Interesting and humorous - page 146
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 a strategic point of view, Peter is certainly more valuable than Moscow because of the port
There is in principle an impenetrable fortress-gulf with Kronstadt.
Not for nothing did Peter the First put so many bones of man there
Though in a global conflict it won't matter about the port.
Missiles can go anywhere
Are you, like, even more of a fucking expert?
Or are you also "clamouring and working" for a spiritual staple? Well, well, sing your song now.
Disrespectful - you are a local buffoon and a silly hypocrite. Keep up the "Yeroma" act - you're good at it ....
Oh, and my quote you "cleverly" inserted into your post - not addressed to you at all. Why so sneakily "cheat"? But you were afraid to quote the post addressed to you.
It seems that you do not "care" about memory for nothing...
-------------------------------------
...a little more about the siege city and bastard partners.
"In the district committee, the workers also began to feel the plight, although they were in a somewhat more privileged position... Of the staff of the district committee, the Plenum of the district committee and of the secretaries of the primary organisations, no one died. We managed to defend the people", A. M. Grigoriev, first secretary of the Leninist district committee of the VKP(b), recalled proudly."(c) (who would have doubted it! )
I. Metter told how A. A. Kuznetsov, a member of the Military Council of the Baltic Fleet Theater, as a sign of goodwill, presented to the actress "a chocolate cake baked specially at the confectionery named after Samailova". Fifteen people ate the chocolate cake, and in particular I. Metter himself. There was no shameful intent here, just that A. A. Kuznetsov was sure that in a city littered with the corpses of the dead from exhaustion, he too had the right to give generous gifts at other people's expense to those he liked. These people behaved as if life were continuing peacefully, and he could feel free to lounge at the theatre, send cakes to the artists and force the librarians to find books for their 'leisure moments'. (с)
----------------
Looks like the confectionery factory in the blockaded city - was it working "all the time"? For whom? For the "members of the Military Council"? People were not entitled to cakes in their rations.
Or is that also an incorrect question? Niz-ya-ya !!!!!!!
No, it's a real debate!
and how are people who lived in the 12th century worse than those who lived in the 20th?
they deserve just as much attention!
No one said anyone was worse or better. I just wanted to say that amateurs shouldn't get involved in topics they don't understand unless they're prepared.
Rain's question about Peter is a very bastard question. The answer to it requires a very large amount of information and is very difficult even for professionals, not to mention the rest of the people.
You're all lying, it wasn't like that at all.
By the end of the thirties, it was becoming increasingly clear to the most educated people. Avoiding war with the Soviet Union with this axis of evil was no longer an option. Almost all industry was either oriented or very quickly converted to the war effort. Military propaganda was spreading all over the country, allegedly voluntary organisations were opened where military equipment and armaments were studied. Compulsory conscription and service in the Red Army was announced, allowing the entire population to be trained and put under arms. The best minds of the country were forcibly concentrated in small shops, where under the threat of torture and hunger they were forced to develop more and more lethal weapons, including those of mass destruction. It is also necessary to note, that the country, occupying 1/6 of land, possessed colossal resources, which gave it an opportunity to conduct almost unlimited warfare in the sky, on the ground and at sea. And worst of all, there were real maniacs in power, who could no longer get enough of single victims, but with greed craved more and more. Such a threat could only be countered by uniting the disparate European states.
Then a handful of true patriots, knowing that they would be damned by future generations, undertook this truly titanic task. When they came to power in Germany and tried to negotiate a unification with their neighbours peacefully, they had to resort to force. So Europe was united and was already able to face the threat from the east. Now we know how naive they were back then.
To justify its hostility, the Soviet Union artificially shifted the military action to its own territory, without considering any losses, including human losses. Now the status of a defending nation untied the hands of the ruling elite and justified any atrocities against humanity.
NOW, your way out, continue with your essay.
You go on with your writing.
I especially liked: "with this axis of evil"
and "the soviet union artificially shifted hostilities to its territory"
Come on, afftar, write again.
You're all lying, it wasn't like that at all.
By the end of the thirties, it was becoming increasingly clear to the most educated people. Avoiding war with the Soviet Union with this axis of evil was no longer an option. Almost all industry was either oriented or very quickly converted to the war effort. Military propaganda was spreading all over the country, allegedly voluntary organisations were opened where military equipment and armaments were studied. Compulsory conscription and service in the Red Army was announced, allowing the entire population to be trained and put under arms. The best minds of the country were forcibly concentrated in small shops, where under the threat of torture and hunger they were forced to develop more and more lethal weapons, including those of mass destruction. It is also necessary to note, that the country, occupying 1/6 of land, possessed colossal resources, which gave it an opportunity to conduct almost unlimited warfare in the sky, on the ground and at sea. And worst of all, there were real maniacs in power, who could no longer get enough of single victims, but with greed craved more and more. Such a threat could only be countered by uniting the disparate European states.
Then a handful of true patriots, knowing that they would be damned by future generations, undertook this truly titanic task. When they came to power in Germany and tried to negotiate a unification with their neighbours peacefully, they had to resort to force. So Europe was united and was already able to face the threat from the east. Now we know how naive they were back then.
To justify its hostility, the Soviet Union artificially shifted the military action to its own territory, without considering any losses, including human losses. Now the status of a defending nation untied the hands of the ruling elite and justified any atrocities against humanity.
NOW, your way out, continue with your essay.
You go on with your writing.
I especially liked: "with this axis of evil"
and "the soviet union artificially shifted hostilities to its territory"
Come on, afftar, write again.
.A little more about the besieged city and the bastard partisans.
"In the district committee the workers also began to feel the plight, although they were in a somewhat more privileged position... Of the staff of the district committee, the Plenum of the district committee and of the secretaries of the primary organisations, no one died. We managed to defend the people", A. M. Grigoriev, first secretary of the Leninist district committee of the VKP(b), recalled proudly."(c) (who would have doubted it! )
"I. Metter recounted how the actress of the Baltic Fleet Theatre, a member of the Military Council of the Leningrad Front, A. A. Kuznetsov, as a token of his favour, gave her "a chocolate cake baked specially at the Samoilov Confectionery; it was eaten by fifteen people, in particular himself. Fifteen people ate the chocolate cake, and in particular I. Metter himself. There was no shameful intent here, just that A. A. Kuznetsov was sure that in a city littered with the corpses of the dead from exhaustion, he too had the right to give generous gifts at other people's expense to those he liked. These people behaved as if life were continuing peacefully, and he could feel free to lounge at the theatre, send cakes to the artists and force the librarians to find books for their "leisure moments". (с)
----------------
Looks like the confectionery factory in the blockaded city - was it working "full steam ahead"? For whom? For the "members of the Military Council"? People were not entitled to cakes in their rations.
Or is that also an incorrect question? Low-Is-I !!!!!!!
Why are the hypocritical propagandists afraid and unwilling for the blockade to be discussed? (from the same link) :
"...Reading the minutes of the discussion in Smolny of the film The Defence of Leningrad, it is difficult to escape the impression that its viewers were more concerned with the "propriety" of the blockade panorama shown there than with recreating its true history. The main reproach: the film does not give a charge of vivacity and enthusiasm, does not call for labour achievements... "There is too much decadence in the film", noted A. A. Zhdanov.
And reading the account of P.S. Popkov's speech given here, one realises that perhaps this was the main thing here. P.S. Popkov feels he is an excellent editor. The film shows a string of dead people. No need for that: "The impression is depressing. Part of the episodes about the coffins will have to be removed. He saw a car frozen in the snow. Why show it? "It can be attributed to our irregularities."
He is indignant at the fact that the work of factories and plants is not covered - he chose to remain silent about the fact that most of them were idle during the first blockade winter. The film shows a blockade survivor falling from exhaustion. This, too, must be excluded: "We don't know why he is staggering, maybe drunk."(с)
To them propagandists, it is clear that any normal person leafing through the blockade archives and documents will experience nothing but a feeling of loathing for the party-military officials. And anyone will start to think, what is the real role of those party bastards in the defence of the city? Getting fat and hiding in the basements of Smolny? Supplying themselves in special shops for party activists? Baking chocolate cakes in a confectionery factory for 'members of the Military Council'?
Why are hypocritical propagandists afraid and do not want the blockade to be discussed? (from the same link) :
"...Reading the minutes of the Smolny discussion of the film The Defence of Leningrad, it is difficult to escape the impression that its viewers were more concerned with the "propriety" of the blockade panorama shown here than with recreating its true history. The main reproach: the film does not give a charge of vivacity and enthusiasm, does not call for labour achievements... "There is too much decadence in the film", noted A. A. Zhdanov.
And reading the account of P.S. Popkov's speech given here, one realises that perhaps this was the main thing here. P.S. Popkov feels he is an excellent editor. The film shows a string of dead people. No need for that: "The impression is depressing. Part of the episodes about the coffins will have to be removed. He saw a car frozen in the snow. Why show it? "It can be attributed to our irregularities."
He is indignant at the fact that the work of the factories and plants is not covered - he chose to remain silent about the fact that most of them were idle during the first blockade winter. The film shows a blockade survivor falling from exhaustion. This, too, must be excluded: "We don't know why he is staggering, maybe drunk."(с)
To them propagandists, it is clear that any person leafing through the blockade archives and documents will feel nothing but loathing for the party-military officials. And anyone will start to think, what is the real role of those party bastards in the defence of the city? Getting fat and hiding in the basements of Smolny? Being provided for in special shops for party activists?
Ohh! Not only are you a mega super marshal and generalissimo and know how to fight a war, but you're also a mega super director and know how to make a movie. Awesome.
Have you leafed through and read these archives, for your reasoning?
Why are the hypocritical propagandists afraid and unwilling to have the blockade discussed? (from the same link) :
"...Reading the minutes of the Smolny discussion of the film The Defence of Leningrad, it is difficult to escape the impression that its viewers were more concerned with the "propriety" of the blockade panorama shown here than with recreating its true history. The main reproach: the film does not give a charge of vivacity and enthusiasm, does not call for labour achievements... "There is too much decadence in the film", noted A. A. Zhdanov.
And reading the account of P.S. Popkov's speech given here, one realises that perhaps this was the main thing here. P.S. Popkov feels he is an excellent editor. The film shows a string of dead people. No need for that: "The impression is depressing. Part of the episodes about the coffins will have to be removed. He saw a car frozen in the snow. Why show it? "It can be attributed to our irregularities."
He is indignant at the fact that the work of the factories and plants is not covered - he chose to remain silent about the fact that most of them were idle during the first blockade winter. The film shows a blockade survivor falling from exhaustion. This, too, must be excluded: "We don't know why he is staggering, maybe drunk."(с)
To them propagandists, it is clear that any normal person leafing through the blockade archives and documents will experience nothing but a feeling of loathing for the party-military officials. And anyone will start to think, what is the real role of those party bastards in the defence of the city? Getting fat and hiding in the basements of Smolny? Supplying themselves in special shops for party activists? Baking chocolate cakes in a candy factory for "members of the Military Council"?
The propagandists have nothing substantive to object to! Except the usual, "Yeehaw, you're a fool"!
So, the corrupt hypocritical propagandists hysterically start squealing: "Nizz-ya-ya-ya! It cannot be questioned. Let the experts and marshals deal with it, and let all kinds of smart guys - we forbid them to discuss it! The memory of veterans! A spiritual staple! !!!!!".
" Thestory of N.A. Ribkovsky is remarkable..... He managed to escape: in December 1941 he was appointed instructor of personnel department of Leningrad city committee of All-Union Communist Party (of bolsheviks). In March 1942 he was sent to the hospital of the city committee in the village of Melnichny Ruchey. Like any blockade survivor. He cannot stop in his diary until he lists all the foodstuffs on which he was fed: "The food here is like in peacetime in a good rest home: varied, tasty, of high quality...
Every day there was meat - lamb, ham, chicken, goose... sausage, fish - bream, herring, smelt, both fried and boiled, and poured. Caviar, balik, cheese, patties and as much black bread for the day, thirty grams of butter and to all this fifty grams of grape wine, good port for lunch and supper... I and two other comrades get an extrabreakfast, between breakfast and lunch: a couple of sandwiches or a bun and a glass of sweet tea.""(с)
This was at the height of the siege, when, let me remind you, the majority of ordinary people were entitled to one "octopus" of bread (125gr) per day. What feelings could be induced by the notes of the party-paratrooper? Nothing, except feeling of disgust to "wise military management". How the corrupt propagandists do not want these documents to be discussed openly!
The propagandists have nothing substantive to object to! Other than the usual, "Yeehaw, you're a fool"!
So, the corrupt hypocritical propagandists hysterically start squealing: "Nizz-ya-ya-ya! It cannot be questioned. Let the experts and marshals with generalsimus handle it, and let all kinds of clever people be forbidden to discuss it! The memory of veterans! Spiritual bonds! !!!!!".
" Thestory of N. A. Ribkovsky is remarkable..... He managed to escape: in December, 1941 he was appointed instructor of personnel department of Leningrad city committee of All-Union Communist Party(b). In March 1942 he was sent to the stationary of the city committee in the village of Melnichny Ruchey. As any blockade survivor of hunger, he cannot stop in his diary entries until he lists all the food on which he was fed: "Food here is like in peacetime in a good rest home: varied, delicious, high quality...
Every day there was meat - lamb, ham, chicken, goose... sausage, fish - bream, herring, smelt, both fried and boiled, and poured. Caviar, balik, cheese, patties and as much black bread for the day, thirty grams of butter and to all this fifty grams of grape wine, good port for lunch and supper... I and two other comrades get an extrabreakfast, between breakfast and lunch: a couple of sandwiches or a bun and a glass of sweet tea.""(с)
This was at the height of the siege, when, let me remind you, the majority of ordinary people were entitled to one "octopus" of bread (125gr) per day. What feelings could be induced by the notes of the party-paratrooper? Nothing, except feeling of disgust to "wise military management". How the corrupt propagandists do not want these documents to be discussed openly!
And who do you think (though... who am I asking this question to)... So, why do you think these documents are suddenly being discussed now? Who says anyone is afraid of discussing these documents. What's so rediculous about them? There is nothing surprising or rediculous about them. The ruling hand had to be in place so that total chaos would not ensue. It was impossible to provide good food for everyone. Lenny, have you got any brains, Lenny?
All these documents have been available for a long time, I remember the rubbish about Stalin and 37 was back in 89, back under the USSR.