Shiva, just as I said before either you provide some fact sto oppose my views, or just stop bothering me. Usually people who had to restore to personal insults don't have much to say when they asked to contribute something of actual substance. Prove me wrong.Shiva wrote:You are not interested in your own believes ? Wondering ...No I am not interested in unsupported ferry tales.
Nope, your dumb and brainwashed reality.Your reality you mean
You have arguments because you have studied ? LOL ! Other people have also studied and a sign of knowledge is a reflectic and critic mind, an ability you obvious do not have. What do you have studied : propaganda from your commies friends ?People like me have an arguments because they had studied the subject. What obvious facts would that be?
There is nothing to prove, you are ignorant (and additionaly arrogant and impudent, like all true and fanatical believers)Out of curiosity care to back up any of this labels. Let see for instance you proving me ignorant.
Come on, don't try this dumb game. The USSR is standing under your name and shows your retrospective and lying view. I wished that guys like you, would have suffered in one of the soviet prison camps red scum.My name is oleg – not oleg USSR.
I'd like to first suggest, that your should write complete and understandable sentences and statements. What the heck are these numbers ? Please write a correct text, then come back. And don't forget to wash the commy flag about your bed.Jugging by your way arguing – you are not too good with reasoning – so I’ll pass on the suggestion
Was the Russian Army the largest in history?
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
Oops, no arguments any longer, my red friend ? Who is bothering ? Your historical lies ? You don't expect that i'm accepting lies, do you ? Come on, grow up and leave your arrogant character. Prove me wrong.Shiva, just as I said before either you provide some fact sto oppose my views, or just stop bothering me. Usually people who had to restore to personal insults don't have much to say when they asked to contribute something of actual substance. Prove me wrong.
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
Shiva wrote:Oops, no arguments any longer, my red friend ? Who is bothering ? Your historical lies ? You don't expect that i'm accepting lies, do you ? Come on, grow up and leave your arrogant character. Prove me wrong.Shiva, just as I said before either you provide some fact sto oppose my views, or just stop bothering me. Usually people who had to restore to personal insults don't have much to say when they asked to contribute something of actual substance. Prove me wrong.
What historic lies? And what truth shall I accept oh almighty Shiva?
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
oleg as I stated on another section of this forum you are being naive...you can t possibly ask for such documents.
Question: what are the odds for comunism as long as a free world existed
Question: what arguments do u have to support your theory( the one with no attacks on the western countries) while it was you that stated "Soviet doctrine was offensive is the best deffensive"...and do not say ´that only Germany was targeted
Question: if there were no imperialistic intention in SU politics athat time why SU got Basarabia from Romania after the Ribentropp Molotov Pact in MOscow?
Question: what are the odds for comunism as long as a free world existed
Question: what arguments do u have to support your theory( the one with no attacks on the western countries) while it was you that stated "Soviet doctrine was offensive is the best deffensive"...and do not say ´that only Germany was targeted
Question: if there were no imperialistic intention in SU politics athat time why SU got Basarabia from Romania after the Ribentropp Molotov Pact in MOscow?
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
answer 1 as long as there no straight forward aggression I don';t see why they could not coexist. USSR had relatively good relations with Weimar republic, with France and USA prior to WW II.Rommel wrote:oleg as I stated on another section of this forum you are being naive...you can t possibly ask for such documents.
Question: what are the odds for comunism as long as a free world existed
Question: what arguments do u have to support your theory( the one with no attacks on the western countries) while it was you that stated "Soviet doctrine was offensive is the best deffensive"...and do not say ´that only Germany was targeted
Question: if there were no imperialistic intention in SU politics athat time why SU got Basarabia from Romania after the Ribentropp Molotov Pact in MOscow?
Answer 2. I don';t have to prove the theory that Soviet';s planed the aggression. From document that I posted on the other thread it is rather clear that Soviet deployment was a response to German one - hence no German army on Soviet Border - no Soviet deployment. On the other hand your theory is that USSR was preparing to conquer the whole world, while the analyzes of the state of the troops - foremost the tank formations shows that MOST OF THEM WERE BARELLY BATTLEWORTHY, and would need significant time to become the formations they were suppose to be.
Basarabia was taken by Romania for what later became USSR during the time of Civil war no major power ever recognized Romanian authority over the territory -I don';t see on what basis you classify the return of the territory as imperialistic
Oleg you can t possibly say that Basarabia was slvic land...as far as I remeber it was part of Moldavia until 1812 when it was taken by Russian Empire...
in 1918 Basarabia rejoined Romania and by 1921 the union was reckoned by every country in Europe
so in 1940 Basarabia was part of Romanian territory
further more the majority of population consists of Romanian ethnics even today
so explain me what are the Russian rights on this region
in 1918 Basarabia rejoined Romania and by 1921 the union was reckoned by every country in Europe
so in 1940 Basarabia was part of Romanian territory
further more the majority of population consists of Romanian ethnics even today
so explain me what are the Russian rights on this region
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
in 1812 Romania did not existed - it was subject of Ottoman Empire Romania as a stet came into existence Romania came into existence as a state in 1861 -a that time Bessarabia was part of Russian Empire who took from the Ottoman empire. In 1918 Bessrabia was occupied by Romania and, despite its multiple promises annexed it; no major country de Uro ever recognized the occupation. USSR was rather insistent on the the return of the territory Romania grew desperate and in 1935 was even prepared to signed the mutual assistance pact with USSR if the later would agree on the state border along the Denser.Rommel wrote:Oleg you can t possibly say that Basarabia was slvic land...as far as I remeber it was part of Moldavia until 1812 when it was taken by Russian Empire...
in 1918 Basarabia rejoined Romania and by 1921 the union was reckoned by every country in Europe
so in 1940 Basarabia was part of Romanian territory
further more the majority of population consists of Romanian ethnics even today
so explain me what are the Russian rights on this region
your answer is far from being complete or accurate...the Russian Empire only had Basarabia between 1812-1918 and after 1940 to Soviet Union collapse.
what happened in the rest of the time
Basarabia was part of the principate of Moldavia for all its history.
How do u explain that Romanian is the spoken language there even after so many years of communism.
And in 1921 Romanian borders were reckoned by Europe-including Basarabia too-
If sometimes I refere to Romanian terittories as Romania sorry my mistake ...I should say Moldavia,Transylvania and Vallachia
what happened in the rest of the time
Basarabia was part of the principate of Moldavia for all its history.
How do u explain that Romanian is the spoken language there even after so many years of communism.
And in 1921 Romanian borders were reckoned by Europe-including Basarabia too-
If sometimes I refere to Romanian terittories as Romania sorry my mistake ...I should say Moldavia,Transylvania and Vallachia
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
principate of Moldavia was not a state if we going to speak about acquisition of Bessarabia we should speak about acquisition of it from Ottoman Empire. Consequently Romania who came into the existence (not without help of Russian Imperia which methodically weakened the Ottomans) in 1865 could hardly claim these lands. As fro languages Russian Empire as well as USSR was multiethnic state there people speak their own language; while I am not sure about Imperial policies on the subject in USSR Russian was regarded as language of interethnic relations consequently it is no wonder that Romanian language is still there, so is Kazakh, so is Dagestanian, etc, etc.Rommel wrote:your answer is far from being complete or accurate...the Russian Empire only had Basarabia between 1812-1918 and after 1940 to Soviet Union collapse.
what happened in the rest of the time
Basarabia was part of the principate of Moldavia for all its history.
How do u explain that Romanian is the spoken language there even after so many years of communism.
And in 1921 Romanian borders were reckoned by Europe-including Basarabia too-
If sometimes I refere to Romanian terittories as Romania sorry my mistake ...I should say Moldavia,Transylvania and Vallachia
All the sources I consulted say that annexation of Bessrabia was never recognized by any major power. If you have sources claiming otherwise please post them.
so you reckon the inhabitants of Basarabia could speak their own language which was Romanian...therefore they must have been on Romanian land cause I do not know Romania( or former principates ) to have had imperialistic intentions at any time in history...
and you said well Basarabia was taken from the Otoman Empire but it was not a TURKISH LAND.
the first inhabitants of the that regions were Romanian speakers ethnics...so YOU TOOK THE REGION BUT YOU DID NOT FORM IT IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAY....
and you said well Basarabia was taken from the Otoman Empire but it was not a TURKISH LAND.
the first inhabitants of the that regions were Romanian speakers ethnics...so YOU TOOK THE REGION BUT YOU DID NOT FORM IT IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAY....
- Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
Well Romania did participate in WW I- without being attack - so I guess there was some aspirations I guess. Also occupation of Bessarbia was still act of aggression. Moreover grabbing part of Russian Imperia could be considered a backstabbing since Romania just as Russia fought on side of the EntenteI do not know Romania( or former principates ) to have had imperialistic intentions at any time in history...
From political point of view it was. Many Russian soldiers since times of Peter the Great and well into Alexander the III times, spilled their blood to expel Ottomans from this lands. While Czars were conducting multiple wars nobody considered these lands as being Romanian for very simple reason there was no such a state.and you said well Basarabia was taken from the Otoman Empire but it was not a TURKISH LAND.
And first inhabitants of Eastern Prussia and later became Germany were Slavs - Berlin for instance is Slavic name. I could see what are you trying to say but I am afraid it does not quite work this way. I am rather curious, since you obviously consider Soviet retake of Bessarbia, an act of aggression, do you consider Soviet excursion into Galicia in 1939 (the land that Poland took in 1920), with predominantly Ukrainian and Byelorussian population an act of aggression?the first inhabitants of the that regions were Romanian speakers ethnics...so YOU TOOK THE REGION BUT YOU DID NOT FORM IT IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAY....
I really do not know much of Galicia
As I stated before Basarabia was part of Moldavia( a romanian Principate).Romania as a state,as a name appeared in 1861 but until than there were romanians divided in three little countries.
ANd by the way Romanians started fighting with the Otoman Empire around 1350....you are not the only ones...
And taking back a romanian territory is not backstubbing...if I well remember during the revolution in 1917 Lenin stated the right of selfdetermination for each of the peoples in former Russian Empire and Basarabia choosed to get back to motherland which is ROMANIA.
As I stated before Basarabia was part of Moldavia( a romanian Principate).Romania as a state,as a name appeared in 1861 but until than there were romanians divided in three little countries.
ANd by the way Romanians started fighting with the Otoman Empire around 1350....you are not the only ones...
And taking back a romanian territory is not backstubbing...if I well remember during the revolution in 1917 Lenin stated the right of selfdetermination for each of the peoples in former Russian Empire and Basarabia choosed to get back to motherland which is ROMANIA.