Interesting and humorous - page 155
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
More from the same place (from goat analysis):
Наш герой в тяжелые дни блокады ходил на "зрелищные мероприятия" не реже, чем раз в неделю (специально подсчитала)... Даже возникающий в памяти образ чаемой мирной жизни связан с театром.
It should not be forgotten that 16,744(sixteen thousand seven hundred and forty-four) of the 641,000 people spilled blood (were killed in battle) according to official figures.
The remaining over 623,000 died as a result of starvation genocide!
We hallowedly honour the memory of both! But against the backdrop of this ratio, Rain's question takes on a very different meaning. It is clear what it means! To separate the deed of all 641 thousand dead from the crime of those who arranged the famine and gorged themselves at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dead:
On 9 December 1941, at the peak of the Leningrad famine, when rations were insufficient to sustain human life, party ... worker Nick. Andreevich Ribkovsky writes:
"I do not feel much need for food now.In the morning, pasta, or noodles, or porridge with butter and two glasses of sweet tea. In the afternoon, lunch - first soup or cabbage soup, second meat every day. Yesterday for example I had green soup with sour cream for the first meal and cutlet with noodles for the second, today you have noodle soup for the first meal and pork with stewed cabbage for the second. The quality of lunches in the Smolny canteen is considerably better than in the canteens I used to eat in when I was idle and waiting.
If the question had not been put like this:'Was it necessary to surrender Leningrad in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives? But, for example, like this: "How do you feel about the fact that the Party leadership in starving Leningrad was fed with quality food?" One could understand your righteous anger and support for TV Dozhd. And besides, you shouldn't have quoted Ribkovsky's diaries repeatedly, as if afraid that someone wouldn't notice. Your repeated and verbose posts have little to do with the substance of the question posed by Dozhd TV. Answer directly the question posed by the TV station. And if you think that it was better to surrender Leningrad, explain why the Germans needed to take care of the people of Leningrad and provide them with food, because they did not do it in other occupied cities. If Leningrad was surrendered, all Jews and Gypsies were threatened with total extermination and the able-bodied population were threatened with being sent to Germany and used as slave labour there. Why did the TV channel need to pose such a question when the answer to it is obvious to most reasonable people?
It has long been noted that those who have actually shed blood will not "tear their shirt" and shout it to the world.
So, your tales of exclusion from the pioneers tell them elsewhere. Come up with something else.
You have the habits of a typical Komsomol activist, both in your arguments and in your dialogues.
That being said, you've accomplished the task assigned to you! You and your "propaganda buddies" have managed to turn the discussion of rain into a farce.
So you must have been sitting quietly in a corner sniffing, if you're comparing expulsion from the Komsomol with the spilling of blood. Don't twist things around, I wasn't expelled from the Pioneers.
If the question had not been"Should Leningrad have been surrendered in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives? But, for example, like this: "How do you feel about the fact that the Party leadership in starving Leningrad received quality food". One could understand your righteous anger and support for TV Dozhd. And besides, you shouldn't have quoted Ribkovsky's diaries repeatedly, as if afraid that someone wouldn't notice. Your repeated and verbose posts have little to do with the substance of the question posed by Dozhd TV. Answer directly the question posed by the TV station. And if you think that it was better to surrender Leningrad, explain why the Germans needed to take care of the people of Leningrad and provide them with food, because they did not do it in other occupied cities. In the case of surrendering Leningrad, all Jews and Gypsies were threatened with total extermination and the able-bodied population were threatened with being sent to Germany and used as slave labour there. Why did the TV channel need to raise such a question if the answer to it is obvious for the majority of the sensible people?
That's the thing. It is as if they do not know that surrendering to captivity, these are concentration camps, what these concentration camps were like, but for some reason they have suddenly forgotten.
What an idea - saving lives in Nazi concentration camps.
...
You have the habits of a typical Komsomol activist, both in your arguments and in your dialogues.
...
Sit and be afraid. I was a member of an operational Komsomol unit.
I don't doubt it.
Yes, there were indeed such "structures" at universities during the Soviet era. But I had studied at the institute after the army and was not involved in simple hawking there. By that time I had worked out how I could earn good money (for those times) without risk and relatively "legally" in the conditions of the early/mid-80s Soviet Union.
-----------------------------------------
On the anniversary of the lifting of the siege of Leningrad, Petersburgers and siege survivors were not allowed to visit the Piskarevskoye cemetery because of Putin's arrival!
but they had to stand in the freezing cold for many hours because the block around Piskarevsky cemetery was cordoned off by troops and ordinary people were not allowed in
waiting for Putin's arrival...(c)
-------------
Don't the propagandists and "patriots" have anything to say about respect for the memory of the fallen and veterans? Where is there more cynicism and nastiness - in the Dozhd issue or in the Piskarevsky one? The case at the cemetery shows very well how truly official propagandists, including "Leader P himself", respect the memory of the siege survivors and veterans.
"Some St. Petersburgers, probably real descendants of Leningrad residents, decided to go to break through the cordon, and started very gently pushing back the left flank.
And one... began to call out in a very loud voice to the clumping officials:
- Why, I have come to lay flowers on a memorable day, and a handful of officials won't let me do so... - his speech was long and quite eloquent.
- Shut his mouth, - someone shouted from behind."(с)
No doubt about it.
-----------------------------------------
On the anniversary of the lifting of the Siege of Leningrad, Petersburgers and siege survivors were not allowed into the Piskarevskoye cemetery because of Putin's arrival!
But they had to stand in the freezing cold for hours
Yes, of course - I wouldn't have expected any other answer.
It's the "vile lies of the journos"! There was no poutine there, the veterans were as warm as summer, and anyway, about that nzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!
The past is seemingly patient. Whatever you want, you can make of it.
When I was at school, neutered Russian history was presented as a drawn-out prologue to the emergence of the world's first socialist state.
In a new twist, it would soon turn into a story about the triumphant march through the years of Holy Russia, the guardian of conservative values, chief among them unconditional love for authority.
And instead of any arguments - mantras without meaning: "Let us be worthy of the memory of our ancestors!"