How Commies keep feeding us BS on history

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Locked
User avatar
Hanski
Member
Posts: 1887
Joined: 24 Aug 2002, 20:18
Location: Helsinki

How Commies keep feeding us BS on history

#1

Post by Hanski » 16 Aug 2004, 17:48

Let me tell you a true story on the importance of assessing the reliability of sources.

Globalization41, who has provided us such exciting and authentic coverage on the WWII in his numerous late breaking war bulletins, also gave an interesting link on the Finnish-Soviet Winter War, at http://harikumar.brinkster.net/Communis ... WAR90.html .

This link offers fascinating, meticulously gathered details that impress a first-time reader and all its quotations appear at least by first reading to be factually true as such. However, they have been selectively chosen, undoubtedly always omitting contrary data, and they are interpreted in a hilariously funny communist way, leading to conclusions that prove Finland guilty, i.e. the victim is proved as the perpetrator.

I went through it as described on http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=270 ,
all this familiar commie stuff including testimonies of Soviet Generals and Finnish communists, but there was one quote by this anonymous propagandist that really struck me:
The Commie Propagandist wrote:
The above version of the facts -- that the Finnish armed forces were the instigators of the frontier incidents which had occurred -- was confirmed by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in February 1945:

"The Finnish war began in the following way. . . . Some Russian frontier guards were shot at by the Finns and killed. . . . The frontier guard detachment complained to the Red Army troops. . . . Moscow was asked for instructions. These contained the order to return the fire".

(W. S. Churchill: 'The Second World War', Volume 6: 'Triumph and Tragedy'; London; 1954; p. 317-18.
Now, suppose you are a reader from elsewhere in the world, and you may not know much of Finland and the Finns. You may have heard about the strange Finnish language that only Estonians may follow, about the long winter darkness and sub-zero temperatures, and the Koskenkorva drink that makes these odd Finns do all sorts of peculiar spectacular stunts.

But wherever you are from, Sir Winston Churchill needs no introduction to you. If he has given a statement, you know it is backed by all the authority of the greatest statesman among the Allies of the WWII, and you must know that his war memoirs represent the highest standard, checked and cross-checked with professor level historians and best military experts.

So there must be no doubt about whom you will believe, if these somewhat questionable Finns claim entirely the opposite to the words of Sir Winston, right? Quite obviously the odd, more or less stupid Finns have behaved irresponsibly as reported by this esteemed source, provoking their stronger neighbour and getting what they deserved! Case closed!

----

Today I went to Helsinki University Library to see the original text by Sir Winston. The book was found all right, but the numbering of pages was different in this edition, covering the above quoted paragraph on its pages 277-278.

It turned out the quote was about the congress at Yalta, held at the Soviet HQ in the Yusupov Palace. There is a passage on the proceedings at the dinner on February 8 in1945. (If you are impatient, jump to the end, but just to provide the whole context, I will quote a total of three pages, so you can also catch the atmosphere of this historic occasion.)
* * *

That night we all dined together with Stalin at the Yusupov Palace. The speeches were recorded, and may be printed here. Among other things, I said:

It is no exaggeration or compliment of a florid kind when I say that we regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the hopes and hearts of all of us. There have been many conquerors in history, but few of them have been statesmen, and most of them threw away the fruits of victory in the troubles which followed their wars. I earnestly hope that the Marshal may be spared to the people of the Soviet Union and to help us all to move forward to a less unhappy time than that through which we have recently come. I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world.

Stalin replied in flattering terms. He said:

I propose a toast for the leader of the British Empire, the most courageous of all Prime Ministers in the world, embodying political experience with military leadership, who when all Europe was ready to fall flat before Hitler said that Britain would stand and fight alone against Germany even without any allies. Even if the existing and possible allies deserted her he said she would continue to fight. To the health of the man who is born once in a hundred years, and who bravely held up the banner of Great Britain. I have said what I feel, what I have at heart, and of what I am conscious.

I then struck a graver note:

I must say that never in this war have I felt the responsibility weigh so heavily on me, even in the darkest hours, as now during this Conference. But now, for the reasons which the Marshal has given, we see that we are on the crest of the hill and there is before us the prospect of open country. Do not let us under-estimate the difficulties. Nations, comrades in arms, have in the past drifted apart within five or ten years of war. Thus toiling millions have followed a vicious circle, falling into the pit, and then by their sacrifices raising themselves up again. We now have a chance of avoiding the errors of previous generations and of making a sure peace. People cry out for peace and joy. Will the families be reunited? Will the warrior come home? Will the shattered dwellings be rebuilt? Will the toiler see his home? To defend one's country is glorious, but there are greater conquests before us. Before us lies the realisation of the dream of the poor — that they shall live in peace, protected by our invincible power from aggression and evil. My hope is in the illustrious President of the United States and in Marshal Stalin, in whom we shall find the champions of peace, who after smiting the foe will lead us to carry on the task against poverty, confusion, chaos, and oppression. That is my hope, and, speaking for England, we shall not be behindhand in our efforts. We shall not weaken in supporting your exertions. The Marshal spoke of the future. This is the most important of all. Otherwise the oceans of bloodshed will have been useless and outrageous. I propose the toast to the broad sunlight of victorious peace.

Stalin answered. I had never suspected that he could be so expansive. "I am talking," he declared, "as an old man; that is why I am talking so much. But I want to drink to our alliance, that it should not lose its character of intimacy, of its free expression of views. In the history of diplomacy I know of no such close alliance of three Great Powers as this, when allies had the opportunity of so frankly expressing their views. I know that some circles will regard this remark as naïve.

"In an alliance the allies should not deceive each other. Perhaps that is
naïve? Experienced diplomatists may say, `Why should I not deceive my ally?' But I as a naïve man think it best not to deceive my ally even if he is a fool. Possibly our alliance is so firm just because we do not deceive each other; or is it because it is not so easy to deceive each other? I propose a toast to the firmness of our Three-Power Alliance. May it be strong and stable; may we be as frank as possible."

And later:

For the group of workers who are recognised only during a war, and whose services after a war are quickly forgotten. While there is a war these men are favoured and meet with respect not only of people of their own kind, but also that of the ladies. After a war their prestige goes down and the ladies turn their backs on them.

I raise my glass to the military leaders.

He had no illusions about the difficulties which lay before us.

A change has taken place in European history, a radical change, during these days. It is good to have an alliance of the principal Powers during a war. It would not be possible to win the war without the alliance. But an alliance against the common enemy is something clear and understandable. Far more complicated is an alliance after the war for securing lasting peace and the fruits of victory. That we fought together was a good thing, but it was not so difficult; on the other hand, that in these days the work of Dumbarton Oaks has been consummated and the legal foundations laid for organising security and strengthening peace is a great achievement. It is a turning-point.

I propose a toast for the successful conclusion of Dumbarton Oaks, and that our alliance, born under the stress of battle, be made solid and extended after the war, that our countries should not become engrossed only in their own affairs, but should remember that, apart from their own problems, there is the common cause, and that they should defend the cause of unity with as much enthusiasm in peace as during the war.

Even Molotov was in genial mood. He said:

I propose a toast for the three representatives of the Army, Air Force, and Navy of the country which went to war before we did. They had a hard task and suffered heavily, and we must recognise that they have accomplished their task well. I wish them success and a rapid end of the war in Europe, so that the victorious armies of the Allies may enter Berlin and hoist their banner over that city. I drink to the representatives of the British Army, Air Force, and Navy, Field-Marshal Brooke, Admiral Cunningham, and Air Marshal Portal, and to Field-Marshal Alexander.


* * * *

As we sat at the dinner table in this cordial atmosphere Stalin began talking with me about the past. Some of his remarks remain on record.

"The Finnish war," he said, "began in the following way. The Finnish frontier was some twenty kilometres from Leningrad [he often called it "Petersburg"]. The Russians asked the Finns to move it back thirty kilometres, in exchange for territorial concessions in the north. The Finns refused. Then some Russian frontier guards were shot at by the Finns and killed. The frontier guards detachment complained to Red Army troops, who opened fire on the Finns. Moscow was asked for instructions. These contained the order to return the fire. One thing led to another and the war was on. The Russians did not want a war against Finland.

"If the British and French had sent a mission to Moscow in 1939 containing men who really wanted an agreement with Russia the Soviet Government would not have signed the pact with Ribbentrop.

"Ribbentrop told the Russians in 1939 that the British and Americans were only merchants and would never fight.

"If we, the three Great Powers, now hold together no other Power can do anything to us."
So, that was what Sir Winston Churchill actually wrote in 'The Second World War', Volume 6: 'Triumph and Tragedy'; London; 1954

Now, how about our source on the Internet, that anonymous zealous propagandist, the true believer in Communism, gathering and publishing all those meticulous details – he was so convincing, but did he give you truthful evidence on how the Winter War broke out, according to Sir Winston Churchill? He did quote Churchill, didn’t he? It just never occurred to him that anything else in the context was worth mentioning…

In the age of the Internet, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are still people out there whose brains are wired differently, by-passing the parts where such things as moral and truthfulness are located. They have their own ideology with concepts such as “Just wars”, when it is irrelevant who fired the first shot, and correspondingly, also truth itself is irrelevant when disinformation serves better their Marxist goals.

You may not always have the time and opportunity to visit a University Library to check, like I did. Can you believe them, if you take their word with a bit of salt? BS with salt is still shit, so you are better off by flushing it down the toilet.

Aleksei22
Banned
Posts: 252
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 21:49
Location: Russia

Re: How Commies keep feeding us BS on history

#2

Post by Aleksei22 » 16 Aug 2004, 18:25

Hanski wrote:
You may not always have the time and opportunity to visit a University Library to check, like I did. Can you believe them, if you take their word with a bit of salt? BS with salt is still shit, so you are better off by flushing it down the toilet.





Hello, Dear Hanski,

Pls L-O-O-K below.

If you cannot understand what it is - pls. go to
University again for small technical consultation.

Have a fun, and

Thank you.

specially for Hanski wrote:
http://harikumar.brinkster.net/Communis ... WAR90.html

Windows Server 2003 Microsoft-IIS/6.0 16-Aug-2004 65.182.102.14 Brinkster Communicatoins Corporation

________________________________


OrgName: Brinkster Communicatoins Corporation
OrgID: BCC-134
Address: 885 Kempsville Road
Address: Suite 309
City: Norfolk
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 23502
Country: US

NetRange: 65.182.96.0 - 65.182.111.255
CIDR: 65.182.96.0/20
NetName: ORF-BRINKSTER-COM
NetHandle: NET-65-182-96-0-1
Parent: NET-65-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: ORF-DNS1.BRINKSTER.COM
NameServer: ORF-DNS2.BRINKSTER.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2003-12-12
Updated: 2004-01-13

TechHandle: MICHE2-ARIN
TechName: Thompson, Micheal A
TechPhone: +1-757-222-3424
TechEmail: [email protected]

OrgTechHandle: MICHE2-ARIN
OrgTechName: Thompson, Micheal A
OrgTechPhone: +1-757-222-3424
OrgTechEmail: [email protected]


User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 16:19
Location: Finland

#3

Post by Topspeed » 16 Aug 2004, 18:49

This is quite striking to read indeed ( insert from the aleksei22 link ):

Nevertheless, Khrushchev, at the time of writing, retained a sufficiently superficial Marxism-Leninism, to recognise that this was not relevant to the character of the Soviet-Finnish war and that this was being fought, on the Soviet side, purely for necessary defensive purposes and was a just war:
"We had to guarantee the security of Leningrad, which was within artillery range of the Finnish border and could easily have been shelled from Finnish territory. Moreover, the Finnish government was following policies hostile to the Soviet Union. It was demonstrably flirting with Hitlerite Germany. The Finnish commander in chief, Carl Mannerhein, was a former tsarist general and a sworn enemy of the Soviet Union, Vaino Tanner was an old Social Democrat, but he remained an irreconcilable foe of our Marxist-Leninist ideology until the end of his days. Consequently, Finland represented a real threat to us because its territory could be used by more powerful governments; and it was therefore sensible, indeed crucial, for the Soviet State to take steps to protect Leningrad. . .
Our only goal was to protect our security in the North. . . . Our sole consideration was security -- Leningrad was in danger".
(N. S. Khrushchev: ibid,; p. 150-51. 152).
Indeed, many Western international lawyers accept the view that a state may legitimately intervene in another state where such intervention is necessary to its self-preservation.
Thomas Lawrence* writes in his 'The Principles of International Law':
"Interventions . . . are technical violations of the right of independence. . . . Yet in certain circumstances International Law may excuse, or even approve of them. .
The duty of self-preservation is even more sacred than the duty of respecting the independence of others, If the two clash, a state naturally acts on the former."
(T. J. Lawrence: 'The Principles of International Law'; Boston; 1915; p. 127).
and Joseph Starke*, in his 'Introduction to International Law', agrees:
"The following are, baldly expressed, the principal exceptional cases in which it is claimed that a state has at international law a legitimate right of intervention:
self-defence, if intervention is necessary to meet the danger of an actual armed attack".
(J. G. Starke: 'Introduction to International Law'; London; 1989; p. 105).
Many prominent Westerners who were not international lawyers agreed that the Soviet war with Finland was a just war. For example, the writer George Bernard Shaw* wrote in the 'Daily Mail' in December 1939, while the Soviet-Finnish War was still in progress:
"Finland has been misled by a very foolish Government. She should have accepted Russia's offer for a readjustment of territory. She should have been a sensible neighbour. Finland would probably not have refused the Russian offer had she been acting on her own. .
No Power could tolerate a frontier from which a town such as Leningrad could be shelled, when she knows that the Power on the other side of the frontier . . . is being made by a foolish Government to act in the interests of other and greater powers menacing her security.
In Russia's view, Finland can have no defensible objection to carrying out the exchange of territories which Russia had asked of her unless she is allowing herself to be used by America or the Western Powers".
(G. B. Shaw, in: 'Daily Mail', 2 December 1939; p. 6).
Even Winston Churchill, who had savagely condemned Soviet 'aggression’ against Finland at the time, changed his view after 1941:
"In the days of the Russo-Finnish war I had been sympathetic to Finland, but I had turned against her since she came into the war against the Soviets. Russia must have security for Leningrad and its approaches. The position of the Soviet Union as a permanent naval and air power in the Baltic must be assured".
(W. S. Churchill: 'The Second World War', Volume 6: Triumph And Tragedy'; London; 1954; p. 318).
Incredible how pro communist the world was back then ! 120 mio Russia could be shelled by 3 mio Finland. :lol: Therefore of course USSR should have a base near Helsinki and several Islands, the nickel rich Petsamo area ( which is now an appalling nature crime ),give away their access to Polar Sea, Karelia of course with access to richness of world famous national Epos lake Laatokka ( Ladoga in Russian ) which is a biohazard oil spilled lake nowadays and so forth.

Thanks WEST and International Law specialist ! Thanks alot indeed.

Special thanks for not letting USSR put a communist puppet regime in the Parliament in Finland..somehow they managed their way there anyway !

See this link:

http://www.eduskunta.fi/fakta/historia/ ... iIndex.htm
Last edited by Topspeed on 16 Aug 2004, 19:21, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#4

Post by Christian W. » 16 Aug 2004, 18:56

I seriusly hope that no one belives that Soviet propaganda, i dont belive it and if someone belives it that is their problem.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

#5

Post by Harri » 16 Aug 2004, 19:12

Thank you for great input, Hanski! It really reveals how easily things could be confused if it serves certain ideology or goal. And who's the fool? The reader of course... :lol:

User avatar
Christian W.
Member
Posts: 2494
Joined: 10 Aug 2004, 19:26
Location: Vantaa, Finland

#6

Post by Christian W. » 16 Aug 2004, 19:17

Never belive Soviet propaganda.. :P

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#7

Post by Marcus » 16 Aug 2004, 19:29

When posting in a research section a more serious title than "How Commies keep feeding us BS on history" is expected.

/Marcus

Locked

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”