posted
Blayne, I think you'll find most (at least) of us are willing to acknowledge evil perpetrated by other countries, including our own, and particularly in hindsight. However, we're able to recognize degree when we see it. Stalin committed some of the most evil acts perpetrated on the surface of this planet in the past several hundred years (at minimum).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not being hypocritical you are and your failing to see it.
OK, well if your father was shipped off to a gulag (for example) for daring to question Stalin or something, I'm sure you'd sing the praises of the State.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: 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.
Democratic peace theory would suggest that both elements are closely integrated. Being socially responsible provides for economic and national security, especially in a globally integrated world. Military security, in some ways, is -not- the goal. The goal is creating long-term, stable relationships, averting large scale military engagements (...wars...). So far, it has been pretty successful (how many wars have we seen between two democracies?... India/Pakistan not withstanding).
Then again, it's probably not worth debating this aspect of the conversation; I don't think there's much ground to be gained against textbook Maoist rhetoric. Power from the barrel of a gun, eh?
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne - more questions: if the Soviet system was so great, why do you think the Soviet Union failed? Why is it no more? Also, why did it fail to achieve the same standard of living for its people as Japan, South Korea, West Germany and Finland did in the years after the Second World War?
I don't disagree with you in that the Soviet army was crucial in defeating the Nazis or that they made great sacrifices. But the Soviet endeavors in the war being "realpolitik" or simple national defense? Couldn't you just as well say that the German advancement in the East was simply a more aggressive way of the Nazis to defend themselves, a bit like the Soviets attacking Finland? When Stalin and Hitler divided Europe in their "spheres of interest" before the war surely they both knew that they couldn't trust each other?
I don't know. I think on many levels it's natural that the Russians today would want to celebrate their Victory Day (which was today or yesterday? I'm not certain.) but as long as they seem to completely ignore all the bad stuff done by Stalin, and as long as there are those 33% who seem to feel about him the way as you do, well... I find their nationalism a bit misplaced. Surely in a healthy society even the bad stuff gets remembered, not pushed under the carpet? Surely the victims of Stalin's campaigns deserve as many ceremonies as those Russians who gave their lives in the Second World War?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
First, this isn't true.
Second, even if it were, it wouldn't make such foreign policies moral.
quote: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.
No, it's not. It is possible to look at an action and say "this was aggression" and be right about it. Others are more difficult.
Divvying up Poland is NOT one of the difficult ones. And that would be true even if the policy had actually done any good for the Soviet Union in the first place.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
