Announcement

**Ted Striker** · July 11, 2003, 01:36

Penetration

**Serb** · July 11, 2003, 01:50

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why? The portrayal of the Soviet Army in "Enemy At The Gates" was completely accurate.

Yeah, right. Like commisars with whistles, like war corespondents acting like paparaci (sp?), like 'human wave' attack, like boy wearing short pants in the middle of winter, not to mention he was very clear for citizen of completely destroyed city, like German officer giving chocolate to Russian boy when in reallity Germans were happy when they catch a rat for dinner, like Khrushev and Zaitsev warshiping to Stalin's portrait like to some kind of idol, like destroyed T-34/85 on streets of Stalingad when T-34/85 was not created yet, like Russian women, her son and Zaitsev's girl freind living in house when in reallity people lived in sewers because city was completely destroyed by bombs and there were less than half of a dozen undestroyed houses, like unshaved Russian soldier who trained Zaitsev, like Russian soldiers singing in the baracks, like female soldier and her cosmetics etc, etc, etc. It's only a tip of the iceberg.

This movie is compete sh!t and insult to Russians and to memory of people who fought in Stalingrad, to people like my grandfather.
F*ck this director, f*ck his team of morons who created this sh!t.

**Drake Tungsten** · July 11, 2003, 01:57

This movie is compete sh!t and insult to Russians and to memory of people who fought in Stalingrad, to people like my grandfather.
F*ck this director, f*ck his team of morons who created this sh!t.

It was a good and accurate movie. I guess you just can't handle the truth.

**Serb** · July 11, 2003, 02:00

You know nothing about our war. You're full of mythic crap and fairy tales.

**Drake Tungsten** · July 11, 2003, 02:09

You're full of mythic crap and fairy tales.

Yakov has nothing on you. Good show!

**Pekka** · July 11, 2003, 02:57

Serb, nah, that's what your teacher claims. It held. If someone crosses a foot cross the lines, it doesn't mean it is penetrated.!1

**Serb** · July 11, 2003, 03:40

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You're full of mythic crap and fairy tales.

Yakov has nothing on you. Good show!

Who the hell is this Smirnoff guy?

**Serb** · July 11, 2003, 03:45

Originally posted by Pekka
Serb, nah, that's what your teacher claims. It held. If someone crosses a foot cross the lines, it doesn't mean it is penetrated.!1

This is what some books I read about winter war claims. It was penetrated from second attempt and it was the major reason why Finland agreed to territorial demands of SU and lost part of its territory. The line was broken and road to Helsenki was open. You government had no choice, but to accept the demands. If line wasn't broken what's the point to give up?

**Pekka** · July 11, 2003, 03:54

Serb, it wasn't broken! !1!11 But it would have been soon. There was two options:

1.) We were promised help from the UK. They were about to send men , but had to go through Sweden, and we didn't know if they would let them come through their lands. It was 50/50... So, we were about to fall, but with the help of UK, we could have continued. Continue fighting and trust that the UK comes....... if they come and if Sweden let's them come. If we didn't get them, we'd be toast.

2.) make peace, accept the terms of peace which were tough but doable...

So you see, it was a difficult situation. And if we would have continued, it would have been more serious for us. Just like we didn't cut the support routes for your fighting in eastern front, even when Hitler demanded it. Why not? War would end some day, and then it would be the day of looking back what everyone did.

It wasn't broken, the line I mean, but it was about to brake. BUT IT WASN'T BROKEN DAMN IT!

**Drake Tungsten** · July 11, 2003, 03:59

Who the hell is this Smirnoff guy?

A great Russian comedian, as evidenced by his status as a two-time Comedian of the Year in Branson, Missouri.

**Serb** · July 11, 2003, 05:29

Originally posted by Pekka
Serb, it wasn't broken! !1!11 But it would have been soon. There was two options:

1.) We were promised help from the UK. They were about to send men , but had to go through Sweden, and we didn't know if they would let them come through their lands. It was 50/50... So, we were about to fall, but with the help of UK, we could have continued. Continue fighting and trust that the UK comes....... if they come and if Sweden let's them come. If we didn't get them, we'd be toast.

2.) make peace, accept the terms of peace which were tough but doable...

So you see, it was a difficult situation. And if we would have continued, it would have been more serious for us. Just like we didn't cut the support routes for your fighting in eastern front, even when Hitler demanded it. Why not? War would end some day, and then it would be the day of looking back what everyone did.

It wasn't broken, the line I mean, but it was about to brake. BUT IT WASN'T BROKEN DAMN IT!

Pekka, it wasn broken.
January 15 1940: Soviet artilery started massive bombardments of Finnish defences. After 16 days of bombardments 140 000 of Soviet soldiers and more than 2000 Soviet tanks started offensive operation in Karelia. After two weeks of intensive combat at February 17 Finnish defenses were broken. February 22: Feild marshal Mannergeim ordered withdrawal of Finnish forces. Red Army broken Mannergeim's line and captured city Vyborg, however Finnish army wasn't completely destroyed yet. At the end of February 1940 Finnish-Soviet talks started and at March 12 the peace treaty was signed. Finland lost: Karelia with city of Vyborg, north-east bank of Ladozhskoe lake, port Hancko and peninsula Rybachi. (overall 34 000 square km of territory).

**Serb** · July 11, 2003, 05:33

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Who the hell is this Smirnoff guy?

A great Russian comedian, as evidenced by his status as a two-time Comedian of the Year in Branson, Missouri.

Then explain yourself. I was absolutely serious.

**Pekka** · July 11, 2003, 05:42

Yeah, but it wasn't broken. It wasn't broken. (!)

Also you're getting the names wrong. What are you using as your sources?

So you admit invading Karelia, which was rightfully ours. When are you going to give it back?

I must also really critisize the sources of that information. If it was near destruction, then how come it was able to do continuation war, which was longer and far more deadly with such effeciency?

It's not too late to give wrongful lands back that does not belong to you, or never will belong to you in the eyes of justice. It's not too late. You don't even need it, there's nothing in it that you'd benefit. Only few people live there. They can continue living there after you hand it back to us. They'll get better benefits, since we don't have so much to take care of, so we can focus better on the area, that is problem area now (poor).

It's only 60 years, you can give it back right now, and we can party there together and celebrate justice and a new era of friendship. Why not?

**Drake Tungsten** · July 11, 2003, 05:49

I was absolutely serious.

I know you were being serious; that's what makes you so hilarious.

**Serb** · July 11, 2003, 05:54

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah, but it wasn't broken. It wasn't broken. (!)

It was broken. It was broken after second attempt. (!)

Also you're getting the names wrong. What are you using as your sources?

I'm using Russian names. I have no idea how to type Finnish "Vyppurii" using English letters. My sources? It's well know known fact that line was broken. If you wish you can consider memoirs of general Kirill Meretskov as my source, another source is book "Secret advisor of cheif".

So you admit invading Karelia, which was rightfully ours. When are you going to give it back?

Never of course.

Announcement

The Best War Movie

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment