Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It's been said that Nazism was a crime against humanity, while Communism was "merely" a crime against an awful lot of humans.
That subtle difference may have been lost....

The difference is not so subtle. While Communism started as a honest ideology seeking for progress and got corrupted Nazism was masked enslavement for humanity from the beginning. You cant seriously compare such a heavy weight in its field as Marx with lunatic like Hitler...

 

[Yeekim]

That's a whole different topic. I can say that they existed since XIX century for sure, and quite probably since XVII century. This doesn't apply to Baltic States which didn't exist back then. They were artificially created after Russian revolution in German occupied territory, as limitrophe states.

So what, according to you, caused this "fear and hatred" in Baltic States? And why exactly do you feel the need to downplay their legitimacy, saying they were "artificially created" ("artificially created" by who? and why would they be any more "artificial" than any other nation state?)?
Anyway, you might be interested to know that Estonia also celebrates a "Victory Day", national holiday commemorating a decisive battle against... the Germans.

Neither of them was a crime by definition. Nazism is a racist, chauvinistic ideology, basing on ideas of racial hierarchy and existing of "subhumans" and "master races". Communism is an ideology proposing to make people equal regardless of their race, gender or ethnicity, as well as eliminate exploitation by removing private property for the means of production. This is just basics, in case you were given different definitions in school. Something like Communism=Nazism or so.

Definitions are important, but practical applications even more so. Crucially, communist leadership of the time sought to eliminate exploitation alongside with lots of people.
For instance, would you have preferred to live in Nazi-occupied France, or under Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? I, for one, wear glasses, so...

Not sure how to say it in English - "Не юродствуй". Keep your percents for yourself.

I don't know how to say that in English as well, but I think reductio ad absurdum is an appropriate Latin term.
So you don't like to be "equally evil" and you don't like to be "slightly lesser evil".
I guess you are free to argue then exactly how, in Estonia's case, forcible annexation of a country, murdering thousands, deporting tens of thousands, forcing hundreds of thousands to flee and wrecking the place for decades makes you "good".

Ah, you mean those drunkards who wave flags and scream loudly, but don't know the year when the war started or on whose side USA was fighting. There are some.

Oh, they all know perfectly well the war started in 1941.
EDIT:

The difference is not so subtle. While Communism started as a honest ideology seeking for progress and got corrupted Nazism was masked enslavement for humanity from the beginning. You cant seriously compare such a heavy weight in its field as Marx with lunatic like Hitler...

See above. Practical application.

 

[red_elk]

So what, according to you, caused this "fear and hatred" in Baltic States? And why exactly do you feel the need to downplay their legitimacy, saying they were "artificially created" ("artificially created" by who? and why would they be any more "artificial" than any other nation state?)?

What causes ethno-based nationalism, chauvinism, hatred between ethnic groups? I guess, the same what in other places. For instance, Balts participated in punitive actions against Russians in Civil War, in WW2 (where they were known for particular cruelty, btw). Russians I guess were known for the similar atrocities in Baltic States. As nations we weren't too nice to each other, like it often happens between neighbors. And in most cases, it is not the fault of one side, like you seem to present it here. Why I think this hatred is ethnic-based and not based on Soviet wrongdoings of XX century? Because Balts were treated just as any other people of USSR, not better and not worse. Repressions were not based on ethnicity, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs and all others were treated the same way as Balts.

"Artificially created" is not downplaying their legitimacy per se, it's a statement of fact and whether it affects their legitimacy is a matter of interpretation. They were created in parts of Russian Empire occupied by Germany, in coordination with German occupational administration. Originally, Germans planned to create buffer state there.

Definitions are important, but practical applications even more so. Crucially, communist leadership of the time sought to eliminate exploitation alongside with lots of people.

Do you understand why?
What's the difference between motives of Red or White terror in Russian Civil War, as well as Stalin's repressions, and motives of Nazis in Holocaust?

For instance, would you have preferred to live in Nazi-occupied France, or under Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? I, for one, wear glasses, so...

No, Khmer Rouge is not a practical application of a Communism. Just as Democratic Republic of North Korea is not a practical application of Democracy.

So you don't like to be "equally evil" and you don't like to be "slightly lesser evil".

No, I simply don't require your judgement here. Much less estimation of "evilness" in percentage. Keep your assessments for yourself.

I guess you are free to argue then exactly how, in Estonia's case, forcible annexation of a country, murdering thousands, deporting tens of thousands, forcing hundreds of thousands to flee and wrecking the place for decades makes you "good".

Depends on particular cases. Repressions and murdering innocent people doesn't make USSR or anyone else good. Repressions against members of nationalist parties, or criminals, may be a different case. Forcing people who collaborated with Nazis to flee from the country, imprisoning or deporting them, is ok in my book. As for annexation, its "goodness" or "badness" entirely depends on how many people in the region supported it. In Baltic States as far as I know, it was substantial part of population. Etc. I will not comment parts like "wrecking the place", it is something vaguely defined and subjective.

 

[REDY]

Alone fairy tales about master race or classless people werent problem. The problem was state ideology, using them to practice state terror. And in the end it wasnt about fairy tale at all. Because every kid will grow up sooner or later.

 

[red_elk]

Alone fairy tales about master race or classless people werent problem. The problem was state ideology, using them to practice state terror.

I don't agree with this. First, Communism and Nazism are the opposite ideologies almost in every single aspect. Communism is progressive, egalitarian, humanistic ideology, while Nazism is reactionary and discriminating. Atrocities which were happening in Russian Empire and USSR in 1918-1938 were not ideology driven, they were part of revolutionary terror, civil war and post-civil war purges. Which doesn't make Communism comparable to Nazism, just as atrocities of French Revolution don't make ideology of French Republic comparable to Nazism.

Holocaust and other ethnic and racial purges of Nazi Germany were different. They were linked to ideology which institutionalized murdering people basing on their race or ethnicity.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The difference is not so subtle. While Communism started as a honest ideology seeking for progress and got corrupted Nazism was masked enslavement for humanity from the beginning.

I don't believe this is actually true. As far as I have gathered over the years, National Socialism in deed had significant socialist elements in its origins, and just combined those elements with traditional nationalist elements. To an extend, nationalism probably always entails a degree of chauvinism, and by extension, a certain principle willingness to subdue other peoples for your own again. But whatever role such chauvinism played in Nazism, it was - beyond perhaps certain circles within the Nazi party - a far cry from what Nazism would later on entail under Hitler and his allies. And there is every reason to say that Hitler and the likes "corrupted" Nazism and moved it far away from its original goals.

In general, it is important to realize that there also was no one Nazism (even if for simplicities sake I made it more or less sound like there was), but rather it was a quit fractured movement as far as I know, with some being more focused on socialism and others more on nationalism/miltarism, and only under Hitler this did change.

 

[Yeekim]

Atrocities which were happening in Russian Empire and USSR in 1918-1938 were not ideology driven, they were part of revolutionary terror

I'm getting tired of this argument, but this is just too WTH.
So "revolutionary terror" was not "ideology driven"?

 

[red_elk]

I'm getting tired of this argument, but this is just too WTH.
So "revolutionary terror" was not "ideology driven"?

In revolutions or civil wars, people's motives to kill usually is struggle for power. Reds or Whites were killing each other not because their ideologies dictated them to, but because they wanted to stay in power in order to implement their ideologies. This wasn't the case with Nazi Germany. I'm deliberately oversimplifying here, in order to get understood.

I'm getting tired of this argument

It's not much fun for me too, let's disagree.
I already said before, that I admit that many people in Baltic States and elsewhere, were mistreated in USSR. Just comparing it with Nazis, knowing well what they were doing, say, in Belorussia or in Auschwitz, is too much.

 

[Agent327]

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

Stalin's purges. http://russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/stalins-purges/

Stalin's victims exceeded those of Hitler by millions. And the terror didn't end with Stalin's death either.

 

[red_elk]

You were already given your reading. Start with "The Elephant's Child".

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't believe this is actually true. As far as I have gathered over the years, National Socialism in deed had significant socialist elements in its origins, and just combined those elements with traditional nationalist elements. To an extend, nationalism probably always entails a degree of chauvinism, and by extension, a certain principle willingness to subdue other peoples for your own again. But whatever role such chauvinism played in Nazism, it was - beyond perhaps certain circles within the Nazi party - a far cry from what Nazism would later on entail under Hitler and his allies. And there is every reason to say that Hitler and the likes "corrupted" Nazism and moved it far away from its original goals.

In general, it is important to realize that there also was no one Nazism (even if for simplicities sake I made it more or less sound like there was), but rather it was a quit fractured movement as far as I know, with some being more focused on socialism and others more on nationalism/miltarism, and only under Hitler this did change.

Somewhat when I talk of nazism I identify it with Hitlers purges and perverted view of reality rather then politics of genuine national socialism in its various forms developing in many countries since the age of nationalism up till present. Similarly there is a huge gap between Stalinism and some more legitimate forms of actual communism.

Perhaps to be fair we should be then comparing Stalinism and Nazism. In which case we can see in both extremely brutal form of leadership and abuse of power.

 

[Flying Pig]

To avoid confusion, socialism along national lines should not be called 'national socialism' - that's universally reserved for the Nazi brand of fascism, which had very little in common with socialism.

 

[Tahuti]

To avoid confusion, socialism along national lines should not be called 'national socialism' - that's universally reserved for the Nazi brand of fascism, which had very little in common with socialism.

Early 20th century Social Democrats had elements in common with Nazism, such its support for Eugenics. Likewise, the New Left flirted with antisemitism, ostensibly motivated by Anti-Zionism, in the same Nazism was antisemitic ostensibly motivated by Anti-Communism and both portrayed antisemitism as a struggle of the common man against an elite. Militarism and Anti-Liberalism was a defining element of the Soviet Union as well. Where Nazism diverged with the aforementioned was its support of Völkisch ideology and the idea of racial inferiority.

Nazism was a form of Pre-Marxian Socialism remixed with elements to make it appealing in Weimar Germany. Its accurate to say Nazism had nothing to do with Marxism. However, it was pretty much a form of Socialism.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not at all. Hitler's economics were based on giving huge companies monopolies and letting them make hideous amounts of money by setting prices centrally. There's a good book called The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze, which I was recommended here on CFC, which goes into good detail on the mechanics of the Nazi economy. A lot of intelligent people at the time were in favour of eugenics, but fascism is inconceivable without it: its connection with socialists, by contrast, is purely coincidental, and it's nowhere near the 'point' of the ideology.

 

[Farm Boy]

Coincidental? Not sure. Evil men seeking out ideologies that can be tapped(or corrupted, if you prefer, not all ideologies are equally convenient) to justify their seeking and possessing of power seems more than coincidental.

 

[Flying Pig]

There weren't a lot of good non-eugenicists, though. Remember that to most people it was more about stopping people with disabilities from having children than it was about genocide, and that this was a time when serious scientists took racial theories seriously. I don't doubt that the future will look back on us and ask how we could have been so 'evil' to do some of the things we barely think about today.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sure. That's part and parcel. We do it multiple times every generation. We double back on ourselves too. So really, I just try and settle on being pissy with people who genuinely seem to enjoy the game of deciding who is worthy of life.

 

[Godwynn]

We Dutch don't have any use for the NATO any longer. At the very least we ought to consider dropping out from the Unified Command Structure.

The UK, France, Germany and Italy combined outspend any other country in the world with the exception of the USA. So why should Europeans spend more? To defend against a hypothetical Chinese-Russian alliance?

Do you still have these opinions?

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

hey, there's never a cop when you need one

 

[r16]

in before something happens to the thread , ı have a post in page 25 and more at 29/30 and some in later pages . Just 2 months afterwards my posting them or whatever supposedly a New Turkey F-16 shot down a Russian Su-24 . American F-15s immediately vacated Incirlik , Saudi F-15s in the same base either flew the wrong way or also abandoned us or whatever . That was to be a Turkish-Russian fight suitably grinding us/them/the two both down , easing the path to destruction . Because the Little Imperialist tried to steal the thunder of the PM , they had a two day media war on who had ordered the shoot down first . Until Russians started embargoes , against next year's tourism contracts and tomato sales . ı ended up seeing an actual Russian p_rn star in the street , 9000 euros a night in her prime , as if ı would do

A)Stuff with her
B)Assure calm
C)Destroy Russia from the Kola Bay to the Pasific .

so , it turned the heroic pilot who shot down the Su-24 was a Congregation traitor and he was sacked . Then it turned out he wasn't as it turned he was still flying F-16s a year after the Disgrace of July 15th and he was then sacked . Won't be surprised if it turns out if he is still flying F-16s , in case if it wasn't a Saudi F-15 that actually shot down the Su-24 . Yeah , NATO can go to hell , as soon as they ever ask me .