• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Russian Propaganda

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
D

DraKon2k

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
4,045
2,802
Vienna, Austria
#1
I remember someone on this boards once told this, but I forgot what exactly he said, does anyone remember?

It was about an ice-hockey match between the soviets and americans, the americans had won the game. Then some russian news paper wrote something like "the great soviet union made a glory second place, while the americans only ..." Problem is I remember what it was about, just I don't know the full sentence. Does anyone remember? Stupid thread I know, but quite important for me :D
 
#2
It's an old Russian joke...

Olympic games, only two sportsmen made it to finals, American athlete wins gold, Russian wins silver... Russian TV anchor: "Our guy took second place while the American was next to last"

It' only a joke:). At 1980 Olympics, Soviets indeed lost to USA, but in was during a semifinal game so neither Russians could take second place not USA could be "next to last" in a tournament
 
Upvote 0
#6
I think you all wanted to say "Soviet", not russian, right? And oh, it is very subjective topic - i mean, the "good/bad guy". Bad for who? Who says? Although i agree, Stalin was paranoic. But he also made a great empire from a rotting agro-country, which not only survived in the meat-grinder, but also became victorious - just within 20 years. It's he who send us to the space. But i'm not his fan, don't understand it this way.
http://www.wf.weltkrieg.ru/post/rus/ Soviet posters during Patriotic War.
 
Upvote 0
#8
This is not exatly a propaganda, but still good stuff. (This image is from my great-grandfather unit's book)
DSC03006.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#10
Drude said:
ussr invaded poland and finland in 1939, he just says that I have a bad history knowledge and then he says they teach propaganda in OUR schools :D
Click to expand...
Surely you understand that if we use mass media newspeak of the today's civilized, democratic West we'd call it not "aggression" but "preempive strike". Poland and Finland refused to cooperate with the Soviet Union at the time, and as you may know "if you are not with us, you are against us", so there was a legitimate concern that Germans were secretely stockpiling WMDs inside these territories. So Soviet move was quite appropriate by today's standards:D
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#11
they teach propaganda in OUR schools
Click to expand...
Yup. They do.
Because i don't see any other reason why you don't understand that USSR had it's own political interests just like any other country. When USSR attacks Finland, you say it's agression. Hell, of course it is. They did attack. But they had their own reasons. When France (democratic country, right?) keeps fighting in Vietnam, you say.. what? you, western people, don't give a crap about it. I don't even speak about USA (past and modern - Iraq, Somali, Iran, Yugoslavia and so much more).
BTW, Simfreak, it's a really cool list you have there. Liked that main phrase very much.
 
Upvote 0
#15
Droog said:
Surely you understand that if we use mass media newspeak of the today's civilized, democratic West we'd call it not "aggression" but "preempive strike". Poland and Finland refused to cooperate with the Soviet Union at the time, and as you may know "if you are not with us, you are against us", so there was a legitimate concern that Germans were secretely stockpiling WMDs inside these territories. So Soviet move was quite appropriate by today's standards:D
Click to expand...

"being with" USSR at that time was not an alliance, but an occupation.
Who would wanted commies pillaging around when we got rid of them in 1917.

In Finnish front USSR failed, in Poland they succeeded and then commited massacre. (See: Katyn forest massacre)

Don't compare modern and WW2 times - Lot's of things has improved and happened during last 61 years.

USA haven't invaded any country to kill its military officers. (or to gas their jews, lol)
 
Upvote 0
#16
Yeah, USA didn't. They invade countries to kill only one so-called dictator. Good for those countries' population, umhu.
Now I don't think that Katyn was great and all, don't get me wrong, but why people forget about those death-camps for soviet POW in Poland (~1920-1930)?
I live in Baltic state, and they teach us about how communism was a satanic invention etc, they tell us a glorious stories about those so-called "Forest brothers" (it's official point of view that they were freedom fighters, but irl they were pillaging bastards, who killed not only red army soldiers, but also people of their nation - sometimes for fun, sometimes for profit). Te WW2 theme here is only about 3-4 lessons for us, high school students. 4 hours. Why? Because Soviet Union won, and our president fought against it (read: he was on fashist's side). Now how could country teach their kids what really happened? Of course it can't. So they teach us (when we speak about 20th century) _only_ about those demonic soviets (btw, more than half of our population thinks about soviet times with nostalgie. Something must went wrtong, heh). They even say (in official history books, nb) that it would be better, if Germany won and we'd be part of Third Reich. Is this normal? I mean, wtf? How can they forget about naci's plans about Ostland (almost every lithuanian, estonian and latvian should be killed/"re-educated). Soviet union made Lithuania one of the best part of it: they built schools, factories, roads, the medicine and studying in universities was free, but our government still says that all those years was a terrible time for country and they want to get contribution from Russia.
Now THAT i call propaganda.
 
Upvote 0
#17
Bolt said:
Yup. They do.
Because i don't see any other reason why you don't understand that USSR had it's own political interests just like any other country. When USSR attacks Finland, you say it's agression. Hell, of course it is. They did attack. But they had their own reasons. When France (democratic country, right?) keeps fighting in Vietnam, you say.. what? you, western people, don't give a crap about it. I don't even speak about USA (past and modern - Iraq, Somali, Iran, Yugoslavia and so much more).
BTW, Simfreak, it's a really cool list you have there. Liked that main phrase very much.
Click to expand...
Aha, so they had a reason to attack Finland? Which one, I'd be interested. Was it "pre-emptive strike"? Like the "pre-emptive strike" that was Barbarossa?

That's the problem with you "Soviets": You never had a clear cut with your past, neither after the death of Stalin nor after the fall of the iron curtain. It was always just: dumdidum this period is over, almost acting like it never happened, especially concerning Stalin. Whenever I talk to the likes of you (sorry for the generalizing) it's "yes Stalin was not very nice BUT he did and that which was good", thus drastly playing down the whole thing. And as soon as things don't look so well people go "ahh back in the SU we had schools, work whatever". I had the chance to speak to some Russians in my military time and there were quite a few wishing for a new Stalin.

You have these folks in Germany too: They say "yeah Hitler gassed the jews BUT he build roads, got the Rheinland back and everyone had work again"... yes, but at what cost? And Stalin is basically the same: millions died under his rule. Millions of his own people. And nothing, no industrialization, no schools, no roads and no medicine make up for that. And that's why we call them Neonazis, to emphasize that they are belittleing one of the worst men history has ever seen, while you tolerate these kind of morons.

Besides, if you had some knowledge on economics, you'd know that the whole "prosperity" of the USSR was a fat-ass bubble, nothing more. No matter how grim things look now for some of the former Soviet countries, to think they would be of better with the SU intact is a blatant lie.
 
Upvote 0
#18
Yes, they had. It might sound cinycal to you, but if you could imagine you are not german, but russian, and (who'd guess?) you have your own interests, you'd might understand. They wanted to move the borders from Leningrad, which was 2nd capital of USSR. You can start yelling "You commie bastard" right now.
Stalin did a huge thing to USSR, but at the same time, he was a paranoical maniac. But you, "Western people" (sorry for generalizng) want to hear and speak about the last. You just can't (or simply don't want to) understand, that while he was a leader, country got up from it's knees and survived, no matter what. You think that it'd be better for russians if they'd had next tzar? Remember what happened in WW1 and Russia-Japan war? we f*cked up heavily.
Now about "ahh back in the SU we had schools, work whatever". Yes, people had. Have you ever seen or talked to old people in post-soviet union? I'm really amazed, how can they still live (they get about $100 and the cost for their flat IS about (a little bit less) $100). Pensioners were always important in Soviet Union, as were students, simple workers, military men, doctors, teachers etc. There were much more good sides of SU than bad. Stalin did not had gas chambers, he did not order to kill all invalids, he did not say that only russians were ubermenshen, in fact, people of all 15 republics were even. Even the black people (and you know what was the attitude to them in USA back then), so please don't compare him to hitler, k? Stalin died in 1953, but USSR left to you, western people, the same. You did not lived here, you have far less experience to judge. I was born in USSR, so as all my family, as all my friends. NONE OF THEM think it was a bad time and place for them, not even old people (who were born in 1920s and saw what happened in 1937). I don't want to be back in the USSR, but i don't think it was Empire of Evil. In fact, i think in some (a lot) ways it was better that Western countries.
Besides, if you had some knowledge on economics, you'd know that the whole "prosperity" of the USSR was a fat-ass bubble, nothing more. No matter how grim things look now for some of the former Soviet countries, to think they would be of better with the SU intact is a blatant lie.
Click to expand...
Now i don't compare modern post-soviet union with the SU itself. I'm saying that here, in the centre of Europe they teach us that it'd be better, if we'd stick to Third Reich.
 
Upvote 0
#19
Bolt said:
Yes, they had. It might sound cinycal to you, but if you could imagine you are not german, but russian, and (who'd guess?) you have your own interests, you'd might understand. They wanted to move the borders from Leningrad, which was 2nd capital of USSR...
Click to expand...
... and so they invaded a country without being attacked or even provoked by it. Just like Hitler did with the Sudetes, the Czechs and Poland... to get a buffer to the SU. Soviet Russia was the aggressor in Finland. You can find strategic reasons as much as you want, to any man with a tad of moral it's very clear that the Finns were right and the Russians wrong. There was absolutely no vindication. The ends don't justify the means.

Now to the "Remember what happened in WW1 and Russia-Japan war? we f*cked up heavily." Yes you did. And so you did in the Finnish winter war and the first year of the "great patriotic war". It's not Stalins achievement that you caught up after '41. In fact, hadn't he killed nearly the complete high staff in his madness you might not have lost millions of soldiers.

Yes, people had. Have you ever seen or talked to old people in post-soviet union? I'm really amazed, how can they still live (they get about $100 and the cost for their flat IS about (a little bit less) $100). Pensioners were always important in Soviet Union, as were students, simple workers, military men, doctors, teachers etc. There were much more good sides of SU than bad. Stalin did not had gas chambers, he did not order to kill all invalids, he did not say that only russians were ubermenshen, in fact, people of all 15 republics were even. Even the black people (and you know what was the attitude to them in USA back then), so please don't compare him to hitler, k?
Click to expand...
Oh I will! For he killed around 20 million men altogether (and that's a moderate figure), with the gulags the executions and the Holodomor. Speaking of which... more than 80 per cent of those that died there were Ukrainians you know? So much for the "equality" of people under Stalins regime. Rather them then us Russians right?
You did not lived here, you have far less experience to judge. I was born in USSR, so as all my family, as all my friends. NONE OF THEM think it was a bad time and place for them, not even old people (who were born in 1920s and saw what happened in 1937). I don't want to be back in the USSR, but i don't think it was Empire of Evil. In fact, i think in some (a lot) ways it was better that Western countries.
Click to expand...
No I didn't. And you didn't live in the Third Reich. But my family did. And guess what? For them life in the Reich was good too, at least from '33-'39. Safe streets, work and food and even holidays abroad. A lot better than the instable Republic of Weimar. That doesn't make the Nazis any better. You can't judge by those who are better of, you have to judge by those who suffer. I bet your opinion would be different if half your family had starved to death or got annihilated in the purges.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu