There are 54,546 Russians in Finland

In WWII The British assembled an army with combined British and French forces to invade neutral Norway and obtain a corrider to support the Finns against the Russians.
The Germans invaded Norway first putting an end to that plan.
Then when Germany invaded Russia the Finns became default allies of Germany and Russia of Britain.

 

Oh those pesky vikings.

 

Before them the Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Angles, Danes... (If we are restricting ourselves to Germanic Speaking invaders.)

 

My youtube recomended a video to me today...

Военное дело - Финляндия: Егеря

 

Hi Folks
Just a few notes and corrections.

GA: The 11th ACR has NOT used "genuine" Soviet vehicles for the OPFOR in over 10 years. It turns out that the Soviet vehicles are not that reliable and are hard to find parts for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Armored_Cavalry_Regiment_(United_States)

Cujo: I think you will find it very hard, if not impossible to convince the Poles that "Russians are not aggressors". The modern day Turks might also find Russia's claim of "non-belligerence" a bit hard to believe. Oh and let us not forget Hungary. Remember Hungary ?? The Russians invaded Hungary because the Hungarian people decided they wanted to have a democratic government (gee does that sound familiar ?? Violent repression of civilians asking for democracy ?? Hmm.....)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey

I think Sergio's * comment on Russian leaders is the most accurate: The smart ones don't start wars, but seriously kick ass when some one attacks them first (see: Bonaparte, Napoleon and Hitler, Adolph for more details). The dumb ones start wars and get their butts kicked.

The Royal Canadian

 

Why are there quotation marks around "genuine"? You aren't quoting ME.

Even in the '80's some of the captured or bought vehicles had already been heavily modified BEFORE they were acquired. At first, most of the vehicles were based on obselete U.S. vehicles like the M114 and the M551 Sheridan. Even if the Soviet Bloc stuff were "genuine" AND reliable, we wouldn't be able to maintain it because we don't have the parts.

 

I know about Poland and Hungary, but I don't know about Turkey. But then I don't think there's a nation on this Earth which hasn't steped on someone else, except maybe extremely young nations which were founded peacefully and havn't had their chance to brutalise anyone else yet. Every nation has been both victim and bully at some point in its history, just a sad fact of humanity.

"gee does that sound familiar ?? Violent repression of civilians asking for democracy ?? Hmm....." if you're talking about whats going on in libya and syria and other nations in those regions atm, then yes.

As for "Russians are not aggressors", I think its called irony in humor

 

On the matter of Evil Russians invading/abusing poor Poland - why, yes, you are right, except that Evil Poles also invaded/abused poor Russia at their time. So, whether it is "unprovoked aggression of Evil Russians (or Poles)", or mutual assaults, is somewhat unclear. It is just that larger part of recent unfriendly activities were decided in favour of Russia (i.e. dividing of Poland after king August Ponyatovskiy.)
Do not forget that Polish military occupied Moscow for some time, and there was even a Polish-instated ruler of Russia at that time (the False-Dimitry).

The same goes for "turks". They attacked Russia, Russia attacked them.

Difference with current situation is that nations being attacked now did NOT attack USA or NATO, nor would they attack USA, because, you know, what minor nation would dare to attack the most powerful nation? For this to happen that minor nation has to be comprised of fools by 100% (and even if such nation would exist, no one will be in danger, because a nation of fools can not do anything efficiently by definition.)

So, what we see now is an unjustified attack on an independent state with the purpose of removing its lawful government and instating a puppet-government, in the same time destabilizing other lawful governments of the region. Of course, we can disagree with the "laws" of other states, but this does not make their "laws" better than our "laws", this does not make their "despotic regimes" any less lawful or legal than our "democratic governments".

Actually, there is a common mistake - to name an "elected" government "democratic", this is not the same, I think very few governments in the world are (or were) democratic, although many are "elected". And it is not necessary for a government to be "freely elected" to be "democratic".

 

Hi Folks
I think Cujo has the right answer: "But then I don't think there's a nation on this Earth which hasn't steped on someone else, except maybe extremely young nations which were founded peacefully and havn't had their chance to brutalise anyone else yet. Every nation has been both victim and bully at some point in its history, just a sad fact of humanity."

To quote the Bard of Avon: "Clouds and Eclipses stain the Moon and the Sun, and history reeks of the wrongs we have done."

I was at a program on Eco-tourism in Bhutan, and the speaker mentioned that one of the reasons why the King of Bhutan told his people that the country was going to switch to a Democratic government, was to make a possible (probable ??) Chinese invasion more unpopular with the rest of the world.

The Royal Canadian

 

theyre all turk

 

ARRRGH! Kio, this is enough!

I am NOT Turk! I am RUSSIAN !
I am ultra-handsome guy with blue eyes, light-coloured hair and pale skin!
If I were Turk, I'd be ultra-handsome guy with dark eyes, dark hair and dark skin!
Can not you see the difference?!!

<...pretends to be angry with Kio...>

 

that only means you have the typical features of a sychian, who were primal turks, if not your grand grandmother had an affair with a norwegian.

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/rusorig.htm
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesEurope/BarbarianHuns.htm

<.. petends to be an internet racist who has nothing better to do..>

 

Even in Turkey, only a few people are "genetically" Turkish. Most "invasions" don't involve wholesale slaughter of the population, just a temporary replacement of one ruling group with another. Most "pure" Turks still live out on the Asian steppe. People in Turkey are properly called Turks because of the language they speak.

In the United States, most people speak English, though more Germans, Irish and Italians have moved here than English. Only a few people have English surnames, and the "Anglish" aren't so pure themselves. Eventually, we will all probably look like the people who lived here before Columbus came.

The land shapes the people, and Texas is more suited to people with darker skin than me. It takes a few centuries, though.

We are all Africans, up to about 50-60 thousand years ago.

 

Actually that is somewhat of a myth or at least a debatable issue. Although anthropologists (I did a BA in anthropology as my minor) no longer debate over whether there was a polygenesis or monogenesis (which they could, but I think they got bored by the subject) there is still no unchallenged consensus where the genesis (‘s) happened.

The fact that Africa is the only place they have found most of the humanoid fossils prove only the fact that Africa is the only place they have found said types of fossils. Given the fact that a humanoid corpse will require quite a specific microenvironment to fossilize one can argue that the Great Rift Valley area was the only (know) placing with this kind of a microenvironment. In addition to the fact that almost a half of Earth’s landmass was covered with ice during the ice age and when the ice melted it took possible humanoid remains with it.

IMO there is a reasonable doubt that the genesis (‘s) did\didn’t happen in Africa. :yes: