire all they could when they are drunk and they are drunk all the time. Their own ukranian media calls the zombie-look alike "ukranian patriots" Avatars because they are blue from drinking so much vodka.

And again...that's a lot of propaganda, one-sided accusations, and buzzwords you're spouting, but nothing substantive.

As for the video, we have zero context for anything therein (is this recent? old? are they near the DNR/LNR or is this after exercises elsewhere? Are they regulars? Nationalist volunteers?, etc), and from an obviously stilted source called "TV Patriot" with Russian flags stamped on everything, with a video titled "Армия Украины позорится на весь мир, алкаши и наркоманы, тупой и еще тупее тупого!"/"Army of Ukraine disgrace to the whole world, alcoholics and drug addicts, Dumb and Dumber stupid!".

You'll forgive me if the video fails to sustain any points. It's drunk dudes with Ukrainian flags on their shirts, how many videos can we find of drunk Russian soldiers doing similar stuff? Quite a lot.

If you have something other than propaganda to talk about, by all means, but if you're just going to link propaganda, this isn't going to get anyone anywhere. If you really want some good stuff on the conflict, check out Vice's Ukraine series, they do a rather good job of showing the uglies of both sides.

That "conversational English" term came from the Cold War propaganda, trying to set up a Russophobic stereotype with a Russian-sounding but easy to pronounce and remember word that in reality has nothing to do what it stands for. This needs to be changed and giving enough of effort it will be changed.

An internet message board about toy soldiers in a universe where the "good guys" are theocratic feudal fascists is the wrong place to try and fight that fight. Ultimately, when people use the term, everyone gets meaning, and it's used in common conversation. Trying to pick fights over the term's origin isn't going to accomplish anything.