Dedicated Russian thread

The following link is a rather interesting story on the recovery in the number of tigers in Russia. Conservation measures and a crackdown on poaching have produced an encouraging trend in the numbers of Siberian tigers.
Majestic predators stage a comeback in Russia's Far East | CBC News
Since 2010, the Russian government has cracked down on poaching and implemented a host of conservation measures that have helped Russia's Far East tiger population grow to around 500 adults and perhaps 100 cubs, according to a 2018 census done by Russia's Ministry of Nature.

While hardly robust numbers — Siberian tigers are listed as endangered, according to the World Wildlife Fund — the trend line is increasing. Russian authorities believe within four years, the tiger population will grow to more than 700 animals.
There are about 5,000 tigers left in the world, including those in Russia.
Worldwide, about 5,000 tigers remain in the wild, including the population in Russia as well as other sub-species in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and South Asia, according to the WWF.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
Russian merchant sailors from a cargo ship decide to take a dingy to visit Barry, got thoroughly pissed and ended up getting lost on the way back and landing on a small island containing one lighthouse, one farmhouse and a few outbuildings.

Russian sailors rescued from deserted island near Wales after taking wrong turn on drunken dinghy ride

I suppose Flat Holm was a blessing for them after Barry. The comments are what you might expect, including the suggestion that they actually went to Flat Holm to visit the famous 30ft lighthouse.
 
Oh, so the Poles should thank Moscow for enabling the start of World War Two and jointly carving up Poland with Hitler? My family have never stopped thanking them for the deportations, deaths, expropriations, misery and exile that they directly were responsible for.

It should never be forgotten that Stalin enabled Hitler to start WW2.

Indeed. Russia is lording over how they won WW2 and then get uppity when others think Russia throwing its weight around is ‘not on’ to use a phrase.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
It's a microcosm of the problems at the time, but Britain lost Singapore partly as a result of not sending tanks, with aid to Russia being seen as a priority at the time.

The Malayan peninsula had long been thought of as inaccessible to tanks, but opinions were changing by 1941 and armour was needed to protect the forward airfields. At the time (with the Western Desert and Home Defence taking up most of the available resources), the only spare tanks were knackered old Light Tanks from India (which almost certainly never got assembled and employed).

Meanwhile, Britain was shipping Valentine Infantry tanks to Russia. Even one squadron of Valentines could have been critical in Malaya, and especially in Singapore itself.

As I say, a microcosm, but it does make me grind my teeth when I read Russian reports about how we have Russia to thank for winning the Second World War.
 
What sort of response do you get when you show them?
Excellent question. Because the answer has been surprisingly uniform at any given time but has evolved over the course of a couple of decades, in line with Russia's changing attitudes to its own history. It started with astonished horror, then morphed through cynical and fatalistic resignation into today's blanket denial that anything of the kind could be true, and the photo is obviously a fake and Western propaganda.

And yes, these are (mostly) intelligent, (largely) educated Russians, many of whom have travelled abroad.
 
It's a microcosm of the problems at the time, but Britain lost Singapore partly as a result of not sending tanks, with aid to Russia being seen as a priority at the time.

The Malayan peninsula had long been thought of as inaccessible to tanks, but opinions were changing by 1941 and armour was needed to protect the forward airfields. At the time (with the Western Desert and Home Defence taking up most of the available resources), the only spare tanks were knackered old Light Tanks from India (which almost certainly never got assembled and employed).

Meanwhile, Britain was shipping Valentine Infantry tanks to Russia. Even one squadron of Valentines could have been critical in Malaya, and especially in Singapore itself.

As I say, a microcosm, but it does make me grind my teeth when I read Russian reports about how we have Russia to thank for winning the Second World War.
The Russian peoples do not get taught about the massive foreign (Western) aid being supplied to Moscow after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in Summer 1941. The official Kremlin position is to label it as inconsequential when they are forced to admit that it happened.

The Russian peoples also do not get taught about the considerable aid that Moscow supplied to Nazi Germany between the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in Summer 1939 and the German invasion of Russia in Summer 1941. Soviet freight trains full of fuel and foodstuffs were still heading into Nazi Germany as Barbarossa was launched.

They also do not get taught that Moscow ordered its subservient Communist parties in Western Europe, (particularly the very large and very pro-Moscow Communist Party in France) to not participate in any anti-German activity. In France elements of the Communist party actually indulged in passive resistance against the military mobilisation of France to combat German aggression in 1939-40 and arms were only taken up against the Germans by the French Communists after Germany attacked Russia.

A renewed Franco-German War was intended to provide the opportunity that the situation at the end of WW1 had failed to do (culminated by the crushing defeat of the Red Army at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920): A Moscow-led Communist takeover of Western Europe facilitated by the complete exhaustion and war-weariness of the populations of both main combattants. The French Communists were intended to stay hidden, organised, alert and keep their powder dry, for when they were needed to rise up as fifth-columnists in aid of the future Soviet offensive.

The Kremlin's plans didn't quite work out, but Stalin still achieved half his pre-war aims with the Iron Curtain descending across the centre of Europe, instead of on the Atlantic Ocean as originally intended.

Churchill having a good historic knowledge of Muscovite intentions, originally had plans for the allied reconquest of occupied Europe to start in Greece, so that none of Europe would fall into Soviet hands. Fighting north through Greece would have been no different topographically from the Italian campaign and would have been helped by the (at the time) very enthusiastic anti-German and pro-British attitude of the Greek population. The Americans under Roosevelt nixed any support of the plan and only reluctantly supported the alternative of the Italian campaign (aided by the considerable Italian presence in the States). Moscow of course was not enamoured of this option either.

However Churchill did manage to make Stalin agree that Greece would not fall under Soviet domination and Stalin kept his agreement, providing minimal support to the Greek Communists during the post-WW2 Greek Civil War where British troops supported the Nationalist side.
 
Last edited:
Excellent question. Because the answer has been surprisingly uniform at any given time but has evolved over the course of a couple of decades, in line with Russia's changing attitudes to its own history. It started with astonished horror, then morphed through cynical and fatalistic resignation into today's blanket denial that anything of the kind could be true, and the photo is obviously a fake and Western propaganda.

And yes, these are (mostly) intelligent, (largely) educated Russians, many of whom have travelled abroad.
I would guess that during the time just after the collapse of the USSR and information like this started to come out there would have ben a lot of head scratching and confusion over what actually happened. I've mentioned it before in another thread, but late 90's when my cousin came over from Ukraine he wondered why the war memorials had WW2 starting in '39 until I explained.

But what you've possibly shown in your post is how those in power could influence society's perceptions and 'common knowledge' of events and history. Unless of course Russians in general have taken it upon themselves to 'group think' their way into these views.
 
But what you've possibly shown in your post is how those in power could influence society's perceptions and 'common knowledge' of events and history. Unless of course Russians in general have taken it upon themselves to 'group think' their way into these views.
Yes. It's both. The youth of today (*cough*) know no better because the rolling back of history has already been under way for all of their formative years. Older people show that intuitive Russian grasp of what the powers that be want them to think and say, and toe the line.

I thought this was interesting -

Screen Shot 2019-03-26 at 00.11.25.png
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
It's a microcosm of the problems at the time, but Britain lost Singapore partly as a result of not sending tanks, with aid to Russia being seen as a priority at the time.
He-he-he. Brits lost Singapore, because they didn't fight for it at all. Tanks couldn't change anything, when soldiers and generals don't want (or can't) fight.
 
He-he-he. Brits lost Singapore, because they didn't fight for it at all. Tanks couldn't change anything, when soldiers and generals don't want (or can't) fight.
He-he-he. Russia lost WW1, because they didn't fight for it at all. Tanks couldn't change anything, when soldiers and generals don't want (or can't) fight.
 
It would be interesting to see what would have become of Russia if Britain and its allies hadn't helped Russia in either world war.

The Germans would no doubt have made a far better job of runnng Russia and modern day Russia would have been an economic powerhouse, much like a larger Germany, rather than the 'sicknote' of a country it became under the Soviet and then later pure Russian control.

Looking at the shockingly bad GDP of modern resource rich Russia compared to modern Germany is very telling!

Looking at how Putin had governed Russia is somewhat reminiscent of a phrase involving Beer and a brewery!
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
He-he-he. Russia lost WW1, because they didn't fight for it at all. Tanks couldn't change anything, when soldiers and generals don't want (or can't) fight.
Sure. Fidelity must be mutual. Russian Empire was bad for ordinary Russians, so they decided not to fight for it. Nicolay II was bad leader and weak warchief, so Russians killed him, and found Iosif Stalin. And with him, Russia captured half of Europe.
British Empire was bad for Indians, Chineses and other peoples (including Brits). Main problem was that Brits, didn't reorginize their country, didn't found normal leaders, didn't rebuilt Empire.
 
Sure. Fidelity must be mutual. Russian Empire was bad for ordinary Russians, so they decided not to fight for it. Nicolay II was bad leader and weak warchief, so Russians killed him, and found Iosif Stalin. And with him, Russia captured half of Europe.
The point was you were talking about the surrender of one small part of one Empire. Your whole Empire surrendered
British Empire was bad for Indians, Chineses and other peoples (including Brits). Main problem was that Brits, didn't reorginize their country, didn't found normal leaders, didn't rebuilt Empire.
The point escapes you once again. We gave up our Empire after fighting two world wars. In one Russia surrendered. In the other Russia had a pact with the Nazi’s.
 

Latest Threads

Top