Hotels in Sochi

[Sava]

The problem with Russia is that they have nothing good to be proud of in their history... except fighting the Nazis. Russia was lucky there was someone worse than them during that period.

[molly bloom]

The problem with Russia is that they have nothing good to be proud of in their history... except fighting the Nazis. Russia was lucky there was someone worse than them during that period.

They helped beat Napoleon....

[Serb]

Oh sh!t. That's really unbelievable.
And you people honestly think you are living in a free world.

[Serb]

I just started reading a book about the British attempts to destabilise the early Bolshevik regime. Did you know they used chemical weapons in northern Russia against the Red Army ?

Churchill was such a nice guy

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Exactly. And you people never learn.

[molly bloom]

Oh sh!t. That's really unbelievable.
And you people honestly think you are living in a free world.

Free-ish. I already knew about the foreign armies in Russia after the Revolution, but I didn't know about the chemical warfare in northern Russia. The spying and the assassination attempt on Lenin and Sidney Reilly's involvement all make it seem very James Bond-ish, but a bit earlier.

Secrecy was paramount. Britain's imperial general staff knew there would be outrage if it became known that the government was intending to use its secret stockpile of chemical weapons. But Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for war, brushed aside their concerns. As a long-term advocate of chemical warfare, he was determined to use them against the Russian Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1919, 94 years before the devastating strike in Syria, Churchill planned and executed a sustained chemical attack on northern Russia.

The British were no strangers to the use of chemical weapons. During the third battle of Gaza in 1917, General Edmund Allenby had fired 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas at enemy positions, to limited effect. But in the final months of the first world war, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret "M Device", an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised".

Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."

He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."

A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.

The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.

The book is Giles Milton's 'Russian Roulette', Serb.

[Ban Kenobi]

Oh sh!t. That's really unbelievable.
And you people honestly think you are living in a free world.

Yes. Or does "freedom" mean "freedom to believe Russia is perfect"...?

[molly bloom]

Churchill was such a nice guy



Exactly. And you people never learn.

Seemingly neither did you people, in 1979..... the moral of the story is- never get involved with Afghanistan.

[Serb]

Free-ish.

Yeah, I see that:
The problem with Russia is that they have nothing good to be proud of in their history... except fighting the Nazis. Russia was lucky there was someone worse than them during that period.

You guys are living in your own westernverse, which has nothing common with a real history. Sava, if not Russia, you would never be born, 'cause your Serbian ancestors be exterminated/enslaved by Hitler. Oh, wait, no, if not Russia, Serbia as well as the rest of Slavic Balkan states would have never been freed from the rule of the Ottomans in the first place. The western brainwashing machine is really fascinating, it took so little time - just a lifetime of a single generation and now you type your rubbish here. And I am absolutely sure that you honestly believe in the bullsh!t you are saying. That is really amazing.

They helped beat Napoleon....

Oh lol. WE BEAT HIM. WE - RUSSIANS.

Helped, my ass. Napoleon's Grand Army has perished in Russia. If not Russians, all of you would be speaking French right now.
Waterloo was a joke. Napoleon lost the war in Russia, when he lost his 600 000 army of battle hardened veterans there. At Waterloo he fought with Napoleonjugend and old men at his side. Had Napoleon still have 600 000 troops at his disposal only a moron can believe Brits or Austrian or Prussians or anyone else could stop him.

[Serb]

Yes. Or does "freedom" mean "freedom to believe Russia is perfect"...?

Nothing is perfect. But you are living in a world where myths and propaganda continues for centuries. And nothing indeed changes. It's not that hard to check the facts than make your own conclusions (if we are talking about military history). It's quite easy.

[Sava]

That's the problem Serb. Any facts you dislike, you dismiss as propaganda.

But Russians are known for having open mouths and closed minds.

[Ban Kenobi]

Nothing is perfect. But you are living in a world where myths and propaganda continues for centuries. And nothing indeed changes. It's not that hard to check the facts than make your own conclusions (if we are talking about military history). It's quite easy.

In a free society people are free to share the stupid myths they believe in like a guy rising from the dead or something.

[Serb]

Seemingly neither did you people, in 1979..... the moral of the story is- never get involved with Afghanistan.

Yeah, right. Afghanistan is like the Elusive Joe.
- Why do you call Joe Elusive?
- Cause nobody can't catch him.
- Wow, impressive. And why can't you catch him?
- Cause no one gives a damn about him.

[Ban Kenobi]

Helped, my ass. Napoleon's Grand Army has perished in Russia. If not Russians, all of you would be speaking French right now.
Waterloo was a joke. Napoleon lost the war in Russia, when he lost his 600 000 army of battle hardened veterans there. At Waterloo he fought with Napoleonjugend and old men at his side. Had Napoleon still have 600 000 troops at his disposal only a moron can believe Brits or Austrian or Prussians or anyone else could stop him.

Yes. Russians made the brilliant strategic decision of having cold weather.

[Serb]

That's the problem Serb. Any facts you dislike, you dismiss as propaganda.

But Russians are known for having open mouths and closed minds.

The problem is - you hate Russia for centuries. That hatred runs in your veins. And your "historians" call any bullsh!t they pull out of their asses - facts.
Is it so hard to get info about German losses in Russia and compare them with the losses on the western front for example to get the idea who crushed the nazis?
Nope. It's quite simple. Same with Napoleon or anything else. But you prefer to believe in myths and propaganda, not in facts and sheer numbers.

[Sava]

I don't hate Russia. And even if I did, it wouldn't be for "centuries". I'm not that old.

I understand why this is so difficult for you. Russia is extremely isolated and xenophobic. You'd send a million people to starve in gulags just for calling Putin a pig.