Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 68Hawk on February 01, 2007, 06:02:11 PM
-
This came up in another thread and I was curious to see how many different arguable answers we could get.
When did the Cold War start? At what point in time, or what event?
And I'm looking for something a little deeper than just the end of WW2.
I'm gonna say the Yalta conference, when the postwar speres of influence were decieded.
What do you think?
-
The correct answer, if a Patton fan,
1945.
Then you could argue so many others,
Just go look at wikipedia..
I'd go with Feb. 1946 though, after the 'Long Telegram'.
-
You could also argue that it started even before WWII ended.
-
August 25, 1945 (http://www.jbs.org)
-
Land blockade of West Berlin by the Soviets in 1948. Strictly speaking "Cold War" means something post WW2.
The West never had good relations with the Soviet Union, but the "Cold War" is a period defined by historians as post WW2 relations.
Prior to this, there were tensions, but nothing "overt" between the Allies. The Berlin crisis changed all that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_air_lift
-
Originally posted by Squire
Land blockade of West Berlin by the Soviets in 1948. Strictly speaking "Cold War" means something post WW2.
The West never had good relations with the Soviet Union, but the "Cold War" is a period defined by historians as post WW2 relations.
Prior to this, there were tensions, but nothing "overt" between the Allies. The Berlin crisis changed all that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_air_lift
Once again, do you know the real reasons for blockade of Berlin? The fault is on the Western side. They simply didn't tell you the truth, it's called "freedom of speech" in the West.
Can you explain in you own words _why_ Soviet occupation forces blocked Berlin in 1948?
As for the beginning of the Cold war, according to Soviet point of view it began with Churchill's Fulton speech on March, 5th, 1946.
I'd say that "cold hostilities" began after so-called "democratic" elections in Western occupation zones.
-
Borada. Just curious, but I presume you were not alive in that time period, so you are going from the written or taught history as is most everyone else.
My question is this; What makes your truth any better or worse than anyone else's? Your posting suggests your truth is better than others, so I am curious as to why you think that.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Once again, do you know the real reasons for blockade of Berlin? The fault is on the Western side. They simply didn't tell you the truth, it's called "freedom of speech" in the West.
snip
I'd be very curious to hear your version :)
-
How many more will the ignored 68Hawk land?
-
K2, did you get my PM?
-
On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. It came as a great shock to the United States because they were not expecting the Soviet Union to possess nuclear weapon knowledge so soon. Previously, the United States had used two atomic bombs on Japan to cause them to surrender during World War II. The impact that the possession of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union had upon the United States was that it caused Americans to question their own safety.
President Truman responded by reevaluating the United States position in the world and called for the United States to build up its conventional and nuclear weapons to halt the spread of Soviet influence around the globe.
link (http://www.coldwar.org/articles/40s/soviet_atomic_bomb_test.asp)
-
I'd say it started before the end of WWII, when Patton (among others) started to suspect that losing the race to Berlin would determine the shape of the post-war world. McArthur's opinions and attitudes were merely an extension of this realization.
The Berlin Airlift and the Korean War were the first major skirmishes, but the war started back in 1944.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Once again, do you know the real reasons for blockade of Berlin? The fault is on the Western side. They simply didn't tell you the truth, it's called "freedom of speech" in the West.
Can you explain in you own words _why_ Soviet occupation forces blocked Berlin in 1948?
As for the beginning of the Cold war, according to Soviet point of view it began with Churchill's Fulton speech on March, 5th, 1946.
I'd say that "cold hostilities" began after so-called "democratic" elections in Western occupation zones.
And you leaned the "truth" how?
Your "truth" is based on the "Soviet point of view?" The "Soviet point of view" resulted in the USSR attempting to starve to death 2.5 million German civilians of West Berlin because the West established the Deutsch Mark. The "Soviet point of view" also directly caused the death of how many of it's own citizens under Stalin? The "Soviet point of view" also led to the USSR being a co-conspiritor in partitioning Poland and freed up German troops to move west. You can keep the "Soviet point of view" and keep a candle burning for Stalin, the originator of the "Soviet point of view".
Edit: I forgot to mention it but "freedom of speech" is not the same as "truth". Freedom of speech is the right to express yourself regardless of whether someone else (principally the government) wants you to do it or not. Freedom of speech is only related to "truth" if it's used to express "truth". You for instance are expressing yourself through freedom of speech but it doesn't make what you say accurate or "true".
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Borada. Just curious, but I presume you were not alive in that time period, so you are going from the written or taught history as is most everyone else.
My question is this; What makes your truth any better or worse than anyone else's? Your posting suggests your truth is better than others, so I am curious as to why you think that.
I told it many times before. When I hear two explainations of one historical event, one of them Western, second one - Soviet, both reasonable and without obvious logical faults, I definetly choose Soviet one. I hope you understand why :)
In case of Berlin airlift the Western POV is that the only reason for blockade was that Evil Soviet Regime (tm) wanted to starve poor Berliners just because it was naturally evil and bloodthirty, in other words - just for fun. I hope you understand that it was not so, otherwise there is no reason to discuss it.
I first learned about "Berlin airlift" from Midnight Target on this board, we have never been told about it at history classes (it doesn't mean that information was censored, you just had to show some interest and look for it). What I heard surprised me. I found an answer a later, reading a book by Soviet intelligence officer, he only mentioned that decision, and then I easily found other facts.
I strongly believe that Cold war was started by the "blue" side, this opinion was developed by reading multiple Soviet and Western books and putting 2+2 together. First, after WWII USSR, unlike Western "allies" was totally devastated and exausted, so, if Stalin didn't kick "allies" out of Europe in 1945 - then the only option for the USSR was peace. Multiple hostile actions and provocations made by "allies" led to Cold war, "iron curtain" and division of Europe into "red" and "blue" sides. BTW, USSR withdrew it's troops from countries like Austria and seriously discussed re-uniting Germany until 1953.
-
I'd say 1918.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I told it many times before. When I hear two explainations of one historical event, one of them Western, second one - Soviet, both reasonable and without obvious logical faults, I definetly choose Soviet one. I hope you understand why :)
I can understand and appreciate this position.
Unfortunately, how history is recorded really depends on the person recording it, particulary as it pertains to politics.
-
Dear Comrade
Very interesting point of view from the area formerly behind the iron curtain. I have a question for the comrade. If the west started the cold war and was the aggressor, then why did the Communists have to build a wall around West Berlin? Was it to keep that nasty freedom from leaking into the Lenin Utopia? Or was it to keep the oppressed Germans from escaping.
Further the demarcation line between East and West Germany was mined, fenced, and patrolled by Russian troops who on over 100 occasions shot down unarmed Germans trying to cross over to the Western side. Number of incidents of people climbing over the fence going eastward? Zero.
As to the internal workings of the Soviet Union would you care to enlighten us dumb westerners as to the use of the Gulag system and the disappearance of millions of Russians into the vast prison system? Even your current government admits the murder of millions of its own citizens under Communist rule, and yet we are the aggressor and the mean blue side?
Propaganda is a powerful tool used by both sides and I dont for a minute say that the western hands are clean of blood. But in comparison from our side to your side, the Soviet system was at a minimum barbaric, and oppressive.
-
Originally posted by eagl
I'd say it started before the end of WWII, when Patton (among others) started to suspect that losing the race to Berlin would determine the shape of the post-war world. McArthur's opinions and attitudes were merely an extension of this realization.
The Berlin Airlift and the Korean War were the first major skirmishes, but the war started back in 1944.
spot on, well said eagl...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
K2, did you get my PM?
Yes, and I'll respond when I get home from work bro. I hope things are going good for you.
-
Originally posted by wt666
Dear Comrade
Propaganda is a powerful tool used by both sides and I dont for a minute say that the western hands are clean of blood. But in comparison from our side to your side, the Soviet system was at a minimum barbaric, and oppressive.
If you know arithmetic - you can easily count the victims of Western "activities" in last 200 years yourself. Let's begin with genocide of native Americans and Opium wars. If you call this "civilisation" - I prefer to stay an Asian barbarian on my shaggy mount.
Asian hordes of Jewish bolsheviks my ass.
The key difference is that Russians simply wanted to survive, all the politics after 1917 was aimed at survival, while Western "civilised" countries were openly robbing and murdering other nations. So it goes. Just look, USSR never did anything that can be compared with recent activities of the "coalition of the willing"...
Sorry, I am a little upset by listening to the same crap over and over again. You guys have no imagination. Why not invent something new? Why not speak of bloody annexation of Tuva in 1944? Or Russian intervention in Manchuria in 1896-1905? Or Free Cossacks killing French troops in Abissinia in 1880s?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I can understand and appreciate this position.
Unfortunately, how history is recorded really depends on the person recording it, particulary as it pertains to politics.
Unfortunately for me, in modern Russia official "history" now repeats Western point of view, it's because we pretend to be a part of "Western cultural trend" now. So we hear all kinds of hallucinations on national TV and other media. If we sum up all the numbers of "victims of Evil Stalin", WWII losses, victims of starvations etc that are in official propaganda - then I wonder why I am not the only person living in Russia now, all others were killed according to "official" history. Russians crucified Christ. Russians killed all the Jews. Et cetera ad nauseum.
K.I.S.S.: try to find sane reasons for this and that, and you'll see that many things that "everyone knows" turn into obvious propagana lies...
First example that came into my mind: Cuban missile crisis, US deployed missiles that could hit most of the European part of the USSR in Turkey long before Nikita sent missiles to Cuba.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Unfortunately for me, in modern Russia official "history" now repeats Western point of view, it's because we pretend to be a part of "Western cultural trend" now. So we hear all kinds of hallucinations on national TV and other media. If we sum up all the numbers of "victims of Evil Stalin", WWII losses, victims of starvations etc that are in official propaganda - then I wonder why I am not the only person living in Russia now, all others were killed according to "official" history. Russians crucified Christ. Russians killed all the Jews. Et cetera ad nauseum.
K.I.S.S.: try to find sane reasons for this and that, and you'll see that many things that "everyone knows" turn into obvious propagana lies...
First example that came into my mind: Cuban missile crisis, US deployed missiles that could hit most of the European part of the USSR in Turkey long before Nikita sent missiles to Cuba.
So... communism was the voice of truth and reason, and democracy "official history of russia" tells you lies and anti communist propoganda?
China tells the truth in modern times about all of those mining deaths, stealing of land, peasants on the verge of revolt... and of course our good honest friends in North Korea...
-
Originally posted by Ball
So... communism was the voice of truth and reason, and democracy "official history of russia" tells you lies and anti communist propoganda?
Anticommunist propaganda - yes, yes and yes. The reason is to make people believe that the disasters happening in the name of Sacred Democracy are nothing compared to troubles of communism. Justifying theft, corruption and ****ups by saying "look, howbad it was back then!".
Russia is a country with unpredictable past. I remember Soviet times pretty well, but young people aleady believe in all the horror-stories they see on TV now.
Soviet system was far from perfect, but neither is Western so-called "democracy". BTW in terms of "democracy" USSR was way more advanced then Western societies. Both systems have their pros and cons, they are not "good" or "bad", just different. Soviet system was our choice for 70 years, then it was destroyed by a gang of idiots and crooks, so now we can compare it with "capitalism". Believe me or not, but 90% of the people at this board will be absolutely happy under Soviet system (if we take entire population - i'll estimate 99%).
-
Originally posted by Boroda
BTW in terms of "democracy" USSR was way more advanced then Western societies.
yep more advanced.... anyone who opposed to the ruling party mysteriously disappeared...
:lol
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You could also argue that it started even before WWII ended.
I'd have to agree with this statement. Stalin had plans that went beyond the end of WW2 that were in action before the war ended. The control and use of "buffer countries" for example. It was an extension of empire without the czars.
Neither Churchhill or Roosevelt trusted Stalin very far, but they had to work with him to make sure the war ended with the right side on top.
-
Originally posted by soda72
yep more advanced.... anyone who opposed to the ruling party mysteriously disappeared...
:lol
Examples, please.
Seriously, please, give me any name of a person who "misteriously disappeared" in USSR because of his political views. I always hear about it, but I am surprised, why no people that I know disappeared because of that? Frankly speaking, I don't personally know anyone who "disappeared" at all. Maybe I lived in a different country?... :rolleyes:
-
as opposed to being exiled and executed like Leon Trotsky?
-
well, they did eventually find the shallow grave of the executed romanov family ...so i guess it isn't a mystery anymore.
-
Originally posted by JB88
well, they did eventually find the shallow grave of the executed romanov family ...so i guess it isn't a mystery anymore.
oh and that stalin was such a kidder.
-
Originally posted by Ball
as opposed to being exiled and executed like Leon Trotsky?
Mister is a trotskist?... World revolution, barrack communism, etc? Hunweibins, Cultural Revolution, other funny ultra-left stuff?
-
stop picking on Boroda, he has to say what he says or the KGB will take him away in the middle of the night and we will never hear from him again.
-
Originally posted by JB88
oh and that stalin was such a kidder.
Stalin killed Royal family? Any other historical discoveries?
-
Wow, so far we've gotten some really good answers, and some really good historical discussion.
My aim in starting this post was to show that some things in History that are taken as simple fact are often very debatable. So far this thread has more than shown that.
I think Boroda has a very good point, that perceptions of history are incredibly important to understand. I think its true that the Western perspective on the USSR has been slanted by some fearmongering, and that manypeople in the West who lived through the Cold War do not have an accurate picture of that country during the same period. Many Americans think the USSR was like Col. Spicket from Tailspin (was that his name?). Americans forget that MANY Russians, East Germans and others in the Communist block were happy with their situation. Many East Germans are still upset at issues they consider unresolved from unification.
Filth's answer of 1918 is also a very good one. Personally I believe the two wars are better understood as one long conflict period, and in this sense 1918, with the coming of the Russian Revolution and eventual victory of the Bolsheviks, can be considered a good beginning of animosities. Still, the USSR was not powerful enough to prove a real threat to the West till well into the second War. Some of the dates being suggested after the war are arguably valid as well.
I still stick by my Yalta conference answer, which was Feb 1945. Any other answers out there?
-
Originally posted by john9001
stop picking on Boroda, he has to say what he says or the KGB will take him away in the middle of the night and we will never hear from him again.
Yess. They'll torture me and kill. And then eat. And send me to Gulag to clean all the snow in Siberia.
I am posting this from a bread line typing with one hand, pushing back polar bears with the other.
-
Just curious here, but how many different political parties were there in the Soviet Union, and how often did the average person go to the polls to VOTE for their ELLECTED representatives?
You said in one of your earlier posts Boroda that the people of the Soviet Union CHOOSE communism over democracy. Did they really have a choice? I don't recall ever hearing or reading about a general election in Russia where the people decided that communism was the way to go and the people voted for it.
Your right that democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be but at least the people have the RIGHT to choose who will be our representatives in government. We also have the choice to remove those representatives if a majority of the people think they are screwing up. Do you honestly think Stalin would have stepped down if the people had tried to vote him out of office?? Hell no. He would have brought the red army in to crush any opposition to HIS RULE. You were raised in a country that was run by a small commitee of dictators called the Politburo. What choice did you have? Were you able to leave the country anytime you wanted too? Were the people of the Soviet Union ALLOWED to protest in large numbers outside the gates of the Kremlin??
I grew up during the last 20 years of the cold war and I have more faith in the free press I saw and read about what was going on then I do in your programed point of view.
As far as when the cold war started I believe that the blockade of Berlin by the Soviets was the real kick off to the whole thing. At the end of WWII Berlin was under the administrative control of the United States, Britan, France, and the Soviet Union. A safe transit corridor was established so that the allies could get in and out of the city. The Soviets closed that corridor for one reason. Power. They wanted Berlin. Well the allies decided to give the Soviets the finger and started flying supplies in and did it as long as it took for the Soviets to back down. Well it worked because we never left Berlin. We also never shot and killed anyone trying to cross the wire. The Soviets can't claim that.
-
Very interesting point of view from the area formerly behind the iron curtain. I have a question for the comrade. If the west started the cold war and was the aggressor, then why did the Communists have to build a wall around West Berlin? Was it to keep that nasty freedom from leaking into the Lenin Utopia? Or was it to keep the oppressed Germans from escaping.
Further the demarcation line between East and West Germany was mined, fenced, and patrolled by Russian troops who on over 100 occasions shot down unarmed Germans trying to cross over to the Western side. Number of incidents of people climbing over the fence going eastward? Zero.
As to the internal workings of the Soviet Union would you care to enlighten us dumb westerners as to the use of the Gulag system and the disappearance of millions of Russians into the vast prison system? Even your current government admits the murder of millions of its own citizens under Communist rule, and yet we are the aggressor and the mean blue side?
Propaganda is a powerful tool used by both sides and I dont for a minute say that the western hands are clean of blood. But in comparison from our side to your side, the Soviet system was at a minimum barbaric, and oppressive.
If you know arithmetic - you can easily count the victims of Western "activities" in last 200 years yourself. Let's begin with genocide of native Americans and Opium wars. If you call this "civilisation" - I prefer to stay an Asian barbarian on my shaggy mount.
Asian hordes of Jewish bolsheviks my ass.
The key difference is that Russians simply wanted to survive, all the politics after 1917 was aimed at survival, while Western "civilised" countries were openly robbing and murdering other nations. So it goes. Just look, USSR never did anything that can be compared with recent activities of the "coalition of the willing"...
Sorry, I am a little upset by listening to the same crap over and over again. You guys have no imagination. Why not invent something new? Why not speak of bloody annexation of Tuva in 1944? Or Russian intervention in Manchuria in 1896-1905? Or Free Cossacks killing French troops in Abissinia in 1880s?
Wow truly fascinating. Something tells me you and your family were some of the privilege few in the old system.
I notice your response above does not address anything wt666 asks. Other than trying to point out bad things in the west's past as if that justifies the former Soviet Unions actions during the cold war. Honestly the blight on the American Indian is not a pretty part of our past, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone talking as if they deserved it as you are doing with your past. Why is that. Especially when you espouse this kind of idea:
Once again, do you know the real reasons for blockade of Berlin? The fault is on the Western side. They simply didn't tell you the truth, it's called "freedom of speech" in the West.
Please enlighten us with a direct answer to wt666 post, I am all ears as to why the former Soviet Union needed to make the East Berlin prisoners of their own country and how that was the wests fault??
And you can't argue that East Berlin was far worse off from the the Wall and Soviet domination. It was obvious when the wall came down and Berlin was once again a totally FREE city. East Berlin was akin to a place where time stood still.
Then you want to discuss Iraq? LOL How many countries has Russia invaded and tried to hand it back to the people to run as we are doing. What do you think Japan would have been like had Russia ruled there instead of America overseeing it's reconstruction?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Mister is a trotskist?... World revolution, barrack communism, etc? Hunweibins, Cultural Revolution, other funny ultra-left stuff?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
As far as when the cold war started I believe that the blockade of Berlin by the Soviets was the real kick off to the whole thing. At the end of WWII Berlin was under the administrative control of the United States, Britan, France, and the Soviet Union. A safe transit corridor was established so that the allies could get in and out of the city. The Soviets closed that corridor for one reason. Power. They wanted Berlin. Well the allies decided to give the Soviets the finger and started flying supplies in and did it as long as it took for the Soviets to back down. Well it worked because we never left Berlin. We also never shot and killed anyone trying to cross the wire. The Soviets can't claim that.
In 1948 "allies" run so-called "democratic" elections in Western occupation zones, West Germany is set up as a state. They issue West German currency, while Soviet zone still uses Occupational Marks printed in Moscow and London. The huge mass of useless paper is flushed into Soviet zone. The border is shut to prevent it: while "allies" didn't suffer from occupation, USSR had all it's industry in ruins and 15% of population killed, so we couldn't afford paying for paper printed in London, I hope you understand what you mean. West Berlin kept paying for electricity, water and other stuff with occupational money, that meant - they wanted all for free. So Soviet administration wanted hard currency for that, it's capitalism, isn't it? This turned out to become a beautifull propaganda action for West side.
If you stick to the blockade, I'll say that the dividing line should be the "elections" in Western zone, when West openly legitimated the division of Germany. Same trick in Korea led to war, fortunately in Europe both sides didn't lose common sence.
-
As someone pointed out earlier there doesn't appear to have been many people trying to "escape" to East Berlin or into any of the old USSR. Compare that to the problem we're having keeping people out of the US. This seems like a pretty unequivicable answer to the question of which system is better.
Regarding problems of Western democracy, well it's been said before that democracy isn't perfect but it's the best system out there.
Regarding the West's actions before the blockade you should recall that the West wanted to reunify Germany and assist in reconstruction, something that Stalin wouldn't stand for. The Soviet model followed the same model that followed WWI and look at what that got us, it directly led to WWII so it's no wonder the West wouldn't agree. As part of this plan Stalin wanted war reparations from western Germany, something not agreed to at Yalta or Potsdam.
The relative benefits of Western Democracy that you seem to so dispise versus Soviet policies can easily be seen by the rapid reconstruction and development of West Germany as opposed to the poverty of East Germany. I can also point out the great strides being made in the former German "Democratic" Replublic now that reunification has taken place. Again, further proof of the superiority of the Western model and abject failure of the Soviet one.
-
http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,790648,00.html
OK, going home now, finally got broadband inet there (hope i'll not get lost for the society), will answer from there.
I need a drink badly. But I have to work tomorrow... Bloody capitalist system! :D
-
I need a drink badly. But I have to work tomorrow... Bloody capitalist system!
LOL now that I can understand hahaha
-
Originally posted by Boroda
In 1948 "allies" run so-called "democratic" elections in Western occupation zones, West Germany is set up as a state. They issue West German currency, while Soviet zone still uses Occupational Marks printed in Moscow and London. The huge mass of useless paper is flushed into Soviet zone. The border is shut to prevent it: while "allies" didn't suffer from occupation, USSR had all it's industry in ruins and 15% of population killed, so we couldn't afford paying for paper printed in London, I hope you understand what you mean. West Berlin kept paying for electricity, water and other stuff with occupational money, that meant - they wanted all for free. So Soviet administration wanted hard currency for that, it's capitalism, isn't it? This turned out to become a beautifull propaganda action for West side.
If you stick to the blockade, I'll say that the dividing line should be the "elections" in Western zone, when West openly legitimated the division of Germany. Same trick in Korea led to war, fortunately in Europe both sides didn't lose common sence.
So what your saying is the "west" ran free elections and the people decided what they wanted to do and because the Soviet Government didn't like it that justified building the Berlin wall, blockading the city and shooting anyone who tried to get to the western controlled parts of the city? And this was a better form of government how?? Sounds like a dictatorship to me, of course that's what the Soviet Union was even if you choose not to believe it.
Also how about answering my other questions from my previous post or do those hit too close to home for you because there is no answer?
-
The Cold War started when Hitler invaded Russia. If Hitler didn't invade Russia we wouldn't have had a East and West Berlin and East and West Germany and the Iron Curtain.
Its something hard to determain as though there wasn't a war. It was just two teams trying to act tougher than the other. It did lead the U.S. and other countrys to fight wars because of the spread of Communism. I truly think it started sometime towards the end of WW2.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
I'd say 1918.
The curse has been broken!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Stalin killed Royal family? Any other historical discoveries?
no. i was just adding him to the repertoire.
it surprises me when i read bad things about uncle joeseph...i just don't see how people would believe that such a loving daddy cuddle bear could be so irrepressibly freaking brutal.
-
Hitler was the same. He loved kids and he loved his dog and women. He was also a vicious dictator leader.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Believe me or not, but 90% of the people at this board will be absolutely happy under Soviet system (if we take entire population - i'll estimate 99%).
90% will be absolutely happy to see the earnings of their labor redistributed to others?
You are asserting 90% would willingly work in vain.. I work here in France, and can't stand 20% of my paycheck disappearing 'for my own good', for things I don't need nor use; I think that's absurd and borderline theft - that's my context, what's yours?
-
1917
-
I will say this. Given the massive, and I mean massive, problems the former Soviet Union has had trying to westernize, I could understand why someone living there might have some of Boroda's views... Misguided and in many cases wrong as they may be.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
So what your saying is the "west" ran free elections and the people decided what they wanted to do and because the Soviet Government didn't like it that justified building the Berlin wall, blockading the city and shooting anyone who tried to get to the western controlled parts of the city? And this was a better form of government how?? Sounds like a dictatorship to me, of course that's what the Soviet Union was even if you choose not to believe it.
"Free elections"!? LOL! Ask Italians, there Communist Party was not allowed to participate in elections backed up by American bayonets.
I already told the reasons for the blockade. Trying to starve a nation that did all the job in WWII both in Europe and Pacific (I wonder if you'll swallow this hook) was... hmm... unfair. You declare that you are capitalists, that money rules the world - and then want charity from the poorest to the richest?!
Originally posted by Hornet33
Also how about answering my other questions from my previous post or do those hit too close to home for you because there is no answer?
What questions? About shooting idiots who wanted to jump the wall? I think it's obvious. I want you to tell why _you_ think Red side did it. Hint: it wasn't because it was naturally evil and bloodthirsty, there was a perfectly sane reason for it. I'd say that if US of A was in the same conditions as USSR - they'll shoot everyone coming as close as 1km to the Wall.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
I will say this. Given the massive, and I mean massive, problems the former Soviet Union has had trying to westernize, I could understand why someone living there might have some of Boroda's views... Misguided and in many cases wrong as they may be.
IMHO the problem is that "westernisation" turned into Coke and chewing-gum instead of free education and healthcare, with a giant theft-fest, when everything acieved by 200 million people in 70 years was given to a handfull of crooks.
Genocidal policy against Slavic nations, deliberate destruction of science, education, hi-tech industry is what we have now. And it only gets worse every year, thanks to Comrade Putin and his gang. Anyway - he is better then Yeltsin, they mind their own profit while the old alcoholic simply followed orders...
I still don't hear KGB knoking on my door, I guess they are too busy catching millions of people who think like me :D
-
Originally posted by JB88
no. i was just adding him to the repertoire.
it surprises me when i read bad things about uncle joeseph...i just don't see how people would believe that such a loving daddy cuddle bear could be so irrepressibly freaking brutal.
I posted a link, JVS a Man of the Year 1942 according to Time magazine ;)
One little fact: in 1999 in Democratic Russian Federation there were over 2 million people in prisons and prison camps. It was more then in the worst years of Stalin's "purges". RF in 1999 had a popularion of 150 million people. USSR in 1940 (the worst year with almost 2M in GULAG) was 170 million.
Hail Democracy!!! :mad:
-
Boroda, I just wanted to say I've always enjoyed your political rants. Please, carry on!
-
A bit off topic here but feel like writing it anyway, if it wasn't for the Soviet Union then Western Europe would have been put under the nazi yoke, The Soviet Union lost Millions of it's citizens fighting the nazis, I will always hold that country in the highest regard for this fact, To debate political systems is fruitless, It polarises people as ingnorance and entrenched views replace reasoning and common sense.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Boroda, I just wanted to say I've always enjoyed your political rants. Please, carry on!
I am probably boring, repeating the same things again and again :( Just found a bunch of facts that noone can beat...
:(
-
Well, I for one miss the USSR. Since the early 90s we've been struggling to find a bad guy with half as much pinache as the Red Machine.
It was kinda like the moment Luke Skywalker finally watched Darth Vader die. A triumph, but ultimately it left us with a hollow, lonely feeling.
:(
-
Originally posted by VOR
Well, I for one miss the USSR. Since the early 90s we've been struggling to find a bad guy with half as much pinache as the Red Machine.
It was kinda like the moment Luke Skywalker finally watched Darth Vader die. A triumph, but ultimately it left us with a hollow, lonely feeling.
:(
Congratulations, you did a good job finding an enemy, first raping poor Yugoslavia for fighting Moslim terrorists, then destroying the only modern non-religious Arab country... WTG :(
-
You're right. It wasn't nearly as satisfying as going nose to nose with the USSR used to be. Kinda like beating up the neighborhood tough guy then slapping his girlfriend because you've run out of things to do.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I am probably boring, repeating the same things again and again :( Just found a bunch of facts that noone can beat...
:(
And I present to you the comedic stylings of Boroda.
*Clap*
-
Originally posted by Hawco
A bit off topic here but feel like writing it anyway, if it wasn't for the Soviet Union then Western Europe would have been put under the nazi yoke, The Soviet Union lost Millions of it's citizens fighting the nazis, I will always hold that country in the highest regard for this fact, To debate political systems is fruitless, It polarises people as ingnorance and entrenched views replace reasoning and common sense.
It's honor to say you "Thank you for your understanding", and I can't lose this chance.
-
"Once again, do you know the real reasons for blockade of Berlin? The fault is on the Western side."
#1 Yes i do.
#2 He wasnt asking the reasons, he was asking when the Cold War started.
#3 I dont care what your latest ultra-nationalist ex-pat Soviet rant is about.
Toodles.
;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I am probably boring, repeating the same things again and again :( Just found a bunch of facts that noone can beat...
Facts...such as these?IMHO the problem is that "westernisation" turned into Coke and chewing-gum instead of free education and healthcare, with a giant theft-fest, when everything acieved by 200 million people in 70 years was given to a handfull of crooks.[/i]
So, you think that "westernization" means that you get everything free? I think we've identified at least part of the problem here. What you had was 200 million people indoctrinated over 70 years to believe the government would provide everything they need or want. Sort of like a great big ranch full of cattle.
Genocidal policy against Slavic nations, deliberate destruction of science, education, hi-tech industry is what we have now. And it only gets worse every year, thanks to Comrade Putin and his gang. Anyway - he is better then Yeltsin, they mind their own profit while the old alcoholic simply followed orders...
And how is this the US's fault? Your system of government failed, good luck in cleaning up the mess it left.
What questions? About shooting idiots who wanted to jump the wall? I think it's obvious. I want you to tell why _you_ think Red side did it. Hint: it wasn't because it was naturally evil and bloodthirsty, there was a perfectly sane reason for it. I'd say that if US of A was in the same conditions as USSR - they'll shoot everyone coming as close as 1km to the Wall.
This is supposed to be an answer to what exactly? You're saying that anyone trying to leave the great people's socialist paradise were idiots and therefore should be shot? Yes, you're right, a perfectly sane reason for shooting people. Oh, also we don't use kilometers, if you're going to try to dis us please use miles.
All this other stuff aside, I have tremendous respect for the sacrifices of the people of the USSR during WWII. The numbers lost were horendous and far more than the price we paid, there is no doubt about it. It's just a shame that your government didn't live up to the promise of it's brave people.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"Free elections"!? LOL! Ask Italians, there Communist Party was not allowed to participate in elections backed up by American bayonets.
I already told the reasons for the blockade. Trying to starve a nation that did all the job in WWII both in Europe and Pacific (I wonder if you'll swallow this hook) was... hmm... unfair. You declare that you are capitalists, that money rules the world - and then want charity from the poorest to the richest?!
What questions? About shooting idiots who wanted to jump the wall? I think it's obvious. I want you to tell why _you_ think Red side did it. Hint: it wasn't because it was naturally evil and bloodthirsty, there was a perfectly sane reason for it. I'd say that if US of A was in the same conditions as USSR - they'll shoot everyone coming as close as 1km to the Wall.
And who were we trying to starve??? The Soviet Union??? In Berlin??? Please. Why do I think the Red Army was shooting people??? Because I have seen the pictures and videos of them doing it. Why did they do it? Because those people felt life would be BETTER for them on our side of the wall? Yeah that's a real SANE reason to shoot someone......inferiority complex.
But back to some of my original questions you still haven't answered....How many political parties were there in the Soviet Union? How often did the average person VOTE for their ELECTED representatives? How many protest were there against the Soviet Government in red square and if there were any how many ended WITHOUT the protesters being killed, or imprisoned for treason or "unacceptable political activity"? Were you FREE to leave your country any time you wanted too for say a vacation that YOU wanted to take?
What it all boils down to is that the communist idea is that a small handfull of people in power BELIEVE they know what is best for everyone under their control and will assert that control at the end of a gun if need be. Well forgive me if I LIKE being able to CHOOSE my own path in life. No one tells me where I HAVE to work or HOW to spend my money or where I have to go. I decide for myself what I will do with MY life. I have the RIGHT to vote for whoever I think will represent me best in MY government. If I don't like what they are doing it isn't only my RIGHT to speak out against it it is my RESPONSIBILITY to speak out against it without fear of reprisal. So forgive me if I stick to my belief that our form of governemt is better than communism. I mean we've only had our form of government for well over 200 years and it still works. How long did the Soviet Union last?
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
And who were we trying to starve??? The Soviet Union??? In Berlin??? Please. Why do I think the Red Army was shooting people??? Because I have seen the pictures and videos of them doing it. Why did they do it? Because those people felt life would be BETTER for them on our side of the wall? Yeah that's a real SANE reason to shoot someone......inferiority complex.
But back to some of my original questions you still haven't answered....How many political parties were there in the Soviet Union? How often did the average person VOTE for their ELECTED representatives? How many protest were there against the Soviet Government in red square and if there were any how many ended WITHOUT the protesters being killed, or imprisoned for treason or "unacceptable political activity"? Were you FREE to leave your country any time you wanted too for say a vacation that YOU wanted to take?
What it all boils down to is that the communist idea is that a small handfull of people in power BELIEVE they know what is best for everyone under their control and will assert that control at the end of a gun if need be. Well forgive me if I LIKE being able to CHOOSE my own path in life. No one tells me where I HAVE to work or HOW to spend my money or where I have to go. I decide for myself what I will do with MY life. I have the RIGHT to vote for whoever I think will represent me best in MY government. If I don't like what they are doing it isn't only my RIGHT to speak out against it it is my RESPONSIBILITY to speak out against it without fear of reprisal. So forgive me if I stick to my belief that our form of governemt is better than communism. I mean we've only had our form of government for well over 200 years and it still works. How long did the Soviet Union last?
So many emotions, and so few sense.
You've never lived there, you've never seen that. Believe me, if you were there you would pray, bless and thank for what you have. Not because of KGB, NKVD or Stalin. Just because you would really be thank full. And for reason.
I know, it is very easy to say something like "I would never do that!". But it will tell about your IQ only.
Did anybody tell you that it is stupid to argue about taste of oysters with somebody who did eat them if you didn't?
-
Now, I definitely understand Patton a whole lot better than I ever did. :aok
Thanks Boroda, no history lesson could have helped me do that.
Fascinating. LOL
-
Vodka, it's not just for breakfast! :rolleyes:
-
the sad thing is that most russians I meet and interact with are equally whacked. It's no use even conversing with them so I no longer do. I'm surprised the whole of the USSR didn't self destruct 70 years ago.
-
Originally posted by storch
the sad thing is that most russians I meet and interact with are equally whacked. It's no use even conversing with them so I no longer do. I'm surprised the whole of the USSR didn't self destruct 70 years ago.
What is sad with that? Believe me, most of Russians feel the same about you. But we converse, because we are well-bred and comprehended people. :)
-
I'm often ashamed of what I see written here. "America" isn't what I see today. Yet the facts say it is so.
So be it,
hap
p.s. I console myself with the fact that the sample of posters in here is small. Jingoism to the max.
-
Originally posted by storch
the sad thing is that most russians I meet and interact with are equally whacked. It's no use even conversing with them so I no longer do. I'm surprised the whole of the USSR didn't self destruct 70 years ago.
Storch... Go take an upper level geography course on Russia and the Former Soviet Union at your local college...
It's geography... Not really too political of a thing, so I'm sure you'll be fine with most whatever professor you get...
Just study the geographic problems facing Russia, and look at how the Soviet Union sought to create interdependence amongst the former Republics, and you'll have a better understanding of why so many Russian's these days seem to look back on the Old Soviet times and smile.
It does seem whack to us, but if you at least try to understand what their shoes smell like...
Penguins game on right now, but I'll be happy to give you some terms to google if you're interested later.
-
geography course? some limpwristed balding ponytailed college preofessor?? I know the location of every country on earth and have visited far more of them than I care to remember. I've forgotten more geography than you'll ever know son.
-
Originally posted by storch
I've forgotten more geography than you'll ever know son.
Well that's clearly evident...
You know, I wasn't trying to get you going. I was serious. Havin a bad day or something, Storch?
-
when allies landed on normandy, preventing communist excuse to occupy all of western europe too
-
there is no such thing as a bad day. that is an expression that the inexperienced are inclined to utter or type, as it were.
-
Originally posted by mandingo
when allies landed on normandy, preventing communist excuse to occupy all of western europe too
Exactly, trying to get your piece of pie when all the job was already done by Soviets.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Exactly, trying to get your piece of pie when all the job was already done by Soviets.
it was Stalin that wanted a second front to take the pressure off the Russian army. But you won't believe me.
actually Russia never fought in WW2, they fought "the great patriotic war"
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
...
When did the Cold War start? At what point in time, or what event?
....
I'm gonna say the Yalta conference, when the postwar speres of influence were decieded.
What do you think?
I can't agree with you. First of all, Yalta-Teheran-Potsdam conferences materials never shown any problems in understanding political problems between G3. The most problematic side was army question. As an example - the second front opening. Logistic questions and so on. The political debate, was only once. When G3 (oh-ah great democratic countrys....) divided Europe with new borders. But anyway, that time there wasn't a problem, which in future could be a reason for a Cold War. I think that the reasons should be found in 1946-1948 period. Marshall Plan era. The time, when the world economical leadership could provide more accebilities to set "appropriate" political regimes in the postwar Europe. As you understand, after Yalta, there was no legal possibilities to "change the map". USA and GB should play fair. Because of they leaved their signs under the new world map. The only way for them to exclude the USSR from the new political world system, was to set special economical and political rules. And they began it from Fulton. So, march 1946 is a proper date.
-
Originally posted by john9001
it was Stalin that wanted a second front to take the pressure off the Russian army. But you won't believe me.
So-called "allies" promised second front in 1942, but preferred Russians to do all the job for them.
Originally posted by john9001
actually Russia never fought in WW2, they fought "the great patriotic war"
There was a Great Patriotic War, June 22 1941 - May 9 1945.
JFYI: In August 1945 USSR defeated Japanese continental army in Manchurian operation, 1.5 million men army beaten in 2 weeks loosing less then 9000 Soviet servicemen. It was WWII but not GPW. Compare it to "allied" achievements against Japan.
Looks like "allies" always relied on Soviet force, unable to do anything themselves.
-
JFYI: In August 1945 japan was a already defeated country, defeated by the USA, England, and allies.
-
(http://www.humour.com/images/images/armee_russe.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Exactly, trying to get your piece of pie when all the job was already done by Soviets.
Yes, the people of the Soviet Union carried a huge burden in WWII but maybe they wouldn't have had to had the USSR not chosen to ally with Germany and split Poland up, does Sep1, 1939 ring a bell? This sort of set the USSR up as the patsy when Hitler decided he'd rather conquer the USSR than be it's partner. Also, while the USSR did suffer, consider Poland's losses during the war. Of every single country involved in WWII, including the USSR, Poland lost the greatest percentage of it's population. One of the reasons it's losses were so great was having the honor of being invaded by an allied Germany and USSR. The USSR is the sole participant in WWII with the rather unlovely distinction of being on both sides during the war so my sympathy only goes so far.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
YThe USSR is the sole participant in WWII with the rather unlovely distinction of being on both sides during the war
Italy?
-
And France, if you count the Vichy regime.
-
No to both of you. I'm pretty obviously talking about the same country with the same government and leadership. Mussolini was dead, the Vichy were a German puppet government. Stalin was, and remained the head of the USSR the entire time.
-
Pretty obviously talking about Stalin, sure.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I told it many times before. When I hear two explainations of one historical event, one of them Western, second one - Soviet, both reasonable and without obvious logical faults, I definetly choose Soviet one. I hope you understand why :)
In case of Berlin airlift the Western POV is that the only reason for blockade was that Evil Soviet Regime (tm) wanted to starve poor Berliners just because it was naturally evil and bloodthirty, in other words - just for fun. I hope you understand that it was not so, otherwise there is no reason to discuss it.
I first learned about "Berlin airlift" from Midnight Target on this board, we have never been told about it at history classes (it doesn't mean that information was censored, you just had to show some interest and look for it). What I heard surprised me. I found an answer a later, reading a book by Soviet intelligence officer, he only mentioned that decision, and then I easily found other facts.
I strongly believe that Cold war was started by the "blue" side, this opinion was developed by reading multiple Soviet and Western books and putting 2+2 together. First, after WWII USSR, unlike Western "allies" was totally devastated and exausted, so, if Stalin didn't kick "allies" out of Europe in 1945 - then the only option for the USSR was peace. Multiple hostile actions and provocations made by "allies" led to Cold war, "iron curtain" and division of Europe into "red" and "blue" sides. BTW, USSR withdrew it's troops from countries like Austria and seriously discussed re-uniting Germany until 1953.
Heeh, you remind of the Chekov character on the Star Trek tv show--everything was thought of by Russians, or invented by them;)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
And France, if you count the Vichy regime.
finn-land & norway too if you count the quislings
-
Originally posted by Debonair
finn-land & norway too if you count the quislings
Quisling proxies? lol
-
While the end of WWI and the eventual repurcussions of the Versaille Treaty obviously provoked WWII, I think 1918 and its period are too early to describe the true nature of the Cold War.
I would say the Cold War began as soon as Churchill and Stalin began their mutual mistrust, which would have been early in WWII. The U.S. may have reinforced this situation by the nature and comparison of Lend Lease to the British, and Lend Lease to the Russians. A further estrangement occured, as alluded to earlier, when Eisenhower agreed to invade North Africa rather than France. Opening the Western Front early, regardless of how ill-prepared the western Allies were for the effort, would have made a strong statement to the Russians that the British and U.S. wanted to be equal partners in the conflict on the continent, instead of what the Russians perceived as England protecting "colonial" interests in N. Africa and the Med before invading France. While the facts suggest that an Allied landing in France in late '42 or early '43 would have been a bloodbath, the significance of the gesture to the Russians, I contend, would have been a step forward in reassuring Stalin that he had allies with which he could place confidence in. Does this mean we were wrong for delaying Overlord until mid-44? From a military standpoint, no question it was the right thing to do. But, from a political view, especially with respect to Russian perception, I believe it began the spiral towards the ultimate distrust that provided the foundation of the Cold War.
So often, wars are started because humans are, at their core, selfish, infantile, ignorant, and allow these personal emotions to carry over into their judgements on how to govern themselves. Communism, just as any other governmental system, ideally works just as well as Democracy. A benevolent dictatorship in ideal execution is probably the most effective governmental system imagined. My personal belief, although perhaps incorrect, is that Democracy dilutes the ability of any one individual to decisively affect the life, liberty, and happiness of another. By reducing the human variable, democracy works--not perfectly, but functional none-the-less. Communism as perceived by Lenin, probably was similarly functional. At the end of the day, people just want to be left alone in order to work, feed and raise their families in peace, and live. I believe there are many systems that can accomplish this. American "democracy" has worked for us, but surely is not a panacea for the rest of the world.
I believe the Cold War was an equal balance of a Western perception that the Soviet block was bent on supremacy, just as the Soviets perceived an attempt by the West to dominate politically. This mutual mistrust and fear, I propose, emerged during the conduct of WWII.
-
the russians invented the windshield wipers for cars but it took the Americans to perfect them. we Americans placed them on the outside of the windshield. :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I told it many times before. When I hear two explainations of one historical event, one of them Western, second one - Soviet, both reasonable and without obvious logical faults, I definetly choose Soviet one. I hope you understand why :)
In case of Berlin airlift the Western POV is that the only reason for blockade was that Evil Soviet Regime (tm) wanted to starve poor Berliners just because it was naturally evil and bloodthirty, in other words - just for fun. I hope you understand that it was not so, otherwise there is no reason to discuss it.
I first learned about "Berlin airlift" from Midnight Target on this board, we have never been told about it at history classes (it doesn't mean that information was censored, you just had to show some interest and look for it). What I heard surprised me. I found an answer a later, reading a book by Soviet intelligence officer, he only mentioned that decision, and then I easily found other facts.
I strongly believe that Cold war was started by the "blue" side, this opinion was developed by reading multiple Soviet and Western books and putting 2+2 together. First, after WWII USSR, unlike Western "allies" was totally devastated and exausted, so, if Stalin didn't kick "allies" out of Europe in 1945 - then the only option for the USSR was peace. Multiple hostile actions and provocations made by "allies" led to Cold war, "iron curtain" and division of Europe into "red" and "blue" sides. BTW, USSR withdrew it's troops from countries like Austria and seriously discussed re-uniting Germany until 1953.
go to a siberian forced labour camp and then talk to me about 'freedom of speech' and how red was so right :aok
-
Don't you see, Laurie? Those gulagers had the most gloriously honorable distinction of making something out of themselves, and even more so, out of their work.
(http://www.wear-her-bones.com/art/sisyphus.jpg)
Far from communism, or even socialism, to make you work in vain.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
While the end of WWI and the eventual repurcussions of the Versaille Treaty obviously provoked WWII, I think 1918 and its period are too early to describe the true nature of the Cold War.
I would say the Cold War began as soon as Churchill and Stalin began their mutual mistrust, which would have been early in WWII. The U.S. may have reinforced this situation by the nature and comparison of Lend Lease to the British, and Lend Lease to the Russians. A further estrangement occured, as alluded to earlier, when Eisenhower agreed to invade North Africa rather than France. Opening the Western Front early, regardless of how ill-prepared the western Allies were for the effort, would have made a strong statement to the Russians that the British and U.S. wanted to be equal partners in the conflict on the continent, instead of what the Russians perceived as England protecting "colonial" interests in N. Africa and the Med before invading France. While the facts suggest that an Allied landing in France in late '42 or early '43 would have been a bloodbath, the significance of the gesture to the Russians, I contend, would have been a step forward in reassuring Stalin that he had allies with which he could place confidence in. Does this mean we were wrong for delaying Overlord until mid-44? From a military standpoint, no question it was the right thing to do. But, from a political view, especially with respect to Russian perception, I believe it began the spiral towards the ultimate distrust that provided the foundation of the Cold War.
So often, wars are started because humans are, at their core, selfish, infantile, ignorant, and allow these personal emotions to carry over into their judgements on how to govern themselves. Communism, just as any other governmental system, ideally works just as well as Democracy. A benevolent dictatorship in ideal execution is probably the most effective governmental system imagined. My personal belief, although perhaps incorrect, is that Democracy dilutes the ability of any one individual to decisively affect the life, liberty, and happiness of another. By reducing the human variable, democracy works--not perfectly, but functional none-the-less. Communism as perceived by Lenin, probably was similarly functional. At the end of the day, people just want to be left alone in order to work, feed and raise their families in peace, and live. I believe there are many systems that can accomplish this. American "democracy" has worked for us, but surely is not a panacea for the rest of the world.
I believe the Cold War was an equal balance of a Western perception that the Soviet block was bent on supremacy, just as the Soviets perceived an attempt by the West to dominate politically. This mutual mistrust and fear, I propose, emerged during the conduct of WWII.
To suggest we should have gone ahead and begun Overlord early simply to reassure one man, Stalin, makes absolutely no sense. Moving Overlord up would have grossly increased the probability that it would have been unsuccessful. Had we tried earlier, whatever the subtleties of reassurances given to Stalin and the peoples paradise would have been lost following our defeat. While what you're saying about "reassurances" also needs to be taken in context. As I have previously mentioned Stalin was opportunistic from the start and the idea of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Americans just to give this cowardly jack-ass the warm-and-fuzzies would not have set well with the American people.
Also, I don't personnally buy into the "we're all equally bad (or good)" myth. There is a single fundamental flaw in Communism. Individuals are far more prone to work for themselves than for the common good. Personal gain through one's own work drives productivity and success. The very idea that no matter how hard you work you will never personnaly gain from that work means you won't work. That's the bottom line reason for why the USSR failed. By any objective point of view the Soviet Union had everything it needed to succeed, but, despite the size of it's military and it's enormous resources it never got beyond the economic status of a third-world country and that's because of this basic flaw in Communism. Reagan brought the cold war to an end through the economy not military might. The US could easily sustain the military build up he started and could have afforded to do twice that; however, the Soviets could not. Their system could not match the economic might brought about through democracy and so basically went bankrupt trying to keep up with the US.
-
the russians invented toilet paper, the Americans improved the concept by making disposable after each use.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
To suggest we should have gone ahead and begun Overlord early simply to reassure one man, Stalin, makes absolutely no sense...
...Also, I don't personnally buy into the "we're all equally bad (or good)" myth.
Didn't say we should have invaded early. Just that Stalin didn't really ever trust us because he always thought we were going to look out for our own interests first, before really committing to help defeat Germany--his perception is what I'm talking about, right or wrong.
Its really not, in my opinion, a good/bad, right/wrong, kind of issue. Its about perpetuating your society ad infinitum. So far, for 230 years or so, we've been able to do that. That the Soviet model failed after 70 years doesn't necessarily make communism a bad theoretical form of government. Governments succeed or fail based on the governed and those that govern--people. Stalin manipulated the Russian system to maintain power. It wasn't so much communism as it was tyrrany. The Chinese power-brokers do the same thing, except they have firmly embraced capitalism. Some say you can't have capitalism without democracy, but I think the Chinese are going to show us the fallacy of that type of wishful thinking. If the governed are happy, they don't care what label is placed on their governmental system. When what we know now as the United States fades into a chapter of a history book, what judgements will be assessed to us?
-
"Died on their feet."
A chicken-hen will keep the chicken happy, regardless of its management policies..
-
Stoney, did Stalin every really trust anyone?
It wasn't so much communism as it was tyrrany. The Chinese power-brokers do the same thing, except they have firmly embraced capitalism. Some say you can't have capitalism without democracy, but I think the Chinese are going to show us the fallacy of that type of wishful thinking. If the governed are happy, they don't care what label is placed on their governmental system. When what we know now as the United States fades into a chapter of a history book, what judgements will be assessed to us?
You're so right. Not that I'm saying that the model of communism would work, but what the Russians ended up with was not Communism. I sometimes wonder what the world would have been like if it was. Better? Worse? No way to know.
Technically both sides needed the other to be its ideological boogeyman. Without the vast existential threat on either side, arms could not have been justified. The social control establishments in BOTH countries wouldn't have been justified either. The many proxy wars, and direct wars for that matter, vying for economic and political sway would have seemed to the people wasteful.
Sometimes we forget that there's a good beer in the hand on the other side of the table too.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Didn't say we should have invaded early. Just that Stalin didn't really ever trust us because he always thought we were going to look out for our own interests first, before really committing to help defeat Germany--his perception is what I'm talking about, right or wrong.
Its really not, in my opinion, a good/bad, right/wrong, kind of issue. Its about perpetuating your society ad infinitum. So far, for 230 years or so, we've been able to do that. That the Soviet model failed after 70 years doesn't necessarily make communism a bad theoretical form of government. Governments succeed or fail based on the governed and those that govern--people. Stalin manipulated the Russian system to maintain power. It wasn't so much communism as it was tyrrany. The Chinese power-brokers do the same thing, except they have firmly embraced capitalism. Some say you can't have capitalism without democracy, but I think the Chinese are going to show us the fallacy of that type of wishful thinking. If the governed are happy, they don't care what label is placed on their governmental system. When what we know now as the United States fades into a chapter of a history book, what judgements will be assessed to us?
You're right, you didn't say "should" but my point is simple, the USSR (Stalin) got into bed with Hitler and when that little relationship went south he was forced to our side. Logically, he wasn't really "entitled" to a committment on our part to protect the USSR. It's only due to Hitler's actions that the USSR became our "allies".
As far as "communism" itself it concerned, we're talking about something far more significant than mere "labels," it's about the principles behind the lables. I contend that it is, in fact, fundamentally flawed and would never succeed. This is a simple matter of understanding human nature. People, like countries, are motivated by their own enlightened self-interest. Selflessness is not the natural response of humans but rather the exception that's why selfless acts of heroism or philanthropy for instance are noted as unique. As a matter of fact the belief in "communism" itself is nothing but individual self-interest. Someone who isn't part of the "upper class" has a vested interest in a form a government that is based on redistribution of wealth regardless of the individual's work ethic or abilities. Capitalism requires the individual to be productive if they want to succeed, communism only requires the individual to exist but, beyond that, it requires the individual to be important only as part of the "masses". That's why liberals in the US work so hard to classify individuals as certain interest groups. The individual is only important as part of an interest group and those that stray from the group (let's say for instance a conservative black) is chastized and denigrated because he's acting as an individual rather than as he's expected to act as a member of a specific group. There is nothing constructive in this.
As far as the Chinese are concerned, they are now much closer to the US model than to Communism and are moving farther away as we speak. Of course, there is a strong argument that we're moving closer to Communism (or more correctly Socialism) all the time, something that I see as extremly negative. You can find very little evidence that these tendancies have been constructive but lots that show the negative aspects. Social welfare produced a permanent underclass of those totally dependant upon government largesse for instance. Students in France rioted in the streets when the governement tried to remove their "right" to permanent employment. Communist principles "sound" great but have been demonstrated by the "real world" to be abject failures.
-
Education!
The chain is only as strong as its weakest link..
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
You're so right. Not that I'm saying that the model of communism would work, but what the Russians ended up with was not Communism. I sometimes wonder what the world would have been like if it was. Better? Worse? No way to know.
I would say that is's absolutely correct. There wasn't Communism in the USSR, and I'm sure it would never be. What we had was so far from Communism or even Socialism that it is nothing to talk about.
I was always astonished why the word "Comminism" is so hated on the West. Actually, if we define Communism using mordern terms it is nothing more than high developed social programs.
Funny, but while Russians tried to build Communism in the USSR a lot of countries who never aimed to do that actualy did that. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, in some extent Germany and France and even Canada built something very close to Communism as Russians see it.
Just think how was Communism seen in the beginning of 20th centuary in Russia? Poor country where millions of people died because of starvation and stupidity of ruling goverment. And it was in the one of the richest country in the world at that time. Only what bolsheviks wanted is in fact more or less fair distribution of funds and amenities. They saw solution in prohibition of private property but history told us that there was another way - accurate fair taxation and production efficiency. The same goals could be achived, it would take a little bit more time but give the same results.
Ok, it is another story. Just let use the word "Commnism" correctly understanding what does it mean. Communism has never built, and the USSR had never been Communist country. You can call it thyranny, I can call it developed Socialism (if Sweden will go the same way where it goes now they will know what does it mean :)) but let put Communism apart.
-
<> :huh
-
Originally posted by john9001
<> :huh
Yes, it is absolutely correct, John. The USSR had never been and had never declared to be Communist country. We called ourself as developed Socialism (delirium but it's another story) but never Communism.
Communist party was called such because they set the goal to build Comminism in the USSR but they failed to do that.
-
Originally posted by storch
the russians invented toilet paper, the Americans improved the concept by making disposable after each use.
:lol
-
Good points Vad. I'm just not sure that "Communism" would have ever been defined by Marx or Lenin as "highly developed social programs" though. It was always intended to be much more than that wasn't it? The common ownership of property is a basic tenent of Communism...how does that equate to a "highly developed social program?"
The biggest problem still remains the basic construct of the human spirit and that doesn't include common ownership of property. Sure, it's happened in the past but it has always been small groups that have done this and, as far as I know, none of them sustained this for very long with the exception of the Catholic Church and even the Church has a ruling class. The reason the Soviet Union never generated true "communism" is because the so-called revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariate didn't exist, or if it did only for the short time it took for the Bolsheviks to consolidate power. Once they did, they now became the ruling class...hardly part of the proletariate but a perfectly natural, and predictable outcome considering the nature of man.
The West does, and always has believed in social programs (at least in modern history). The debate isn't whether these should exist, but rather to what extent and under what conditions. Here in the US President Johnson came up with huge social programs designed to provide for the poor. So what happened? The poor became more numerous and less and less capable of working for themselves. The government, through it's "highly developed social programs" robbed the poor of the ability and initiative to care for themselves and to advance themselves. Nobody much argues that a "social safety net" isn't needed but cradle to grave wetnursing from the government? Hardly the best answer. Also, consider those Euopean nations and think about their futures once the majority of workers are receiving their livings from the government. Who's going to pay the taxes?
-
so Vad. what you are saying is that communism is a good thing, but nobody has been able to make it work?
-
Mace, yor are correct, and I don't have any intention to argue with you. Of, course, definition of Communism as "highlt developed social programs" is huge simplification. It was one of the goal of Communism, but in practice most of the people believed, fought and died for Comunism only because of this goal. They were not educated enough to understand theoretical basis, and couldn't see or predict the price what should be paid.
So, I didn't have an intention to lecture fundamentals of theoretical Communism, it would take too much time. I studied it during 4 semesters in University, it was obligatory course. I am not sure that it would be interesting for anybody, and actually you know them rather good for American :).
Only what I want to say that there was no Communism in the USSR.
-
teh cold war started
when uncle joe farted
we all were born retarded
that why its called teh 0club, u see?