posted
Here's the link. I haven't been following this election that closely, but from what I've heard of the candidates, I'm glad that Sarkozy won. The French economy ain't doing that well - and a socialist at the helm (especially some of the policies I've read that Royal wants) wouldn't help any.
posted
I just read over Royal's economic platform on wikipedia, and it's rather frightening:
quote:Royal has stated as part of her 100-point platform that if elected, she will raise the lowest state pensions by five percent, increase the monthly minimum wage to €1,500 ($2,000), raise benefits of handicapped citizens, implement state-paid rental deposits for the poorest citizens, and guarantee a job or job training to every student within six months of graduation. She pledged to abolish a flexible work contract for small companies. She pledges free contraception for all young women and a €10,000 interest-free loan for all young people
Most of these are nice things of course - who doesn't want job training for students? - but highly impractical. And some of them are just plain stupid if you want the economy to start working again and decrease unemployment: increasing pensions, raising the minimum wage (to $2000 a month!), abolishing a flexible work contract, and interest-free loans to all young people (sure, some of them will use it wisely, but certainly not the majority).
I like some of her family & women rights stances, but I'm glad that France elected her opposition. The EU really needs a stronger France.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
What the EU needs is a France that understands that even though they're France the same rules apply to them as apply to everybody else. A France whose president will not storm out of the European Parliament because a French MEP has just committed the heinous crime of speaking in English instead of French. A France that co-operates and understands that in a multinational union things can't always go its way.
Granted, a France under Royal wouldn't have been a great co-operator either, and Royal would have been by no means a good choice. But she'd still been better than Sarkozy.
But then the EU is fast becoming a joke anyway.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
First and foremost there's the fact that absolutely no one in the EU countries really cares that much for EU or what the EU does.
Then there's the constitution which seems to be in a permanent state of vacuum.
Then there's the fact that the EU is supposed to have a common foreign policy but in most issues that couldn't be further from the truth. (An example: the war in Iraq where reactions from different EU countries were, well, different.)
Or the fact that the EU is supposed to stand up for its member countries. So take the war memorial fuzz in Estonia last week. It had members of the Russian parliament intervening with the internal politics of an EU country as well as the Russian police purposefully failing to protect the Moscow embassy of an EU nation. The reaction from the EU leaders or the EU and the current EU chairman country, Germany, was extremely subdued and careful. It was also very very late, coming only after it was clear that the situation wouldn't die on its own. Estonia's plea to cancel the upcoming meeting between EU and Russian officials due to Russia's outrageous actions wasn't even seriously considered. I bet Russia could have attacked Estonia and Germany would still have called it simply "Estonia's private matter".
In short, there are two kinds of countries in the EU. There's France and Germany and Great Britain with maybe Spain and Italy on the sidelines, and then there's the rest of us who don't matter.
I like the EU as a concept. And I do think economically it has managed a lot of good things. I just don't think it will last. Oh, it won't collapse tomorrow, it'll just die a slow death over the course of the next 50 years. Sadly, I'm beginning to think more and more that it'll be a good riddance.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While there's been a lot of talk on a common foreign policy, all the treaties so far approved have not required that (gone out of their way to ensure the opposite is possible, even), so I think "supposed to" is perhaps a bit strong.
I agree the EU is in unfortunate danger.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's just it seems to me that every time the unity of the EU is tested - either by a large external conflict or by internal stuff such as the constitution - the EU fails magnificently.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting move by the citizens of France. Probably a good move for their economy.
On a foreign relations front, it's ironic that so many Americans don't like the French based on the actions of their former President, and yet seem to be unable to understand why so many Europeans don't like Americans based on the actions of our President. I hope Sarkozy can walk the line that Chirac never even tried to, that of an ally who has the back of the US, but that as a friend and ally is able and willing to tell us no to our faces while remaining a friend.
Being a friend doesn't mean they dance to our tune. Hopefully treading that line will improve relations between our countries, and France might actually be able to sway, perhaps with Britain's help, the US and get us to budge on some of the issues between us and our Atlantic neighbors.
Hopefully he can also do something to bridge the divide that exists within his nation, between the rich and the poor, the working and the unemployed, and the old French and the millions of immigrants and their children.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gimme a break. The Estonian government decided to kick the Russians in the shin, for no reason other than to once again demonstrate bigotry against a quarter to a third of its own citizenry. Then went whining to the EU when the Russians took offense.
About like a Crip joining the BoyScouts, then expecting the BoyScouts to protect him after he tries to mug some Hell'sAngels.
quote: and the old French and the millions of immigrants and their children.
I wouldn't be holding my breath on that front seeing as Sarkozy's platform seemed to be designed more against the immigrants than to building bridges.
quote:Gimme a break. The Lithuanian government decided to kick the Russians in the shin, for no reason other than to once again demonstrate bigotry against a quarter to a third of its own citizenry. Then went whining to the EU when the Russians took offense.
About like a Crip joining the BoyScouts, then expecting the BoyScouts to protect him after he tries to mug some Hell'sAngels.
The Lithuanian government? What have they got to do with anything?
OK. Let's leave the Boy Scouts out of this and try another analogy.
Let's say that after the Second World War Japan would have occupied United States. During the following 50 or so years about 3 million Americans would have been killed by the Japanese as the United States would have lived under a brutal dictatorship. (The numbers are a lot smaller with Estonia, but then Estonia is also a lot smaller country with a total population of estimated 1 million.)
So now the Japanese empire has collapsed and the United States has been a democracy again for the past 12 or so years. As a reminder of the Japanese occupation a quarter of the US population would now be made of former Japanese occupiers whose income level and social status would be a tad below the rest of the nation. With racism and everything things wouldn't be easy for them.
In a very visible spot in Washington D.C. there'd be a Japanese statue celebrating the occupation. Each year the members of that Japanese minority would proceed to hold a party around that statue in celebration of Pearl Harbour, the Empire and the victory over evil communist Soviet Union and its allies.
Do you honestly think that if the main American population in such a situation were to be offended it'd be a case of simple racism? Do you honestly think that if they decided to move that statue away it'd be simply due to racist motives? Oh, I'm certain racist motivations would play into it, but there really wouldn't be any legitimate non-racist reason to move the statue at all?
You're right, things are not rosy for the Russian minority in Estonia. (Though I would point out that they're still a lot rosier than things for any given minority in Russia.) And the Estonian government has handled this very badly - moving the statue right under the eve of the Russian victory celebration was tacky in the extreme.
However, none of this gives Russia the right to meddle with the affairs of another country. None of this excuses the Moscow police failing to protect the Estonian embassy. None of this excuses Angela Merkel or Javier Solana failing to do their job.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brain flutter. Edited in the correction to 'Estonia'.
FAR closer to the US granting independence to Hawaii, Hawaii joining the AsianCoProsperitySphere, and the Hawaiian government removing the PearlHarborMonument as a "symbol of American oppression". Then expecting China, Japan, etc to wreck their own economies to chide the US for being ticked off.
Difference being that Estonia was a part of Russia for longer than the US has existed, and more than 150years longer than Hawaii has been a part of the US. And over 90times more Russians died in WWII than Americans.
quote:First and foremost there's the fact that absolutely no one in the EU countries really cares that much for EU or what the EU does.
Why is that a problem? Are you suggesting that it would be preferable for all the countries in the EU to give up their identity and sovereignity?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:FAR closer to the US granting independence to Hawaii, Hawaii joining the AsianCoProsperitySphere, and the Hawaiian government removing the PearlHarborMonument as a "symbol of American oppression". Then expecting China, Japan, etc to wreck their own economies to chide the US for being ticked off.
How so? Has the US government brutally murdered 10 000 Hawaiians over the course of the past 60 years? Have they held Hawaiians under the yoke of a brutal communist dictatorship? After the Second World War, did the US government deport 10 percent of the adult Hawaiian population out of the islands to labor camps?
quote:Difference being that Estonia was a part of Russia for longer than the US has existed, and more than 150years longer than Hawaii has been a part of the US.
So? Finland's also been a part of Sweden for longer than the US has existed. Plenty of places belonged to the Great Roman Empire for longer than the US has existed. I'm afraid I fail to see your point. How were the Soviets justified in taking over the Baltic countries after the Second World War?
quote:And over 90times more Russians died in WWII than Americans.
True. And about as many people died on Stalin's prison camps later on. Stalin degraded the sacrifices made by those Russian soldiers in WWII in a way the Estonian government never could.
None of this changes the fact that the Estonian government has the right to do whatever they wish to that statue, no matter how tacky, and that the EU with all its talk of solidarity has tried to build an image that it would protect its members in matters such as this, and that once again, the reality proved to be something completely else.
In regards to the reactions to this by the Russian government, I don't think it far fetched that one of their goals in making veiled threats at Estonia was to test the unity of the EU.
It also bears noting that however bad things are to the Russian minority in Estonia, the Estonians have yet to pass a law that would forbid them to organize demonstrations against the Estonian government. Curiously, it seems that it's perfectly legal to demonstrate against the Estonian government in Russia too. You can even violently threaten the Estonian ambassador with the Russian police just standing still and watching. Just try and organize a similar demonstration against the Russian government in Moscow...
quote: Why is that a problem? Are you suggesting that it would be preferable for all the countries in the EU to give up their identity and sovereignity?
No, I meant "care" as in "pay attention to", not as in "form an emotional connection". I mean, the EU does decide an important amount of the things that go on in Finland yet still when it comes time to choose our MEP's for the European Parliament only about 40 percent of Finns vote - significantly less than in other elections. And as far as I've understood it's the same in most EU countries.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The EU, at least as it currently stands, only involves the concession of limited sovereignity, and no identity to speak of. Its mostly an economic cooperative with the necessary authority ceded to enforce certain kinds of economic acts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I meant "care" as in "pay attention to", not as in "form an emotional connection". I mean, the EU does decide an important amount of the things that go on in Finland yet still when it comes time to choose our MEP's for the European Parliament only about 40 percent of Finns vote - significantly less than in other elections. And as far as I've understood it's the same in most EU countries.
Yeah, attention to the EU is low. Of course, while a lot of EU decisions have significant impact, their impact on people's day to day lives is fairly low, compared to other decisions commonly made by legislatures. Also, a significant chunk of EU legislative power (directly or indirectly) resides in the Council of Ministers, the Commission, and even the European Council, making parliament elections of less interest.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. And I would have no problems if they decided to keep it as such and can all the talk about it ever being anything else. But from where I stand it seems that the bigger EU countries paint beautiful visions about what the EU is and is going to stand for, but when push comes to show they always back out because luckily they're not really obliged to do anything.
EDIT: This was in response to your first post, not the second one.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Stalin did not directly or indirectly attribute to the deaths of 50 million Soviets.
IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, the main thing the big ones contribute to the smaller ones is the four freedoms. Free (to varying, but increasing degrees) movement of people, goods, capital, and services is a huge boon to member states.
A lot of CAP (the Common Agricultural Policy) and similar can be thought of as payouts to the larger member states (or at least, the voting lobbies ) in exchange for economic integration.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: you do realize the soviets kept meticulous records, including of the orders sending people to their deaths? Stalin's role in purges and laws that ordered forced labor for things like being late to work twice is well recorded, by his own administration.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Purges, agricultural famines, and just day to day repression of the intelligentsia in no way amounted to anywhere NEAR that amount, considering the Soviet Union lost 50 million people in the Great Patriotic War how could have the Soviet government caused in some way the same number? its impossible.
IP: Logged |
posted
So you're saying that Stalin's people exaggerated the reports they sent to him documenting their compliance with his orders to massacre?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Firstly, you aren't Russian. I'm not really sure why you'd want to be either, because besides for the free Vodka and Math lessons, it isn't that overwhelming.
Secondly, the Russians lost around 27 million in WWII, and I'm guessing that's what you mean by Great Patriotic War. That number is "only" about 13% of their total population, so there was plenty left for that self-protecting murderer to vonk off.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're not clear on the exact numbers, but Blayne's right, its probably not 50 million, or 45 million, that Stalin's responsible for. Stalin's probably directly and indirectly (but causally) responsible for three to fifteen million. We have specific records for three million (executions + death in jail + death during forced resettlement; again, these are the ones specifically recorded, the ones that went unrecorded, which were many as well, are not included), and there are good reasons to attribute the deaths due to famine in the early 30s to him.
He was one of the worst monsters of the 20th century, and any attempt to excuse what he did is sickening. What he did is, however, frequently exaggerated.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd understood that the number of his victims was estimated to be somewhere in between 20 to 30 million which would put it in the range of those Russians who died in WWII but that it's definitely not 50 million. The 20 million figure comes from the Black Book of Communism, I think, and the 30 million figure from some book that came after that and supposedly included new information. (Plus I'm not sure how Russia's actions in the Second World War can be called the "Great Patriotic War". It was about more than just protecting their own soil to the Soviets. When Stalin attacked Finland in 1939, for example, that really had nothing to do with fighting fascism.)
Anyway, it said on today's paper that Poland's looking into removing its communist memorial statues too. Here's the only English link I could find, and it doesn't cite the Polish government but an external lobby group. Still, I wonder what kind of a storm this will brew into...
And getting back to the original topic, there was an article about the challenges Sarkozy will face. What sounded worrying to me was that apparently whatever reformations he will try to pass can very easily be thwarted or delayed if the socialists decide to mobilize their supporters to the streets at every minor detail. But his relations to the United States are good, at least, and that is good. Now perhaps when George W. Bush will leave office the relationship between Europe and America can return to normal again...
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
*edit for rather unenviable spelling...*
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Considering that wars cause far more deaths and destruction then any other possible calamity a 40-50 million mark or anywhere near those numbers is hogwosh and frankly you mention "Well documented sources" but the Russians are not Germans giving everyone a serial number, I would like to see these "sources".
Also Snail it is the Great Patriotic War because all of the Soviet citizens were banded together in common cause to prevent the total and utter destruction of their homeland. The Germans had to be stopped, you cannot deny the Patriotism of those who fought in the war.
It had an estimated deathtoll between 1941-1945 of 9 million killed missing, 18 million wounded, 27 million total millitary deaths, and 19 million civilian deaths.
A grand total of 47,000,000 deaths about 60% of the total allied casualties.
Quote:
"Berlin was captured, and Germany surrendered. The battles in the Far East, the surrender of Japan, the Victory Day parade and the Nuremburg trials were still to come. Many new battles, more deaths, and new victories yet awaited our country, May 9th 1945 went down in history as the Day when the Great Patriotic war ended.
The war lasted 1418 days. Hundreds of cities destroyed, thousands of villages burnt down, no less then 40,000,000 people were killed including 26,000,000 of our compatriots, were killed in this war. For many decades to come this war this war would haunt us with the blast of forgotten shells, decaying ruins, and scarred human lives.
Sixty years ago Victory Day was celebrated by millions of Soviet men and women. Only a little over a million veterans survive to be with us today. On this important day we would like to nam every single one of them and express our heartful gratitude for their heroism."
IP: Logged |
I was under the impression that many Europeans learn a 2nd language in school, as it is very important when it comes to conducting business in Europe.
French from what I understand is a very popular choice in the UK as they do alot of business with France.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: So your argument is that since horrific wars kill more people, its okay to kill off millions of people? If so, justify. If not, clarify.
quote: I was under the impression that many Europeans learn a 2nd language in school, as it is very important when it comes to conducting business in Europe.
French from what I understand is a very popular choice in the UK as they do alot of business with France.
But while most European countries start teaching their kids other languages as soon as they start primary school at age 4, most British kids don't start learning another language (usually French, German or Spanish) until age 11 - and then a lot of kids quit learning other languages at 16 after their GCSEs. So since they only have about five years training, less British people end up fluent, unless they have a bilingual home environment.
I think I heard once that Tony Blair spent some time living and travelling in France as a young man, or something. He does seem to take every opportunity to speak French, which is cool.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also Snail it is the Great Patriotic War because all of the Soviet citizens were banded together in common cause to prevent the total and utter destruction of their homeland. The Germans had to be stopped, you cannot deny the Patriotism of those who fought in the war.
Again, though, what about the Winter War of 1939 when the Soviet Union attacked Finland? What had that to do with fighting the Germans? Or continuing to occupy the Baltic countries after the Nazis had been driven out of them? The Second World War was not a black-and-white conflict with the Russians solely as the good guys.
As to your larger point, I have to say that if it isn't that it's okay to kill millions of people if more people have died in wars, then what is it? Because I don't see anyone here denying that the Second World War demanded a large toll from the Russian people. That doesn't change the fact that the Soviet regime was equally evil to the Nazi one.
----------------------
About languages, I was under the impressions that it was the French themselves who were supposed to be the worst foreign language speakers in Europe. (Or at least the most reluctant English speakers. )
Anyway, I studied English for 10 years at school, Swedish for 6 years, French for 5 years and German for 2 years. I can't say I can speak any of them fluently except for English. But then I was a lazy student... I didn't learn English at school either, I learnt it from the Secret of Monkey Island. Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Soviets were happy to make a deal and divvy up spoils with Germany prior to the German invasion, Blayne.
The 'Great Patriotic War'...pft. The Soviets weren't the good guys at all. Don't make a bed you ain't ready to lie down in. The Soviets were horrifically awful, and the fact that they stupidly made a deal with someone even more awful than they are doesn't somehow magically turn them into good guys.
quote:The Germans had to be stopped, you cannot deny the Patriotism of those who fought in the war.
What, really? Even the ones who literally fought with the muzzle of an officer's gun literally at their backs?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Oh? Last I checked it was also punishable in Western armies with execution if you left you post.
My POINT is that it is inconceivable for there to me equal to or more casualties from the day to day actions of your government as the total civilian and military casualties from a war of national survival.
The Great Patriotic War was from 1941 to 1945, the Winter War has nothing to do with it, I never mentioned it you did. But then again I could ask what did Churchill attacking Norway and violating their sovereignty have to do with the war?
Continuing to occupy the Baltic Countries? Well once the Germans were driven out do you really expect them to just leave? Also the Soviet Union did not start World War 2, the Germans did, and frankly if the USSR was not in the war the war would have been lost.
Also, the Soviets were perfectly content with defending themselves, the Soviets knew that Germany would invade them eventually the longer they could put it off until they were ready the better, the point of the Baltics and Poland was to increase the buffer zone between the SSSR and Germany, this isnt some evil game of world domination its realpolitik with the survival of your country the goal to say otherwise is retarded.
IP: Logged |
posted
Oh? Last time I checked, Western armies didn't make the practice and the threat nearly so commonplace as did Soviet armies. Your comparison is ridiculous.
quote:Continuing to occupy the Baltic Countries? Well once the Germans were driven out do you really expect them to just leave? Also the Soviet Union did not start World War 2, the Germans did, and frankly if the USSR was not in the war the war would have been lost.
Sure, the Germans started it. And the Soviets were perfectly willing to help, taking in more spoils of an aggressive war of conquest, Blayne. These facts aren't disputable. I have to wonder why you're even defending the Soviets in this area, aside from your diehard love of communism.
You have no way of knowing at all whether or not the war would have been lost without Soviet participation. That's pure speculation on your part. Would it have gone the same way? Certainly not! But the fact remains that the Allies, even without Soviet help, far outstripped the Axis in population, industrial capacity, and military power. Not to mention nukes.
quote:[b]Also, the Soviets were perfectly content with defending themselves[b], the Soviets knew that Germany would invade them eventually the longer they could put it off until they were ready the better, the point of the Baltics and Poland was to increase the buffer zone between the SSSR and Germany, this isnt some evil game of world domination its realpolitik with the survival of your country the goal to say otherwise is retarded.
And you're calling other people 'retarded'? The history of the Soviet Union, by any standard whatsoever, is not one of self-defense.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh? Last I checked it was also punishable in Western armies with execution if you left you post.
Retreating is not the same thing as diserting your post.
quote: Continuing to occupy the Baltic Countries? Well once the Germans were driven out do you really expect them to just leave?
Um...yes, sorta like how the US did not occupy France, Austria, Germany, Belgium, etc. Perhaps even pouring money into rebuilding those countries rather then ceazing their resources.
quote: Also the Soviet Union did not start World War 2, the Germans did, and frankly if the USSR was not in the war the war would have been lost
It is true the USSR was very important in stopping Hitler, but you no more know what would have happened had they not helped then I do. Certainly the full brunt of American force was not ever brought to bear. We would have still defeated Japan within a year, and the atomic bomb emmerging would have been enough to stop Germany on its own, as horrific as that sounds.
quote: Also, the Soviets were perfectly content with defending themselves, the Soviets knew that Germany would invade them eventually the longer they could put it off until they were ready the better, the point of the Baltics and Poland was to increase the buffer zone between the SSSR and Germany, this isnt some evil game of world domination its realpolitik with the survival of your country the goal to say otherwise is retarded.
Except that Poland initially welcomed their Russian neighbors as saviors from the Nazi war machine, and offered to combine their army with Russia. Russia decided to march all their officers into a forrest and execute them all, and conscript the rest by force of arms. -1 to Russian diplomacy.
Russia had no good excuse for staying in the countries they rolled over while fighting Germany. Unless imposing communism whenever able is an excuse. Were it not for the US, Russia would have rolled into Japan too for the embarassment of Port Arthur.
Russia was the enemy of our enemy, which is why temporarily they were our friends.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My POINT is that it is inconceivable for there to me equal to or more casualties from the day to day actions of your government as the total civilian and military casualties from a war of national survival.
It is, isn't it? However it's pretty much what really happened in the Soviet Union.
As to the war being about "national survival" Rakeesh and BlackBlade pretty much answered those points on my behalf.
OK, I'm trying to be nice because while I'm not certain if you are Russian or not I do know there are plenty of people in Russia who think as you do about these aspects of Soviet history, and I'd like to understand your position as quite frankly, it scares me.
What do you think about the crimes Stalin and the Soviets committed? How do you think people in Russia felt under the Soviet regime? What about the many minorities in Russia?
Also, Finland was granted independence from Russia in 1917 by Lenin (not because he was a great Finland-fan but because he thought he'd conquer Finland back later). Now, Finland had been one of the wealthier duchies in the Russian Empire, but overall I think in 1917 the difference between the state of living in Finland wouldn't have been that different from the state of living in anywhere in Russia. You wouldn't have noticed much of a difference when crossing the border. Cue forward 90 years to today. Today when you cross the border from Finland to Russia there's a huge difference. You can see it with your bare eyes. The state of roads and buildings compared to Finland, the kind of cars people drive, the kind of apartments people live in... It's like entering a whole new world. So how do you explain this difference?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Its also like entering a new world when I cross from Quebec into Ontario, region by region the world is different, lets not make this an arguement about whether the brand of socialism was an overall benefit or not each country develops in its own way of its own choosing.
Lenin did not "grant" independence to Finland under the impression of being able to conquer it back, he granted them independence because Lenin believed that A) when Revolution swept the world national borders would be a thing of the past and B) because he had felt that the Fins deserved a right of self determination, as with the Baltic states.
The Soviet Union at the time of 1933-1941 was under the impression that the West would be perfectly content with sending Hitler in Russia's direction, in fact Neville Chamberlain had prior to the Munich conference had explicitly agreed to Hitlers wish for living space in the East only last minute did Neville offer Poland a military alliance. The Soviet Union had felt (and remember hind sight is 20/20 ) that the West was ready and willing to unleash Hitler on Russia alone to strangle Socialism in its cradle as in 1919. The Soviet Union's only real option at this time with the information availiable is to act first and turn Germany against the West and have the forces of capitalistic reaction destroy each other leaving Communism to rise from the Ashes.
There is also quite alot of scholarly work on this subject about the rising readiness within he Red Army as well as the attaining of large amount of war equipment, year by year, month by month an overwhelming military buildup of tanks, aircraft, trucks and munitions that it was believed that by 1942-44 the Soviet Union would have the ability to easily steamroll and exhausted Germany at a point where the least amount of Soviet lives would be lost.
In the West cowardice is known as desertion you desert your post and especially in the first world war not attack you were executed or imprisoned. Just because the Soviets in this desperation in the early years to stave off catastrophe turned to more extreme methods does not give you the right to criticize. YOU weren't there YOU weren't in charge to make the tough decisions, YOU were not there to fight Fascism.
60% of all Allied casualties were Soviet, 80% of the German Army were committed to the Eastern front, and the bulk of Germany's national and industrial determination was used solely to fight the Soviet Union, if this army was in Africa or invading England the war would have made quite a different turn. Normandy made no difference in the war other then to speed up Germany's already certain demise by Soviet means.
The state of the Red Army from 1917-1945 is one ONLY of self defence, the actions in the Baltic states and Finland were slightly more aggressive means of realizing the goals of the state, read Pual Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and it will all makes sense. I see no one makes an effort of remeber the Red Army defending Mongolia from Japanese aggression.
America only had 2 Atomic bombs, 3 if you count the plutonium one tested, America's stockpile of nuclear weaponry without an already militarily defeated Germany would NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH to convince Hitler to "surrender" he would have focused a larger effort into their development and fought on, America could not produce enough of them to devastate every single Germany major city and without the German airforce bled to death in the eastern front in the othe half dozen over extended fronts Germany couldve far more easily defended its skies.
Russia had a very good excuse and frankly in the realm of realpolitik the ONLY ONE that MATTERS national security. establishing friendly buffer states in Eastern Europe is meant to further aid in the defence of the Soviet Union that is all that matters.
The Russian and other Soviet people's were very fond of Stalin (and 33% of Russian's today still are), Khrushchevs deStalinization fixed that, his extremes denounced and many policies reversed and many of the harsher eliments of Soviet life faded away during Khrushchevs time and the standard of living increased, not to the same scale as Western countries but it did increase. And during perestoika aside from the Baltic states and Georgia the aste majority of the Soviet Republics agreed to stay in a reformed Soviet Union (Armenia at first said no but then changed its mind) only the coup changed this and instead the CIS was formed instead and the Soviet Union desolved legally under the Constitution of the SSSR.
IP: Logged |
quote:The state of the Red Army from 1917-1945 is one ONLY of self defence, the actions in the Baltic states and Finland were slightly more aggressive means of realizing the goals of the state,
Bull. It was pure aggression. Thank God my relatives got out of Poland before this "self-defense" got to the point of divvying up a third party with another country ruled by a totalitarian dictator.
quote:Russia had a very good excuse and frankly in the realm of realpolitik the ONLY ONE that MATTERS national security.
Yes, but what matters in the "realm of realpolitik" is not all that matters in life or morality.
The Soviet Union carved up independent countries they had no right to. After the war, they occupied those countries against the will of the people in those countries.
Blayne, I hope this is just some phase you'll grow out of. I'd hate to think that you're actually this accommodating of evil.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Life and morality have never been practical forms of foreign policy for any nation. Only policies that can give your nation the largest sustained boost in economic and military security are ever considered.
Your aggression is another's self defence. This is now a discussion about different people's interpretation of rhetoric and not of the actions and reactions of nations your content in 20/20 hindsight of criticizing you were not there, you didnt see as they saw.
IP: Logged |
posted
Most countries manage to get by without killing millions of civilians (theirs and others). Russia's failure (even if we write off the deaths in the stupidity or malice induced famine) speaks volumes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ild hardly consider them failures, horrible extremes yes but nessasary for accelerated industrialization.
Also actually its the complete reverse most countries cannot get by WITHOUT killing off millions of people, the Spanish in the America's, the US and the Indians, England and France through their meddlings killed maybe not millions as they had access to a much smaller population base but many still died mostly in India, the Opium wars were hardly nice, France tried to hold on bitterly to IndoChina, England attacked Denmark to prevent Napolean from attaining the Danish fleet to invade England. Italy attacked the Ottoman Empire for Libya.
I am not saying that what was done was right or completely justified merely that it is understandable from an infinite historical point of view that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
IP: Logged |
quote:Ild hardly consider them failures, horrible extremes yes but nessasary for accelerated industrialization.
Yeah, here's where you demonstrate your hypocritical regard for human life: it's acceptable to let millions of people be murdered-negligently or intentionally-so long as it serves some higher cause (with you, so far the only causes I've seen have been communism, Chinese or otherwise).
quote:I am not saying that what was done was right or completely justified merely that it is understandable from an infinite historical point of view that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
This is not remotely the message you send in almost all of your posts on these subjects.
Incidentally, any project which causes millions and millions of needless deaths is by definition a failure. By the cruel, hypocritical standards you're using, human slavery in the United States was a success! It led to a wealthy agrarian economy throughout the South.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I am not being hypocritical you are and your failing to see it.
IP: Logged |
posted
Several other countries managed accelerated industrialization faster and better than the USSR, without killing off their population (or others) on any such scale). Notable examples include South Korea and Japan.
I do agree that the invasions of other countries were the least of Stalin's crimes. The murder and oppression of his own civilians to fulfill his own whims were the worst.
quote:General Alexander Lebed's father, a factory worker, was twice ten minutes late to work in 1937, for which he received a five-year camp sentence. At the largely "criminal" Polyansky camp near Krasnoyarsk-26, home of one of the Soviet Union's nuclear reactors, S.P. Kuchin has identified one prisoner with a six-year sentence for stealing a single rubber boot in a bazaar, another with ten years for stealing ten loaves of bread, and another, a truck driver raising two children alone, with seven years for stealing three bottles of the wine he was delivering. Another got five years for "speculation," meaning he had bought cigarettes in one place and sold them in another.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) in exchange for economic integration.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
