America saved Russia

Thought hit me like a bolt, or was it vodka with shashliks not sure. Anyway, i realized that US propaganda machinery is protecting Russia, not demonizing it.

Bare with me on this one, gonna pull this past tune: Western Propaganda Machinery (WPM) is spamming media for the last 70 years, how West is sh*ting rainbows, streets are made of gold, and you only need to bend down to pick up the dollars (no pun intended). While Russia is mordor, no sun, day last 20 minutes, its always -50C, bears eat villagers, crime is high, mafia run cities, government is corrupted, there's famine, mass killings and komunizm.

And what is result of that? America have 40 million immigrants, Europe ended up with 1 million incoming a year. And they started breaking as UK already left (one of the founders, leaders and largest nations in EU). And how many immigrants Russia have? Well.. 11 million but only from the Soviet bloc, not from Middle East or Africa. But the point is our immigrants are like us, they like vodka and shashlik with mayonez while you don't like your immigrants and they don't like you.

So while Western societies start to break apart (Yugoslavization, Balkanization, Somalization and finally Finlandization) from internal conflict, class warfare, race war, religion war, terrorism, Russia won't have that problem and will stay normal, imagine that. Stealth gifted by Western propaganda will actually save Russia for times to come as immigrants will avoid us even when workers are needed more and more (which will raise salaries because no workers enough).

So Russia end up with companies competing to find workers offering generous salaries, which will give opportunity to consumers to spend more thus making those companies more profit (then circle repeat), West will plunge into Dark Age again (yes, i mean even if Nazism enslave Europe again, that is Dark Age, not Golden Age of Europe, it will be golden age for party members, elite who control Europe, but not for european families losing their children to WW3 started by nazis).

Thanks America, i didn't realize what you're doing, until now, sorry. I am grateful for your effort and hope you keep it up!

Tito actually makes a somewhat of a good point............WAAAAAT...

Finland is a sweet place, no problem with Finlandization as far as I'm concerned

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 14.07.2016 at 06:44

And they started breaking as UK already left (one of the founders, leaders and largest nations in EU).

Here comes Tito again with his 'facts'. UK was not the a founding state of the EU?

The founding states were Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg (Benelux), Italy, France and Western Germany. The United Kingdom only joined in 1973 with Denmark and Ireland. Nice try Tito.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 14.07.2016 at 06:44

And how many immigrants Russia have? Well.. 11 million but only from the Soviet bloc, not from Middle East or Africa. But the point is our immigrants are like us, they like vodka and shashlik with mayonez while you don't like your immigrants and they don't like you.

The only reason why you don't have African and Middle Eastern immigrants it's because Russia is not appealing to them. Besides, your immigrants from the ex-soviet bloc mostly only go there because they have family there or the language and nation bonds are close..so I don't get your point.


Most immigrants living in western countries assimilate to the culture of the countries they live in, but still keep parts of their culture. 2nd generation or 3rd generation of immigrants are fully assimilated and don't even speak the language of their origins that their grandparents or parents spoke in most cases. Once again, I'm pretty sure they like us and our countries if they assimilate to them and learn our language.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 14.07.2016 at 06:44

So Russia end up with companies competing to find workers offering generous salaries, which will give opportunity to consumers to spend more thus making those companies more profit

Time for me to visit Russia

Escrito por Al Fappino, 14.07.2016 at 10:04

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 14.07.2016 at 06:44

And they started breaking as UK already left (one of the founders, leaders and largest nations in EU).

Here comes Tito again with his 'facts'. UK was not the a founding state of the EU?

The founding states were Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg (Benelux), Italy, France and Western Germany. The United Kingdom only joined in 1973 with Denmark and Ireland. Nice try Tito.

Maybe Uk wasn't one of the EU founding states, but that doesn't change the fact that Western propaganda will save Russia from refugees. IF they were talking how nice place is Russia, attacks in mostly France and Belgium would happen in Russia, not in EU

America saved Russia in world war 2 already

Escrito por Viruslegion, 14.07.2016 at 15:38

America saved Russia in world war 2 already

More like the other way around.

Why the fuck would we care about what happens to Russia? How many people care about the well being of a roach? Nobody.

Specifically in America, nobody cares about the roaches.

Escrito por Fockmeeard, 14.07.2016 at 22:41

Specifically in America, nobody cares about the roaches.

So how does it feel when nobody cares about you? Share your story you opressed soul

Escrito por Evic, 14.07.2016 at 22:55

So how does it feel when nobody cares about you? Share your story you opressed soul

How does it feel to come from a country that only benefits society because it gives them a port in atwar?

Escrito por Fockmeeard, 15.07.2016 at 00:33

How does it feel to come from a country that only benefits society because it gives them a port in atwar?

poor attack, very inefficient, try harder

Escrito por Al Fappino, 14.07.2016 at 10:04

Here comes Tito again with his 'facts'. UK was not the a founding state of the EU?

The founding states were Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg (Benelux), Italy, France and Western Germany. The United Kingdom only joined in 1973 with Denmark and Ireland. Nice try Tito.

Surprised there, i was 100% sure UK was founding member of the Coal and Steel Community. Well, i admit mistake, i'm not a snide (like some) to troll about it.

Escrito por Al Fappino, 14.07.2016 at 10:04

The only reason why you don't have African and Middle Eastern immigrants it's because Russia is not appealing to them.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TOPIC YOU BRAIN-FRIED PORTUGUESE.

Escrito por Al Fappino, 14.07.2016 at 10:04

Besides, your immigrants from the ex-soviet bloc mostly only go there because they have family there or the language and nation bonds are close..so I don't get your point.

Correct, they are similar and closely related to Russia thus its easier. Not sure why you don't understand my point.

Escrito por Al Fappino, 14.07.2016 at 10:04

Most immigrants living in western countries assimilate to the culture of the countries they live in, but still keep parts of their culture. 2nd generation or 3rd generation of immigrants are fully assimilated and don't even speak the language of their origins that their grandparents or parents spoke in most cases. Once again, I'm pretty sure they like us and our countries if they assimilate to them and learn our language.

I don't know about Europe, can't claim anything, because Europe is more organized (still) than America, i mean the system and all. Immigrants can find job, education, housing etc. In America they definitely don't get education, housing or job provided by the state like in Europe, but they certainly get assimilated by 'America Patriotism', learning the linguae, waving flags and singing anthem. Contact Learster for more info, he knows more about that.

Anyway, the point is not reality, but your (not your personally) crying about the immigrants. Endless topics about how immigrants are barbarians coming to destroy Western Civilization, endless debates how to solve 'Immigrants Question', endless threads 'proving' immigrants are lower race, different from White Developed West.

Also the funny part is the money spend on propaganda promoting Western World, and when people start migrating there, then money is being spent for 'security' 'surveilance' 'police' 'immigrant registration' and again 'promotion' to stop immigration. So many wasted money, that could be put to better use.

Escrito por Fockmeeard, 14.07.2016 at 22:41

Why the fuck would we care about what happens to Russia? How many people care about the well being of a roach? Nobody.

Specifically in America, nobody cares about the roaches.

Beats me as well. Why America talks so much about Russia, especially in the last 2 years. Russia this, Russia that, Russia annexed Crimea, Russian invasion of 'Eastern Ukraine', Russian 'involvement in East Ukraine', Russian sanctions, Russian aggression, Russian planes fly close to US ships provokatevely and unprofessionally, Russia bomb civilians in Syria and my favorite 'Russian cruise missiles don't hit their target in Syria but crash in Iraq: by US expert from Talinn (because Estonia borders Iraq)

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 14.07.2016 at 18:13

More like the other way around.

Russia would have been charging at German divisions with sharpened sticks like in WW1 without America's help, to claim otherwise is not only ridiculous but also laughable

Escrito por Viruslegion, 15.07.2016 at 12:05

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 14.07.2016 at 18:13

More like the other way around.

Russia would have been charging at German divisions with sharpened sticks like in WW1 without America's help, to claim otherwise is not only ridiculous but also laughable

Except they won their first battles before the US even entered the war

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 15.07.2016 at 13:36

Except they won their first battles before the US even entered the war

Even before America entered the war they were shipping vast amounts of weapons and supplies to the Soviets

Escrito por Viruslegion, 15.07.2016 at 13:58

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 15.07.2016 at 13:36

Except they won their first battles before the US even entered the war

Even before America entered the war they were shipping vast amounts of weapons and supplies to the Soviets

To Britain*

Escrito por Viruslegion, 15.07.2016 at 12:05

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 14.07.2016 at 18:13

More like the other way around.

Russia would have been charging at German divisions with sharpened sticks like in WW1 without America's help, to claim otherwise is not only ridiculous but also laughable

You need to learn history first, then come back to participate in debate because atleast basic knowledge of the topic is required.

There was no Russia during WW2 era..

Even Aetius who is hardcore Nazi admit USSR had sligthly better military equipment than Nazi Germany. Which mean USSR didn't charge with sharpened sticks as you colorfuly said. USSR never had problem with quality or quantity of its equipment, but rather with its officer personnel, which came from the party and not military enviroment.

America sent great deal of its equipment to the Soviet Union and that is not to be ignored or mocked, but statistically it consisted only 5% of total Soviet equipment because USSR had the largest industry spamming products it need for war. Most of that equipment was instantly used when docked, in Murmansk against the Finnish or in Leningrad against the Germans. There wasn't time to transport it to Moscow or Stalingrad, more important fronts in the war. Nevertheless it saved time and effort of the USSR and served well on its deployement, while other Soviet gear could be sent straight where it is needed in Stalingrad, Kiev, Minsk, Caucasus and Far East.

USSR industry was far superior to the German one, for example USSR outnumbered the Germans with tanks right away, German tanks were better but thats because they couldn't rely on mass production unlike the Soviets.

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 15.07.2016 at 17:17

To Britain*

*To both, even tito acknowledges that Russia got aid from the United States, you are literally even more brainwashed and blindly loyal to the Eastern bloc than tito

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 14.07.2016 at 09:32

Finland is a sweet place, no problem with Finlandization as far as I'm concerned

Forgot to reply to you:

Finlandization is very bad term. It is basically neocolonialist policy: it means foreign country or power dictate your internal policies and/or daily run of the country.

It was invented in the West because in the Cold War they believed Finland although capitalist democracy, is heavily influenced and led by USSR. But that wasn't the case anyhow. Nevertheless it remained until today in use, to explain how are some countries run. Like Iraq, Japan or South Korea, all heavily influenced and/or controlled by America.

Escrito por For Antioch, 18.07.2016 at 19:00

Right, that's why the german to soviet tank losses were 1:4.4, and the mosin nagant is consistently named the worst bolt-action rifle of ww2.

1 rifle per 10 men as the germans approached Moscow, and near zero air resistance following the initial strike? Sure, no quantity issues.

I am not going to argue about WW2 anymore with a westerner. You have your movies, enjoy them and i don't really care what you think or believe about USSR or WW2.

Fact will always remain that USSR provided Red Army with 10,000 T-26 tanks and 5,000 BT-7, and when war began Red Army had 5,000 KV-1 heavy tanks (Germany didn't had in that time) with 300 of them KV-2 versions derp gun of 152mm capable of destroying 2 enemy tanks with one shot. Beside couple hundreds modified KV-1S, 30,000 artillery pieces, 37 million rifles and 6 million submachine guns and 20,000 fighter planes stationed in Belarus and Ukraine.

All those 20,000 planes were destroyed while on ground at their airfields by German bombers, so Germany established air superiority with their fighter planes afterwards. But saying USSR lacked military equipment and only 1 in 10 had rifles is plain stupid and i don't see why should anyone waste time and effort to convince a westerner otherwise.. especially after 70 years of propaganda. We know what happened, how it started and how it ended, and we are marking it every year to remember our fathers and mothers who endured the largest military conflict in history of mankind. Therefore no need to repeat facts anymore, atleast with you guys, but i still have fun talking about WW2 with other people, easterners and southerners in the global community.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT-7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin%E2%80%93Nagant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_howitzer_M1910/30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_howitzer_M1938_(M-30)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_howitzer_M1909/30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_howitzer_M1938_(M-10)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_howitzer-gun_M1937_(ML-20)

Escrito por Viruslegion, 17.07.2016 at 13:24

Escrito por Zephyrusu, 15.07.2016 at 17:17

To Britain*

*To both, even tito acknowledges that Russia got aid from the United States, you are literally even more brainwashed and blindly loyal to the Eastern bloc than tito

US sent to Britain, and Britain sent a portion of the supplies they received to the Soviets through Murmansk if I'm not mistaken..even Churchill admits it in his memoirs and explains how it went.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.07.2016 at 06:39

KV-2 versions derp gun of 152mm

I like the World of Tanks reference

I like the topic slowly shifted from current day nations over to nations during ww2

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.07.2016 at 06:39

You have your movies, enjoy them

Speaking of movies, I would suggest the movie Enemy at the Gates about a Soviet sniper at Stalingrad and how he was turned into a hero for propaganda and then is forced to face a top Nazi sniper who was sent to kill him. I haven't done any research to see if it's true, but it is one of my favorite wwII movies

Escrito por Viruslegion, 19.07.2016 at 12:48

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.07.2016 at 06:39

KV-2 versions derp gun of 152mm

I like the World of Tanks reference

Imagine this


versus this


Totally unfair, Pz III can just scratch Komrade Klim





At the battle of Raseinai one KV-2 hold the bridge against 12 German panzers, until it ran out of ammo, so they flanked and destroyed him. And then i log in the internet and start reading Western fairytales about Soviets in WW2. I've heard drugs harm brain but this is too much.

Escrito por Dereny, 19.07.2016 at 14:43

Speaking of movies, I would suggest the movie Enemy at the Gates about a Soviet sniper at Stalingrad and how he was turned into a hero for propaganda and then is forced to face a top Nazi sniper who was sent to kill him. I haven't done any research to see if it's true, but it is one of my favorite wwII movies

It is true, everything except the scene where Red Army soldiers rush the enemy without rifles. Because that is western propaganda from Cold War, Red Army had enough supplies during the war. It is also true USSR used Zaitsev's achievements in propaganda, heavily.

The scene where Red Army political commissars shoot retreating soldiers is also true, but my grandfather told me they didn't mass shooting them like in the movie, just one or two retreating, not all with machine guns. But as he said, 70% really wanted to fight to defend the Motherland, they were volunteers, rest 30% had to be forced.




p.s.
By the way, Zaitsev used 'bad quality' Mosin-Nagant, so he must be the best sniper in history for killing so many with the baddest gun available, right Koniecpolski?

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 19.07.2016 at 15:48

It is true, everything except the scene where Red Army soldiers rush the enemy without rifles. Because that is western propaganda from Cold War, Red Army had enough supplies during the war. It is also true USSR used Zaitsev's achievements in propaganda, heavily.

The scene where Red Army political commissars shoot retreating soldiers is also true, but my grandfather told me they didn't mass shooting them like in the movie, just one or two retreating, not all with machine guns. But as he said, 70% really wanted to fight to defend the Motherland, they were volunteers, rest 30% had to be forced.

The parts you're referring to as propaganda I thought were just added to make the movie more dramatic And I'm sure a majority of people did want to fight to defend their homes considering it was either that or live under foreign occupation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that 30% was or was similar to the draft instated in the US. I'm pleased you already saw the movie; I wasn't sure if it was popular or not because it came out when I was a young child so I don't know how people reacted to it.