Random Chat 3

Thank you. Sometimes it take two years of posters debating amongst each other, before a simple truth is distilled.

For what you said, I have no argument. It is Poland's misfortune, that you are a neighbor to the mess that Russia is, was, and probably will be for a good amount of time. But you should not hate us for this. We never tried to exterminate you, as some of your neighbors with whom you embrace now, did. What's more, we never even wished you ill. At every point in our history we wanted nothing more than a strong and prosperous Poland (except during the times of Sigismund, and the Cossack problems). When we had control, we did it in a jealous and possessive way, and we messed it up through our shortcomings, but the good intent was there from the beginning.

I really want to believe you that few Poles before Feb. 24th would say they "hate Russia". Because if that is not true, than Poland really is an antagonist - through its unreasonability.

We don't. It's more of a fear than hatred, but being stuck between Germans and Russians for centuries, we learnt to manage our fear and turn it to a retarded berserk courage that some silly Westerners take for heroism. Poland can sometimes be a huge mess too. :-/


Hmm... now that's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it?

In any case, you watched the video I once linked somewhere - with ordinary Poles talking about Russians, remember? It would be impossible to make such a video about Germans or Ukrainians back then. This war really changed a lot. It awakened a lot of old primal fears.

Yes, I realized that and edited my message to include Sigismund and those damned Cossacks.


I suppose this is our fault. The Serbs never had the joy of being under our control, and therefore may be a bad example of "loyalty".

As a Russian, I wish Poles did not fear us, and did not break bread with our enemies. This is what I want, but I understand what Poles may feel, and I understand the context.

Sometimes, somebody has to make the first step :)

/
Do you hear yourself? Poland didn't need your 'creation'. It already existed independently. I also notice that you're focusing entirely on post WWII. What about the partitions of Poland in the 18th century? How bloody dare you, basically.

Calm down.


How about a less sensational interpretation? If you want to give Poles full credit for creation of the PRL in all its glory, be my guest. I think any intelligent person understood what I meant, and didn't think I'm trying to say that Russians created Poles.


What about them? The Austrians and Prussians participated there, and no one seems to mention them. In the same key, what about burning Moscow and trying to install a Catholic on our throne? Only through a miracle did we shake that. Right now, it would be you on RussianForums, hating on Kania, if two citizens of initiative didn't mobilize a militia to kick the Poles out.

I'm not agitated. My tone is quite casual, laconic even. If we only we could hear voices on this forum.


Do you mean Napolean?? I can't believe you're that much of an idiot. I don't have the patience.


Please desist from the use of that awful Americanism 'to hate on' - it literally makes me wince. As an Irish person whose country struggled for nearly 800 years to shake off imperial rule, I can tell you for a fact that I wouldn't be hating anyone. You're making an assumption that everybody has a Russian mentality.

No, Atch - that's not what I meant. If you had been familiar with my posts over the years, I hope you wouldn't have thought I'd make such a crude mistake.

I meant that instance when a Polish king successfully invaded Russia (Sigismund), and proceeded to install his son (Wladislaw) on our throne.

Our regular army and government collapsed. The miracle I'm referring to was the common man Kuzma Minin and the noble Dmitry Pozharsky organizing a popular resistance which booted the Poles out of Russia.

I forgot, Russians are mindless slaves of the state, and such an act of patriotism could not have occurred. Only Irish and French can do such things.

There was no Russian state back then.


An example of locals defending their patch. It's tribal stuff during a time of land grabbing and attempts to establish empires. Today I defend my patch, tomorrow I try to take somebody else's. The civilised world has left that behind.

Wait a motherfuckin, cocksuckin minute. How DARE you NATO BASTARDS dare to have OPINIONS about THE THOUSAND BLESSED HOLY RÜß?

they BEAT UP NIGGGGGGERS IN THE US

How do you tell illegal and unprovoked invasions from legal and provoked?
Was the invasion of Iraq by the US legal and provoked? If so, what made it legal?

Sick and primitive as your post? Show some refinement in your next one, please.

You are right.
Today, the civilized world comes, kills 5 million civilians as it did in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and leaves. So very civilized...

WELCOME BACK johnny reb !
Man, this place has come to a standstill without me here to keep things rocking. :-)


That is a fact.
It is against he law to have your own pickup work truck parked in your own driveway on your private property.
No commercial vehicles allowed in Cape Coral unless performing a service.

The USA is not civilized.

Seriously? How long ago do you imagine this happened?

This happened in 1618, which all historians would classify as the "early modern period". There was most definitely a Russian state then, hahahaha. You are funny Atch.


You can't spell Napoleon correctly, didn't seem to be aware of the Polish occupation of Moscow, and then claimed it happened at some point in the depth of antiquity when "the Russian state did not exist". Oh yes, you also called me an idiot.

Try to be more careful with your outbursts in the future, lest you embarrass yourself further.

Hey, jon, are you there? What made the US invasion of Iraq legal?

How about Syria? The US is still there - uninvited so that would make it illegal. Right, Mr. Illegal?

Let me help you...The US went to Iraq to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs. Russia went to Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.

I hope this explains things well enough so we will not have to go over this again.

The Romanov dynasty was the beginning of Russia as we know it. The tercentenary was in 1913 if I remember correctly.

Didn't expect you to engage in this Ukrainian-style sophistry. Even so, the Romanovs were already in place by 1618. So... I'm not quite sure why you just blew up your own initial argument.

It's amusing to see you contort yourself in this way.

1613.

I started reading Russian history when I was fourteen. It ain't purdy.


Quite the contrary. Russia was not a tightly defined nation until the Romanovs whipped it into shape. It was a bit of a jumble of statelets etc. just like a lot of countries at the time.

I need to start cataloguing the various retarded theories people put forth here about Russia not existing until recently.

Atch just surprised me with a new one. Apparently it's the Romanov dynasty which birthed Russia. Meaning, that the preceding Rurikovich dynasty (which founded the ancient state of Rus) were merely cosplayers. Even though Ivan the Terrible could trace his patrilineal ancestry all the way back to Rurik, and Ukraine at the time was run by a bunch of Poles that had no connection to Rurik (and were of a different faith, and speaking a different language than the Ukrainians) - one still could not call the state that existed then "Russia".

Hey guys, I hold that China as we know it now, only came into existence during the Ming Dynasty. The Yuan, Song, Zhou, Tang, Qin, and Han were not China because they controlled a smaller geographic footprint.

Also, England did not exist until Cromwell.

France did not exist until the Bourbons.

I'm sorry, it's rude to laugh at such people - I will stop.


Based on the opuses you have been issuing, you may need a refresher.

Well I suppose to be fair it was really Peter the Great who dragged Russia kicking and screaming into some semblance of modernity.

Compared to who or what ?

Even then, it wasn't always clear whether the power lay with the 'supreme autocrat' or with the filthy lice-ridden unwashed 'Boyars' who controlled their pwn little fiefdoms. They even kept slavery until 1861.

It's difficult to debate with you. Are we talking about when a Russian state came into existence, or when Russia entered modernity? The two - just in case you do not understand this - are not the same thing. I tried to point this out in a jesting way above, but perhaps it went over your head.

If you want to convince me of something, please keep your arguments within the perimeter of the initial claim, rather than grabbing for tangential straws in an attempt to make it look like you know what you are talking about.

Why not just keep things simple and say Russia came into existence in 1991. It may actually be an easier job for you defending that position.

Also, regarding Peter I... it's funny that you are trying to argue that the last ethnically Russian ruler Russia had in its pre-Soviet period is for you the start of Russia. Oh lord...

You call your contribution a war? I would not call the shameful outburst a war, a battle, or minor scrap. Your contribution amounts to spreading manure

and lies. Why would I dignify Sack of Excrement by going to war with a mentally disturbed manure spreader? As opposed to your behavior, my contribution is a cleanup operation; for the benefit of the distinguished audience, I try to get rid of your lies, filth, and stench.

It's clear you don't know many Irish people. Nothing goes over our head, especially not a jest - but we sometimes pretend it does for our own devious purposes. I jest.

Good) I know quite a few Irish. Some I worked with, others I chat with at the bar (won't say how frequently). I read a lot of Irish literature. Joyce, Wilde, Swift - and I know you lot are bloody smart.

This is good. Your rehabilitation is in progress. Most satisfactory, Comrade.

Have you read any Flann O'Brien?

You are a girl, admit it!!!

*runs*

Why? Can you name one bit of wisdom from it that you would pay a dollar for today?


Another gay or pedo? They always are one or the other.