Which Russia was better?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 06, 2022, 09:05:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Which Russia was better?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, or Russian Federation?
#1
Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
 
#2
Russian Federation
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 70

Author Topic: Which Russia was better?  (Read 2079 times)
KaiserDave
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2022, 10:38:43 PM »
« edited: August 12, 2022, 10:52:00 PM by KaiserDave »

I just hope that everyone knows that TheReckoning has no idea what he is talking about and is disconnected from reality. I am not interested in debating him again, I have done it countless times and it always ends the same way. He shifts the goalposts, he responds to specific evidenced claims with vague nonsense, and he engages in intense sophistry in whatever his current crusade it, mostly minimizing Nazi crimes. I have done this on World War One, on the US Civil War, on the Spanish Civil War, on World War Two. It is a pointless endeavor, I might post an explainer on his foolishness for the benefit of others in this specific case because it is an interesting topic, but I have no interest in debating and going back and forth with him anymore. He is entirely deliberately dishonest.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=472385.msg8363311#msg8363311

I encourage people to read through this exchange to see what I mean.
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,445
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2022, 10:48:29 PM »

Why is Mr. TheReckoning constantly thinking about the Nazis?
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2022, 10:43:47 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2022, 11:09:05 PM by KaiserDave »

Let's get started with the following. I am going to try and answer the question of whether the Nazis had "global ambitions." I am not going to respond to idiocy, I will try and keep a narrow scope.

Firstly, what's this garbage about "half of Europe" it really does sound like a semi-intelligent Nazi propagandist minimizing things. The Nazis had invaded or attempted to invade every European nation that was not their ally/partner or Sweden/Switzerland by 1942.

I think I should talk about the USSR because comparisons were made between the two. The Soviet Union was run by Marxist-Leninists who aspired to a global proletarian revolution that would sweep the world and bring about a world socialist republic. Very often, they attempted to export their style of government to other countries. But once Stalin took power, they were also fairly conservative. "Socialism in one country" held that socialism had to be developed and strengthened in Soviet Russia for an extended period of time before any world revolution could occur. It is also worth noting, as before, that Stalin and his successors often supported non-communist nationalists to Marxist or anti-American aims. This was a stark contrast to Trotsky's theory of world revolution, which included an immediate war on all capitalist nations coinciding with a global workers uprising, a theory that while popular in the heavy days of 1917, 1918 and 1919, did not last. Stalin's absorption of Eastern Europe into his sphere was actually an exercise of Socialism in One Country, the eastern bloc provided a defensive buffer for Soviet Russia to enhance its own development. The theory held that the most imminent task for communists everywhere was defending the USSR from foreign sabotage, invasion, and infiltration, therefore Socialism in One Country does not preclude the possibility of forcefully bringing in other nations into the socialist camp. This is very different however, than the global inferno envisioned by Trotskyite world revolution. Of course I am strongly opposed to the USSR, an evil state, one of the worst (I could go on). But it was not hell-bent on war and backing Marxist-Leninist revolutions wherever possible. It actually opposed many self-declared Marxist governments at many points. It envisioned a global communist system, but this was, especially after Stalin, largely seen at some distant far flung point in the future.

Now, what did Hitler and the Nazis want? We can know this very easily, because they said it in public and it is all very well transcribed in their private correspondences and plans. The Nazis wanted to destroy the imagined "global Jewish conspiracy." This is very important, for the Nazis the "Allied Powers" as we understand them did not exist. The United States, the government of the UK, and especially "Judeo Bolshevik" Soviet Russia were a front, shell organizations, for "International Judaism." The notion that these were truly separate entities with truly separate policies was a deception by Jewish conspirators in their mission to destroy culture and civilization. There was no such government as the United States or the Soviet Union, there was only International Judaism, whose agents and operatives chose to act through their various shell governments in advancing their agenda. Therefore it was necessary expand the war to all countries and all places because sparing certain areas was to leave the conspiracy free to act elsewhere. This deranged, insane, evil notion was an important mover behind Nazi foreign policy, which we can actually see when it declared war on the United States and the USSR. This as well as Lebensraum (which of course is tied to racial ideology), and strategic needs such as natural resources and American transatlantic shipping to Britain. With the war concluded the Nazis planned build a New Order, or Neuordnung for Europe and establish Germany as a global hegemon. Goebbels said "The Führer gave expression to his unshakable conviction that the Reich will be the master of all Europe. We shall yet have to engage in many fights, but these will undoubtedly lead to most wonderful victories. From there on the way to world domination is practically certain. Whoever dominates Europe will thereby assume the leadership of the world." For the Nazis,  dominion or great influence over the world was the natural next step from European control.

It is true that the Nazis did not have an exportable universalist ideology meant to lead a future world government like the USSR did. But they did have global plans. As a start, they Hitler wanted undisputed control over all of Europe. Whether through direct rule from Berlin, colonial Reichskommissariats, or puppet regimes. It's worth mentioning that the type of people running these puppet regimes were usually some of history's greatest monsters. It's not the same as exporting a universalist ideology, but when all the regimes you set up are extraordinarily evil, it's worth mentioning especially if they succeeded in becoming a hegemon (hegemon's set up regimes!). Examples include Ante Pavelić's Ustaše in Croatia, Ferenc Szálasi's Arrow Cross in Hungary, Jozef Tiso's clerico-fascist regime in Slovakia, and several others.

As for the rest of the world, Hitler's designs go far beyond ideological screeds on conspiracies like I mentioned above. There were real, actually written down plans for global domination. Japanese Ambassador to Germany Hiroshi Ōshima submitted a plan to the German government to divide the entire continent Asia along the Yenisei River in Siberia, a legal document which Hitler signed and accepted on January 18th 1942. And this was not a mere hypothetical! The Treaty was taken seriously by both sides to the point where it hindered cooperation, as both sides were reluctant to undertake any operation within the sphere of the other side, and the German diplomats strenuously objected to any intrusions into their sphere. Japan actually had to discontinue successful air raids in the Indian Ocean due to worries over violating this treaty.

In Africa, the Kriegsmarine had very real, very detailed plans to revive the old idea of Mittelafrika,, essentially German colonial control of all of sub-Saharan Africa (with the north being allotted to Italy, and South Africa was envisioned as a Pro-Nazi Afrikaner state). Such plans for Africa would essentially be to brutally extract its rich natural resources for the benefit of the Reich, and to construct naval and air bases along the west coast of Africa as a threat against the Western Hemisphere. Such plans were of course absurdly unrealistic and fanciful, but what matters is that the Nazis treated them seriously.

Hitler had designs on the Middle East as well, not only to expand the Holocaust to the region, but to establish partners in the region, especially Turkey, and we can imagine what a Nazi-compliant regime would have looked like in Turkey (refer to my previous points on what the rulers of Nazi allied states looked like). He treated seriously the prospect of allying with Iran and Saudi Arabia, for natural resources, naval bases, and strategic position.

In the Western Hemisphere, I have said before how Hitler despised the United States. While a German invasion of the American continent is so impossible to the point of it not being worth discussing, I will merely say Hitler very much believed that America would be subjugated at some point in the future by Germany, perhaps by an Anglo-German Navy (deranged, obviously). More significantly, is important to note that if the Nazis successfully achieved dominance of Europe, or of Eurasia, that the US dominated Western Hemisphere would be its natural enemy, and Hitler thought of ways to project power in that region, especially in South America. The Germans actually did pursue a policy of economic hegemony in that region in the 1930s, to undermine American influence in that continent. They further hoped for significant political influence, with these hopes being pinned on Integralists in Brazil, fascists in Argentina, and the large continent of Germans on the continent. It is also worth noting that tried to keep records of the Jewish population in Argentina and Australia. Again, global plans.

Now, so much of this is obviously very evil, it is also often very stupid, and absurd! We are all lucky that the Nazis were so deranged and stupid. But what matters in this post is whether or not the Nazis had global plans, a global ideology, designs for global domination beyond their corner of the world. Designs that they treated seriously. The answer is unequivocally yes. I would further claim that this worldview was as serious about global dominion as the USSR's view of Marxism, if not more so.
Logged
TheReckoning
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,738
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2022, 01:29:17 AM »

We are really off topic. To what extent Nazi Germany wanted power on an international level compared to the Soviet Union has literally nothing to do with the question in the OP.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2022, 10:04:34 PM »

I accept your graceless humiliation
Logged
HisGrace
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,571
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2022, 11:07:36 PM »

We are really off topic. To what extent Nazi Germany wanted power on an international level compared to the Soviet Union has literally nothing to do with the question in the OP.

I am getting the feeling that people are voting for the USSR here just to spite you even though that debate has nothing to do with the Soviets vs Putin.
Logged
TheReckoning
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,738
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2022, 11:16:25 PM »


I am not going to pretend I didn’t learn anything from your post- you are clearly a student of history and know more specifics than I do- but I stand by that the Soviet Union was more imperialist than Nazi Germany.
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,445
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2022, 09:49:19 AM »


I am not going to pretend I didn’t learn anything from your post- you are clearly a student of history and know more specifics than I do- but I stand by that the Soviet Union was more imperialist than Nazi Germany.

“I learned a lot from your post; I just refuse to change my beliefs when faced with new information”
Logged
Post-Soviet-Posting
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,187
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2022, 08:07:50 PM »

There has never been a state in human history more depraved and evil than the USSR.

Oh come on. I get what you're trying to communicate here, but come on. It wasn't even the most depraved and evil Marxist-Leninist state.

The one thing that I will say about the USSR is that it’s imperialism makes it a unique force of evil. For example, Nazi Germany may have have been more evil with what it did within its borders, but it’s carnage was intended to be limited to the confines of Europe. The USSR had clear intentions to export its ideology and practices to every corner of the globe.

'Nazi Germany wasn't imperialist'

Truly the best take.

Nazi Germany’s imperialism extended only to about half of Europe. The Soviet Union desired every square inch to be under its control, either directly on indirectly. These two scenarios are not comparable.

It's the other way around.

Soviets wanted a buffer zone to insulate Moscow, that's it.

Lebensraum is quite different.

The Soviet Union did not want a “buffer zone,” they wanted the entire domination of the whole world. There’s a reason why pretty much every single Marxist-Leninist political party got such intense funding from the Soviet Union, and why they invaded countries such as Afghanistan whenever any sort of rebellion against that order happened.

The Soviet Union was against the coup in Afghanistan, against the faction that became more powerful in the PDPA (hope I remember the acronym correctly), and, generally, against most Third World revolutions. The oddities of Marxism-Leninism demanded one or more developmental stages in developing countries before the transition to a proletarian party-state could be effected, and as such the Soviets were often loathe to support the ambitions of small elite minorities (usually located in the military) who imagined they could create a socialist society overnight. The official Soviet policy instead was usually to primarily support "bourgeois nationalists", which would oversee the transition to some form of industrial capitalism (broad definition) first. This is of course ironic given the Soviet Union's own origins, but I digress.

Nevertheless, when a partner country was (a) riddled with palace chaos, and (b) facing open rebellion in the countryside, they intervened. Sound familiar? Criticizing the USSR specifically for wanting to promote its Way of Life is laughable from the perspective of an American (which I am left to assume you are, given that Vatican City residence is unlikely), especially considering the great caution and reluctance with which they did so.

Now as to the content of that Way of Life? If it looked anything like most Warsaw Pact countries or the USSR itself, I agree, it's not a good worth exporting. But any skilled rhetorician could say the same thing about liberalism--especially with how it arrived in the Third World.

I don’t get your argument. I never that the USA wasn’t imperialist, it was arguably just as imperialist as the Soviet Union. It’s just that the Soviet Union was undeniably more imperialist than Nazi Germany. Anyone who brings up “socialism in one country” is committing a massive red herring- that policy only existed for roughly a decade before the very man who instated it began to invade other countries to annex them. Clearly, “socialism is one country” wasn’t taken very seriously as official state policy for the duration of the Soviet Union.

And the Soviet Union’s ideology was significantly worse than the United State’s. So yeah, their imperialism of spreading it was worse than our imperialism of spreading ours. 

My argument is that the cartoonish image of Soviet officials conspiring to blanket the world in red through military conquest or social revolution is unrealistic. Saying that the Soviet Union had global ambitions is literally correct, but it is correct in the same way that saying liberals have global ambitions because they assume democracy is inevitable and desirable.
 
Quote
Nazi Germany wanted to spread their revolution to half of Europe. The Soviet Union wanted their revolution to every single corner of the globe, and would’ve done it without hesitation had they been stupid enough to not realize it would’ve led to their death (notice how they stopped invading countries in naked forms of aggression with the advent of the nuclear bomb).

If the bolded were true, the makers of Soviet foreign policy would have been actively supporting and cheering on the coups in Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and just about every other country where socialist takeovers were successful. Instead, they were either opposed to them, or completely blindsided by them. For analysts in the government and the party, the inevitable "socialist revolution" that their style of Marxism foretold and demanded was a social science fact (which could be engaged with in a variety of ways), rather than conspiratorial master plan.
Logged
TheReckoning
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,738
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2022, 11:22:52 PM »
« Edited: August 15, 2022, 11:27:21 PM by TheReckoning »

If the bolded were true, the makers of Soviet foreign policy would have been actively supporting and cheering on the coups in Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and just about every other country where socialist takeovers were successful. Instead, they were either opposed to them, or completely blindsided by them. For analysts in the government and the party, the inevitable "socialist revolution" that their style of Marxism foretold and demanded was a social science fact (which could be engaged with in a variety of ways), rather than conspiratorial master plan.

That’s the thing though- it’s not that the Soviet Union wanted communism all over the world. They wanted their specific brand of communism all over the world, which made them more than a government who reasonably wanted similar-minded governments- they wanted carbon copy governments and puppet states. That’s what made them so imperialist.

It’s not just that they invaded Afghanistan to help a fellow communist country out. It’s that they invaded Afghanistan and then killed the communist leader of Afghanistan right away that is an example of their imperialism.
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,015


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 15, 2022, 11:35:32 PM »

Cath’s points are why so many socialists were alienated by the Soviet Union and eventually find a home in pro-global solidarity tendencies like the anti-revisionist movement of the 1950s/1960s or the older Left Communist movement, it’s why reformists like Trotsky also adopt left critiques to cast themselves in a better light. This is also why the SU was doomed to fail, as it was supportive of regimes that butchered their native nominal communists like the Republican Arab states and even the likes of Indonesia. It’s why most of their neighbors absolutely loathed them, some more privately than others even within the Warsaw Pact.

This is also a reason why there are so many splits, following the line of an international state to the T and accepting most changes until issues arise or reformism and rejection of Marxism led to vicious factional battles. The CPUSA broke apart in numerous waves often taking key sections and interest groups with them—from major left communists, to anti-revisionists in the 1960s, to the Right clique that developed from CPUSA simping in the late 80s/90s, to the last communists who stayed for the social function and the youth league to form PCUSA—all skewing young, poor, and black and brown. Other groups like the RCP, SWP, and the current WWP had this factor be one of the reasons for why they broke apart. Oddly, the WWP survived in a more shrunken form from the fact that they valued nonsectarianism™️ and developed a primarily American branding, only really breaking apart in 2004 over endorsing Gore.

Of course, the Soviet Union was much better to live in than if we let a Tsarist or bourgeois Republic survive for as long as they did for the utmost majority of the population, and was instrumental in getting others to be pressured into using policy to improve quality of life else risk a revolution. The Soviet Union was much, much better than today’s Russia which is worse in every conceivable metric. TheReckoning continues with his fascist apologia.
Logged
Primadonna Socialist
iBizzBee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,757
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -8.26, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2022, 04:29:59 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Republic

The best Russia.
Logged
doopy pants
Rookie
**
Posts: 89
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2022, 09:28:16 PM »

How in the world is Soviet Russia winning?
Logged
Ed Miliband Revenge Tour
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,101


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2022, 11:22:34 PM »

How in the world is Soviet Russia winning?

Recency bias, patriotic fervor combined with recency bias, and the fact that the Soviet Union at least has an ideological appeal to tankies and an aesthetic appeal to people like Cathcon and me whereas today's Russia has an ideological appeal to fringey rightist ideologies mostly unrepresented on the forum and an aesthetic appeal to almost no one.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,039
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2022, 11:26:22 PM »

What does 'better' mean?

The RSFSR had greater extremes than modern Russia; at its best accomplishments it was glorious, and at its worst it was plausibly among the worst societies to ever exist. (Yes.) RF, by contrast, is boringly evil when it is evil, and boringly good when it has been good; more frequently the former.

What is there to say? Didn't vote.
Logged
Average Melissa Lantsman Enjoyer
laddicus finch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,400


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2022, 11:31:24 AM »

Both were/are terrible, but it depends on the era. I'd still pick Putin's Russia over Stalin's tyranny or Lenin's red terror in a heartbeat. But the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras, for example, weren't as repressive and totalitarian.
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2022, 01:55:34 PM »

There has never been a state in human history more depraved and evil than the USSR.

Oh come on. I get what you're trying to communicate here, but come on. It wasn't even the most depraved and evil Marxist-Leninist state.

Stalin basically is a huge reason why the Communists won the Chinese Civil War though

What do you think a Chiang Kai-Shek -run China would have looked like? Imagine the people who carried out Taiwan's White Terror had the run of the whole of China.

Purge the Reds, Communists are the Islamic Extremism of the left and need to be snuffed out. Turn Taiwan into Git Mo
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,336
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2022, 09:54:46 AM »

How in the world is Soviet Russia winning?

Why wouldn’t it, from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen (ideology aside)?

The only time in the Russian Federation’s history when a lot of the population had it pretty damn good was the 2000s high oil prices era. I wouldn’t want to live in Russia 
in the 90s, and I sure as hell would not want to now, obviously.

The Soviet Union was always oppressive and repressive, but post-Stalin it wasn’t like a lot of ordinary people were being disappeared on a routine basis. And it certainly provided a baseline of stability, security, a sense of national mission, belonging, and purpose (however problematic), and a system of belief for most people (however wrong).

Finally, the USSR was a great power—a superpower, even. What is modern Russia? Nothing, by comparison.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,111


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2022, 10:22:01 AM »

How in the world is Soviet Russia winning?

Why wouldn’t it, from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen (ideology aside)?

The only time in the Russian Federation’s history when a lot of the population had it pretty damn good was the 2000s high oil prices era. I wouldn’t want to live in Russia 
in the 90s, and I sure as hell would not want to now, obviously.

The Soviet Union was always oppressive and repressive, but post-Stalin it wasn’t like a lot of ordinary people were being disappeared on a routine basis. And it certainly provided a baseline of stability, security, a sense of national mission, belonging, and purpose (however problematic), and a system of belief for most people (however wrong).

Finally, the USSR was a great power—a superpower, even. What is modern Russia? Nothing, by comparison.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2022, 05:33:53 PM »

Both were/are terrible, but it depends on the era. I'd still pick Putin's Russia over Stalin's tyranny or Lenin's red terror in a heartbeat. But the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras, for example, weren't as repressive and totalitarian.

The USSR under Khrushchev and Brezhnev were far less brutal than the Stalin and Lenin years, but they were still more repressive than Putin's Russia. By a lot.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,336
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2022, 07:13:45 PM »

Yes, even the post-Stalinist USSR was incredibly, brutally repressive. Though Putin has certainly been doing his best to catch up on that score since February of this year!

It should be noted, however, that Late Putinist Russia has been getting more repressive within the past few years, even before the “special military operation.”
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,786
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2022, 04:06:27 PM »

You all know that what forced Hitler's hand to invade Russia (at least before he was ready) was that he found out that Stalin planned to invade going the other way, right?

Debates about who was the most evil of them all are typically a fool's errand, and utterly pointless.
Logged
Laki
Lakigigar
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,960
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.13, S: -4.72

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2022, 07:53:13 PM »
« Edited: December 05, 2022, 08:02:26 PM by Laki »

The standard for today's era is higher.

One could say nazi germany was better than spain during the 16th century. And yes if you were a white german that certainly would have been true.

Say what you want, but in many other nations like in the 1960s and 1970s life wasn't great either. When the Russian revolution happened, segregation was still a thing in the USA and that is a morally repulsive thing that a lot of people just pass when judging on "the goodness" of empires. It wasn't like colonialist and imperialist Europe and USA were much better, and let's do not forget the mess we've created in the Middle East after WW1. Or the many dictatorships we supported to protect from left wing ideologies taking over, even if they would/were democratic.

Russia's evilness is more pronounced today than Sovjet Russia back in the day compared to the standards of the time.

We all like to sh**t on others, but segregation isn't nearly as controversial as it should have been. I mean South Africa is being condemned more than USA for segregation and slavery. Since it still is the greatest empire of almost everyone here, to many, while it had slavery & segregation for 80% of its existence, and been in a state of war for 95% of its existence. Very peaceful nation. Sure, it might be natural for a hegemon or world power to be like that, and it is natural, but my point is our history is biased and we don't judge empires and nations equally. We still look at things from a lens like: west = good, ussr and others = evil, kill them all!

The way we exploited every non-western nation, and even Japan before they became evil, is an evilness that to this day has not been replicated. And it was everyone, Belgium, Portugal, USA, France, UK, Netherlands, Spain. Literally everyone.

And non-western powers shouldn't say like they were much better, because i can talk about the Arabs purging Persians or Russian atrocities during tsarist empire if you want me too.

The thing is what different is, we all know what happened during WW2. Let's learn from it. We have the benefit that all information and most of history is freely readable with a few clicks on the internet. That wasn't the case sometimes centuries ago, and globalism has one of the advantages of raising awareness and ensuring that no one is isolated and unaware of what happens elsewhere on the globe (or has happened) and that most things today aren't top secret.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 11 queries.