iwillspankyou wrote:to ez for you @Riotcoke this thread is about history, and I will not fight you, but rather encourage you to know more about your enceintes. I know something about the famine you courses in India, but you might not. explore it more
You're the one who brought up the famines, this isn't how it works. When trying to argue a point you use references rather than asking the person who disagrees with you to argue your point for you.
Riotcoke wrote:I agree, but i think that you can't argue that communism ruined the countries as they still wouldn't be in the same position that western nations are in today, look at greece, Italy and Spain for example, all are weak in the economic sense compared to western nations.
Italy and Spain do have their issues, but they are some of the largest economies in Europe. Germany is the largest European economy and is not really a Western country, it's mostly Central European. (You could argue that it's at the crossroads between Central and Western Europe.)
I wouldn't really call Italy and Spain weak, they just have some issues with the level of public debt and a few other structural deficiencies (such as high level of unemployment among young people). But they are large economies and produce lots of products that are very successful in many markets. Just think how popular Spanish vegs and fruits are in the UK. Why do so many British people move to Spain, if it's such an awful and weak economy? They like the weather, sure, but they wouldn't really go there to slum it, would they.
so, in spite of any knowledge you have, you would argue against it? @Riotcoke is that how I am to translate your post above? even after you respond to that, I will say, that I made this thread in the ghost of History, and not to argue about it. If you think that is a fault on my behalf, you could leave right here and now, and we would not even know you were gone, (like a whisper...........)
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Riotcoke wrote:I agree, but i think that you can't argue that communism ruined the countries as they still wouldn't be in the same position that western nations are in today, look at greece, Italy and Spain for example, all are weak in the economic sense compared to western nations.
Italy and Spain do have their issues, but they are some of the largest economies in Europe. Germany is the largest European economy and is not really a Western country, it's mostly Central European. (You could argue that it's at the crossroads between Central and Western Europe.)
I wouldn't really call Italy and Spain weak, they just have some issues with the level of public debt and a few other structural deficiencies (such as high level of unemployment among young people). But they are large economies and produce lots of products that are very successful in many markets. Just think how popular Spanish vegs and fruits are in the UK. Why do so many British people move to Spain, if it's such an awful and weak economy? They like the weather, sure, but they wouldn't really go there to slum it, would they.
Because a house is spain is about 1/4 the price of the same size house in the UK so people retire there and live off the money from their house sales in the UK. Like even having a holiday home in Spain isn't too uncommon in the UK because of how cheap spain is.
iwillspankyou wrote:so, in spite of any knowledge you have, you would argue against it? @Riotcoke is that how I am to translate your post above? even after you respond to that, I will say, that I made this thread in the ghost of History, and not to argue about it. If you think that is a fault on my behalf, you could leave right here and now, and we would not even know you were gone, (like a whisper...........)
iwillspankyou wrote:so, in spite of any knowledge you have, you would argue against it? @Riotcoke is that how I am to translate your post above? even after you respond to that, I will say, that I made this thread in the ghost of History, and not to argue about it. If you think that is a fault on my behalf, you could leave right here and now, and we would not even know you were gone, (like a whisper...........)
You're speaking Gibberish, i'm sorry.
sorry, I was trying to write in a more scholar way, my bad
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Riotcoke wrote:Communism can do good, is there a nation which was advanced before being communist and then was shit?
None that I know of. And there's a good reason why that might be the case. No rich country had any interest in embarking on such a crazy social experiment, unless they already were in a bad place. Communism has typically appealed to poor countries that were primarily agricultural (such as Russia). The tragic thing is that it got spread to other countries by force, such as it happened in Romania, where the Red Army invaded (after Churchill and Stalin agreed to divide Europe) and installed their puppet regime here and basically kept the country as their own satellite until 1989.
You lost a war of aggression, there are consequences.
Yes and no. Romania did join the Axis, for strategic reasons. It lost some territory to Russia (a region called Moldova) and it was hoping to recover it by allying with Hitler. After suffering greatly under Nazi exploitation during WW2 (lots of soldiers died on front, oil reserves were massively exploited by the Germans, etc), Romania decided it was time to kick the alliance with Germany in August 1944 and join the Allied forces. Our king removed the pro-Nazi regime by coup and declared that Romania will join the Allied forces. The irony is, that by trying to recover a lost territory, we got into an unholy alliance, and then when we left it to join the "good forces", we lost the whole country, which fell under Soviet occupation. So we were just caught in the middle of empires having their way with their neighbours.
At the end of WW2, despite the fact that we fought alongside Allied troops to defeat the Nazis and we lost tens of thousands of soldiers fighting the Nazis, that sacrifice was not recognised. We were not considered among the winning forces. History can be a real bitch sometimes.
Riotcoke wrote:Communism can do good, is there a nation which was advanced before being communist and then was shit?
None that I know of. And there's a good reason why that might be the case. No rich country had any interest in embarking on such a crazy social experiment, unless they already were in a bad place. Communism has typically appealed to poor countries that were primarily agricultural (such as Russia). The tragic thing is that it got spread to other countries by force, such as it happened in Romania, where the Red Army invaded (after Churchill and Stalin agreed to divide Europe) and installed their puppet regime here and basically kept the country as their own satellite until 1989.
You lost a war of aggression, there are consequences.
Yes and no. Romania did join the Axis, for strategic reasons. It lost some territory to Russia (a region called Moldova) and it was hoping to recover it by allying with Hitler. After suffering greatly under Nazi exploitation during WW2 (lots of soldiers died on front, oil reserves were massively exploited by the Germans, etc), Romania decided it was time to kick the alliance with Germany in August 1944 and join the Allied forces. Our king removed the pro-Nazi regime by coup and declared that Romania will join the Allied forces. The irony is, that by trying to recover a lost territory, we got into an unholy alliance, and then when we left it to join the "good forces", we lost the whole country, which fell under Soviet occupation. So we were just caught in the middle of empires having their way with their neighbours.
At the end of WW2, despite the fact that we fought alongside Allied troops to defeat the Nazis and we lost tens of thousands of soldiers fighting the Nazis, that sacrifice was not recognised. We were not considered among the winning forces.
Switching sides when you're on the backfoot is basically losing isn't it.
Riotcoke wrote:Switching sides when you're on the backfoot is basically losing isn't it.
Our king realised that Romania would get invaded by Soviet Russia and lose even more territory. So he decided to remove the pro-Nazi regime that was in power and join the Allies, in an attempt to stop the Russians from advancing. Unfortunately that didn't work out eventually. Russians kept advancing despite Romania joining the Allies.
Every country that was occupied by either Nazis or Russians was "losing it". They all just had smaller armies so they just collapsed when they were invaded by much larger armies. Poland was divided between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The UK was just lucky thanks to its insular position, if it was on the continent, it would have surely had a different fate.
So, it wasn't a question of just switching sides because we were "losing it", it was an attempt to recover our country when we got caught in a war between other empires.
Riotcoke wrote:Communism can do good, is there a nation which was advanced before being communist and then was shit?
None that I know of. And there's a good reason why that might be the case. No rich country had any interest in embarking on such a crazy social experiment, unless they already were in a bad place. Communism has typically appealed to poor countries that were primarily agricultural (such as Russia). The tragic thing is that it got spread to other countries by force, such as it happened in Romania, where the Red Army invaded (after Churchill and Stalin agreed to divide Europe) and installed their puppet regime here and basically kept the country as their own satellite until 1989.
You lost a war of aggression, there are consequences.
Yes and no. Romania did join the Axis, for strategic reasons. It lost some territory to Russia (a region called Moldova) and it was hoping to recover it by allying with Hitler. After suffering greatly under Nazi exploitation during WW2 (lots of soldiers died on front, oil reserves were massively exploited by the Germans, etc), Romania decided it was time to kick the alliance with Germany in August 1944 and join the Allied forces. Our king removed the pro-Nazi regime by coup and declared that Romania will join the Allied forces. The irony is, that by trying to recover a lost territory, we got into an unholy alliance, and then when we left it to join the "good forces", we lost the whole country, which fell under Soviet occupation. So we were just caught in the middle of empires having their way with their neighbours.
At the end of WW2, despite the fact that we fought alongside Allied troops to defeat the Nazis and we lost tens of thousands of soldiers fighting the Nazis, that sacrifice was not recognised. We were not considered among the winning forces.
Switching sides when you're on the backfoot is basically losing isn't it.
Dolan wrote:On the flipside, this is how leftists think about other cultures/ethnic groups:
Yes, history is full of stories about how Stalin and Mao welcomed the invading Germans and Japanese respectively.
Communists needed external enemies to justify domestic oppression like Kennan said. They were as xenophobic as one could get, though in a different way from nationalists.
The scientific term for China creating free units is Mitoe-sis.
Dolan wrote:On the flipside, this is how leftists think about other cultures/ethnic groups:
Yes, history is full of stories about how Stalin and Mao welcomed the invading Germans and Japanese respectively.
Communists needed external enemies to justify domestic oppression like Kennan said. They were as xenophobic as one could get, though in a different way from nationalists.
Dolan's image is only really descriptive of Western Suicidalism, which was essentially a Soviet weapon designed to weaken Western civilization from within. Suicidalism animates much of the Western Left today (and even parts of the Right), but I don't think it would be correct to say that leftism is inherently suicidalist.
Dolan wrote:On the flipside, this is how leftists think about other cultures/ethnic groups:
Yes, history is full of stories about how Stalin and Mao welcomed the invading Germans and Japanese respectively.
Communists needed external enemies to justify domestic oppression like Kennan said. They were as xenophobic as one could get, though in a different way from nationalists.
Dolan's image is only really descriptive of Western Suicidalism, which was essentially a Soviet weapon designed to weaken Western civilization from within. Suicidalism animates much of the Western Left today (and even parts of the Right), but I don't think it would be correct to say that leftism is inherently suicidalist.
Just because the Soviet Union collapsed doesn't mean that Communism hasn't won. The fact that Western Suicidalism has infected our political dialogue and essentially become the norm among progressives only proves that the Communist idealogy is alive and well and thrives in certain corners of society. The battle against this evil belief system is far from over.
Riotcoke 
spanky4ever 
occamslightsaber 
deleted_user0 
Jam 
