Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Euro 2020(21)


Bjornebye
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tried watching some of Finland and Russia, shit game, really unentertaining an commentated on by some woman who is doing her level best to prove that women are every bit as capable as men at being shit at commentating on football with Martin Keown spouting inane clueless bollocks alongside it. Then half time it's expert analysis from Micah Richards then cut to Robbie Savage.

 

It's unwatchable if you have any sound on. 

 

Is there some rule in the tv agreements that makes it compulsory for them to employ the thickest and/or most boring sounding ex-players?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SasaS said:

They were both Communists, but Tito opened the borders relatively early in his rule, which was a major thing, and was overall less brutal (once his position was secure) and less dogmatic (once he began flirting with the West).

 

Yeah, but his jails were always full to the brim... because he'd hardly have got tea and scones at Buckingham Palace - which the cunt loved, along with his honorary knighthood - if he'd knocked off people, post-1945, with the murderous indifference he did prior to '45.

 

Mind you, he needn't have worried.  

Churchill proved to Lillie-Bet's Dad at Bleiburg that Slavic lives were worth fuck-all in the scheme of more pressing things....

 

 

Screen Shot 2021-06-17 at 12.14.27 am.png

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SasaS said:

They were both Communists, but Tito opened the borders relatively early in his rule, which was a major thing, and was overall less brutal (once his position was secure) and less dogmatic (once he began flirting with the West).

 

I think Russia's actions in Yugoslavia wars were always more about the big anti-NATO picture than they were specifically pro-Serbian. They were involved on the ground in the Kosovo crisis when they quickly moved in some paras of their own to stop James Blunt from feeling too safe in his tank. 

Hmm  - I think there was a lot more than that early on. Tito thought Russia was going to invade and yes, he was less dogmatic - basically Yugoslavia were a non-Stallinist country. They did help as part of the Nato force, but they didn't initially want NATO to get involved. This may not lead to hate but, not sure they would be liked for that. Kosovo was Albanian really wasn't it? And of course Bosnia, who got the worst. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, s(k)aturation said:

 

Yeah, but his jails were always full to the brim... because he'd hardly have got tea and scones at Buckingham Palace - which the cunt loved along with his honorary knighthood - if he'd knocked off people, post-1945, with the murderous indifference he did prior to '45.

 

Mind you, he needn't have worried.  

Churchill proved to Lilly-Bet's Dad at Bleiburg that Slavic lives were worth fuck-all in the scheme of more pressing things....

 

Repression was often cyclical, there were obviously mass killings and ethnic cleansing immediately post-war, then purges during the pressure from Stalin (which were often intra-Communist affairs), but there was also generally and progressively less of a clampdown outside big events such as suppressing Croatia's national awakening in 1971, or Serbian liberals a couple years earlier.

 

Tito was always more interested in removing potential challengers from within, than in dogmatic socialism, so he would often sack the people demanding reforms and then implement most of the reforms the following year anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SasaS said:

progressively less of a clampdown outside big events such as suppressing Croatia's national awakening in 1971.... Tito was always more interested in removing potential challengers from within, than in dogmatic socialism, so he would often sack the people demanding reforms and then implement most of the reforms the following year anyway. 

 

Yes, the plagiaristic krmak set things up nicely for 1991 and all that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jockey said:

Hmm  - I think there was a lot more than that early on. Tito thought Russia was going to invade and yes, he was less dogmatic - basically Yugoslavia were a non-Stallinist country. They did help as part of the Nato force, but they didn't initially want NATO to get involved. This may not lead to hate but, not sure they would be liked for that. Kosovo was Albanian really wasn't it? And of course Bosnia, who got the worst. 

You've just pushed a dagger through every Serbian heart.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...