sologdin Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 i sympathize, dude. but the end of the soviet empire only affected romania because it had the extraordinarily bad sense to join the axis and invade the USSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Reptitious Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 i sympathize, dude. but the end of the soviet empire only affected romania because it had the extraordinarily bad sense to join the axis and invade the USSR. Well, that was probably because in 1940 the Red Army strong-armed Romania into surrendering Bessarabia just like the Russians took over the Crimea just now. Smart or not, revenge can be a powerful motivator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Loudmouth Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 i sympathize, dude. but the end of the soviet empire only affected romania because it had the extraordinarily bad sense to join the axis and invade the USSR. Umm..., sorry but those events did not happen in a vacuum. Romania joined the invasion as a reaction to previous Soviet aggressions. On 28 June 1940, the URSS occupied Bessarabia and Bucovina. Even after Romania agreed to evacuate those territories without a fight, the Soviets advanced their own timetable and illegally disarmed Romanian army units before they had a chance to withdraw (similar to what happened now in Crimea where the Russians agreed upon an armistice ceasefire until the 21. of March but disregarded it and attacked earlier). In some places the Soviets tried to push even beyond the new border and had to be stopped by force. On 26. October 1940 the Soviets occupied another 4 islands on the Danube (Tătaru Mare, Daleru Mic, Maican and Limba). Perhaps they would have taken even more. The aggressions only stopped when Romania allied with Germany in exchange for Germany guaranteeing it's borders. Meanwhile in the occupied territories the local Romanian population was in many cases killed and deported. We did not want the war and it may be seen as a mistake (since we ultimately lost), but we had a duty to fight for our land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Well, that was probably because in 1940 the Red Army strong-armed Romania into surrendering Bessarabia just like the Russians took over the Crimea just now. Smart or not, revenge can be a powerful motivator. Not to mention Ploesti made it too big a prize to stay out of Axis orbit forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You act as if the US is treated differently than Russia on this board, but I can assure you that this is not the case. Certain US/Western actions have had more support than others, like Libya, but as for Iraq, for instance, the support was limited to a few US right wing extremists. That's not how I remember it. I recall a lot of US boarders back during the buildup to war being supportive of it and most of them were not right wing extremists. I recall a couple French posters getting slammed pretty good too. Was a rather nasty time on this board to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Umm..., sorry but those events did not happen in a vacuum. Romania joined the invasion as a reaction to previous Soviet aggressions.yeah, i hear you. not in a vacuum. the soviets took romanian lands in molotov-ribbontrop. sure. i'm sure the russians would say that this was in recompense for its annexation by romania after WWI. and the romanian nationalist would say that it was stolen by the tsar in the russo-turkish war, though the russian imperialist ripostes that the cession was made contingent upon romanian receipt of dobruja. prior to that, it's a real mess.like i said, i sympathize. just don't join the axis next time and you won't have to be thankful to scum of the earth like big Z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miodrag Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 This thread really got me thinking a lot about Russia/US. And between Shryke's and Miodrag's radical views about NATO and Russia respectively, somehow I can mostly relate to you, Scot. <snip> Some questions about Majdan protests are not only left unanswered, but simply ignored by the majority of posters here: 1) Who's responsible for the death of 100 humans in Kiev, and who's responsible for the lack of the investigation of those deaths? 2) Who's to blame for the initial eruption of violence on the Kiev streets? 3) Who ordered/controlled/triggered the forceful occupation of government buildings by demonstrators? 4) By what right did US&EU threaten Ukraine's government with sanctions unless it withdraws police from the streets in the middle of the violent demonstrations? 5) By what right did US&EU diplomats support and help and attend large-scale anti-government protests in the sovereign country of Ukraine? 6) By what right was Victoria Nuland, high-ranking official of the US State Department, involved in the micro-managing of the future Ukrainian government? 7) Why was The Constitution of Ukraine violated after the coup? 8) Who authorized The Right Sector and Svoboda members to patrol the streets of Kiev and other major cities in the country? All of these issues predate any move by Crimea or Russia. These issues created the circumstances that affected everything that happened afterwards. If insisting on these issues makes me a radical, then I gladly accept the label. If rejecting moral relativism ("All superpowers are bad") and moral absolutism ("Every military intervention, even if bloodless, is so bad that we don't need to look at what caused it") makes me a radical, then so be it. I gave up on defending from ridiculous accusations ages ago. Anyone who isn't interested in the truth about and the causes of Majdan bloodshed, can think of me whatever pleases him/her. What's insulting, however, is equaling me with Shryke. Putting me in the same category with him I just can't take lightly. Whatever he is, I'll settle for the opposite. If he's moderate, I'm happy to be radical. As Dicer said, yes, I am passionate in discussions like this one, but not only because of the crimes against my nation (though they obviously play an enormous part, naturally), but also because of the ongoing crimes of the same perpetrators, which, among other things, lead to the current havoc in Ukraine, and which will create only more and more misery for Ukraine in days and years to come. Also, I can't help but be somewhat disappointed with ASOIAF readers failing to realize the perfect parallel Martin's novels offer. One would expect fans of a story about numerous horrors that ensue when a particular group (Lannisters) seizes power without any legitimacy whatsoever, to show better understanding of illegitimate coups and their consequences in real-life. After all, that's why I thought these threads were worth joining in: if I wanted just to argue against West-apologists and/or Russia-haters, there were endless opportunities for that on other sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless Northman Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Umm..., sorry but those events did not happen in a vacuum. Romania joined the invasion as a reaction to previous Soviet aggressions.Yeah, and the Vienna Award never happened, only EVIL Commies took a bite out of Romania, but nice Axis guys Hungary and Bulgaria never got a nice (and pretty big for the former) chunk of her. Nope, that's just Bolshevik propaganda; or maybe corrupt decadent Western lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.