PDA

View Full Version : U.S. helped Soviets to beat Nazis, then U.S. 'battled' Soviets decades



alephh
11-20-2007, 08:58 PM
Funny how the history goes...

U.S. helped Soviet Union to beat Nazi Germany, then U.S. 'battled' Soviet Union decades (and hired nazi monsters like Klaus Barbie to do that). Wouldn't it have been easier to support Nazi Germany to beat the Soviet Union in the first place? ;-D

And funny how Hitler wanted to unify (in his own special way ;-D) Europe so it could have more power in the world. Well, no we have European Union.


_

Chevan
11-21-2007, 12:02 AM
Funny how the history goes...

U.S. helped Soviet Union to beat Nazi Germany, then U.S. 'battled' Soviet Union decades (and hired nazi monsters like Klaus Barbie to do that). Wouldn't it have been easier to support Nazi Germany to beat the Soviet Union in the first place? ;-D

And funny how Hitler wanted to unify (in his own special way ;-D) Europe so it could have more power in the world. Well, no we have European Union.


_
He He He alephh ;)
Good irony:)
But USA helped not soviets but MOSTLY and FIRSTLY its european ally- Britain.
So if they helped the Mazy to finish the Soviets- the next would be the Britain;)
And after Hitlers cupturing the whole Europe - he joined with the Japanes in Middle Asia or Near East - the Next "target" would the the USA itself:)
And sure the European Fascist Union sould be the most powerful state in the world.

Rising Sun*
11-21-2007, 07:09 AM
But USA helped not soviets but MOSTLY and FIRSTLY its european ally- Britain.

If you go back to the American grand strategic assessments in the 1930's, you'll find that the American reasoning was that it was in America's interests not to have Nazi Germany as a major power for a whole host of power and trade reasons. It followed that American interests required opposing Germany, which meant supporting Britain.

America didn't support Britain because they were mates, but purely because that was in America's interests, which is how all nations work.

It was a fine run thing. Serious elements in corporate America were perfectly happy to trade with the Nazis and even supported them as bulwarks against communism. Some, like Henry Ford, also supported their anti-Semitic policies. There were also significant elements at all levels of American society, government and military who were anti-British. Not to mention Americans who, despite getting off fairly lightly in WWI compared with Britain and European nations, had no desire to get involved in another European war.

The Soviets got American help for the same reason that Britain got it. Because it was in America's interests.

Same as Soviets got British help. Because it was in Britain's interests.

Same as Stalin kept pressing America and Britain for an early second front. Because it was in USSR's interests.

Nations don't act out of altruism.

That's left to the poor bloody grunts on the land, sea and in the air who believe the propaganda their nations feed them, to encourage them to fight and die for interests and profits they'll never share in, and perform acts of great heroism just by fronting up for duty day after grinding day while the fat cats in their nation sip champagne and lick caviar out of high class whores' navels, or elsewhere, while the rest of the nation struggles on under rationing.

How much weight did Stalin, or Churchill, lose during WWII?

Know what Hitler's biggest health problem was, according to his doctor? Over-indulging in pastry, which caused his gastric problems. How many average Germans could over-indulge in pastry during WWII? They couldn't get the fat to make pastry, for a start.

Who came out of the war bigger and better? Industrialists in all countries, or the poor bloody infantry in all countries?

And which industrialists and capitalists came out best, from the war and the interests it preserved? America's.

And, oddly enough, probably Australia's as the next, very small, cab off the rank. We ended up with Lend Lease credits and various profits from supplying the other Allies.

Meanwhile Britain buggered itself fighting the good fight and never went close to recovering its former glory.

America put more into Germany after WWII than it did to its British ally.

A simple example. A lot of Brits were still short of food when the Berlin air lift was on. They didn't get the food, while the Germans did, because it was politically important for America to do it. It wasn't politically important for America to feed the Brits who'd fought the war alone for a few years before America got seriously involved.


And after Hitlers cupturing the whole Europe - he joined with the Japanes in Middle Asia or Near East - the Next "target" would the the USA itself:)

No.

Geographically it's not a launching point for an attack on the US.

It just gave Germany and Japan access to Middle East oil, which excluded the RN from it. USN didn't need it.

Hitler had no intention of invading the US. Given he couldn't even manage to attempt to invade England, he was no threat to the US.

Japan couldn't invade the US.

Japan and Germany together couldn't get a toehold in the US.

The end result would have been an accord, assuming America didn't want to keep fighting. So far as Japan was concerned, there wasn't going to be an accord.


And sure the European Fascist Union sould be the most powerful state in the world.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the point we've come close to nowadays.

But I missed Fascist in European Fascist Union. :D

Chevan
11-22-2007, 01:02 AM
America didn't support Britain because they were mates, but purely because that was in America's interests, which is how all nations work.

The Soviets got American help for the same reason that Britain got it. Because it was in America's interests.

Same as Soviets got British help. Because it was in Britain's interests.

Same as Stalin kept pressing America and Britain for an early second front. Because it was in USSR's interests.

Nations don't act out of altruism.

Oh really mate World leaders nations are not of bunch of the altruists;)
I though the USA spread the democraty absolutly free - to improve the world life.;)
But this is just a "their interests". I didn't know it;)Thank you for frankness;)
And BTW so you want to say that comride Stalin acted according Soviet interests too - even signed the Pact with GErmans in 1939?



Sorry, I thought you were talking about the point we've come close to nowadays.

But I missed Fascist in European Fascist Union. :D

Nobody tells about nowadays mate.
I mean the situation if the Hitler has won the WW2 in the Europe.

Nickdfresh
11-22-2007, 02:25 AM
Oh really mate World leaders nations are not of bunch of the altruists;)
I though the USA spread the democraty absolutly free - to improve the world life.;)
But this is just a "their interests". I didn't know it;)Thank you for frankness;)
And BTW so you want to say that comride Stalin acted according Soviet interests too - even signed the Pact with GErmans in 1939?

Yup! Because signing a pact with Germany was in the Soviet Union's best interest...


Nobody tells about nowadays mate.
I mean the situation if the Hitler has won the WW2 in the Europe.

Yeah, because it would have been exactly the same. However, Europe has been moving towards an economic unification for decades and this was hardly the dream of Hitler. I think his unification plan was more of a Germany and everybody else unification...

Drake
11-22-2007, 03:52 AM
This EFU would've definatly been less of a pain in the *** than today, at least for us germans :twisted:
Last EU gag, they wanted to standartize, that only wine from grapes may be called wine. Coincidentally I live in an area where we have a form of cidre called
Apfelwein (apple wine), first surviving recipes with that name dating back to 1200 ad. and there was quite a bit of outrage here in the region about it :mrgreen:

Egorka
11-22-2007, 06:36 AM
Yup! Because signing a pact with Germany was in the Soviet Union's best interest...

Exactly! Thank you very much! I am glad you see this now too. :)

pdf27
11-22-2007, 10:10 AM
A simple example. A lot of Brits were still short of food when the Berlin air lift was on. They didn't get the food, while the Germans did, because it was politically important for America to do it. It wasn't politically important for America to feed the Brits who'd fought the war alone for a few years before America got seriously involved.
To be exact, rationing got MORE severe in the UK after the end of the war. The country was bankrupt (the economy was severely damaged by WW1, and pretty much destroyed by WW2) and with the end of lend-lease could no longer afford to import enough food. It was nearly a decade before the economy had recovered enough to end rationing.

Still, it could have been worse. I'm told that food rationing in Romania ended in 1990, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that other eastern bloc countries were the same.

Firefly
11-23-2007, 04:14 AM
I though the USA spread the democraty absolutly free - to improve the world life.

Couldnt help notice this. I'd like to know of any other nation who put so much of its own money into re-building Europe after ww2. The Marshall Plan cost a fortune. At the same time as the US was carrying out its aid plan the USSR was sucking the East of Europe dry in its attempt for revenge and war reparations.

Firefly
11-23-2007, 04:18 AM
To be exact, rationing got MORE severe in the UK after the end of the war. The country was bankrupt (the economy was severely damaged by WW1, and pretty much destroyed by WW2) and with the end of lend-lease could no longer afford to import enough food. It was nearly a decade before the economy had recovered enough to end rationing.

Still, it could have been worse. I'm told that food rationing in Romania ended in 1990, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that other eastern bloc countries were the same.

Although perversely. Rationing actually increased peoples health as they couldnt pop into Burger King and eat themselves in to a big fat coma [not that thewe was a BK then of course]. You hardly see any fatties in movies and photos from the late 40s early 50s.

Maybe thats what we need today, some old fashoined rationing, thats keep the Doodlebugs away!

Egorka
11-23-2007, 06:02 AM
Couldnt help notice this. I'd like to know of any other nation who put so much of its own money into re-building Europe after ww2. The Marshall Plan cost a fortune.
Do you mean that Marshall plan had purely altruistic aims?
What were the conditions when a help was provided?


At the same time as the US was carrying out its aid plan the USSR was sucking the East of Europe dry in its attempt for revenge and war reparations.
Sucking what from what countries?
Who payed the war reparations to USSR after 1945?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

Rising Sun*
11-23-2007, 06:32 AM
Although perversely. Rationing actually increased peoples health as they couldnt pop into Burger King and eat themselves in to a big fat coma [not that thewe was a BK then of course]. You hardly see any fatties in movies and photos from the late 40s early 50s.

Maybe thats what we need today, some old fashoined rationing, thats keep the Doodlebugs away!

It wasn't always better in the old days, e.g. London smogs in immediate post-war years.

But the food and diets probably were better, despite all the modern science that assures us that everything we eat will give us cancer or, at the very least, incurable ingrown penile warts.

As for the modern explosion of fatties, true, but fatties were scarce long before the rationing of WWII and the scarcities of the 1930's Depression, in all developed countries.

Today's bloated American poor, and not so poor, with their gallon buckets of Coke and half gallon buckets of fries (and two gallon buckets of buttered popcorn - with 'butter' which doesn't have anything that came out of a cow in it - just to watch a movie) didn't exist even thirty to forty years ago.

The rest of the developed world is going the same way, and so will the rest of the world in time.

Partly we've got wrong ideas. Compare the chorus girls in a Busby Berkeley musical and the clothes models of the 1930's with today's. The sheilas in the past were fat, by today's anorexic standards. Which lot got it wrong? Which standard is nearer normal?

Partly we've changed our food production and eating habits so that it's a lot easier to get fat.

I don't remember when I had my first hamburger, but it was probably some time in the early 1970's when I was in my early twenties. From a fish and chip shop, that was diversifying.

Sometimes as kids in the fifties and sixties we had take away deep fried fish and chips and sometimes Chinese take away that we got in saucepans we took to the shop before plastic containers were invented, after waxed paper containers that tainted the food were available. It was a real treat, maybe three or four times a year, at best.

Some people had fish and chips every pay day, being Thursday or Friday, but it was still only a weekly treat.

The rest of the time we had meat (often mutton, but the luxury of a lamb roast on Sundays in spring, a bit of beef from time to time, chicken on special occasions, a duck some special Christmases) and two or three veg, usually boiled. Roast chicken was actually a special occasion dish, not something you could grab at KFC any time you felt like it.

Butter (no preservatives, GM canola oil, additives with three digit numbers, hydrolised vegetable protein etc etc) pretty much just churned milk cream from cows with a bit of salt.

Bread. No 2XX preservatives and flour enhancers and all the other crap on the label.

We just didn't have the high calorie, high fat, high sugar diets available then to reach today's bloated bodies that are now regarded as normal. Unless they're stick figure sheilas modelling crap that all the teenage girls want to look like.

I'm rambling,

It was post that or not post the last few minutes of considered thought above. :)

Rising Sun*
11-23-2007, 06:37 AM
Who payed the war reparations to USSR after 1945?


German POW's, for a start, until the last were repatriated about 1956.

Stalin took his reparations in flesh and labour, by agreement with the other Allies.

Pretty much the same way he'd taken 'reparations' within the USSR, in the gulags for the lucky ones, for other things that upset him within the USSR before the war.

Rising Sun*
11-23-2007, 06:49 AM
Do you mean that Marshall plan had purely altruistic aims?

No.

Not purely.

But unlike anything before, and largely since, it aimed to avoid the causes of war by economic reconstruction.

It did a bloody sight more good than any other plan, before or since, has managed in any other wars.

Given Germany's development and actions since then, it seems to have worked quite well.

Maybe it's a pity that the USSR didn't get a Marshall plan.



What were the conditions when a help was provided?

How about we identify just one nation other than America which did anything every remotely similar?

Russia's major immediate post-war activity was to ship industrial equipment from Germany to Russia, and impose a dark system on East Germany.

Compare the post-war development of the two Germanies, and say which was the better under the sponsorship of the USSR and America.

Chevan
11-23-2007, 07:31 AM
Couldnt help notice this. I'd like to know of any other nation who put so much of its own money into re-building Europe after ww2. The Marshall Plan cost a fortune. At the same time as the US was carrying out its aid plan the USSR was sucking the East of Europe dry in its attempt for revenge and war reparations.
Sucing the Eastern Europe?:)Do you think ONLY Britain could have its colonies
Well mate we was needed of our "colonies" too. :)
Or you think the ONLY british are the WHITE peoples;)

Chevan
11-23-2007, 07:40 AM
German POW's, for a start, until the last were repatriated about 1956.

As far as i know my friend ,germans POWs were forced to work in Gulag for 4 years ( according the Allies agreements as may be you know)i.e untill the 1949.The 4 years coz the exactly the 4 years they were destroying the Soviet territories .
The policy of "Burning out land"- do hear about it?
The last party of POWs who were suspected in crimes and were in Prisons ( not in the Gulag) has come back in te Germany in the 1953.


Stalin took his reparations in flesh and labour, by agreement with the other Allies.
Pretty much the same way he'd taken 'reparations' within the USSR, in the gulags for the lucky ones, for other things that upset him within the USSR before the war.

Well at least to send the POWs into Gulag was not so cruel as to execute the civilis in the GErmans cities by the firebombing;), right?

Chevan
11-23-2007, 07:58 AM
It did a bloody sight more good than any other plan, before or since, has managed in any other wars.

Given Germany's development and actions since then, it seems to have worked quite well.

Maybe it's a pity that the USSR didn't get a Marshall plan.

May be.
However i know a one state who is quite happy now that it was avoiding the Marshal Plan- Sunny Japane;)
The japanes Life-level as you knwois even higher then American.The strong social guaranties and medical service is the BEST in the whole world. As the resault the average Japanes life is the longest.
At the same time the European states has a lower standarts then USA.
Is this a direct resault of the American finantial conquering of the Western Europe via the MArshal plan.
Or no?


How about we identify just one nation other than America which did anything every remotely similar?

Russia's major immediate post-war activity was to ship industrial equipment from Germany to Russia, and impose a dark system on East Germany.

Well russian immediate post-war activity was to create from the ZERO the industry , agricalture and newest wearpon technlogies.
Becouse as you know the USSR and Poland was MOST damaged ( practically fully) states after the war.
The most of the Germans equpment ( that was build btw with using the slave work of Soviet pows) were moved into the Coal's mines of Ukraine and Poland (upper Silesia).
And in the re-builed and restored soviets plans.


Compare the post-war development of the two Germanies, and say which was the better under the sponsorship of the USSR and America.

The true is that.... that one was better who was Really independent like Japane mate.;)
Or China .....will soon;)

Man of Stoat
11-23-2007, 08:00 AM
Russia was offered the Marshall plan, and refused it.

Post-war, the Eastern countries were stripped of machinery and livestock which was shipped to Russia.

The US's vision for preventing war in Western Europe was democracy and a strong economy. The USSR's vision for preventing war in Eastern Europe was communist tyranny and poverty. The former seems to have worked...

Now, as for empires: the Soviet empire was allowed to expand post-war (annexations of the Baltic states, and Soviet control satellite states). On the other hand, Britain was divested of its colonies over a period of time (thanks to the US foreign policy which considered it in America's interest that the British Empire be broken up).

Now,Chevan, you horrible little apologist, be a good lad and can it, right?

Rising Sun*
11-23-2007, 09:03 AM
May be.
However i know a one state who is quite happy now that it was avoiding the Marshal Plan- Sunny Japane;)
The japanes Life-level as you knwois even higher then American.The strong social guaranties and medical service is the BEST in the whole world. As the resault the average Japanes life is the longest.
At the same time the European states has a lower standarts then USA.
Is this a direct resault of the American finantial conquering of the Western Europe via the MArshal plan.
Or no?

Check out what America put into Japan after the war. Following your argument, maybe Japan is better off because America put more into it.

Strong social guarantees? Ask the Burakumin about that.


Well russian immediate post-war activity was to create from the ZERO the industry , agricalture and newest wearpon technlogies.

How do you reconcile this with arguments that the USSR was pretty much self-sufficient and didn't need or get much benefit from the other Allies during the war, because of the USSR's vast resources and industrial capacity?

pdf27
11-23-2007, 09:38 AM
May be.
However i know a one state who is quite happy now that it was avoiding the Marshal Plan- Sunny Japane;)
The japanes Life-level as you knwois even higher then American.The strong social guaranties and medical service is the BEST in the whole world. As the resault the average Japanes life is the longest.
At the same time the European states has a lower standarts then USA.
Is this a direct resault of the American finantial conquering of the Western Europe via the MArshal plan.
Or no?
No. Japan had far more US money dumped into it than Europe ever did, during the Korean war. It was too expensive to ship worn out equipment back to the US for service, so it was instead shipped to Japan for remanufacture. The US Navy and large parts of the US Air Force, as well as rear area Army/Marine units and soldiers on leave were also based in Japan. This dumped still more US money into the economy.
Beyond this, the US took up the responsibility of defending Japan during the cold war. Also, Japanese industry actually listened to geniuses like W. E. Deming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming) which caused their productivity relative to everyone else to go through the roof.
All in all Chevan, before you go off on one of your paranoid rants about the US and western democracies in general next time, please learn a little about the particular subject of your diatribe. You'll look like far less of an idiot if you do.


The US's vision for preventing war in Western Europe was democracy and a strong economy. The USSR's vision for preventing war in Eastern Europe was communist tyranny and poverty. The former seems to have worked...
That's overly harsh. With one exception (the former Yugoslavia - which I note did not follow the USSR's postwar vision either) there have been no wars in Europe since WW2. Military force has been used to quell political movements in Eastern Europe, but the same has on occasion happened in the west (Northern Ireland, May 1968 in France).
At the same time, one system is obviously a great deal more pleasant to live under than the other - as can be told by the fact that the communists have not been voted back into power in Eastern Europe, despite having the opportunity.

Kato
11-23-2007, 10:29 AM
Funny how the history goes...

U.S. helped Soviet Union to beat Nazi Germany, then U.S. 'battled' Soviet Union decades (and hired nazi monsters like Klaus Barbie to do that).


To my mind the US and the West traded and economicly cooperated with the Soviet Union more than 'battled' it.



Wouldn't it have been easier to support Nazi Germany to beat the Soviet Union in the first place? ;-D


Americans and Brits had a good opportunity to form the joint front with Germans ( with new leaders) and anti-communit resistance in the Eastern Europe 1945-1948. But as there were no steps taken in that direction, one may conclude that the existence of the USSR and European communist bloc was more acceptable for them than other variants.

Nickdfresh
11-23-2007, 10:47 AM
Check out what America put into Japan after the war. Following your argument, maybe Japan is better off because America put more into it.

Strong social guarantees? Ask the Burakumin about that.



How do you reconcile this with arguments that the USSR was pretty much self-sufficient and didn't need or get much benefit from the other Allies during the war, because of the USSR's vast resources and industrial capacity?

Not too mention that the US would become a rather large market for Japanese (and German) goods long after the War was over...


...
All in all Chevan, before you go off on one of your paranoid rants about the US and western democracies in general next time, please learn a little about the particular subject of your diatribe. You'll look like far less of an idiot if you do.

:lol:

Nickdfresh
11-23-2007, 10:53 AM
To my mind the US and the West traded and economicly cooperated with the Soviet Union more than 'battled' it.

You might have something of a point there. But then again, that beats nuclear winter. Doesn't it?


Americans and Brits had a good opportunity to form the joint front with Germans ( with new leaders) and anti-communit resistance in the Eastern Europe 1945-1948. But as there were no steps taken in that direction, one may conclude that the existence of the USSR and European communist bloc was more acceptable for them than other variants.

Maybe because there was no real political will for continuing the bloodiest War in history (by a wide margin)...

In fact, American units in the ETO were on the verge of mutiny at the prospect of being sent to fight in Japan...

Not to mention that the British were almost bankrupt and weary, the US didn't want to keep it's economy on a war footing indefinitely, and the Red Army wasn't exactly a push over as they still might have outnumbered the Western forces on the ground...

Firefly
11-23-2007, 06:37 PM
It wasn't always better in the old days, e.g. London smogs in immediate post-war years.

But the food and diets probably were better, despite all the modern science that assures us that everything we eat will give us cancer or, at the very least, incurable ingrown penile warts.

As for the modern explosion of fatties, true, but fatties were scarce long before the rationing of WWII and the scarcities of the 1930's Depression, in all developed countries.

Today's bloated American poor, and not so poor, with their gallon buckets of Coke and half gallon buckets of fries (and two gallon buckets of buttered popcorn - with 'butter' which doesn't have anything that came out of a cow in it - just to watch a movie) didn't exist even thirty to forty years ago.

The rest of the developed world is going the same way, and so will the rest of the world in time.

Partly we've got wrong ideas. Compare the chorus girls in a Busby Berkeley musical and the clothes models of the 1930's with today's. The sheilas in the past were fat, by today's anorexic standards. Which lot got it wrong? Which standard is nearer normal?

Partly we've changed our food production and eating habits so that it's a lot easier to get fat.

I don't remember when I had my first hamburger, but it was probably some time in the early 1970's when I was in my early twenties. From a fish and chip shop, that was diversifying.

Sometimes as kids in the fifties and sixties we had take away deep fried fish and chips and sometimes Chinese take away that we got in saucepans we took to the shop before plastic containers were invented, after waxed paper containers that tainted the food were available. It was a real treat, maybe three or four times a year, at best.

Some people had fish and chips every pay day, being Thursday or Friday, but it was still only a weekly treat.

The rest of the time we had meat (often mutton, but the luxury of a lamb roast on Sundays in spring, a bit of beef from time to time, chicken on special occasions, a duck some special Christmases) and two or three veg, usually boiled. Roast chicken was actually a special occasion dish, not something you could grab at KFC any time you felt like it.

Butter (no preservatives, GM canola oil, additives with three digit numbers, hydrolised vegetable protein etc etc) pretty much just churned milk cream from cows with a bit of salt.

Bread. No 2XX preservatives and flour enhancers and all the other crap on the label.

We just didn't have the high calorie, high fat, high sugar diets available then to reach today's bloated bodies that are now regarded as normal. Unless they're stick figure sheilas modelling crap that all the teenage girls want to look like.

I'm rambling,

It was post that or not post the last few minutes of considered thought above. :)

Hey, you been reading my unpublished biography, that almost describes my Scottish childhood, except for the Church bit. I still have nightmares from the presbyterian upbringing.

Rising Sun*
11-24-2007, 09:03 AM
To my mind the US and the West traded and economicly cooperated with the Soviet Union more than 'battled' it.

Evidence?


Americans and Brits had a good opportunity to form the joint front with Germans ( with new leaders) and anti-communit resistance in the Eastern Europe 1945-1948. But as there were no steps taken in that direction, one may conclude that the existence of the USSR and European communist bloc was more acceptable for them than other variants.

Elaborate.

In particular, demonstrate how America and Britain should or could have formed a front with the Germans (east or west?) and anti-communist resistance (demonstrate its existence and capacity to alter events) to plunge a different regime into the heart of the USSR that ran the show.

Demonstrate how what happened was the fault of failures by America and Britain rather than expansionism by the USSR.

Gen. Sandworm
11-24-2007, 09:20 AM
Maybe this one belongs in the Cold war section?

Egorka
11-26-2007, 04:40 PM
German POW's, for a start, until the last were repatriated about 1956.

Stalin took his reparations in flesh and labour, by agreement with the other Allies.

Pretty much the same way he'd taken 'reparations' within the USSR, in the gulags for the lucky ones, for other things that upset him within the USSR before the war.

The POW is a separate story. And only the criminal (real and some of imaginary ones) that were in USSR until 1956. And they were not laboring much by the way, IIRC.

Besides it is not the point. It is clear that USSR wanted and did take reparations from Germany. And they stripped all they could (great deal of it was later just trown away and could not be used for various reasons). The winners did what they think was smart to do in that situation. US and UK per instance took all the German patents rights and information.

But Firefly said about Eastern Europe. That is what I want to know what info he has regarding reparations received by USSR from the East European countries.

Chevan
11-27-2007, 02:29 AM
Russia was offered the Marshall plan, and refused it.


Post-war, the Eastern countries were stripped of machinery and livestock which was shipped to Russia.

Not so simply MoS


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations#World_War_II
Repatriations in the post -war Europe
After World War II, according to the Potsdam conference held between July 17 and August 2, 1945, Germany was to pay the Allies US$20 billion mainly in machinery, manufacturing plants. Reparations to the Soviet Union stopped in 1953. In addition, in accordance with the agreed upon policy of de-industrialisation and pastoralization of Germany, large numbers of civilian factories were dismantled for transport to France and the UK, or simply destroyed. Dismantling in the west stopped in 1950.

In the end, war victims in many countries were compensated by the property of Germans that were expelled after World War II. Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years, the United States pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents in Germany. Historian John Gimbel, in his book Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany, states that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10 billion dollars. German reparations were partly to be in the form of forced labor. By 1947, approximately 4,000,000 German POW's and civilians were used as forced labor (under various headings, such as "reparations labor" or "enforced labor") in the Soviet Union, France, the UK, Belgium and in Germany in U.S run "Military Labor Service Units".

So not only the USSR used the Germans pows labor.;)


According to the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947, Italy agreed to pay reparations of about US$125 million to Yugoslavia, US$105 million to Greece, US$100 million to the Soviet Union, US$25 million to Ethiopia, and US$5 million to Albania. Finland agreed to pay reparations of US$300 million to the Soviet Union. Hungary agreed to pay reparations of US$200 million to the Soviet Union, US$100 million to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Romania agreed to pay reparations of US$300 million to the Soviet Union. Bulgaria agreed to pay reparations of $50 million to Greece and $25 million to Yugoslavia. According to the articles of these treaties, the value of US$ was prescribed as 35 US dollars to one troy ounce of pure gold.


True the USSR dismantling and removed as the repatriations about 40% of industrial equipment of the Eastern Germany Prussia. Besides there were a Germans propetry in the Bulgaria, Romania, Chehoslovakia and Hungary that should be dismantling according the Allies agreement
So its WRONG to say that ONLY USSR used the Germns reasources for its profit after the war.
The West enought WELL exploited it too.




The US's vision for preventing war in Western Europe was democracy and a strong economy. The USSR's vision for preventing war in Eastern Europe was communist tyranny and poverty. The former seems to have worked...

Now, as for empires: the Soviet empire was allowed to expand post-war (annexations of the Baltic states, and Soviet control satellite states). On the other hand, Britain was divested of its colonies over a period of time (thanks to the US foreign policy which considered it in America's interest that the British Empire be broken up).

Firstly you are forgetting that the post war polisy of Britain was to take ITS colonies back.Initially they was aimed to restore the British impare in its previous form and ACTIVELY blody suppressed the national-independent movenments in here.
Besides the diring "period of time"( more then 20 years indeed) there ver a several bloody conflicts FOR COLONIES where participated even USA troops.
For instance the bloddy Vietnam war was a last colonian war as well.


Now,Chevan, you horrible little apologist, be a good lad and can it, right?

I would like be a "good lad" MoS.
But it's not easy when i hear the pure Propoganda ( kinda the Evil East againds Good West) that you guyes sometimes wonder me;)

Chevan
11-27-2007, 02:41 AM
Check out what America put into Japan after the war. Following your argument, maybe Japan is better off because America put more into it.

Strong social guarantees? Ask the Burakumin about that.

And what does Burakumin tell about that?;)


How do you reconcile this with arguments that the USSR was pretty much self-sufficient and didn't need or get much benefit from the other Allies during the war, because of the USSR's vast resources and industrial capacity?
Whan did i told you that the USSR did't need of allies help during the war?;)

Chevan
11-27-2007, 04:06 AM
No. Japan had far more US money dumped into it than Europe ever did, during the Korean war. It was too expensive to ship worn out equipment back to the US for service, so it was instead shipped to Japan for remanufacture. The US Navy and large parts of the US Air Force, as well as rear area Army/Marine units and soldiers on leave were also based in Japan. This dumped still more US money into the economy.

No man.
You mean the investment american money that have come to the Japan during the Korean war and was a reason of the Japanes post war economical rise.( Like today and Chinas)
I told about Marshal plan - that was not the Investment Project but ruther the Credit plan.
The Marshal Plan was aimed MOSTLY for the buing the American food.
only the smal part ( about 10-15%) was transformed into the investition programs in Europe.
The Other essential part has come into the USA. It was in sence - the UNDIRECT investment INTO American economy.Not European.
However the Credits need payback- as the resault the manies of the Western States has been captured in finantial dependence.
While the Cold war was still actial - it was all OK. But in prospect it was rather negatiev influence for the Europe.


Beyond this, the US took up the responsibility of defending Japan during the cold war.

Befor all the USA forbid them to have the any essential military forces and had got a Giant retrebution in the 1946.
Then in the beginning of the 1955 in fear of the increase of Soviet Influence over the Europe and Asia the USA developed the program of the stream of American investition to there that really help a much firstly for the USA.

All in all Chevan, before you go off on one of your paranoid rants about the US and western democracies in general next time, please learn a little about the particular subject of your diatribe. You'll look like far less of an idiot if you do.

If i did not know you for so long time - i would insulted.
But i better go to your advise to learne more about the post war policy and ......i found out the figures of post war retrebution of Wetsern Germany.
The Germans periodical "Spiegel" in 1992 got the interesting infor about post war german compensations to the .....Isreal.
OVER 85 BILLIONS of marks ( about 40 Billions of dollars) since 1952-1992.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/reparations.html
In the 1952 the after teh strongest USA pressure the Germany was obligated to compensite to the Isreal the 3 billions of Marks during the 14 years.
The MOST amazing fact is thea FROM THE 12,5 billions dollars that was sanctioned by Congress for use in Marshal Plan the ONLY 1,2 billions got the Western Germany in the 1948-1950.
But rigth after that Germany was obligated to pay about $1,5 billions for the creation, building and serviceing of Israel.
However as i wrote above the TOTAL sum of compansations for the 40 years is much more.
This fact just proves that Germany not as much get help from the USA as get the finantial and economical damage in perspective.
If fact the Wester Germany under pressure of USA has payed a the MOST WORLD BIGGEST contribution in the post war world.
If the soviets dismanting the GErmans equipment ONCE after the war (the mostly obsolete and broken under Allies bombing) . The USA milked the Western GErmany for the 40 years.
That's why the Life-level in Germany has never increased the Japanes one - although tthe GErmany was the best hight-industry state in the Europe untill the ww2.
To the Contrast the Japs who avoid the "Marshal plan" and sush giant "compensations" like Germans ( although the Holocaust was just a kiddish play in comparition with Japanese atrocities in China) has got the ONLY pure investments in the 1950-60 and was enought lucky;)For the while.....

Man of Stoat
11-27-2007, 06:35 AM
Chevan, go read a basic economics textbook, and then reread your last post.



In other news, it is also worth noting that The interest rate on the Marshall plan loans was well below the rate of inflation (1.2% if I remember correctly) . Germany did not spend any of the direct loan, but invested it at a commercial rate of interest and worked with the profits from this.

Chevan
11-27-2007, 07:48 AM
Russia was offered the Marshall plan, and refused it.

And it was absolutly right decision of Stalin.
The good example of "what if" is the story in Socialist Romania.
When the Romanian leader Chayhesky inspite of the soviet warnings took the 10 billions credits in the West in the early 1970 for industrialisation - initially it had a positive effect.
There were build a new great plants- during the 1970 the Romanians life level constantly increased.
However in the beginning of the 1980 (right after fall down Oil prices ) they suddenly found out that the there is no a much consumers for the Romanian goods in the world market- the Soviets did not buyd it as well as the West.
As ther resault the Romanian has no enought money to pay interests for the West- the Chauhescu has declared the "new policy of total economy"/ This was a beginning of terrible crisis in the whole Romanian ecomony.
Although they finally cancelled the debts- they was forced to pay OVER 21 billion of dollars to the Western banks ( who several times deceived the Romainias and increased the debt after the unfair "re-indexations")
This finantial adventure coasts for Chauhescu his life in the 1989.......
-------------------------------------------
Another good example of Western finantial "help" via the "cheap" Credits was the USSR during he Gorbachev.
In the late 1980 he took about 30 billions of Credits in the West- resault you all know the full finantial collapse of the USSR.
Next "Great leader" who believed in the "Holy and GOOD American credits" was the Yeltsyn.
This bastard has increased the former Soviet external dept since 50 bln untill the 120 bln.
As the resault the "dark times" in Russian untill the most end of the 1990.

p.s. so the moral is - the ONLY that one has reach the great resault who did no take the credits;)

Man of Stoat
11-27-2007, 08:14 AM
All that goes to show something rather obvious: Communists don't "get" the whole economy thing (otherwise they wouldn't be Communists).

"Yes comrades, we will borrow money from the decadent West to industrialise and produce consumer goods. We will then sell these goods abroad. Don't bother to check if anybody actually wants to buy the goods at the quality we can produce them, we are a command economy and don't have to worry about such bourgeois trivialities"... ;)

Kato
11-27-2007, 08:50 AM
Evidence?

The USSR had agreements about trade and economic cooperation with the USA and nearly all the NATO states. It did not suffer from the economic isolation from the West( apart from some short period in the early 1920s).

The USA established the full-extent diplomatic and economic relations in 1933 just when the Soviet government conducted famine genocide.




In particular, demonstrate how America and Britain should or could have formed a front with the Germans (east or west?) and anti-communist resistance (demonstrate its existence and capacity to alter events) to plunge a different regime into the heart of the USSR that ran the show.

There are no doubts that the bulk of Germans as well as its military and political establishment saw it as the only alternative to avoid Soviet occupation in the last six months of the war or even earlier. One has no doubts that the leading figures of the third Reich would have queued to offer their services in removing Hitler and his few true high-ranked supporters (at that time) if the US had seriously suggested the idea of the joint front against the Soviets through the appropriate channels.

Dani
11-27-2007, 01:26 PM
.
The good example of "what if" is the story in Socialist Romania.
When the Romanian leader Chayhesky inspite of the soviet warnings took the 10 billions credits in the West in the early 1970 for industrialisation - initially it had a positive effect.
There were build a new great plants- during the 1970 the Romanians life level constantly increased.
However in the beginning of the 1980 (right after fall down Oil prices ) they suddenly found out that the there is no a much consumers for the Romanian goods in the world market- the Soviets did not buyd it as well as the West.
As ther resault the Romanian has no enought money to pay interests for the West- the Chauhescu has declared the "new policy of total economy"/ This was a beginning of terrible crisis in the whole Romanian ecomony.


All wrong Chevan!
Ceausescu had decided in the early 80's to pay all the loans not on the due date - which should be in 20-30 years - but in several years (which was - and is - a stupidity). Moreover, since 70's and through 80's he spent a lot of money in all kind of industrial projects in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Irak, Iran, Algeria, Pakistan and amazingly Soviet Union. As a side note, in Krivoirog (now in Ukraine) steel works he "invested" one billion USD which now is subject of discussions between Romania and Ukraine.

Therefore, Romania lost his credit as a client to IMF, World Bank and all other financial organizations on earth. No credits have been awarded up to 1990. Should I talk about the misery that you - as a former Soviet citizen or any other former Eastern Europe communist block citizen - couldn't imagine? This is not the intention of my post.


.
Although they finally cancelled the debts- they was forced to pay OVER 21 billion of dollars to the Western banks ( who several times deceived the Romainias and increased the debt after the unfair "re-indexations")
This finantial adventure coasts for Chauhescu his life in the 1989.......


Bull...t or bo...cks Chevan (let's see how you'll translate this one:D - even if I gave you enough clues...). Your affirmations are false entirely. You are in the south of Russia and I'm in Romania. I have lived those times when you have enjoyed Gorbatchev's era in the USSR. Trust me, I know better than you what happened.
Or should I ask you to reveal the sources for your affirmations?:D:D

Chevan
11-27-2007, 02:01 PM
The USSR had agreements about trade and economic cooperation with the USA and nearly all the NATO states. It did not suffer from the economic isolation from the West( apart from some short period in the early 1920s).

This is not amazing considering fact that the some circles in British and American elite supported the Bolsheviks band of Trozkij-Bernshtain in 1917;)


The USA established the full-extent diplomatic and economic relations in 1933 just when the Soviet government conducted famine genocide.

May be because the so called "famine genocide" was just in your ill imagination;)?
And BTW the full-extent diplomatic and economic relations did not prevent the CIA and Mi6 to prepare the anti-soviet actions and diversions simular like to support the UPA bandits int he 1950-yy.?


There are no doubts that the bulk of Germans as well as its military and political establishment saw it as the only alternative to avoid Soviet occupation in the last six months of the war or even earlier. One has no doubts that the leading figures of the third Reich would have queued to offer their services in removing Hitler and his few true high-ranked supporters (at that time) if the US had seriously suggested the idea of the joint front against the Soviets through the appropriate channels.
That is your real level of thinking?
You dream about "join Nazy-Allies front" agains the Soviets?
MAn was who needed in the such "cooperation" in the UK or US during the last mounth of war?
Britains who suffered from the GErmans a lot or the Americans who fierce battled with Germans in air and in Atlantic?
Or may be the Jews in both states who "dreamed to save the GErmany" after the all that they survived in here?
It seems you rather naive.
Only the few hight ranks who absolutly lost the feeling of reality as Hitler had naive hopes that West should save the GErmany.And together with glorious Germany army "crash the Bolsheviks armies near Berlin".
This was stopid even in that time;)
Although the Allies actually had the special plan "Untinkable" to attack the USSR in post war Europe with the 400 000 of former German POWs.As i remember the Churchil ordered to develop this plan. The date of attack was the 1 jule of the 1945.
So actualy the allies could attack the USSR , but their peoples would not support this idea coz this would be the new total war for the both USSR and Allies.
Coz in thatmoment the Soviets had a most strongest army in the Europe and easy could join to the Japane in the war aggainst USA.

Chevan
11-27-2007, 02:39 PM
All wrong Chevan!
Ceausescu had decided in the early 80's to pay all the loans not on the due date - which should be in 20-30 years - but in several years (which was - and is - a stupidity). Moreover, since 70's and through 80's he spent a lot of money in all kind of industrial projects in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Irak, Iran, Algeria, Pakistan and amazingly Soviet Union. As a side note, in Krivoirog (now in Ukraine) steel works he "invested" one billion USD which now is subject of discussions between Romania and Ukraine.

Wow Dany i knew you should appear:)
What is wrong?
Tha fact that he failured to invest with profit the western credits in the Romanian and abroad?
His projects was unprofitable - this is my point too.And this was not his biggest mistake.
But i think you ignore the very importaint question- why had Ceausescu decided to pay all loans BEFOR time?
Simply coz his projects have no enough profit to pay the interests for the debts for next the 20-30 years.
And he , being the man of system just could no invent the other way as to declare the new "polisy of total economy"
But he finaly made it - he had closed all the debts in the 1989.But the peoples already did not understand him.
BTW if the Romania continie to pay the interest 20-30 years the total sum of the payback would increased the 40 bln;)
Look for the Mexica - the resualt of the long time Credit policy is the rise oof the total external dept more then 140 billion ( about 30% of the whole state income).The need 20 billions EVERY year ONLY to compansite the Interests for the creditors;)
This state is in financial bondage now.


Therefore, Romania lost his credit as a client to IMF, World Bank and all other financial organizations on earth. No credits have been awarded up to 1990. Should I talk about the misery that you - as a former Soviet citizen or any other former Eastern Europe communist block citizen - couldn't imagine? This is not the intention of my post.

Mate , please do not tell me about misery;)
I have to say you that i/m really know that this mean in the mid of the 1990 - not during the communism time.
The one of the serious problem is the 1980 the musery was ONLY in the Poland and Romania.
Coz the local "puppet" gov realised the quite ineffective economical policy.
I know for sure in the USSR there is no such serious situation ( although there were a certain problems also).
Beside in the best states of the Soviet block - the DDR and Czehoslovakian the life level was even higher that in the mid Russia( like and in Baltic states).


Bull...t or bo...cks Chevan (let's see how you'll translate this one:D - even if I gave you enough clues...). Your affirmations are false entirely. You are in the south of Russia and I'm in Romania. I have lived those times when you have enjoyed Gorbatchev's era in the USSR. Trust me, I know better than you what happened.
Or should I ask you to reveal the sources for your affirmations?:D:D

Well i have never enjoyed the Gorbachev mate.
And i trust you;)
So could you tell us what really was going on in the Romania iin late 1980 ;)
From your point of view
Please...

Kato
11-27-2007, 02:56 PM
May be because the so called "famine genocide" was just in your ill imagination;)?

I as well as each Ukrainain have ancestors killed as a result of the famine genocide. So it's better to choose words.

Today, the heads of state, governments or parliaments of 26 countries, consider the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide of Ukrainains. Among these countries are Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Spain, United States, and Vatican City. Lots of other states are in the process of official recognition of the artificially created famine as genocide.




And BTW the full-extent diplomatic and economic relations did not prevent the CIA and Mi6 to prepare the anti-soviet actions and diversions simular like to support the UPA bandits int he 1950-yy.?

Meetings between OUN representatives and the CIA and Mi6 took place. But
CIA and Mi6 never provided any palpable support.

You who claimed that the Russians are the main victims of communists and NKVD find nothing better than stick labels of bandits at people who fought against the very same NKVD and communists?

alephh
11-27-2007, 08:24 PM
May be because the so called "famine genocide" was just in your ill imagination? I as well as each Ukrainain have ancestors killed as a result of the famine genocide. So it's better to choose words.

Today... 26 countries, consider the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide of Ukrainains.

Why the Russian view of the history is so different from rest of the world...?

I understand that each country has its own tabus, but mostly knowledge marches on...


_

Dani
11-27-2007, 10:16 PM
Well i have never enjoyed the Gorbachev mate.

Why? Because his era marches the end of the Cold War?
I suppose that you have enjoyed Леонид Ильич Брежнев instead, haven't you?;)
Mighty bear who invades Afghanistan in 1979...

Nickdfresh
11-28-2007, 10:01 AM
Why the Russian view of the history is so different from rest of the world...?

I understand that each country has its own tabus, but mostly knowledge marches on...


_


Because some Russians have their heads up their arse and believe nearly every conspiracy ever created...

And Chevan, your "facts" here are just unsupportable opinion masked as some eternal historical truth...It would also be nice if you actually fully understood the Wiki links you provide which often undercut the overweening argument that you're trying to make: that is that the the 'evil dominationist' US only gave away food and provided; economic aid, manufacturing theory and ergonomics (that its own corporations never actually adopted themselves much to their loss), military security (against the peaceful socialist brotherhood of nations that was never ever expansionist or paranoid), the resulting bounty of trade and economic expansion its markets allowed, and a relative gov't model that has largely produced peace and stability - only because it benefits us.

And of course, it's better to live poor, under a totalitarian state, within an sphere that will crush any true autonomous aspirations outside it (Hungry, Prague Spring), and with no access to consumer goods or real social mobility...

It that what you're saying? Really? It's a wonder why the Soviet Union even lasted as long as it did... :rolleyes:

Man of Stoat
11-29-2007, 03:47 AM
Nick, I guess the Soviet-era propaganda has not yet been expunged from either the popular conscience or the school curriculum...

Drake
11-29-2007, 04:12 AM
Nick, I guess the Soviet-era propaganda has not yet been expunged from either the popular conscience or the school curriculum...

Yeah, we germans have special insight into that phenomenon at least on the part of the popular conscience of the former gdr population, as the school follows the rules of former west-germany(thank god).

Rising Sun*
11-29-2007, 05:10 AM
I as well as each Ukrainain have ancestors killed as a result of the famine genocide. So it's better to choose words.

This might interest you, as an example of the extent to which the Western press, even down here, is prepared to inform people about such matters.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-crime-of-unimaginable-horror/2007/11/28/1196036978721.html

Rising Sun*
11-29-2007, 05:24 AM
It's a wonder why the Soviet Union even lasted as long as it did... :rolleyes:

The USSR fell only because it got weak and tried to accommodate elements of the modern world outside the Marxist dream. Or is that the Marxist-Leninist dream? Or the Trotskyist dream? Or the Stalinist reality? Etc, etc, etc. It gets so confusing trying to work out who were the heroes and who were the bastards. More so in Russia, where the most reliable archives are. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the USSR fell because it let its people hear about toilets and toilet paper. Up to that point, they thought it was normal to live in shit. ;)

You won't see any of that in North Korea.

And isn't that a tribute to being stuck in a dictatorial, supposedly communist, time warp which, alas, is consistently pandered to by, of all nations, the bloody Americans. :rolleyes:

Egorka
11-29-2007, 08:11 AM
This might interest you, as an example of the extent to which the Western press, even down here, is prepared to inform people about such matters.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-crime-of-unimaginable-horror/2007/11/28/1196036978721.html

That is an artcile writen by the Ukrainian President himself.

By the way, about Holodomor.
It is portraiyed as "genoside of the Ukrainian nation". I could possible agree on genoside. I.e. without the national attribute (Though it is true that majority of the victims indeed were Ukrainians).

I think that the current official Ukrainian deffinition is misrepresentative.

pdf27
11-29-2007, 12:23 PM
By the way, about Holodomor.
It is portraiyed as "genoside of the Ukrainian nation". I could possible agree on genoside. I.e. without the national attribute (Though it is true that majority of the victims indeed were Ukrainians).

That's one of the sad things about genocide history - there is always one group trying to claim exclusive victimhood, and they (perhaps understandably) are offended if people try to point out that others suffered too, feeling that it somehow diminishes their suffering.

A good example of this is the Holocaust. Roughly 6 million Jews were murdered, and this is an unimaginable crime. At the same time, around a million political prisoners of various sorts were murdered, around 2 million Soviet PoWs, half a million Yugoslavs (Serbs and Croats), around half a million Roma (Gypsies), and so on. Remembering the suffering of one group in no way diminishes the magnitude of the suffering of another group, or the magnitude of the crime committed against them.

Egorka
11-29-2007, 04:57 PM
Remembering the suffering of one group in no way diminishes the magnitude of the suffering of another group, or the magnitude of the crime committed against them.
I generaly agree. But I also have some impression from reading russian and ukrainina blogs about Holodomor. And I can tell you the opinions are more sharp there. The Ukrainian one is very clear that Holodomor was organiazed intentionaly and was targeting specificaly Ukrainians.

Egorka
11-30-2007, 03:06 AM
A couple of days ago Mr.Vasily Timchina (the head of the organisation "Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists)" which is part of the party block whose overl head is the Ukrainian president himself) declared during the oppening of the monument commemorating the Holodomor victims, literally:

""The time has come, and the blood of the jews and moskals will turn the river Dniepr red!

Remark: moskals = russians

When addressed by a journalist afterwards he explained:

"Among the soviet leadership. which organised the wide scale Holodomor of Ukrainian people, the jews were the absolute majority. Therefor the responsibility for the deaths of the victims in 1932-1933 rests on jewish people. That is what I ment speaking on 24 of November during the meeting."

So it is, unfortunately, not as plain as the Ukrainian president says in his article: "We are not doing so out of a desire for revenge or to make a partisan political point. We know that the Russian people were among Stalin's foremost victims. Apportioning blame to their living descendants is the last thing on our minds. Our only wish is for this crime to be understood for what it truly was."

Rising Sun*
11-30-2007, 03:41 AM
A couple of days ago Mr.Vasily Timchina (the head of the organisation "Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists)" which is part of the party block whose overl head is the Ukrainian president himself) declared during the oppening of the monument commemorating the Holodomor victims, literally:

""The time has come, and the blood of the jews and moskals will turn the river Dniepr red!

Remark: moskals = russians

When addressed by a journalist afterwards he explained:

"Among the soviet leadership. which organised the wide scale Holodomor of Ukrainian people, the jews were the absolute majority. Therefor the responsibility for the deaths of the victims in 1932-1933 rests on jewish people. That is what I ment speaking on 24 of November during the meeting."


There still seems to be a disturbing amount of selectively irrational anti-Jewish sentiment in eastern Europe at even senior political levels.

Why aren't misdeeds by, say, Christians and Copts a source of similarly virulent anti-Christian and anti-Copt hatred?

Or laid at the door of atheists, like Stalin?

Zionists piss me off to the nth degree, but when I read rubbish like the quote attributed to Timchina, and we have synagogues here plastered with swastikas and Jewish graves desecrated and other neo-Nazi acts for no reason other than mindless anti-Semitism, I can't blame those Jews who feel they need their own country to be free of such brainless, rabid hatred that shows no sign of abating despite what should have been the horrible lessons the Nazis gave the world about such attitudes and conduct.

Rising Sun*
11-30-2007, 03:57 AM
And what does Burakumin tell about that?;)

They're the Japanese equivalent of India's untouchables, as part of Japan's highly discriminatory social structure. The following outlines just how little equality there is in Japanese society, for some people.


Japan has five major minority groups: Burakumin (a caste-based group); Okinawans (an indigenous group); Ainu (an indigenous group); Japanese-born Koreans; and migrant workers from other countries. Discrimination against many of these groups has its origins in the imperialist and feudal periods in Japan’s history. In the eighth century, the Japanese expanded their territory into the lands of the Ainu and Okinawans, two indigenous groups whose lands have now been annexed into modern day Japan. Discrimination from Japan's feudal society also exists against the “outcasts” called the Buraku. Up to this point, there have been no Burakus and only one Ainu in the Diet, Japan’s national parliament.

.....

The treatment of the culturally distinct Okinawans is another significant concern. Together, the 160 islands of the Okinawan Perfecture in the East China Sea, of which 48 are inhabited, are called the Ryukyu Islands. Today, Okinawa houses approximately 1.3 million people who have a distinct culture and language from mainstream Japanese. Their slightly darker skin colour and Chinese cultural influences have been prejudicially used to distinguish and discriminate against them.

Despite previous efforts by the Okinawans themselves, including adapting to Japanese names and even hairstyles, they continue to face significant discrimination. Japanese atrocities against the loyal Okinawans during the Pacific War convinced the islanders that they were merely expendable assets for the mainland Japanese. Now, the desire to assimilate into Japanese society has been replaced by a new pride in their culture and traditions. Okinawans perceive themselves as a separate people who simply live in Japan. American entrance into Okinawa was the catalyst for a re-evaluation of their attitudes toward mainland Japan. Okinawans generally harbour more animosity toward mainland Japan than toward the American military which has been stationed since the end of WW II and occupies 20 percent of the island. Okinawans feel that the rest of Japan should share in the burden of providing land for the American military. American military presence in Okinawa has also led to intermarriage between Okinawan women and American men. Children of mixed blood have faced even greater discrimination than their Okinawan relatives. According to Japanese law, children of mixed Okinawan and American blood do not qualify for citizenship; they have consequently remained stateless.

Japanese traditions that distinguished between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" occupations remain the core element of conflict between the majority and the numerically largest and physically least visible minority group called Burakumin or Buraku. During the Tokugawa era, Japan's population was ranked in four tiers based on neo-Confucian ideology. Modern day Buraku people descended from the two lowest groups – comprising beggars, itinerant entertainers, fugitives, and those performing tasks such as animal slaughter and disposing of the dead. They have accordingly inherited the prejudice inherent in the rigid caste system. Ethnically, linguistically, culturally and religiously, the Burakumin, who make up about two percent of the population, are indistinguishable. Unfortunately, this social context has both stigmatised the Buraku and forced many to attempt “passing” for mainstream Japanese. Burakumin who are caught trying to “pass” are severely punished. The punishment is often in the form of social ostracism experienced in the workplace and through discriminatory graffiti in public places.

The Burakumin continue to be disadvantaged. Although advances have been made, Japanese society, in general, still views Burakumin as being destined to live an unsavoury life. The workplace, educational and governmental institutions continue to perpetuate these biases, placing the Burakumin at a disadvantaged position in society. Employers in all sectors continue to refuse hiring a person if he or she is Buraku. Discrimination has not been confined to employment, but affects all aspects of the Burakumin’s lives, including social services, housing, and social relations. As one indicator of societal prejudice, wedding engagements are often broken off because either the bride or groom is discovered to be Buraku. The Buraku are segregated into ghettos pre-dominantly located in the Awaji district. Despite government efforts to address the situation, poor supervision of project implementation has prevented any significant improvement in their living condition. Educational and environmental standards are lower in these ghettos. The rate of high school dropouts is significantly higher among Burakumin.
http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF39.htm



Whan did i told you that the USSR did't need of allies help during the war?;)

I think we've already flogged that topic way past death. ;)

Chevan
12-01-2007, 08:52 AM
Why the Russian view of the history is so different from rest of the world...?

Becouse we do not need to listen the any Nazy propoganda blunder that was later "improved" by the Wasington during cold war.
May be you do not know this fact but the "famine henocide" was firstly mentioned in the Nazy newspaper in 1933 as the "evidence of the Jewish-bolshevick terror agains the Ukraine peasans". They simply lied that this was ethnically aimed event - coz in the same time the peasants of Russia and Kazahstan were in the simular hard conditions.
Later the "jews" were changed to the "Soviet regime".
But the sense were the same- to present the Holodomore as the Ethnically oriented actions.

Chevan
12-01-2007, 09:59 AM
I as well as each Ukrainain have ancestors killed as a result of the famine genocide. So it's better to choose words.

Yea it better to choose the words Kato.
Especially when you deny the Ethnical Clearising of peoples in Volun.
It is really strange that the man who few threads ago want to prove us that the Negros are subhumans ;)Now tells about moral rules:)
So on you mind ONLY the Ukrainians lives are importains to choose the worlds?


Today, the heads of state, governments or parliaments of 26 countries, consider the 1932-1933 famine as an act of genocide of Ukrainains. Among these countries are Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Spain, United States, and Vatican City. Lots of other states are in the process of official recognition of the artificially created famine as genocide.

Wrong consequence of states Kato.
You should write so:The states that considered famine as henocide were
1.Nazi Germany and Nazy controlled Europe in 1933-45
2. The USA and american controlled states - in 1953 - untill now.
3. The the newest Baltic "democraties" who almost officially support domestic Neo-nazy in , installs the monuments and marched the Waffen-SS parades.
http://russbalt.ucoz.ru/_nw/8/47536.jpghttp://russbalt.ucoz.ru/_nw/6/20778.jpg
4. The so called "orange" states like Ukraine and Georgia where the Nationalistic politicans tryed to Use the Idea of "External threat" in its personal politica interests.All those states are in deep political and economical crisys coz its polarisation of the society or dictators methods of rulling.


Meetings between OUN representatives and the CIA and Mi6 took place. But
CIA and Mi6 never provided any palpable support.

They really planned the essential support, however the Kim Philby has sended the infor about it to the USSR and KGB could liqudate in the most beginning.


You who claimed that the Russians are the main victims of communists and NKVD find nothing better than stick labels of bandits at people who fought against the very same NKVD and communists?
Not so.
I/m really claimed that the Russians were the main victims of Red TError compain in the 1918-1922.
But i never claimed the OTHER nations are guilt in this tragedy.
Unlike you who blaimed the "foreign Jews and Moskalies in Comparty of Ukraine" in such terrible resault of deculakusations in Ukraine in other thread.

Kato
12-01-2007, 10:19 AM
Becouse we do not need to listen the any Nazy propoganda blunder that was later "improved" by the Wasington during cold war.
May be you do not know this fact but the "famine henocide" was firstly mentioned in the Nazy newspaper in 1933 as the "evidence of the Jewish-bolshevick terror agains the Ukraine peasans". They simply lied that this was ethnically aimed event - coz in the same time the peasants of Russia and Kazahstan were in the simular hard conditions.
Later the "jews" were changed to the "Soviet regime".
But the sense were the same- to present the Holodomore as the Ethnically oriented actions.

Your posting is inspied by the official Soviet and modern Russian propaganda. Just the same style. All the different points of view are immediately connected to Nazism.

Chevan
12-01-2007, 10:20 AM
By the way, about Holodomor.
It is portraiyed as "genoside of the Ukrainian nation". I could possible agree on genoside. I
This wasn't a genocide anyway mate.
Coz the very simple reason - the final resault of collectivisation was to build the industry in USSR ( and in Ukraine particulary).
Whatever today spread the Nationalists in the Ukraine and other states - the direct resault of the collectivsation was a New plants and the total increasing the life level in the mid-end of 1930.
This is rather stoopid to consider the Holodomore as the action of genocide- why in this way Stalin has insisted to invest a giants resources and money in the Ukraine? To finally kill the Ukrainians?
We both know that this is wrong, as well as Kato.
But the populist politicans want to "Join its the Nations" around them and simply used the old fascists tactics and slogans "to guilt the one foreign nation in all problems".
We all know how they has finished;)
I think the famine of the 1932-33 was a serious mistake of the Soviets, but it wasn't a planned evil action.

Chevan
12-01-2007, 10:26 AM
Your posting is inspied by the official Soviet and modern Russian propaganda. Just the same style. All the different points of view are immediately connected to Nazism.
Kato i have no claims at the Ukrainians.
You know it.
But the newest Ukrainian politics want to blame the neighbourg state in its PERSONAL problems.
And to the contrast the "modern Russian" propoganda is not aimed to present the Ukraine as the "Evil state" who treat our independence.
This is the first matter of Nazy ( and probably soviets).
So if you will not use the old Nazy "point of views" in future - we will have no troubles with it.

Chevan
12-01-2007, 10:37 AM
BTW Kato you "accidentally" forgot about Kazahstan in your list os states that "recongize the famine as genocide'.
As we know the famine in Kazahstan was as worst as was the Ukrainian one in 1932-33
However this fact do not force them to blaime the anybody in the , right?
So you rather mistaken about "artificial famine".

pdf27
12-01-2007, 10:42 AM
Chevan, you're turning this into the internet equivalent of crayoning all over the walls.

Locked for a bit so people can calm down and act sensibly. I may reopen this in a few days, but if you don't all behave yourselves it'll end up being deleted.

Nickdfresh
12-01-2007, 08:33 PM
Chevan, you're turning this into the internet equivalent of crayoning all over the walls.
...


Well, that would be a first. :D

pdf27
12-03-2007, 04:29 AM
Reopened. You're all adults, act like it (and no, I'm not referring to any one individual here before you ask).

Rising Sun*
12-03-2007, 05:12 AM
Reopened. You're all adults, act like it (and no, I'm not referring to any one individual here before you ask).

Why does this remind me of the 'You're all individuals' scene in Life of Brian? :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qANMjwLmo6Y

alephh
12-03-2007, 10:37 AM
Why does this remind me of the 'You're all individuals' scene in Life of Brian? :)

LOL

Good old Month Python :-)

But that fact remains that people in different countries are teached different versions/views/sides of the history. And that there will always be heated exchanges (hopefully just the words are exchanged).

And I'm not so sure adults are always acting wiser than kids ;-D


_

Kato
12-04-2007, 01:43 PM
T
his is rather stoopid to consider the Holodomore as the action of genocide- why in this way Stalin has insisted to invest a giants resources and money in the Ukraine? To finally kill the Ukrainians?

Do you think that any ordinary person who was deprived of everything, was forced to work at a Soviet plant like a slave for miserable wages, fearing for his life and the lives of his family and relatives would agree with you?


We both know that this is wrong, as well as Kato.
But the populist politicans want to "Join its the Nations" around them and simply used the old fascists tactics and slogans "to guilt the one foreign nation in all problems". We all know how they has finished;)


What problems? It goes about genocide in 1932-33.



I think the famine of the 1932-33 was a serious mistake of the Soviets, but it wasn't a planned evil action.


It wasn't planned?

The isolation of the whole Ukrainian regions by the large quantities of Soviet troops in order to prevent starving Ukrainians from escaping and saving their lives. Ukrainains who managed to leave for other parts of the USSR were to be arrested or killed by local authorities. All the orders for these actions were issued by the central government in Moscow.


The raids and sweeping operations conducted during severe famine, when people were dying en mass, the Soviet troops continued searching for any hidden food-stuffs or anything that could be eaten. The found food-stuffs were often just destroyed in the eyes of its owners.


The adoption of severe laws that prohibited to gather the remaints of wheat or other plants after harvesting on state-owned land.

The Moscow's official refusal to accept foreign humanitarian aid, criminal denial of any cases of starvation in Ukraine, total export of the Ukrainian agricultural products at the very same time.

The influx of settlers from Russia to depopulated regions as a result of genocide. They received the houses and property of killed Ukrainians.


All these and other facts are supported by thousands upon thousands of survived witnesses, soviet documents etc.

At that time foreign diplomats in the USSR unanimously described the artificial famine in Ukraine in secret reports to their govermnets as genocide.

Kato
12-04-2007, 01:46 PM
Yea it better to choose the words Kato.
Especially when you deny the Ethnical Clearising of peoples in Volun.

None of the states of the world including Polish one or reputable international organization officially claims that there was ethnical cleansing. So there is nothing to deny.


It is really strange that the man who few threads ago want to prove us that the Negros are subhumans ;)Now tells about moral rules:)

There was a discussion about the abilities of the Negroid race towards Maths, engineering and natural sciences. If you consider people who are not good at them as subhumans, it will be your personal opinion.

Kato
12-04-2007, 01:49 PM
So on you mind ONLY the Ukrainians lives are importains to choose the worlds?

Ukrainians have a right and ability to assess events of their history on their own. Moscow attempts of writing its "right" history for other nations just irritate others and worsen the attitude to the ones who claim to be Russians in the Russian Federation.



Wrong consequence of states Kato.
You should write so:The states that considered famine as henocide were
1.Nazi Germany and Nazy controlled Europe in 1933-45


Very objective information. If I am not mistaken the first country that officially recognized Holodomor as genocide was such a Nazi state as Canada. Most of other started to join Canada in the 1990s.



2. The USA and american controlled states - in 1953 - untill now.


Yeah, Americans forced them all to fulfil their will in this issue.

Russians are sure that only the USA and Russia are the subjects and all the rest of countries are objects and their vassals.



3. The the newest Baltic "democraties" who almost officially support domestic Neo-nazy in , installs the monuments and marched the Waffen-SS parades

I wonder why no Russians flee these terrible "Neo-Nazi" states back to Russia? Perhaps the Balts should conduct parades of veterans of Russian punitive units? It will be O.K. then?

Kato
12-04-2007, 01:52 PM
4. The so called "orange" states like Ukraine and Georgia where the Nationalistic politicans tryed to Use the Idea of "External threat" in its personal politica interests.All those states are in deep political and economical crisys coz its polarisation of the society or dictators methods of rulling.

It is laughable to connect modern Ukrainian and Georgian government to nationalism.
There is not any economic or political crisis in Ukraine.
If you want to talk about polarization of the society, you'd better talk about armed struggle of your fellow-citizens - local Islamists and separatists in the South of the formation known as the Russian federation.

Kato
12-04-2007, 01:54 PM
They really planned the essential support, however the Kim Philby has sended the infor about it to the USSR and KGB could liqudate in the most beginning.

Yeah, to be able to deliver some support, the West should have win over the communist regimes and Soviet troops in the Eastern Europen states borderering on Ukraine. So your claims in this respect are devoid of common sense.


Not so.
I/m really claimed that the Russians were the main victims of Red TError compain in the 1918-1922.

If Russians had been the main victims of red terror compain 1918-1922, the communists would have never come to power. Besides you as most of modern Russians would not be so anxious in whitening the Soviets, and denigrating the national resistance in Ukraine, Baltic states and Belarus to the very same Soviet regime.

Kato
12-04-2007, 04:27 PM
BTW Kato you "accidentally" forgot about Kazahstan in your list os states that "recongize the famine as genocide'.
As we know the famine in Kazahstan was as worst as was the Ukrainian one in 1932-33
However this fact do not force them to blaime the anybody in the , right?
So you rather mistaken about "artificial famine".

The modern political establishment of Kazahstan does not do it because of tensed ethnical relations that were on the verge of mutual massacre in the early 1990s. The raising of this issue will inevitably lead to distabilisation inside Kazahstan. Considering local colourite it will end in lynching Russians.

However, it does not mean that the necessary legal procedures will start later.

Cojimar 1945
02-24-2008, 01:34 PM
How was the British economy destroyed by world war II? It appears that British losses were considerably less severe in WWII than in WWI and the u-boats were less succesful against British shipping.

the_librarian
02-24-2008, 03:37 PM
How was the British economy destroyed by world war II? It appears that British losses were considerably less severe in WWII than in WWI and the u-boats were less succesful against British shipping.

Just wanted to post, no hard data yet to back it up, but don't you think it was a combination of two things:

WW1 fallout (expenses and loans)

plus

the costs of keeping a far flung empire afloat

I'm not sure the manufacturing status of British industry at the time, but weren't they losing out to American manufacturing? Sorta like today, when US industry is all outsourced to low-wage countries?

I'll have to do some more digging before I can give a real good answer, tho...

32Bravo
02-25-2008, 02:33 PM
How was the British economy destroyed by world war II? It appears that British losses were considerably less severe in WWII than in WWI and the u-boats were less succesful against British shipping.


Quite simply, it wasn't destroyed.

Britain was broke at the end of the war on account of the war debt that had built up, but it would be wrong to say its economy was destroyed. Especially as its industrial base was still intact and its raw materials were still being supplied by the colonies. During the fifties, and the sixities to some extent, there was full employment.

However, as colonies began to become independant and compete against Britain with cheaper labour, then things began to decline. An example would be the cotton industry. Cotton as a raw material was imported from India, put through the manufacturing processes in England and sold back to India as finished products. Of course, Ghandi had always been against that, and once India began to manufacture cotton fabrics, both for domestic use and export, Britain couldn't compete.

The major cause for Britain's industrial decline was its inability to compete on the world market. As well as using outdated industrial equipment, they also had the trades unions demanding such high wages that the goods produced were overpriced. For example: the shipbuilding and steel industries, which had always been huge in Britian, found that they were unable to compete with Japan.

pdf27
02-25-2008, 04:45 PM
Quite simply, it wasn't destroyed.

Britain was broke at the end of the war on account of the war debt that had built up, but it would be wrong to say its economy was destroyed. Especially as its industrial base was still intact and its raw materials were still being supplied by the colonies. During the fifties, and the sixities to some extent, there was full employment.

There were a whole lot of factors at work:
1) Cash - by the end of WW2 the UK had no reserves left. We were having to sell warships for scrap metal to pay civil servants by 1946 or so.
2) War damage - civilian casualties weren't all that high, but the housing stock and industry had been heavily damaged. The UK needed to spend a hell of a lot of money just to get back to the 1939 position - money it didn't have and in any case had to spend to keep the Empire together and the Russians out.
3) Industrial base. UK manufacturing industry had been structured to turn raw materials freely available via lend-lease into the most destructive weapons systems possible for a given labour force. No thought at all was given to the most cost-effective way of doing things, or to what they could sell after the war. In 1945 the end of Lend-Lease kicked the props out from under British industry while at the same time it suddenly had to find markets for what it produced - which was mostly weaponry in a world awash with it.
4) Working practices - those in the UK were truly awful. The US had the best in the world to start with, while Germany and Japan had been pretty much destroyed and were largely rebuilt on the US model.

The "full employment" of the time was largely a chimera - based on residual goodwill from the Empire and restrictive trade practices. When these expired, the UK had the problems of the 1970s. Only Thatchers brutal reforms have left UK industry with some hope of competing. Even then it isn't doing brilliantly - largely due to City short-termism.