1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The European Project: the future of the EU.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Jan 14, 2019.

  1. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,982
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    No, but why would they extend Poland military favours, materiel and weapons, which is what you were suggesting that they should have done as a duty. You read what French, British and Russian diplomats, and Churchill himself, thought of Polish behaviour. The suggestion that Britain and France didn't respond to their invasion as quickly or forcefully is an indication of how much the Polish leadership pissed off those other leaders.
    I'm not trying to reinterpret history, but it seems you are in the face of those statements.
     
  2. Hrothbern

    Hrothbern Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Poland
    Is that not that country that was not there ?

    It was not on the map of nations when Stalin was born.
    That whole East Europe (except some more southern parts) was divided between Germany, KuK (Austria-Hungary empire) and the czarist Russian empire.

    I think that Stalin wanted to restore that old situation, as a modern Czar, being not unhappy when the Russian empire would end up even bigger.

    And on communism and stalinism.
    The communist experiment in Russia had imo already failed miserably before Stalin because of... let's say... systemic widespread "human weaknesses" of the people having functions from high to low in the communist party.
    Stalin, not a Russian at all, conquered the party machine. And again imo Stalin was a ruthless cynical monster absolutely not interested in the ideals of communism, but more his own version of an "enlightened despot".
    Read biographies on him if you doubt that and note his earlier life.

    Here the reason I post at all on this sub-discussion:
    an article in Politico on Poland with some links to other Politico articles gathered on Poland.
    The actual topic the coming Polish elections in the light of the geopolitical changed power balance in the EU with the UK leaving and Poland doing well in growing its economy:
    https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-puzzle-election-2019-law-and-justice-party-pis/
    https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-brexit-bff-germany/
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  3. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    55,036
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Whatever, if you want to use slurs and call me a "pathetic hypocrite", and assuming this kind of talk is now allowed as part of civil discussion, let me remind you that you are obviously a nazi sympathizer.
    Your country - assuming it can be called that - was invaded by nazis and stalinist russians in ww2 so this is why it did nothing? Fat chance, Yeekim. Greece was invaded by three countries in ww2: Italy (which got defeated) and then (as the army was in Albania) Germany and Bulgaria. Only someone like you would actually believe your country is worth presenting as equally resisting.
    After all, apart from the actual war efforts, there was a long and bloodied resistance here. It was what got those nazis to commit so many massacres of civilians, out of reprisals. Massacres for which your dear Germany still refuses to pay.
    I suppose it was the same in your land, though - let's end this on a funny note.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  4. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,007
    Location:
    Estonia
    I am not suggesting they "should have done that as a duty".
    Sending Poland material and weapons was just the most extreme of three options I put forward as a reply to question "how Poland could have been helped".
    And, mind you, all of them together would have been way less extreme than what the Soviets were, according to innonimatu, sincerely wanting to do - i.e directly allying and committing themselves to a military campaign against Nazis.
    Remind me - which of us was supporting the resolution condemning Nazi crimes and which of us called it "stupid"?
     
  5. Lemon Merchant

    Lemon Merchant Professional Killjoy Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    7,350
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Red Sector A
    Moderator Action: OK. You guys are drifting way off topic here. Please get back to the topic at hand and stop the personal attacks. Discuss the post, not the poster. Thank you.
     
  6. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,118
    The point, which you steadfastly refuse to see, is that Poland made it inoperable for the USSR to be in an alliance to contain Germany where Poland was also. How could the USSR give a security guarantee if the poles refused its army permission to enter Poland? They'd have to invade it to defend it? By that logic they might as well consider partitioning it with Germany and gain some security (strategic depth) from it without having to fight...
    Providing weapons and materiel by itself would be a declaration of war on Germany with little immediate impact, the poles fell not due to lack of materiel but due to lack of numbers and ability. Any home of successful resistance would require that the people trained to use those weapons and materiel would join in and in great numbers. Poland's adamant refusal to provide for that possibility made that path unrealistic and wasted any possible advantage of combined operations from an alliace.
    The problem, basically, was the suicidal attitude of the poles. Who had already blocked the attempts to help Czechoslovakia resist. And indeed threw themselves upon it like vultures. Ironically Stalin could be accused of the same to Poland just one year later. But not of having started World War II.

    If an experience that "failed miserably" can cause the world to be split into two opposite camps for over 50 years after it "failed miserably", and cause the rest of the world to organize itself around the idea of opposing it... I'l like to know what your measure of success is. Conquering the galaxy?

    Going back on topic to the EU, its success so far consists of financial crisis, widespread public disenchantment with politics, protests votes on the rise, and disbelief of whatever passes for "official news". It looks as successful as the early 1980s USSR. Precious few believe the system they live under, but do not yet imagine a way to change it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  7. Hrothbern

    Hrothbern Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    What has global miltary power to do with judging an ideology in how well it functioned domestically in reality compared to the ideals formulated ?

    The only global power communism had and has is the power of those ideals.
    And those ideals moved pre WW2 many people all over the world to want in their own country changes towards a better society.
    By now we know much more what really happened in Russia in the pre WW2 period. And that is not really to look forward to for people in most countries.
    I met many older people as young adult, now long dead, that truly believed the unicorns of the USSR... such a succesful propaganda.
    And the 60ies were full of wannabee believers.
    Faith has a big market potential.
    Grass on the other side of the river looks mostly greener... until you get there.
     
    Cheetah and Yeekim like this.
  8. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    55,036
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    I suggest the EU changes its name to DYS.

    Although currently it works as a euphemism.
     
  9. Broken_Erika

    Broken_Erika Nothing

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    7,543
    Location:
    Glasgnopolis, Grottland
    You don't like the Evil Unicorns?
     
  10. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,007
    Location:
    Estonia
    Sure, Poland did not trust the USSR. And it did not trust them for entirely good reasons, as every subsequent action of Stalin clearly demonstrated us.
    Your belief that Stalin ever held these negotiations in good faith is based on absolutely nothing.
    In your reply you also ignored the possibility to at least set up an economic blockade against Germany which would have been perfectly possible.

    What you have failed to see is that Soviet annexations of Poland and the Baltics were more than just a coup. They can not be viewed separately from arrests, murders, deportations and lootings that followed them, probably most famous of which is the Katyn massacre which the USSR characteristically tried to blame on Nazis. Do you really want to describe Katyn as a "defensive measure"?
    I could see the ultimatums Stalin gave the Baltic States and subsequent establishment of bases in those countries defended as "a defensive measure" - had the accompanying treaties been, in fact, honored.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Estonian_Mutual_Assistance_Treaty
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Latvian_Mutual_Assistance_Treaty
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Lithuanian_Mutual_Assistance_Treaty
     
  11. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,982
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Oh come on now. Stalin came to power in 1922 and the Russian Civil War had barely finished.
    Do you think that there was time to complete the transformation of Russia from its very impoverished state in such a short time and when so many outsiders (e.g. the USA, Britain, China, Japan etc) were fighting against the Bolsheviks?
    There are still feint echoes of the American Civil War that come into play politically today, so I think you're way off the mark with your analysis of Russia's state of development when Stalin became Gen. Sec.
     
  12. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,482
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    It failed miserably by its own standards because the stated goal of the revolution was to emancipate the working classes, yet the Bolsheviks were shooting the workers for daring to organize to advance their interests as early as the Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921.
     
    Kyriakos and Hrothbern like this.
  13. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    55,036
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Communism was never meant to happen in a country like Russia in the first place. Marx argued for it in highly centralized industrial countries like Britain.
     
  14. Hrothbern

    Hrothbern Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    1922...
    In 1917 Stalin became head editor of the Pravda.
    He was a hero of the Bosjevik rebellion since the first revolution of 1905. He got ruthless, or practiced his innate ruthlesness, during that early period.
    From 1917 until he got secretary general (not yet that allmighty position) he had already left a trail of violence, but now also directed towards internal opposition.
    And yet he was still accepted by (part of) the party.

    Ferocitus, I really resent strongmen... people that exploit our weaknesses, bully and use fear or worse.
     
  15. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,982
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    I'm not arguing in favour of what Stalin did, external to Russia or internally.
    I don't agree that the Russian revolution had time to succeed in any shape or form in the time between the end of the Civil War and 1922-1924. It was hampered by the interference from outside, and most definitely from internal divisions fueled by Stalin. He wasn't alone in that - he had henchmen, and supporters who did the work and would have been subject (IMO) to the same treatment if others had taken the leadership.

    You could use the same argument that the American Civil War failed to achieve its main aims too because black and coloured people were denied identical rights as whites until late in the 20th century, and they were subject to murderous violence during the intervening years.

    Of course there is an enormous difference in degree of the violence, but the fact is that revolutions and civil wars don't end with a handshake and an exchange of cupcakes.
    Nixon's War on Drugs is viewed by many as a direct attack on the civil rights movement. That has resulted in the death and incarceration of huge numbers of people for purely political reasons, decades after what is viewed as the success of the North in the civil war. So how long do we give the US until we can declare that the aims of the Civil War were fulfilled and that is now to be considered as a complete success?
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2019
  16. Hrothbern

    Hrothbern Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Turning around the Russian society to a more democratic-liberal-progressive society, getting rid of the old structures AND keep economy afloat was an enormous challenge.
    And there was no precedent to learn from as well.
    All kinds of things are gonna happen.
    I can understand a lot there.


    And no bullies without minions. And sometimes you can ask yourself who is worse.
    That's why I mentioned "systemic human weaknesses" in my post.
    The party machinery the system, the minions the careermakers. No checks and balances from principles, existing institutes, or rule of law.


    But if we do not look result orientated at it all, but process orientated:
    How can you get a better society if the means deployed topdown are so violent and inhuman... and in this case: are so in violation with the bottom-up democratic thoughts of the ideals of communism ?
    Where did freedom end up ?
    In the US civil war, in the US early culture, freedom never got in serious problems, despite the turmoil.

    New people moved in the old palaces... scarred from their battle to survive... in no-time disconnected from their human base and ideals.
    Modern ways to control the flock came into being replacing the traditional religious way with a divine emperor.
     
    Ferocitus likes this.
  17. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,982
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    And my point is that revolutions and civil wars are not completed when someone says "Time's Up" - count the dead and the living so we can declare a winner and The Best and Fairest Player.

    Stalin's maniacal reign doesn't mean the Russian revolution failed soon after it started. The murder of "workers" doesn't mean it's a failure from that moment on, just as the Civil War can't be deemed a complete failure if a group of good ole boys go on a murderous rampage in the Bible Belt.

    There are many reasons for the violence in Russia, and the Confederate States. Old resentments and grudges, bitterness towards those who opposed the emancipation of serfs or slaves decades earlier. Self-preservation, greed, and lust for power. Top-down power, or bottom-up power are equally susceptible to being corrupted Both are equally lauded by their proponents as better systems than the other one.

    Your statement that "freedom never got in serious problems, despite the turmoil" is naive - it ignores the plight of many people impoverished by rapacious capitalists and completely ignores how Native Americans were treated.

    And you better define what "freedom" means. It's not always the same to those who bandy the term around, or grant it, or are told to believe what it is. The same goes for rapacious violent communists - what "equality" means depends on which pigpen of the farm you get to sleep in and who cleans it for you. :)
     
  18. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,118
    Of course Stalin was not a nice guy, and was out for expanding the influence of the USSR. Of course the Katyn massacre is an example of Stalin's expansionist aims once the war had broken out and that pact signed. HE was out for getting back land that Poland had grabbed during the russian Civil war (notably also from one of the baltic states). But such a move would have been less likely if an alliance had been made against Germany in 1939. These states would not have been defeated in the first place, there would be fewer excuses for changing borders, though perhaps puppet governments might have been placed in some. France and the UK would also be part of the alliance and sitting in any peace talks, as well as the governments of those eastern countries. Ironically Lithuania might not have gotten its current capital city back. The USSR didn't start WW2, and the USSR didn't seem to be hatching any division of Europe on its own during the 1930s, instead it had sought an european-wide alliance against Germany since 1938, well in time to save Czechoslovakia also. Stalin's thing at the time was "communism on one country".
    It came to what it did because that alliance was refused and Germany had just kept invading and expansing: Austria, Czechoslovakia, finally Poland... the soviets had to do something. And an embargo on Germany would be an invitation to be attacked immediately. Which they, understandably, were not so keen on because they expected (and facts proved it) that then France and the UK would just sit still in the western border and let the Germans do their thing to the east.
     

Share This Page