Interesting and Humour - page 3068
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
From minute 04:01 and 04:15
From minute 04:01 and 04:15 onwards
A perfect example of Russophobe chowder:
1. To invent a "silenced truth": the French burned Moscow. A man who objectively says that the truth has been known since 1823 is cut off
2. Ascribe all this outrage to the official regime, preferably the Soviet regime, but the modern one will do.
3. Show a widespread ignorance when considering this "silenced truth", which the opponents will refute
4. All for the sake of pushing through the main Russophobic thought, which at the end of the show: the main thing for Kutuzov was to defeat Napoleon, and he did not care about anything else: about Moscow, about the people. There's an echo right there
How about filtering Russophobia on Russian-language resource?
Strange, we were told at school that it was Kutuzov's idea, but not the French for sure. It's obvious it wasn't the French either.
24:20 is stupidity. The prisoners, to cover their tracks, could not have burned everything so thoroughly.
No Russophobia is detected, not even a hint.
A perfect example of Russophobe chowder:
1. To invent a "silenced truth": the French burned Moscow. A man who objectively says that the truth has been known since 1823 is cut off
2. Ascribe all this outrage to the official regime, preferably the Soviet regime, but the modern one will do.
3. Show a widespread ignorance in addressing this "silenced truth", which the opponents will refute
4. All for the sake of pushing through the main Russophobic thought, which at the end of the show: the main thing for Kutuzov was to defeat Napoleon, and he did not care about anything else: about Moscow, about the people. There's an echo right there
How about filtering Russophobia on the Russian-language resource?
1. What? Are you saying that the French burned Moscow in 1812? How about a little brainwashing? OK the buildings, but who emptied the cellars of foodstuffs?
2. What has the regime got to do with it?
3. What truth? The main opponent who says it was the French who burned it is talking nonsense.
4. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that? A great strategic move, by the way. It was positive, people were saved and the French were defeated without a fight. And it had a positive effect on the development of Moscow - after the fire everything was built from stone.
Mozhaisk paratroopers: from a low-flying flight without parachutes onto German tanks
Mozhaisk landing party: from a low-flying flight without parachutes on German tanks
Source: Defending Russia
A Soviet pilot on a reconnaissance flight into enemy territory during his return spotted a column of German armoured vehicles moving towards Moscow.
It turned out, that there were neither barrier troops, nor antitank weapons on the way of enemy's tanks. It was decided to throw a landing force in front of the column. A fresh regiment of Siberians was brought to the nearest airfield.
They were lined up, and the volunteers were offered to jump from the plane into the snow and stop the enemy.
And they were warned at once that they had to jump without parachutes, from a low-level flight right in front of the column. It was not an order, but a request, but everyone made a step forward.
Further we shall quote from the novel of Yury Sergeev "Prince's island": "The German column was rushing along the snowy highway.
Suddenly low-flying Russian planes appeared ahead as if they were going to land, they were gliding over the snow drifts, dropping speed to the limit, ten or twenty meters from the snow surface, and suddenly people were falling in clusters onto the snow-covered field close to the road.
They tumbled in the whirlwinds of snow, and more and more men in white overcoats followed, as if the enemy, seized by panic horror, thought there would be no end to this white whirlwind, this white river of Russian sky, falling in the snow beside the tanks behind the ditch, getting up alive and throwing themselves under the tracks with a bunch of grenades... They marched like white ghosts, spraying submachine guns on the infantry in the vehicles, anti-tank rifles were burning through the armor, several tanks were already on fire.
The Russians could not be seen in the snow, they seemed to grow out of the ground itself: fearless, fierce and holy in their vengeance, unstoppable by any weapon. The battle was boiling and clamouring on the highway. The Germans killed almost everyone and were already rejoicing at their victory when they saw the new column of tanks and motorised infantry catch up with them, when again a wave of planes crawled out of the forest and a white waterfall of fresh fighters rushed out, hitting the enemy in the fall...
The German columns were destroyed, only a few armoured vehicles and cars escaped this hell and rushed back, carrying the mortal horror and mystical fear of the fearlessness, will and spirit of the Russian soldier. Afterwards it turned out that only twelve per cent of the paratroopers had perished in falling into the snow.
The others took the unequal combat.
I cannot imagine a German, an American or an Englishman jumping on tanks voluntarily and without a parachute.
The present ruins of Russia and our army will mock at this fact of history ...
What will they not write: saying that the soldiers were afraid of Stalin, afraid that they would be shot, that they were forced to do it by force...
Олег avtomat:
...In the history of airborne troops of all the world's countries they have never conducted a successful airborne operation.
A perfect example of Russophobe chowder:
1. To invent a "silenced truth": the French burned Moscow. A man who objectively says that the truth has been known since 1823 is cut off
2. Ascribe all this outrage to the official regime, preferably the Soviet regime, but the modern one will do.
3. Show a widespread ignorance in addressing this "silenced truth", which the opponents will refute
4. All for the sake of pushing through the main Russophobic thought, which at the end of the programme: the main thing for Kutuzov was to defeat Napoleon, and he did not care about anything else: about Moscow, about the people. There's an echo right there
Maybe we should filter out Russophobia on Russian-language resource?
Just the truth, nothing more.
I wrote above that Moscow was burned down by Kutuzov...
The town governor was simply carrying out a command. He wouldn't have done it without a command from his elders...
and Kutuzov was senior at the time.
And of course there's no documentation such orders were given by voice
strategically correct move... which essentially ensured the victory.
Then they built mostly in stone... Progress again.
1. What? Are you saying that the French burned Moscow in 1812? What if you racked your brains a bit? All right the buildings, but the cellars, who emptied them of foodstuffs?
2. What has the regime got to do with it?
3. What truth? The main opponent claiming the French burned is talking nonsense.
4. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that? A great strategic move, by the way. It was positive, people were saved and the French were defeated without a fight. And it had a positive effect on the development of Moscow - after the fire everything was built from stone.
1. What? Are you saying that the French burned Moscow in 1812?
Read carefully what is written before you post.
The whole point of the reel is in the end, as the summary of the whole reel, the historian - ignoramus, incapable to get a diploma of the historian says (38.50) that "Alexander I, who waged this war from 1805 and continued in 1812, it was not important to him how many territories would be burned and how many Russian soldiers would die - the main thing was to defeat Napoleon personally, that is the problem, therefore Moscow was sacrificed and I am sorry that country which needs heroes". And after the words of the presenter, a Russophobe like Ponasevkov, that a line had been drawn, the audience became indignant and began to assess all this outrage, which is the second time we are discussing here.
In the history of airborne troops of all the world's countries they have never conducted a successful airborne operation.
1. What? Are you claiming that Moscow 1812 was burned down by the French?
Read carefully what is written before you post.
The whole point of the reel is in the end, as the summary of the whole reel, the historian - the ignoramus, who is not capable to receive the diploma of the historian says (38.50) that "Alexander I, who made this war from 1805 and continued in 1812, it was not important to him how many victims will be, how many territories will be burnt and how many Russian soldiers will die - the main thing was to win Napoleon personally, in it all problems, therefore Moscow was sacrificed and I feel sorry to that country which needs heroes". And after the words of the presenter, who is a Russophobe like Ponasevkov, that the line had been drawn, the audience became indignant and started to assess all this outrage, which is the second time we are discussing here.