BF2S Forums Things warm up in the luke warm cold war

Cybargs wrote:

Yeah he was not a power freak at all.

I'll skip commenting that, every single leader is a power freak ffs.

Cybargs wrote:

If you read ANY history, sure russia was in a shit state

Oh sure, thats why it probably was in top5 world's biggest economy & military states.

Cybargs wrote:

lost lots of troops during WW1

Everybody did, but by the time of revolution Russia infact had more success fighting germans than the rest of Antanta (exept for Royal Navy).

Cybargs wrote:

food is shite

Russian food is fine

Cybargs wrote:

Hell at least Lenin let in a bit of democracy with the Duma

Lenin eliminated Duma, ministers cabinet & ordered to kill emperor's family. Truly democratic approach.

Cybargs wrote:

but noooooooooo Stalin just had to kill everyone he didn't like.

Ever heared of "military communism"? And yeah, it's not Stalin who introduced it.

Cybargs wrote:

Even killed Trotsky in fucking Mexico. Yeah completely necessary.

Assassinating Trotsky was a necessary pre-war move. If you conduct pararrels with Trotsky & Lenin you would understand how dangerous it was to leave opposition leader alive during world war.

Last edited by Longbow (2010-02-26 09:15:44)

Hey Shahter, it's ok to admit that you've been fed a bunch of propaganda throughout your life about your own country. Hell, if you tried to learn about American history from a textbook they use in grade school it would be full of factually correct, as in they get the dates right, but they do their best to tell the story in a way to make America look good. It's the same reason they have kids recite the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem every morning before class, to instill nationalistic fervor.

Now, all that out of the way, you may view Stalin as a man who did good for your country and ignore the means he used to justify the end. The reality is you have no idea how your country would've turned out if the Bolsheviks had not won power. You could be ultra-capitalist and experiencing a higher standard of living than the US or you could be like an African nation, in constant civil war and entirely backwards. You don't know. The fact that your country is middling between the two outcomes I described should tell you enough that Stalin was, if anything, a failure because his legacy is what you are experiencing today in your country.

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hey Shahter, it's ok to admit that you've been fed a bunch of propaganda throughout your life about your own country. Hell, if you tried to learn about American history from a textbook they use in grade school it would be full of factually correct, as in they get the dates right, but they do their best to tell the story in a way to make America look good. It's the same reason they have kids recite the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem every morning before class, to instill nationalistic fervor.

Now, all that out of the way, you may view Stalin as a man who did good for your country and ignore the means he used to justify the end. The reality is you have no idea how your country would've turned out if the Bolsheviks had not won power. You could be ultra-capitalist and experiencing a higher standard of living than the US or you could be like an African nation, in constant civil war and entirely backwards. You don't know. The fact that your country is middling between the two outcomes I described should tell you enough that Stalin was, if anything, a failure because his legacy is what you are experiencing today in your country.

The textbook we have at school here praised Oliver North for using the 5th amendment.

It was the correct usage.

Longbow wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hey Shahter, it's ok to admit that you've been fed a bunch of propaganda throughout your life about your own country. Hell, if you tried to learn about American history from a textbook they use in grade school it would be full of factually correct, as in they get the dates right, but they do their best to tell the story in a way to make America look good. It's the same reason they have kids recite the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem every morning before class, to instill nationalistic fervor.

Now, all that out of the way, you may view Stalin as a man who did good for your country and ignore the means he used to justify the end. The reality is you have no idea how your country would've turned out if the Bolsheviks had not won power. You could be ultra-capitalist and experiencing a higher standard of living than the US or you could be like an African nation, in constant civil war and entirely backwards. You don't know. The fact that your country is middling between the two outcomes I described should tell you enough that Stalin was, if anything, a failure because his legacy is what you are experiencing today in your country.

Pretty damn right, exept for the part that Stalin did not commit revolution, it was Lenin. Stalin just accepted the power and had to run what was already done with ex-Russian Empire. You can't blame the man for revolution, he certainly took part in it but wasn't the mastermind.

And the whole I KILL YOU IF YOU DONT PRODUCE ME BOMBS FASTER. TRAITOR.

For me the sad thing about Russians and many ex-Soviet states is that the people are generally really cool but their bureaucracy and authorities are shite.

Longbow wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

He doesn't seem to understand that the Russian people don't NEED an authoritarian government in order to succeed. They went from one system, serfdom, where the people were entirely reliant on the government (or, more precisely, their local lords) to make all the decisions for them, to another system of serfdom that also kept individual thought and power in check. That's all a system like socialism/communism does, it makes the individual wholly dependent on someone else to make their decisions for them. Hell, they're taught to distrust their own decisions and chalk any display of self interest up to the evils of greed. It's sad really.

Then tell me why Russia had the most success in economy, military, science/innovation during reighn of authoritarian, somewhat tyranic leaders? Hint: Vladimir the Great (Kievan Rus, IX-X centuries), Ivan IV (XV century), Peter the Great, Katherine II, Stalin, Khrushchev & now (somewhat) Putin? Democratic leaders simply do not succeed in Russia, the seem weak compared to those above.

Slavery is a good economic system as well.

Cybargs wrote:

Longbow wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

He doesn't seem to understand that the Russian people don't NEED an authoritarian government in order to succeed. They went from one system, serfdom, where the people were entirely reliant on the government (or, more precisely, their local lords) to make all the decisions for them, to another system of serfdom that also kept individual thought and power in check. That's all a system like socialism/communism does, it makes the individual wholly dependent on someone else to make their decisions for them. Hell, they're taught to distrust their own decisions and chalk any display of self interest up to the evils of greed. It's sad really.

Then tell me why Russia had the most success in economy, military, science/innovation during reighn of authoritarian, somewhat tyranic leaders? Hint: Vladimir the Great (Kievan Rus, IX-X centuries), Ivan IV (XV century), Peter the Great, Katherine II, Stalin, Khrushchev & now (somewhat) Putin? Democratic leaders simply do not succeed in Russia, the seem weak compared to those above.

Slavery is a good economic system as well.

Well, that's essentially all they've known.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hey Shahter, it's ok to admit that you've been fed a bunch of propaganda throughout your life about your own country.

already did, and in this same thread. one has to be blind, deaf and completely dumb not to - like some of them yanks, for example, who still think they live in the "land of opportunity" and their state is there to keep them "free" and "brave", despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise.
acknowledging and identifying the undergoing information manipulation is but first step on the way to understanding what really happens in ones country. but what actually matters is what one does with his life in light of that understanding. you, for example, keep shouting "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

JohnG@lt wrote:

Now, all that out of the way, you may view Stalin as a man who did good for your country and ignore the means he used to justify the end. The reality is you have no idea how your country would've turned out if the Bolsheviks had not won power. You could be ultra-capitalist and experiencing a higher standard of living than the US or you could be like an African nation, in constant civil war and entirely backwards. You don't know. The fact that your country is middling between the two outcomes I described should tell you enough that Stalin was, if anything, a failure because his legacy is what you are experiencing today in your country.

see? you started by pointing out that i may have been affected by the propaganda about my country, and then promptly followed that with a nice paragraph of what you have been fed by yours. well done!

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Slavery is a good economic system as well.

Well, that's essentially all they've known.

we? are you allright, man? we - the russians - of all people on this planet have undergone just about the most socious and political experiments. it is you who have never really seen anything save that bloody californication.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-02-26 23:39:02)

ruisleipa wrote:

Shahter wrote:

arkhipelag gulag, tome 2.

yeah he says they tried to recruit

"tried to recruit", huh? so that's how they translated that passage. well, that's typical.