On April 10 2014 03:04 L1ghtning wrote:
-snip-
There's a crucial difference between saying that USA took part in splitting Europe, and saying that USA were the heavyweight leader for a part of Europe. The first statement suggests that they forced the west to join their side, while the latter means that the west chose to join sides with them. The latter is true, and it makes a huge difference.
They didn't have any other choice, so it's not even a matter of discussion.  Although overall, I'd say they made a good choice, for what I hope are objective reasons, despite my subconscious American bias.
Yes, I'm saying that Sweden didn't have good relations with USA, and many swedish political figures were friendly with the USSR, but mostly under the radar. Sweden was probably the most socialist and communist friendly country in the free world during the cold war. I don't know if this was because the swedish left received financing from the USSR or if it was just how it was. It doesn't really matter. Sweden was never officially close with the USSR, but a large portion of the swedish left, especially so the left voters, but also a lot of the left politicians looked up to the communist systems, and they were very critical to USA. Our government was openly against the Vietnam War and condemned USA for it, and that was not the norm back then.
When Gorbachev started to ventilate all their dirt, the swedish left realized that they had been wrong, and this resulted in an era of voters and politicians who generally were in support of USA and free market capitalism. The swedish socialist democrats, which was the largest party in Sweden during the cold war, and still is today, used to be staunch supporters of state ownership. They are not anymore, simply because our population lost faith in it in the 90's.
Sweden is an exception to this. Since the late 80's early 90's, we have moved towards the right. Anyway, the west as a group moving towards the left (I agree with this analysis) doesn't mean that we've become more critical of USA. USA have moved more towards the left than any other country. And like I said, Sweden is more friendly towards USA today than it used to be during the cold war. The collapse of the USSR made Sweden more friendly towards USA. I don't know if it was like this in the rest of Europe, but my point was that if Sweden moved towards USA after the cold war, it has to mean that USA didn't have the power to dictate the swedish politics during the cold war, which contradicts your statement that USA took part in the division of Europe and made western europe into puppets to the US, just like Eastern Europe were puppets to the USSR. This is simply not true, and the modern political history of Sweden proves it. Sweden is irrelevant in the big scheme of things, but it's a great example that proves that western europe were independent.
Interesting history mate. I'm serious about that btw. I don't think it takes much intelligence to condemn the Vietnam War, but it does take balls. Sweden is an exception in many regards, without a doubt, but independence means many things and of course in no way did I mean Sweden's independence as a state was violated in any way. However, obviously, influence and hegemony are very true realities though. It's not impeding on independence necessarily, obviously this is nothing like old-school territorial imperialism, but it does have effects. This is a basic tenet of the entire history of relationships between various independent political entities since the dawn of ... human organization.
+ Show Spoiler +
In the modern context, we're also coming to a point where some of China's neighbors will work with China just because it would be a huge mistake to fuck with China. Just recently, the missing Malaysian flight has caused some tension between the Malaysian and Chinese governments, and just at the slightest glimpse of Chinese frustration, the Malaysian government instantly decided to be more direct about matters especially regarding the Chinese citizens who died on the flight. As far as I'm aware, Malaysia is since completely cooperative with China. China didn't force anyone to do anything. They are just in position where they can command a lot of influence (this Chinese influence being a concern nowadays) and hegemony.
Your explanation of Sweden is exactly like that. The Soviet Union, even without good relations with Sweden, was influential in the establishment of a very socialistic system in Sweden, despite its very remote status in reference to Sweden. This is why when the Soviet Union collapsed, and (1) there was no mecca of Communism/Socialism and the (2) US became the only overwhelmingly most influential force in Europe excluding Moscow, we see a shift in policy. For the most part, at least from what we can see, European nations have found common interests or work with US interests. DeGaulle was famous for many things, but one of them was being a hardliner against US involvement in Europe, or specifically France. The US was absolutely enraged. The CIA was supposedly implicated in assassination attempts, it was that extreme. Things behind the scenes are an issue too. We get a small picture of it from accidental leaks, but for example, during the whole SOPA craze, an accidental leak showed that the US threatened Spain with trade restrictions if the Spanish government didn't implement anti-piracy laws like SOPA. Spain immediately cooperated. It gives you a small taste that no one in Europe is going to oppose US interests and no one is going to fuck with us, not even nations we have friendly relations with. This is an example of us practicing our hegemony and influence in order to fulfill our interests. But, as previously stated, at least from what we can see, most European states tend to be pretty cooperative with each other and with the US, so there is no cause for concern in the grand scheme of things. Some even argue that American influence is waning, though countries like Spain are in a position where they need all the help they can get, which requires their full cooperation, especially with the EU.
I said that the polish and the czech were historically more connected to the west than they were to Russia. Religion has a huge role in it.
All of the countries who adopted Orthodox Christianity were in the sphere of influence of the Byzantines (Greek) and the Russians.
So, your premise is that one form of Christianity makes people worse than other ones? I mean, the medieval Catholics were known for warmongering and aggression, INCLUDING against the Greeks and Russians (see Fourth Crusade and German-Lithuanian invasion of Novgorod). The reality was, the Byzantines were probably the greatest European-based nation before the Muslims took over most of their land and the Crusaders conquered them. Kievan Rus' was also a well-cultured and advanced state until the Mongols came rolling in. Though, if we're talking about the Middle Ages, then most of the good and advanced places were Muslim or mercantile cities in Italy (as you stated). Baghdad was practically the medieval successor to Babylon when it came to the sciences (but lol Mongols). But I do agree that some states like Barbarossa's role in the Holy Roman Empire, and the French and English were doing alright in the Middle Ages as Catholic states (though later England would split with the Vatican; see Henry VIII).
Still, I fail to see how this has anything to do with religion. You state yourself that the Italian city-states were successors to Roman civilization (which was extremely dominant and advanced, in large part at the expense of their conquered lands, especially Egypt, which they underdeveloped and unadvanced, as it was by the time the Muslim invaders from the Arabian peninsula came). I think this has a lot more to do with historical progression than with religion. Those Roman pagans obviously weren't Christian 
But you see a trend here? Nations in a historical or political situation that leads to great things get to great things, regardless of religion. A host of religions before Christianity and Islam were the religions of a majority of some of history's greatest states, and this is just from the fragment we know about these places from archaeology. But the example of Baghdad is pretty extreme and substantial. It did not become a great city because of the desert nomads from the south. The people living there come from a long line of very successful and advanced nations. Baghdad did not simply go from one of the primary centers of science in the world to nothing. The Mongols literally killed everyone, and the land was then ruled for centuries by the Khanate and the Ottomans. It had nothing to do with the fact that the people in this area were followers of southern Mesopotamian religion (Enlil), Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam in the various proportions and phases of the area in Baghdad and around it (before its founding in 762).
The funny part of your post is you're proving more of the point that nations are built by every factor BUT religion, which itself has no basis for making a nation advanced or not. But even there you're mostly wrong. Crusaders, Muslims, and Mongols ruined many Orthodox nations just in the medieval era, while these did not touch Catholic ones (except in the Mideast obviously)
The french and the italians didn't really find a reason to look up to the northern german culture, in fact they saw themselves as superior, and probably rightfully so, so they never really had a reason to abandon catholicism.
Well, the German lands were pretty late to the party of becoming "civilized", though the Gauls and others have the Romans to thank for a lot of their entrance to "civilized" status. Again, it had nothing to do with religion.
The western european culture is an extension of roman culture, and all countries who were catholic at some point share this heritage.
Yeah, the Roman Empire in Constantine's reign and following made everyone in the Empire become Catholic. However, even today, even after infinite Irish, Italian, and Hispanic immigration, the USA is mostly Protestant and its heritage was Protestant, and it's probably in many ways the greatest nation in the world.
If you don't know that the polish and czech societies have always been more culturally and scientifically advanced than the russian society
+ Show Spoiler +HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Lord. I can't imagine you making this statement with a straight face. And the fact that you qualify it with the word "always" makes it truly absurd. Especially when you consider Poland was in a pretty meh state most of its history. It was never even in a condition where it was any sort of scientific leader at all, or anywhere close. Countries like Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Russia in Europe were traditionally >>>> Poland. When people think about culture in Europe, no one looks at Poland. They look at Britain, or Italy, or Russia or Germany or Austria or France which have a very rich history in the fine arts, architecture, and other things related to cultural achievements. Prague is sometimes mentioned, and the history shows it is something to speak of without a doubt. Prague is well-famed. However, I would by no means put it at the level of Vienna. Vienna is practically the hallmark of culture in Europe. I do know though that even in the peak in Prague's history, in the a really powerful empire, Austro-Hungary, it wasn't hardly close in advancements to some of the other states, even then it's arguable whether Prague in the context of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was on par with the greater European powers in terms of advancements, and this was when Russia was in a century or two of stagnation in many regards (which would largely be fixed by Stalin, but the pre-WW2 period is a topic for another thread. Don't get me started on it either because I won't shut up). But overall, you're certainly wrong on the ALWAYS and mostly wrong overall.
Russian stagnation in the 1800s-early 1900s and the growth of Prague during this period is the one period you can argue that a place like Prague was a greater center for cultural things and the fine arts than Russia, and to a lesser degree, in the sciences (though this is pretty doubtful). But Poland? Bleh. Poland was too busy being stomped on by everyone else 
On April 09 2014 23:06 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 21:10 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 09 2014 21:08 Dlash23 wrote:
Russia didn't conquered unstable Crimea
I don't know what your news are saying but crimeans are happy that they had a chance to leave from Ukraine's occupation(sarcasm =) ask them
And you think EuroMaidan is done by Russia who made Ukraine unstable? lol How Crimeans felt is irrelevant. Crimea was technically Ukrainian territory and was made to become Russian territory via the entrance of Russian forces outside of their allotted bounds (their bases). That is conquest, whatever way you spin it. Euromaidan was obviously the root of instability in Ukraine, but Gorsameth appears to be stating that Russia influenced more instability. If I got this right the argument from the Russian perspective goes like this: Crimea was Russian until 1954 when the Ukrainian leader of the Soviet Union Nikita Chruschtschow gave it to Ukraine as a present without asking the mostly Russian population on Crimea if they want this. It didn't really matter at that time because the Soviet Union was one entity after all. But can a state leader legally just give away part of one state to another state without asking the population if they want this? The people on Crimea now held a referendum where the absolute majority voted to become part of the Russian Federation. The argument they were forced with weapons to vote in favor is bullshit - when you get a notable increase in pensions or salary just by joining the Russian Federation which they get because living standards are far higher in Russia than in Ukraine, being ethnic Russian yourself well what would you vote if you just want to have a better life? Many of the soldiers on Crimea deserted to join the Russian forces. And why does it matter what the people in Kiev want but doesn't matter what the people in Sevastopol want? It's not logical. Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 21:19 Ghanburighan wrote:
I cannot believe people still doubt Russian interests in seizing back Ukraine. They are openly demanding `federalization' (read any comment by Lavrov in the next few weeks); what this means is that each region will be made independent and it can then seek unification with Russia if it wishes, or receive a semi-controlled status like Transnistria or South-Ossetia, etc. If that doesn't work, they have an invasion force waiting. But make no mistake, this is about controlling Ukraine, the methods are inconsequential. Oh and what is so bad about being a federation? Russia is a federation. Germany is a federation. The U.S. is a federation, Belgium too with a flamish speaking part and a frensh speaking part. It's a matter how the federation is designed to guarantee the same rights for all people living there.
Yes, I am aware of what transpired in Crimea. We know that even disregarding a falsified referendum result, the majority of Crimeans are probably well in favor of joining with Russia (which was discussed earlier in this thread).
BUT this does not mean another country can take it over. It is NOT justified, even if the real reason was for Russia to secure its military and strategic assets in Crimea which at least they feared could have been compromised if Ukraine joined with blocs other than Russia.
On April 10 2014 01:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 12:53 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 09 2014 12:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 09 2014 07:57 darkness wrote:
Hopefully this situation teaches the West not to be so naive towards (ex-)communists like Putin. Never trust them, including business deals.
Edit: And I'm so glad Bulgaria is part of NATO, assuming we'll really be protected if Russia tries to attack. The best case is always for this scenario not to happen at all. I just wonder what will happen if Russia tries to attack a NATO country just to see if they will be severely threatened as a response. Russia would not be severely threatened if it attacked a NATO country, it would be at war with all NATO countries if it did that. Not even the most caricature-y caricature of a pussy Democrat (which Barack Obama isn't, he's shown plenty of willingness to turn people into bloody chunks or put 100+ bullets in their body like we did with Osama... that's the real reason we haven't released any pictures of his body, apparently the SEALs took turns emptying their magazines into Osama's ratty old corpse) would allow a NATO member to be attacked without the US and the rest of NATO coming down hard on whoever did it. Never say never, but being in NATO is as close as you can get to a guarantee that if someone comes after you, your big tough friends will whip his ass - they will never fail to get your back. Despite what some people may think about the strength of the NATO alliance. USA reneging on the NATO treaty would be the USA telling the rest of the world "hey, we're going on full-on isolationist like so many of you say you want..." and being totally serious about it and that is not gonna happen any time soon. JudicatorHammurabi might want to take notice... darkness the USA didn't lean on you to be glad Bulgaria is in NATO, right? I've stated this in preceding posts as in the one just above: After WW2, the governments in Europe that weren't Communist and didn't want to become Communist and much called in the US. They needed US because we were the only nation in the world with any ability or competence to deal with Communism. Do you see any alternative? No? Okay then. Thanks for the call-out though. Not sure what relevance it has. You're agreeing with me, and then calling me out like you disagree. So you both agree and disagree with the opinion you've voiced that the US dictates to countries and forces them to do what it wants. Or you've clarified it to the point where you have cast this opinion onto the ash heap for current convenience. Well, that's not surprising.
Nah bro. The topic at hand was regarding the creation of NATO. Toy poodles in Europe fearing big bear needed a big non-Communist power to set up shop and tell big bear to go away, so we did. There was no reason for any force to be used at all. "dictates to countries and forces them to do what it wants" are pretty strong words. You make it sound like Adolf Hitler or something.
On April 10 2014 08:15 Mc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 01:28 Roman666 wrote:On April 10 2014 01:13 PaleMan wrote:On April 10 2014 01:09 Acertos wrote:
I'm just saying when the time comes, after he dies he will tag along with Kim Jong Un as one of the most evil person to have lived in the 21th century, and one of the worst leaders of Russia who are sadly many. And for reasons already explained: no opposition, in power for more than 15 yrs and influencing votings, media control and propaganda, a corrupted state, an hyper centralised state, minorities without any representatives or power, cult of personality, annexing part of some countries, and other smaller problems like denying human rights and maintaining an oligarchy etc... The list is long and I hope he's prepared for the lowest level of hell he believes in. he will be considered a national hero, trust me Is Stalin considered a national hero in Russia too? Because if war would came to your doorstep Putin, unless he was desperate enough to fire nukes, would throw you all guys under enemy fire, just to keep his ass safe, just like comrade Joseph did back then. We all know how it ended, over 20 million of Russians dead, that is like a half of Ukraine, imagine that. This is what your leader thinks of you guys, a cannon fodder. You're Polish. How can you now know that many in Russian consider Stalin a national hero ? I'm serious, maybe not so much as Lenin, but both are revered by part of the older generation. And Putin will probably be an even bigger national hero - he did a lot of ego boosting things for Russia, while not costing millions of Russians lives (yet... and probably never, regardless of Russia's aggression I don't see this escalating or any significant war between Russia and Europe/USA).
I think I remember reading about a poll in Russia were Stalin, Lenin, and a couple old Tsars were well-liked, while guys like Gorby and Yeltsin were hated (which makes a lot sense). Stalin technically brought Russia into the modern age after a century or more of relative stagnation, and it was especially important in the context of the incoming Fascist-bloc invasion. Let's not be naive. Stalin and Hitler weren't friends. They knew war was going to happen, especially from Hitler's side. The only question was "when?"
Hitler, in probably the only "good" decision he made during his reign, chose a good time for this assault. If he had waited until the end of the third Five-Year Plan, the German invasion would have been significantly less effective. We wouldn't have anywhere near the 12 million Soviet civilian casualties of war, or anywhere near the 8 million military casualties, a big percentage who were starved to death in German POW camps anyways in the initial thrusts of the German assault. The USSR was not ready, and the German administration knew this. They chose a good time, but ultimately still came up short, mostly thanks to Hitler's terrible incompetence and excessive insistence on making military decisions lol.
On Putin:
+ Show Spoiler +
Putin brought the country out of the worst state it's been in since the Russian Civil War. The country was in an economic disaster I've read to be a lot worse than the Great Depression. For perspective, Abraham Lincoln, one of my favorite guys, is the 2nd most famous US President for conquering the seceding states, but otherwise was admittedly a lousy politician. So when you consider that Lincoln is famous for being a conqueror in an extremely easy conflict (the only reason it didn't end in a year or less was the complete incompetence in every way of Lincoln's generals as opposed to Davis'. In fact, Grant was a poor general too. He was just willing to throw his extremely superiority in numbers, weapons, and positioning at the enemy, unlike McClellan and other generals, infamous for how excessively incompetent they were). Lee was considered to be the military genius of the Civil War, but he was extremely outmatched in every other way imaginable by the Union states. Hell, the Confederate states struggled just to be organized with one another, including militarily.
While Lincoln's fame is due to preserving the unity of the United States, which is a significant achievement despite the extremely advantageous circumstances, he's of conqueror fame. Putin is of turning-a-country around fame. If Lincoln is unbelievably famous in America, I'm pretty sure Putin will be famous in Russia.
On April 10 2014 01:36 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
As much of a villain as Stalin was, people do acknowledge he got shit done.
Nobody really mentions the Great Purge out loud in my experience, but I would compare Stalin's reputation to what Hitler would have been remembered as if the anti-Semitic policies never happened.
Stalin got a lot of shit done. A lot of it was bad (I understand I'm understating that), but industrializing and empowering a state that was going nowhere since Catherine the Great in the span of 10-15 years is a pretty big accomplishment. What did Hitler do that was of value? His decision-making destroyed Germany and especially his military's strategy and effectiveness with his insistence on making decisions on things he knew nothing about. Stalin industrialized Russia and advanced it enough so that it wouldn't be rolled over by the Wehrmacht later on, even when the USSR was not even ready (which largely motivated the attack in 1941 rather than later). An infinitesimally competent Hitler would have been the greatest nightmare in European history, at least for those traditional German enemies.
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GRwDIm9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-674691-thumbflex-ovsv.jpg)
