Red Army and Vodka

I hope nobody does this today, but in the old days, low rent moonshiners (as opposed to the classy guys who used copper stills) used auto radiators as a condenser. Those old radiators were sealed with lead and so the customers tended to get a healthy dose of lead poisoning over time.

 

I am not an expert on the Eastern Front, but in my reading on the subject Front-line soldiers tended to act "correctly" once they entered the Reich, but those just behind the combat troops (support, reserve, replacement, NKVD) tended to be the source of most factual accounts (excluding NAZI Propaganda) of criminal acts.

 

It's spelled KARJALA...

I don't know how this statement of yours affects to the well know (at least in Finland) facts I presented. To me it says, that you could not argue with them.

Angry...? Well - I do object the stalinism and propagandist glorification of it in all forms - which unfortunately you seem to be part of...

(The Finnish) Karelia unlawfully stolen from Finland is 12,5 % of Finland (1939) - bigger than e.g. Slovenia(!). I would not call it a "small chunk". And if it is such a "small chunk" why Russia is still occupying it? It's current sorry state clearly demonstrates that Russia does not need it to anything.

I'm "easy" - wish you were too...

 

"Swedish Volunteers in the Russo-Finnish Winter War, 1939-40" by Martina Sprague. Page 114:

"... although both officers and officers appeared intoxicated and often fired high. Soviet prisoners of war later confirmed this claim."

"Moreover, one officer of the Finnish Army reported that an attack on the anniversary of the formation of the Red Army (February 23) was being celebrated in the Russian lines by intoxicated and loudly singing troops..."

 

I'll try to find a book by an Russian author, which I read some time ago. It was a collection of memories of the Russian war veterans in the Winter War. I remember some of the veterans telling exactly what I wrote before - that there was (at least some times) more alcohol available that the nominal rations because of the (heavy) losses.

It's not a matter of your beliefs but of what actually happened.

 

It's still KARJALA...

How did you came to that conclusion? There can be several weeks when I don't drink any alcohol at all. And if I do, I seldom drink more than one or two drinks/glasses.

 

But, according to 1926 census, there were just 0,9% Finns in the Republic of Karelia and according to the 2010 census, 82.2% of the Karelian population were Russians and just 1,4% Finns! So why should Russia hand over own citizens and own territory to another state? Just because of some "historical" rights.

I am sorry for being of-topic but I had to clarify this subject.

 

Then I drink less: just symbolic quantities of wine for some Catholic ceremonies and this year exceptionally some musts before the St. Martin's day. And remember, musts is a juice - not yet the real wine.

 

In another thread, Karjala was arguing that Israel should turn over captured Arab lands, even though that property represents less than 1% of the land given to the Arabs when the British and French mandates were handed over in 1947.

 

You - as so many Russians - mix the different parts of Karelia. You are talking about East Karelia (the "Republic" of Karelia) which was never part of Finland - although originally inhabited only by the Finnic (East-)Karelians (before the russification originally started by Peter I) and conquered by Finland in the Continuation War 1941-44. The sovietification/russification of the East Karelia and the soviet purges of the Finnic peoples have resulted, that the former indigenous Finnic peoples (the Karelians, the Vepsians, the Finns) are nowadays only abt 10 % minority in their own country - compared to 61,4 % in 1920, before the soviet purges, russification and adding some neighboring Russian populated areas to East Karelia.

I - as all the Finns always do - am only speaking of the (Eastern part of) the Finnish (=West) Karelia, which was robbed by the USSR in the Winter War 1940 and again in the Continuation War 1944 (but not conquered!). That Karelia was inhabited by 420.000 Finns (12 % of the population), which all (except 19 individuals) escaped to remaining Finland.

That area is not Russia's "own". Russia can keep her citizens since we would prefer not have them with our land but naturally a compromise could be negotiated. If Finland was able to re-settle 12 % of her population how Russia could not re-settle a smaller amount of people? We all know, that millions of Russians have moved back to Russia after 1990 and the Russian population is still diminishing - despite of the hopeful claims the Russian government is presenting.

 

We have been over this in that other thread already. It's still totally pointless how much land the other (different) peoples speaking the (kind of) same language have.

A robbery is a robbery - regardless of how small that robbery is by someone else.

 

Predecessors of the contemporary Slovenia lived at much larger territory of Carantania and later on in the March of Carinthia. But nobody sober and mentally sound claims rights on these territories that rightfully belong to the present day Austria. A country belongs to those who inhabit it now. Ireland to the Irish, Israel to the Jews Alaska to the Americans and all other countries to those who inhabit them. "Historic rights" have caused just lots of troubles.

 

As been discussed also in other topics, the "historic rights" of ancient times are something different. I'm not arguing that all of the northern Russia - Moscow included - should be given back to the Finnic peoples, like (only little more than) abt 1.000 years ago.

I'm talking about the modern time - "our" time, where robbery by militaristic imperialism simply is not tolerated nor accepted. Criminal dictatorships and their imperialism have caused lots of trouble, not the democratic small countries. I'm sorry, that you feel the need to continue supporting the crimes of a murderous evil empire.

 

You cannot enter the war of conquest without risking to lose own territories. In 1941 Finns unfortunately misjudged the danger of failure to win when they attacked the USSR alongside the Nazis. The Germans have lost even more territories. That's just a consequence of failure to win a war of conquest. Agree and bear it like a man.

But lest's get back now to the subject of Vodka in the Red Army.

In this tread I have learned that, at least teoretically, the Red Army had planned modest vodka rations for their soldiers. However, the "thirsty" individuals have managed to increase their rations, this way or another. One sad, but very likely method was trading their modest food rations for vodka and collecting it to have a single-shot dosis. This is yet another example how the war may turn human beings into something else.

 

You still seem to want to stick with the soviet "historical" claims...

Finland was attacked three times by the soviets: in 1918, 1939 and 1941. Finland was still thinking whether to join the German attack or not in 1941 - but chose to remain neutral with the Finnish army arrayed for defence - until the soviets (again) made the decision for the Finns by attacking Finland 22nd-25th June 1941, naturally without any declaration of war. Only after multiple soviet attacks and losses of Finnish civilian lives (114 dead, 500 injured) did Finland note the state of war (25th June) and declare war herself (26th June).

The USSR was then - as always - the aggressor. It's a bit disturbing, how the fact that the USSR attacked Finland in 1939 IN ALLIANCE with the Nazies does not seem to bother you at all. However when small Finland got help against the new soviet attack from the very same Germany in 1941 - but not in an alliance - it suddenly becomes a great "sin" in your books! Somehow It's a bit difficult to follow your logics...

The difference with Germany and Finland is, that Germany started the war with the USSR, Finland did not. On the contrary: Finland was a victim of multiple soviet attacks.

I definitely will not agree with any stalinist - neo- or original. I also do not need to "bear anything like a (stalinist) man"

Alcoholism/heavy drinking in Russia/the USSR/Russia is nothing new. The soviet soldiers did not "turn into something else" - just remained as they were before.

 

Whatever we talk you always end-up talking about the Russian Republic of Karelia. Good, I will try to learn something about the subject. Below is a map indicating historical border between Russia and Finland in the 19th century.

Questions:

1. Could you please explain me why was Karelia then located at the "wrong" side of the Russo-Finish border?

2. Why you are so pedantic when Republic of Karelia is just 1% of the entire Russia?

 

You guys are OFF topic and you'll never agree, so what's the use of arguing about a matter that has bene discussed over and over again. Before this turns sauer, I prefer to close this thread.

It was intially about Vodka remember? .