Jump to content

Jaquestrap

Provisional Member
  • Content Count

    368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Jaquestrap

  • Birthday 01/01/1900
  1. Russian/Cyrillic grammar lesson: The "X" in Cyrillic is equivalent to the English alphabet "H". So "Лох" is pronounced "loh", with a hard h (like how you pronounce the h in "hard"). There is no single letter in Cyrillic to denote the English "X", so instead you would write out "кс" (the "s" in cyrillic is just "c"). Good ol' New York Jewish "Lox" spelled in Cyrillic would be "лoкс", or more likely "лакс". This is obviously not a word in Russian, but if you were to spell it in Cyrillic then that's how it would work. The Russian word for salmon is "лосось", pronounced lah-soh-s'. When typing Russian in the English alphabet, the soft-sign "ь" is portrayed with a ' however it takes too much effort to explain how it actually affect the pronunciation of the preceding letter without actually giving you a verbal example. You can probably find a youtube video or something about it if you care enough. But to put it overly simply, it tends to make the preceding letter "sharper". Regardless, лосось and Lox are clearly somewhat similar, but obviously deviated from one another off of their common root enough that they are still distinct. Lox and Лох however, are two completely different words, written in different alphabets. Spelling equivalents: ENG = RUS Lox = Лакс (not a real word, just like Loh isn't a word in English) Loh = Лох
  2. Лох is only an East Slavic word--not a word in Polish, but definitely Russian, and I've heard Ukrainians use it before too (Belorussian probably has it too). No idea about the Baltic languages. But speaking for Russian, idk why you think it's the worst insult you can receive. It's just a rude/insulting way to call someone a "sucker" or a "schmuck". It'll piss someone off, but that's only because you're calling them out as a bitch, and yeah most Slavs tend to take that kind of challenge pretty seriously. But it's far from the worst possible insult you could receive in a Slavic language, since as you no doubt know, you can get really creative and really insulting in Slavic languages with all the prefixes and suffixes and shit. Don't tell me you haven't heard more creative and offensive insults than лох, cause even when I'm just joking around with my other Russian or Polish friends/cousins we've called each other worse things than that just for shits and giggles. Maybe if you're really insecure about people thinking you're an easy mark, лох might be the most offensive thing someone could call you. But honestly even talking about single-word insults, calling someone a Петух (Petuh) is way more insulting than calling them a Лох. For you non-Ruskis, it literally means "cock" ie rooster, but as an insult it references the prison slang which refers to the lowest of the low in prison: the "faggots"--or more accurately the "bitches"--guys who get raped and generally just abused for fun, treated like women or even just a dehumanized hole. Even calling someone a петух as a joke is liable to get you hit. Лох, not so much.
  3. I did reinstall WC3--why the hell else would I have been reminded of all you degenerates? Lmk when the next ISH match goes up, I'm down.
  4. Lol true, I was a feisty lil 16 year old back then. Jesus this community has been around for a while huh? Good times
  5. Nah he's just joshin ya
  6. Idk bro looks to me like a big chunk of "polish core territory" got gobbled up by Russia. I'm not even trying to paint Russia in a bad light or say it deserves a ton of hate--that's how shit worked back then, and it's not like Poland wasn't happy to gobble up chunks of Ukraine and Russia when it was top dog. Just stating that it's completely inaccurate to claim that Poles liked or were at all happy about being under the Soviet sphere of influence. It's kind of an objective fact, one that most Russian historians would agree with as well given, you know, historical facts.
  7. It's true that the Ukrainian partisans were at times armed and supported by the Germans (particularly during their gradual retreat in the face of the Soviet advance later in the War), but that wasn't always the case with all partisan groups, most certainly not in Poland, and wasn't the reason for why more Eastern Europeans didn't oppose the Soviets with military force after 1944. Firstly, the NKVD was far more effective at rooting out political opposition in these territories than the Gestapo ever was--the Germans embarked on wide ranging but relatively crude counter-insurgency operations in much of their occupied territory. It was mostly just tied into the general genocide which they inflicted on the local populations, with--relative to the Soviets--comparatively very little effort being put into actually infiltrating these resistance movements and making coordinated and surgical strikes at politically mobilized groups of people. This is due to the simple facts that: A) The Germans were embroiled in total war with the USSR. B) In most of these places, the Germans felt it a low priority to waste time and effort on discerning politically mobilized targets among populations which they intended to wipe out nigh-entirely in the first place. Why bother using the precision of force necessary to break a society's will to resist when you're trying to just get rid of that society in the first place? C) Armed resistance in occupied populations is generally a combined measure of both desperation as well as hope. Sufficient desperation regarding the prevailing circumstances to motivate armed resistance, along with sufficient hope of said resistance realistically delivering the desired outcome to make the casualties and consequences of armed resistance seem worthwhile. In German occupied Poland for example, millions of Poles fought for and supported the underground because the prospect of liberation at the hands of Poland's allies seemed possible. Far fewer were willing to violently resist the Soviets because it was obvious that no such help would ever come, and thus it would be futile to risk throwing away your life for a lost cause. Ironically enough, this meant that despite inflicting more damage upon the occupied peoples than the Soviets, the Germans ensured they would face far more difficulty in combating insurgents than the Soviets ever would. The Poles were never given any option under German occupation other than to either fight, or face gradual annihilation/extermination, and also saw that fighting could potentially lead to deliverance from their plight by aiding in the war effort. The Soviets however gave the majority of people in these countries a third option which they had not had during the past 4-6 years of war: their lives in exchange for total political submission. And they added to this the guarantee that armed resistance had no possible chance of eventual success no matter how effective it was. After years of warfare, resistance, and destruction, most people were willing to cease employing open, mass-mobilized political and military resistance in exchange for this still very shitty deal because at least it was a deal. But that does not mean that they were at all welcoming of the prospect, or that they didn't hold tremendous resentment towards the Soviets and find their own ways to aid those who continued to resist. To use an allegory: If some terrorists forced their way into your building, took you and a bunch of other people hostage, and made it clear that everyone will executed one by one in front of a camera, then you and everyone else would probably start resisting/hindering them--knowing that the cops have been called and are in a stalemate with the hostage takers outside, and that any possible thing you could do to oppose those terrorists could only help you since you're dead unless those cops rescue you. Now say that you resisted, and those terrorists were all killed/arrested, except now instead of going free the cops turn out to be corrupt criminals who also take you hostage and tell you that you're going to be staying in the building with just enough to survive until they can get a ransom from your family, and that anyone who is caught disobeying or resisting will be met with immediate execution. No other cops are coming for you, so there is no hope of an imminent rescue. Who knows when the ransom could come through, but you are now at least being given the option of surviving by just waiting it out and suffering. Well now it's likely that a good number of people who openly resisted earlier, will decide it isn't worth the risk anymore. They won't however, be at all "happy" or supportive towards their captors, and chances are that if they see other hostages still resisting then they will probably be more than willing to help them in some way (distracting one of the hostage takers, playing lookout, etc.). So sure, the corrupt cops aren't getting as much open resistance as the terrorists, but that's far less a reflection of the hostage's relative opinion of their captor than it is a cost-benefit analysis being considered by hostages whose first priority is survival. Poles didn't resist the Soviets less because they were Slavs--hell Poland always considered Russia it's foremost geopolitical threat right up until 1939, and oriented its foreign policy and security agenda to reflect that. Bear in mind that up until Germany invaded, the last country to existentially threaten Poland's sovereignty was the USSR in 1921--and that for centuries Poland had suffered greater at the hands of Russian expansionism than it did from German. Even to this day, despite the devastation the Germans inflicted upon Poland, Polish culture and society holds greater resentment towards Russia than it does towards Germany--though that's also due to the fact that many Poles feel that Germany has made greater effort to take responsibility for the injustices it inflicted on Poland than Russia has (the Katyn Massacre in particular has always been a hot-button issue that most Poles feel Russia has yet to take full responsibility for). Ukrainians too, particularly those in the West, have for most of the past 100+ years felt like their "Slavic brothers" in Russia pose a greater threat to their national identity and sovereignty than any Germans to the West.
  8. Actually I think it took me about 7. Lucky
  9. Feanor, the USSR would almost certainly have won a conventional European war against the Allies in 1945, but a lot of the specifics you two are giving are way off base. Most glaring are the claims about Eastern European sympathy to the Soviets--the USSR was engaged in major "pacification" campaigns (ie military operations) against widely popular nationalist resistance/underground/guerrilla fighters and political activists in Eastern Poland, Western Ukraine, the Baltic states (most notably Lithuania), and western Belarus until the early-mid 1950's. These groups, typically remnants/carry-overs from their WW2-era predecessors (ie. the Polish Home Army 'AK', the Ukrainian Insurgent Army 'UPA', etc.) enjoyed widespread support from local populations--which was in fact typically the only reason why they were able to persist in their political and military resistance for so long in the face of overwhelming Soviet military force and covert infiltration by the NKVD. Soviet losses in Ukraine against the UPA right after the War alone were dramatic: the official Soviet figure for casualties suffered at the hands of Ukrainian nationalist forces between 1944-1953 was 30,676 individuals. Of those, 2,551 were listed as NKVD personnel, 3,199 Soviet and NKVD soldiers and border guards, 446 members of the Communist Party and Komsomol leadership, and 2,590 members of Soviet sponsored "self-defense groups", with the remainder being pro-Soviet civilians and "kolkhozniki" (for those not familiar with the term, this refers to workers/employees of the collective farms or "Kolkhozy" in Slavic languages, who would often have been seen as agents or at least enablers of Collectivization, one of the most universally hated Soviet reform policies in this region). Soviet archives also record that between only 1944 through 1946, Soviet forces carried out 39,778 operations against the UPA, killing 103,313 and capturing approximately 24,000 insurgents and Ukrainian political dissidents. While this may not seem big when compared to the battles and operations of WWII, make no mistake, figures like that during a peacetime occupation are evidence of tremendous political conflict between the local population and the political/military force in control of the area. Let's not forget how much of an impact the history and memory of this period of time still has on the politics of the region to this day--anyone who's half-informed on what's been unfolding in Ukraine since 2013 knows how important the legacy of this conflict was to the political, ethnic, and national narratives playing out (with tremendous impact) in the Ukrainian conflict today. Bear in mind that those figures are almost certainly smaller than the genuine amount of casualties the Soviets sustained (for several reasons that I could get into but would only make this post longer than necessary), and for some comparison in 1951 CIA leadership estimated that approximately 35,000 Soviet Police/Military personnel and Communist Party officials had been killed at the hands of UPA guerrillas and affiliates since the end of WWII--this estimate not counting civilian casualties. Even if the true figure lies only halfway between the official Soviet record and the CIA analysis, that would put the death-toll among Soviet personnel (not civilians, for whom the numbers are always larger) at somewhere around 20,000 during this roughly 8-year period. Compare this to Soviet military casualties in Afghanistan, with roughly 15,000 dead and 35,000 wounded, and you get a feel for the intensity and severity of the post-war conflict in Ukraine alone. Even if we were to say that Afghanistan isn't the best comparison, we could compare this to the conflicts Russia has been involved in with Chechnya since 1994, and they are outshined by this post-war "pacification". And how brutally contentious do we know the Chechen Wars to have been? This was a small war in its own right, only overshadowed by the chaotic turmoil all of Eastern Europe was under for the decade following the end of the War. To put this in perspective, the last known Polish anti-Soviet resistance fighter (known as the "Cursed Soldiers" in Poland) was only killed in an ambush in 1963. While I still don't believe that this would have necessarily played a pivotal role in a hypothetical post-WWII war between the USSR and the Western Allies (Soviet military operations, doctrine, and capabilities simply dwarfed any impact an ancillary conflict like this could have on it's grand strategy at the time), it is an ahistoric myth born of late-Soviet propaganda to claim that the USSR had anything close "sympathetic" relations with the East European peoples who were newly subordinated to Soviet rule at the end of the War. Even more ridiculous would be to claim as pona did that the Soviets were seen as liberators in countries such as Poland or Lithuania, who themselves had all too recent conflicts with the USSR prior to WWII for the majority of their populations to see the Soviets as anything better than a shitty solution (Soviet-enforced communism) to an admittedly shittier problem (the ravages of war and German occupation). Those tensions would only begin to truly subside after the Soviets broke all political opposition in the region during the first half of the 1950's. Link to Soviet/Ukrainian source for those figures: http://history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Upa/24.pdf
  10. The prodigal Polak returns
    1. cell_destroyer

      cell_destroyer

      Classic Jockstrap
    2. War4life

      War4life

      lmfao jockstrap is back
  11. WHAT EVEN IS ALL OF THIS
  12. Well soldiers pickup up the guns of fallen comrades DID happen, but only during one phase of the Battle of Stalingrad, during the period where Chuikov and Zhukov were massing their best forces and equipment for an inevitable counter-attack, and untrained conscripts were sent in with a severe lack of weapons to slow down the Germans. Apart from that example, Soviet forces were sent into combat with relatively adequate equipment, though of course there were some shortages of weapons in all fronts and armies, even with the Americans during some of the longer battles. And the Soviets didn't rape everyone (unless you're referring to the rape of German women by Soviet soldiers, which did happen to some extent but can't really be blamed on the government. It was angry people taking out their rage on what they considered the enemy, and it's happened throughout history), but they did fuck over quite a bit of people. And Stalin most certainly was not an idiot. Hideously evil? Yes. Incredibly paranoid? Yes. Idiot? No. In the initial phase of the war it wasn't a lack of intelligence in Stalin that caused the setbacks, it was a combination of a massive surprise attack and a sort of breakdown in Stalin which caused the massive losses. The tide only really started slowing down a bit once Stalin got back in command. To be able to survive the intensely brutal politics of early Bolshevik Russia (seriously, the politics at that point were the easily the most brutal in history. If you think that American politics has gotten bad, read some documents about the power struggle during and after the Russian Revolution) and emerge in complete control until your natural death shows immense mental skill, though also intense cruelty and heartlessness.
×
×
  • Create New...