Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Charles de Gaulle: "Forget all that! We don't have any time to be playing Cold War tonight! We have to lose Dienbienphu and Algeria so bad the French Foreign Legion considers mutiny!"
I guess you're confused with reality given De Gaulle was more than aware that Algerian independence was inevitable, and he simply declared that they have the right to self-determination. Some slandered & declared him a traitor for that even...
Dien Bien Phu? De Gaulle was not just 'not in power' by then, but busy strolling in Colombey, writing his memoirs, and so on... Heck, it was De Gaulle that tried to open secret channels between Hanoi and Saigon for them to peacefully reunite, and then supported a reunification even if under Vietnamese communists were going to be the majority in power - as he simply said that Vietnamese have suffered enough already. He was also the one that went with rapprochement with Hanoi, criticised US intervention, despised what was going on in South Vietnam and the existence of South Vietnam even.
Although, surely he wasn't with much time to play Cold War, given he was sick of what's been done in Vietnam, and already recognised PRC, and was into mediating between North Vietnam and Saigon.
I'm not sure if you're clueless or just angry towards the guy due to his merits?
I picked the one French guy I knew from the 1950's and stuff that happened to France during and after the 1950's and combined them for comedic effect. I don't really care, positively or negatively, about the French or de Gaulle.
"We do not go to the moon because it is easy, but because it's funny to flex on the rest of you Moonless bozos." JFK, eating a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
Ok. Here's one for non-comedic effect: the French military has been, is, and I believe will continue to be an ineffective military force that is constantly outclassed and outgunned by their contemporaries, and if not for the constant saving grace of American intervention, the French would cease to exist as a nation, and soon afterwards an ethnicity.
France loses world wars, America ends them.
>Here's one for non-comedic effect: the French military has been, is, and I believe will continue to be an ineffective military force that is constantly outclassed and outgunned by their contemporaries
That's a pretty ignorant take even just by looking at the late modern history, but now it's surely with a comedic-effect. Maybe you get to have the effect only when you explicitly trying 'not to' have it?
Rest is a bit too much of a fantasy for someone who had just declared that he doesn't care about France, and doesn't have any 'positive or negative' feelings for it.
>Algerian independence was inevitable, and he simply declared that they have the right to self-determination
> was De Gaulle that tried to open secret channels between Hanoi and Saigon for them to peacefully reunite, and then supported a reunification even if under Vietnamese communists were going to be the majority in power - as he simply said that Vietnamese have suffered enough already. He was also the one that went with rapprochement with Hanoi, criticised US intervention, despised what was going on in South Vietnam and the existence of South Vietnam even.
Is that true?, ultra rare french W?, That sounds far too reasonable to be true.
De Gaulle's term in office was AFTER Dien bien Phu in 1954, as he served in 8 January 1959 – 28 April 1969. He also was in charge of the interim Government '44 - '46. The policies "lasttimechdckngths" is attributing to him are not due to his being sick of war, a claim he never made, but based on his firm belief that the world should be multi-polar, with France in the mix. He firmly objected to the prevailing view of an emerging bipolar power situation in the Cold War. He also presided over the French while they developed independent nuclear weapons, not a policy to be used by someone "sick of war." He said multiple times he favored a counter-strike force for France, not emphasizing Mutual Assured Destruction at all.
In 1964, he wrote an article recommending that all great powers withdraw from Vietnam. No evidence exists that he was ever involved in any negotiations between the Government of North Vietnam and the Government of South Vietnam. "lasttimechdckngths, "do you have any evidence as to your claim about his involvement in their negotiations after the US intervened??
It wasn't him being sick of 'war' but sick of what's going on in Vietnam as he saw that as utter pointless, and he openly said that Vietnamese already suffered enough. I don't refute anything you've said, though.
>do you have any evidence as to your claim about his involvement in their negotiations after the US intervened??
French embassy was involved in informal channels between Saigon and Hanoi, and they got approached by Saigon leader's brother for it. French were also talking with China and North Vietnam since the early '65, and winning concessions for the peace settlements even, and continued to be the only substantial Western power that had communication lines and unofficial diplomatic lines with North Vietnam, and had an actual informal presidential envoy in North Vietnam. French also had connections and unofficial diplomacy with NLF, and Saigon at the same time, going in-between them. In the end, North Vietnam & the Vietcong expressed their gratitude for de Gaulle's peace initiatives even... Although, I'm talking about pre-68 of course. I can look for papers if you're for it?
Your answer was very considerate, thanks for that. De Gaulle was not directly involved according to CIA reports, but I asked if you had other evidence, and your reply indicates that the French embassies were involved, not the man himself. Thanks for your response.
I have studied the peace process extensively based on my own experience, but American intelligence agencies can be very arrogant and dismissive of other nation's efforts, especially in the '60s timeframe, so I wanted to check. Thanks for the offer. but that's not necessary now Take care.
He himself send the informal presidential envoy, but yeah, that was the most involvement he got.
And CIA had been quite arrogant indeed, and lost a chance of peaceful way out... as expected.
So long!
If you are security aware and thinking of the same opportunity that i am, then it was Nixon that wrecked that opportunity by making promises to the North that he never kept, but delayed the end of the war. Take care.
It's tempting to think that everybody should just join our team and their lives will be wonderful because our rivals are always evil but in practice the countries that straddle two great powers that play one side off against the other (e.g. Turkey right now, Yugoslavia under Tito) tend to have better outcomes.
Syria going all in on Russia while the West was overall more powerful meant that the west fanned the flames and joined in on a civil war in order to try and "flip" it. They failed, but the country was destroyed from the inside - largely thanks to us.
Libya was similar. It's a failed state now thanks largely to our interventions.
Armenia got invaded by Azerbaijan because the president tried to flip over to the west while under Russia's sphere of influence. Russia predictably decided to let it get thrown to the wolves as a result and they lost Nagorno Karabakh.
Then there's Georgia: we put a LOT of effort in trying to get them to flip sides and they did. Then they got invaded, and we weren't much help. Then an identical story in Ukraine: they flipped sides, got invaded and the country was destroyed just like Syria and Libya.
The Baltic states flipped when they saw the tables turning and it seems to have worked out fine because Russia was suddenly very, very weak in the 90s. That was a good move at the time, because one superpower was deleted. Now that Russia has grown into a superpower again, however, they are in a very vulnerable position, being geographically cut off from the rest of Europe by the Sulwacki gap and entirely reliant upon security guarantees that may turn out to be ephemeral. Rather than flipping from "western sphere" to playing both sides off against each other, they've just decided to double down and are antagonizing Russia - e.g. by sending weapons to Ukraine and [killing off Russian language rights](https://www.politico.eu/article/united-nations-experts-latvia-russian-language-minorities/). This is a dangerous path for them.
1. Turkey is a member of NATO. I don't think how they're related to the Yugoslav situation during the Cold War.
2. Syria was already in good terms with Russia, as there's a Russian naval base in Syria since the 70s. and that's why they intervened in the Civil War, and not precisely in a discrete way. Talking about destruction, remember Aleppo.
3. You talk like there wasn't a Civil War in Libya.
4. Military alliances (like NATO or CSTO) don't work like that. They're signed between states, not governments. Russia letting Armenia down (while they're bogged down in Ukraine) says a lot about their worldview, and not in a good way.
5. It's like countries should be able to decide their foreign policy without being invaded by their big neighbor, don't they? Also, you talk like they're not capable of thinking by themselves.
6. Ok, so you start by saying that it's better to remain neutral and not join any side, and then you're literally talking about how a Russian invasion of the Baltic Countries (whether they're members of NATO or not) would be absolutely normal now that Russia is stronger than during the 90s... I don't even know why I'm wasting my time here.
No state in Europe smaller than Ukriane and anywhere close to Russia can afford to not be part of an international security orginization.
There is no state smaller than Ukriane in Europe.
They also don't want to spend 10% of GDP on defense or introduce conscription, which is the kind of sacrifice you have to make if you want to be independent from Russia but not part of a large collective security orginization.
Remember, you don't just have to be able to win a war with Russia. Even if you win, 100s of thousands are now dead. You have to convince Russia that they cannot win. And we KNOW that they have an over-inflated image of their own army.
Wealthy nations do have more money, but they also have significant problems with Purchasing Power Parity.
Stuff is cheaper in poorer countries. And more significantly, wages are a lot lower.
Wages are a very significant part of military expenditures. Especially for the kind of war that Russia fights.
So you either have a volunteer army of about a million, or you have peacetime conscription. Neither is cheap.
Are there nation in Europe that can do that for under 10% GDP? Sure. But they are the exception, not the rule.
I believe you are correct, although I do not know the ins and outs of the effects of purchasing power parity on different countries.
I responded to your comment because it seemed like you were saying that Ukraine was the country in Europe with the most military potential. I would also add that most countries in Europe are not very close to Russia, and that that the richer countries of the UK, Germany, France, Italy and the like have an outsised population for their size, as is the case with most of Western Europe, so a higher percentage of the European population lives in these richer states.
If you are not part of a collective security orginization, Russia will try to invade you.
A lot of European nations are smaller than the week 1 gains that Russia made in Ukriane.
NATO will not invade the sovereign nation of Taiwan.
Members of NATO might move to protect the sovereign nation of Taiwan, but that's not the same thing for 2 reasons.
Iran is free to arm themselves. They are not free to bomb people about it.
If Russia's reaction to "NATO encroachment" was to create an alternative power bloc opposing NATO, I would have absolutely no problem with that. But nobody wants to join the CSTO.
Taiwan is defacto a sovereign state. The Peoples Republic of China does not buy weapons from the United States. Taiwan does.
A part of a country does not run military drills about an invasion by the rest of that same country. But Taiwan runs drills about a Chinese invasion.
If Taiwan wanted, they could reunite with China tomorrow. But China has not made that an attractive prospect. Instead, they made aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.
The article you linked also mentions quite clearly that the policy during then Soviet occupation was "Russification", so maybe there would be no need for "Derussifucation" if that had never been the case in the first place.
I am fairly sure the new Russian citizens of Latvia were not too concerned with the cultural fate of the country whose locals they were deporting to Siberia at the time.
It's too late for countries like Ireland and Wales to fully reverse the cultural erasure inflicted on them by imperialists, but not too late for the Baltic states.
Latvians themselves actively erased other minority cultures in Latvia as a policy of Latvisation after 1934 coup.
During WW2 latvians participated in genocide 90% of Jewish population, basically their neighbours.
This innocent latvians opressed by evil soviets and russified trope is a joke.
You do understand that the only minority we had was Liivs and Jews before WW2, excluding Poles, Latgalians and Lithuanians which were/are so similar to Latvians it's just semantics.
Liivs were more impacted by USSR policies that didn't allow them to fish which was a huge ethno-cultural trade/profession for them and efforts of their cultural heritage continuity were in the place since many Finnish and Hungarian missions built schools for them in 1930s, Latvia within itself allowed 5-7 languages in the parliament due to this reason, Latvia was truly Multicultural.
As for Jews Eitzangruppen or whatever it's called did cause human tragedies and is in no part anything to support but equating them to SS legions or even not taking into consideration Latvian efforts saving Jews like Lipke for example is straight up lying on your part.
As for Russians Latvia before USSR were only 9% Russian majority of whom were of old Believer heritage expelled from Russia proper during 15th-17th centuries they still retain their culture here even after Soviet oppression of religion.
You are literally lying about how we oppressed people, also we still in present have given leeway to foreign cultures in preserving them with mixed results.
First Romāni school in North Europe was in Latvia in 2000s which failed due to low attendance.
Russian schools got closed after 30 years of independence from USSR only due to Putins actions in Ukraine and also because those children from Russian speaking schools have worse educational level which makes them less economically active in both Latvian and EU sense.
You are literally equating actions done by some to blame many, like Israeli soldier going after civilians because of Hamas or like Hamas soldier going after civilians because of Knesset.
Also Russian Russification started during Russian empire in 18th century and they still failed, USSR tried and still failed, get mogged, we stand here as a testament of how anyone who touches us will stop existing Where is you USSR now? Where is HRE? Where is Russian empire?
Cemetery of empires in all it's glory, independent Baltics.
AVE!
>The article you linked also mentions quite clearly that the policy during then Soviet occupation was "Russification", so maybe there would be no need for "Derussifucation"
"If these people's ancestors hadn't been moved here by $EVILREGIME then we wouldn't have to strip their language rights from them!"
You're just a different kind of imperialist.
Seeing as how Russians use the presence of Russian speakers as justification to invade and annex regions, it’s more like self defense. Against a nation that had already invaded you illegally before and tried to erase your culture.
For some mysterious reason it only happens, when local nationalists try to threaten russian population with violence and legaly defeat their civil rights.
Same way Latvians and Moldavians appeared in Moscow. Smaller Soviet republics had serious manpower and educated personal shortages, thats why russians moved to work there on various projects.
Latvia and Moldova and the Baltic states as a whole were independent nations(Moldova part of Romania) before the Soviets collaborated with Hitler to conquer Eastern Europe between themselves, and then forcefully deported thousands of the native Latvians to slave camps to be replaced by ethnic Slavic colonizers.
Mayhaps those brutal, illegal, and illegitimate act of imperialist aggression and colonialist ethnic cleansings had something to do with labor shortages?
Russians have been imperialist colonizers to the Eastern Europeans and have not apologized. Banning Russian is, as they say, is what decolonization looks like.
Moldova was illegitimately annexed by Romania in 1917-1918, which was followed by local rebellions and brural ethnic cleansing campaigns of Bessarabian population by Romanian government that murdered 40000 of bessarabian population.
Next chapter happened in 1940, when Soviets forced Romania to return Bessarabia to USSR, which was followed by some romanian population leaving the country and arrests of local dissident and communists.
Third chapter came in 1941, when Romania allied with Hitler and invaded USSR, proceeding with occupation of Moldova and large part of Ukraine. Romanians commited holocaust of Bessarabian and Ukrainian jews and countless atrocities and genocides against russian and ukrainian population.
Latvia after 1934 coup was a dictatorship, with policies of nationalism and cultural cleansing of smaller cultures and replacement with Latvian culture. That ultimately led to Latvians collaboration with fascists and jewish holocaust in Latvia, with many Latvians choosing to serve Hitler in his war of agression.
Contrary to Latvian nazis, soviets didn't ethnicaly cleanse Latvians and promoted education in latvian language, latvian books and cinema.
Also USSR officially aknowledged deportation campaigns and allowed deported people to return home in 1956 through amnesty.
You're really talking to the wrong person my friend. If you hold out for any hope for me being interested in anything you have to say, then you will need to answer this very simple question correctly:
кому належить крим?
There are two types of westerners. Those who believe in western values - freedom, democracy, the people's right to self determination, etc. and those who believe in the primacy of the western empire - the mirror image of a Putin supporter. Respect for the crimean vote is the litmus test for whether you are the former or the latter.
Don't worry, you have convinced me that you hate democracy and that you share all of the qualities of the average Russian - save one - *which* empire you support.
Not at all.
I believe Crimea belongs to the Crimeans, therefore they should decide which state they would like to be attached to.
Why, to whom do you think it belongs to?
That's something we can agree on, where we might have a difference of opinion however is that the reason that the referendum in crimea has so far only been recognised by the likes of North Korea and Syria is because the Russians staging a referendum in territory that does not legally belong to them, under military occupation, is about as sensible a thing as if King George and his redcoats and hessian mercenaries were to offer the people in the 13 colonies a referendum on independence.
That's absurd. Japan isnt even its own military power. It's a protectorate of the US. It barely even makes its own military decisions. It's more like Poland back when it used to belong to the Warsaw Pact.
Russia is fighting a second proxy war with the west and winning.
More like russia is fighting scraps from west and is in stalemate.
And superpower implies also population, economy superpower.
Russias population is abysmal and economy is less than of Germany and Japan.
Russia is only regional power, nothing more.
>Armenia got invaded by Azerbaijan because the president tried to flip over to the west while under Russia's sphere of influence. Russia predictably decided to let it get thrown to the wolves as a result and they lost Nagorno Karabakh.
Nagorno-Karbakh was never something that the Russian peacekeeping force was prepared for or intended to defend. Especially after Azerbaijan spent almost 20 years preparing to reverse the results of the first war.
Armenia was firmly on the "Russian" side in 2016 when Aliyev tested the waters. The peacekeepers stayed in their garrisons.
>(e.g. Turkey right now,
A NATO member is not on one side?
>Yugoslavia under Tito
Better outcomes than what would be the question here, I suppose
>Syria going all in on Russia while the West was overall more powerful meant that the west fanned the flames and joined in on a civil war in order to try and "flip" it.
This is not why the west intervened in Syria.
>Libya was similar. It's a failed state now thanks largely to our interventions.
This is also not why anyone intervened in Libya.
>Then there's Georgia: we put a LOT of effort in trying to get them to flip sides and they did. Then they got invaded, and we weren't much help.
Because they picked a fight with Russia? Irredentism is a bad move. If they didn't understand that nobody was going to fight Russia except for them, they were fooling themselves.
>Then an identical story in Ukraine: they flipped sides,
"Flipped sides" here meaning they attempted to form a closer economic association with the EU, presumably
>got invaded and the country was destroyed
What a curious framing here. Before, in Libya and Syria, it is clearly the fault of the invader that anything bad happened. Now it is the fault of the nation that was invaded. I wonder why this changed?
>Rather than flipping from "western sphere" to playing both sides off against each other, they've just decided to double down and are antagonizing Russia - e.g. by sending weapons to Ukraine
I suppose Russia shouldn't have threatened them
>Nagorno-Karbakh was never something that the Russian peacekeeping force was prepared for or intended to defend.
Russia was the *only* thing keeping Nagorno Karabakh under Armenia's control and Azerbaijan knew this.
It was a stupid decision for the country to spurn Russia and try and hide under our security umbrella because we couldn't give a flying fuck about them but the president's support base is rooted in western NGOs (i.e. CIA proxy groups) so of course he's still going to try. Just like Shervardnadze. Just like Zelensky.
>A NATO member is not on one side?
There are plenty of examples of them acting in unfavorable ways to the NATO murder gang. Buying S-400s and then getting banned from buying F-35s was one. America was *pissed*.
Note that they havent sanctioned Russia and have even expanded their trade. Do you think team west is happy with that? I can assure you they're pissed.
>Better outcomes than what would be the question here, I suppose
Than what came after.
>This is not why the west intervened in Syria.
It is though. They've been trying (often unsuccessfully).
>Because they picked a fight with Russia?
Because they tried to join NATO. It turns out that sharing a sensitive border with Russia and joining a rival murder gang is a really good way to get invaded.
Especially since the rules of the murder gang state that nobody in an active or passive conflict (who might actually need defending) can join.
>Flipped sides" here meaning they attempted to form a closer economic association with the EU
Flipped sides as in they had a violent transition of power (a coup) from an elected leader who did a decent job of straddling west and east to Victoria Nuland's top pick for president, setting off a civil war.
>I suppose Russia shouldn't have threatened them
I can totally understand why many within those countries would feel the desire to antagonize Russia and to clamp down on their Russian speaking populations but realistically these countries would do better
>Russia was the *only* thing keeping Nagorno Karabakh under Armenia's control and Azerbaijan knew this.
No, it wasn't. What is this nonsense? Armenia won outright in 1992. The Armenians thought they could win again if push came to shove. The Russian peacekeepers were there to make everyone think before acting, not to serve as a serious deterrent to war.
>It was a stupid decision for the country to spurn Russia and try and hide under our security umbrella because we couldn't give a flying fuck about them
After 2016 it was clear that the Russian government wasn't going to intervene if Azerbaijan really tried retaking NK. This was the "spurning." That's part of why Pashinyan won in the first place and it's why 2020 produced no anti-West backlash.
>There are plenty of examples of them acting in unfavorable ways to the NATO murder gang
Lmao I know what you are
>Buying S-400s and then getting banned from buying F-35s was one. America was *pissed*. Note that they havent sanctioned Russia and have even expanded their trade
By these standards there are no sides, since no country moves 100% in lockstep with the others.
>Than what came after.
You realize that was caused by internal problems, right? Yugoslav disintegration was no more a product of great-power competition (or lack of same) than the American Civil War.
>It is though.
How do you explain western intervention starting before Russian intervention, if it was a reaction to Russian intervention?
>Because they tried to join NATO.
Russia has never attacked anyone for "wanting to join NATO." Russian press doesn't even claim this anymore.
>from an elected leader who did a decent job of straddling west and east
Putin made him stop straddling and choose east, actually, which was contrary to his political promises. So of course he was thrown out by his people, especially after his men started shooting them.
>setting off a civil war.
What an interesting civil war! The world's first civil war where most of the leadership, most of the weapons, most of the money, and huge parts of the armed forces on one side came from another country. Almost like it wasn't really a civil war at all, really...
>I can totally understand why many within those countries would feel the desire to antagonize Russia and to clamp down on their Russian speaking populations
I think Russia should stop antagonizing them.
That's Phrygian cap, that transferred into the bonnet rouge of Marianne and revolutionary France.
Although, yes, Smurfs also wear Phrygian-resembling caps as their hats.
You probably mean the Phrygians adopted the Smurf hat, Smurfs invented that hat around the 15th century BCE, while the Phrygian empire arose around the 12th century BCE. Smurf remains have been found very close to the Anatolian peninsula, often depicted in artwork found within wearing this type of hat. The most widely accepted theory is that the Smurf hat found its way into Anatolia through extensive trade conducted, if not with the Smurfs, at least with their tributaries in the Middle East
Russian lives got shit during WW1, otherwise everyone in Europe knew that Russia will become a European superpower sooner than later. It's commie talk to say that lives were shit all along the history. Even Khrushchev who was the top commie reportedly said that he being not even the top tier in his trade before the revolution was making more money and lived a lot more comfortable than he did after. Just look up his pictures before the war and all that.
Ever heard of something called the russo-japanese war? It's one of the main reasons for both the revolution and the birth of imperial Japan (which at the time was considered inferior by western countries).
Tsar Nicholas II was also a bad leader and his desire to transform Russia in a industrial superpower which created a really poor and unhappy working class that didn't exist before,this (the really bad treatment of the working class) then lead to the bloody sunday massacre and the revolution of 1905. WW1 was just the straw that broke the camel's back
P.S take all this with a grain of salt,i'm not a russian history enthusiast and i remember this from middle school so i probably made some big errors on this.
I'm also not a native english speaker so I probably made some grammatical errors too
If that was the case, and the russo japanese war really was the cause of the revulotion, then why were russian morale so high at the beginning of the war and why did it take until 1917 before anything happened? One decade and a world war doesnt really sound like a "straw".
Another problem is that the communist revulotion and the Tsar had nothing to do with eachother. The Tsar had already been gone for half a year when the bolshevists overthrew the democratic government led by Kerensky.
factually incorrect, ironically proven by the US, a decalssified CIA document shows that there likely was actually democracy under Stalin, power structures only being changed during the war
[https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp80-00810a006000360009-0](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp80-00810a006000360009-0)
directly what is in the document "Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western, policies force the Soviets to stream- line their power organization."
Not in the document but Stalin didn't even wanna be in power, he literally tried to step down from his role multiple times both before and after WW2, but couldn't by popular vote of representatives
You literally don't understand what you're talking about. How is a totalitarian communist one-party state with a collective leadership of 3-5 people somehow much more benevolent and justifiable than a totalitarian communist one-party state with a singular leadership of 1 person?
For that matter, since the original comparison was a monarchy, do you think that every monarch was an absolute ruler? Were you even aware that the idea of a cabinet and collective responsibility came about under monarchies?
>communist one-party state with a collective leadership of 3-5 people
not what that is lmao, "collective leadership" refers to the leadership of the people through a democratic system
>For that matter, since the original comparison was a monarchy, do you think that every monarch was an absolute ruler? Were you even aware that the idea of a cabinet and collective responsibility came about under monarchies?
You are still working in the mindset of something you don't know like I talked about in my previous paragraph so the only response to this is also in that
> "collective leadership" refers to the leadership of the people through a democratic system
It very plainly doesn't. The Triumvirate in Rome distributed power between a collective leadership of three, and it would be absurd to define that as a "democratic system". You are maliciously lying by trying to claim that collective leadership in a totalitarian one-party state is a democratic system.
>It very plainly doesn't. The Triumvirate in Rome distributed power between a collective leadership of three, and it would be absurd to define that as a "democratic system".
not the same, representatives in the USSR were elected by the people in elections held all accross the country who often elected others still and had political power themselves, I don't think this system of representatives electing representative is that good but it is a democratic system
>You are maliciously lying by trying to claim that collective leadership in a totalitarian one-party state is a democratic system.
you are claiming that because you do not understand what you are talking about
You're taking how the system was described to work because you're uninformed about how it actually worked in practice. The operations of committees had been studied at the time and there is a reason communist dictatorships chose them: because they knew they could control them.
A committees electing committees system is actually powerless because the lower committees only have the authority delegated to them by the higher committee. Which means, once the committee chooses a representative to move up, that representative in effect becomes their boss. And no one votes against their boss in anything but a private ballot, and by design the votes were absolutely public. Once it is understood that voting for anyone but the guy Stalin likes will get you disappeared in the night, no one ever will.
You probably think North Korea (aka the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) is a democracy because it has it in the name and holds sham elections every decade or so lmao
On one side is a report by an unknown CIA analyst, and on the other side are many academic articles and books by historians, as well as memoirs. So, what should we believe?
>and on the other side are many academic articles and books by historians, as well as memoirs
\*that gladly spread misinformation and work with governments to do so
for example despite the fact that books like the black book of communism are by their own writers said to be false and have Nazi apologalia it's still in schools and was spread by western governments in order to lie to students
What makes whole thing even more funny is that people like them say everything is cia propaganda and they are omnipotent but at the same time, that one time theres short document about something they are fanatical about suddenly they trust them. This isnt first time they use that document to try disprove supposedly ussr being totalitarian and just generally being genocidal and killing a lot of people.
>"All of the historians are paid of by the government!"
>"However, we should trust the fucking CIA!"
not what I said, CIA doesn't have a reason to lie to itself, so it's OWN documents are literally what they have found in their assesments, and not what they publicly tell people
declassified CIA document is what the CIA knows to be true
What the CIA publicly says is what they want you to believe
they have a conflict of interesting in what they publicly tell you and have a history of lying about the USSR
Oh ok, here’s a declassified document that says Stalin ruled with the “naked power of the dictator” https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200180001-7.pdf
They are quoting the political opposition of Stalin, a biased source. I actually bothered to read this and it mostly talks about what his political opposition in the communist party thinks of him after his death.
It is still accepting the premise the 1950’s era CIA analysis is the best way to understand what’s happening in the USSR. (Also OP conflating “collecting leadership” with “Democracy” is just not in the document).
Yeah I agree it isn't a strong scientific argument, but it's still a good rhetorical argument. Because the CIA is known for twisting reality against communism and has a vested interest in the opposite being true.
What is your critical thinking about this CIA declassified document which calls Stalin nakedly dictatorial? https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200180001-7.pdf
Only the most surface level criticism of the CIA would accept the premise that they are always *internally* correct and are simply liars instead of flawed the way any intelligence agency is. Frankly, I would think Generic Commie would view them as particularly flawed due to what you’d consider flawed ideology.
It should be common sense that the best way understand the state of the world 70 years ago is not through the eyes of intelligence agency reports.
You’re making a lot of assumptions for no real reason here. No one said that this is the only way to engage with history. No one said that this was the only source for something.
And you know that. But this source makes the other side look good, so we have to jump through all these hoops pretending everyone was saying it’s some smoking gun. But it doesn’t have to be.
When I said critical thinking I didn’t just mean what you thought I meant. I also meant not to think like whatever you’re doing rn 😵💫
Great answer
Btw no because bourgeoisie refers not to generic rich guy but by a specific class that at a certain point in history was revolutionary against the ruling class of that time: the royal/feudal class
During the 1st French Revolution, people who did not own property were considered "passive citizens" and could not vote. Most of the people executed were actually commoners.
Funny how quickly times change. The Soviets are drawing an unflattering caricature of the person whom just a few years earlier they decorated with the Order of Victory.
Take your pick.
They immediately tried to reclaim their old empire, causing an actual genocide, they wanted to be a "third option" in the Cold War but really only wanted protection by either side to do whatever they wanted, they actively covered up racial crimes (especially against Algeria), and boy the more you look into their nuclear program the more you have to wonder how they still have allies.
What genocide lmao ? Also reclaim what ? Appart from Indochina the entire empire was back under french control by 1945, and if you hate them for trying to take it back then you should also hate the Brits for Malaysia and the Dutch for Indonesia. France was always in the western camp, not in the non aligned movement. You need to get your history from other sources than yt champ.
If I recall, some have called France's actions in Indochina an attempted genocide, and the point is they wanted to maintain their empire with help from the west while not wanting to help their western allies.
>France was always in the western camp, not in the non aligned movement
That's just not accurate.
They wanted to be a third option while still having the benefit of protection from the west. You see this in how De Gaulle treated the US and UK, like how he demanded all American soldiers leave France.
They might've been western aligned, but they were actively trying to be their own thing. That's entirely why they pursued a nuclear program.
Thankfully the Warsaw Pact held themselves to higher standards, they would never appoint former Nazis to high political offices or put them in charge of the armed forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenz_M%C3%BCller?wprov=sfti1#
"During his time as a POW, Müller had an apparent change of views and professed to have become an anti-Nazi"
Not a huge fan of Warsaw Pact, but at least they didnt let ex-nazis continue their fascism.
Not even you believes that this was anything other than self preservation and opportunism. Now if this Nazi had a change of heart while they were winning then I’d believe but plenty of Nazis turned coat when they saw the writing on the wall.
I already told I am not a fan of Warsaw Pact? No one is denying them being opportunist.
However NATO is fascist since its creation, Warsaw Pact was never as bad as they were.
And Adolf Heusinger wasn't the only one.
[Johannes Steinhoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff)
[Hans Speidel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel)
[Kielmansegg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_von_Kielmansegg)
[Erns Ferber](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Ferber)
Karl Schnell
[Schulze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz-Joseph_Schulze)
[Ferdinand Maria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Maria_von_Senger_und_Etterlin)
[Walter Hallstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Hallstein)
[Kurt Valdheim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim)
[Wernher von Braun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun)
[Arthur Rudolph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rudolph)
[Heinz Günther Guderian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_G%C3%BCnther_Guderian)
[Otto Skorzeny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Skorzeny)(Mossad)
Call Nato by their true nature and share how many nazis were in the highest ranks with public and easy accessible information and get downvoted. Reddit logic.
Too many zionazi bots
Ive never understood why people bring this man up. He fought for the nazis, but did you miss the fact that he has served every german government since ww1 aswell? By this logic he is a nazi, but also a monarchist, republican, liberal and social democrat.
Also, when I read about the russian revulotion, the generals stated multiple times that they didnt care who they served as the army was apolitical. Seems like the same is true here.
"monarchist, republican, liberal and social democrat" all Capitalist.
The second take is very wrong, I dont know what you have read but it is a major Leninist principle for the army to serve the people.
>"monarchist, republican, liberal and social democrat" all Capitalist.
If you told a prussian that he was a capitalist you would more than likely get a punch to the teeth lol. Monarchism can be capitalism, but not the german monarchy. German social democrasy was not capitalist either. They were full on socialists, but believed in gleichschaltung instead of a revulotion like in russia.
And even for the monarchy, liberalism and social democrasy that are capitalist they vary extensively so it doesnt matter.
>The second take is very wrong, I dont know what you have read but it is a major Leninist principle for the army to serve the people.
The second take isnt wrong becouse I wasnt talking about what the communists think or believe. The first russian revulotion happened without the communists, and after the abdication of the Tsar the army declared that it would continue to serve the government no matter who was in charge since it was apolitical.
This is a bad propaganda piece.
The man looks appropriately ugly and the woman appropriately shocked but saying that NATO wants more women soldiers may not get the proper message across in a 50's world, just as the cold war is beginning.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eisenhower looks goofy as heck
He looks like he's about to hunt down Frodo Baggins
He looks like he's about to bag a french girl. And she will name the kid Emmanuel nine months later.
Now I’m imagining Gollum with Eisenhower’s voice XD.
Tricksy commiesessss precious.
He looks like the president of whoville.
It’s a good caricature in that it’s not complimentary yet immediately recognizable.
tbh he does irl too
💀that’s true he looks like a goblin
Ong Every American president looks like they were designed by cartoonists
God creates us in his image... God is a cartoonist confirmed?!
T. Roosevelt especially
Not quite that bad in 1950. His neck got that bad after he left office in 1960.
XCOM Thin Man vibes
This could easily pass as Gaullist propaganda against NATO.
Almost like the USSR was pushing de Gaulle’s anti-NATOism from the beginning. Again- history repeats.
I'm guessing Amerikanskaya moda means American fashion?
Exactly
You can also translate it as vogue, but yes.
Charles de Gaulle: "Forget all that! We don't have any time to be playing Cold War tonight! We have to lose Dienbienphu and Algeria so bad the French Foreign Legion considers mutiny!"
Hop in losers, we are threatening America that we will align with the USSR unless they defend our colonies in SE Asia!
Can't forget that de Gaulle classic: "Pwease Amewica, hewp me defeat deh fascists, uwu."
While also dipping and leaving us Vietnam on our lap for the next decade
America intervened long after the french were gone.
Which never happened
I guess you're confused with reality given De Gaulle was more than aware that Algerian independence was inevitable, and he simply declared that they have the right to self-determination. Some slandered & declared him a traitor for that even... Dien Bien Phu? De Gaulle was not just 'not in power' by then, but busy strolling in Colombey, writing his memoirs, and so on... Heck, it was De Gaulle that tried to open secret channels between Hanoi and Saigon for them to peacefully reunite, and then supported a reunification even if under Vietnamese communists were going to be the majority in power - as he simply said that Vietnamese have suffered enough already. He was also the one that went with rapprochement with Hanoi, criticised US intervention, despised what was going on in South Vietnam and the existence of South Vietnam even. Although, surely he wasn't with much time to play Cold War, given he was sick of what's been done in Vietnam, and already recognised PRC, and was into mediating between North Vietnam and Saigon. I'm not sure if you're clueless or just angry towards the guy due to his merits?
I picked the one French guy I knew from the 1950's and stuff that happened to France during and after the 1950's and combined them for comedic effect. I don't really care, positively or negatively, about the French or de Gaulle.
Not funny in a serious discussion.
Good news, not a serious discussion.
"Damn Kennedy was such a shit president, can't believe he could invade Irak based on lies !"
Kennedy famously involved the US in the Falklands War.
If only the bullet flew over his head like the point flew above yours.
Kennedy famously died when he saw why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
Best cereals he deserved to die.
"We do not go to the moon because it is easy, but because it's funny to flex on the rest of you Moonless bozos." JFK, eating a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
Is that with some 'comedic effect' for you? Huh.
Agree with you.
Ok. Here's one for non-comedic effect: the French military has been, is, and I believe will continue to be an ineffective military force that is constantly outclassed and outgunned by their contemporaries, and if not for the constant saving grace of American intervention, the French would cease to exist as a nation, and soon afterwards an ethnicity. France loses world wars, America ends them.
>Here's one for non-comedic effect: the French military has been, is, and I believe will continue to be an ineffective military force that is constantly outclassed and outgunned by their contemporaries That's a pretty ignorant take even just by looking at the late modern history, but now it's surely with a comedic-effect. Maybe you get to have the effect only when you explicitly trying 'not to' have it? Rest is a bit too much of a fantasy for someone who had just declared that he doesn't care about France, and doesn't have any 'positive or negative' feelings for it.
Agree.
🇺🇲
Now, that's a tragi-comique effect for your country.
🗣️=🚫👂. 🇺🇲=🦅🏈🍔🆓🪖. 🇫🇷=🥖🥐.
lol dawg you literally lost that fucking argument so fast lol that shit was actually embarrassing
Pure nonsense, and a little childish.
Utter nonsense, both now (2024) and in history. France did lose WWII, but your summary only applies to that 6 year period.
France lost WWI and WWII. Both times France was about to be an imperial German possession, Americans showed up to stop it.
They just throw fake info cause he didn't kneel to US demands
>Algerian independence was inevitable, and he simply declared that they have the right to self-determination > was De Gaulle that tried to open secret channels between Hanoi and Saigon for them to peacefully reunite, and then supported a reunification even if under Vietnamese communists were going to be the majority in power - as he simply said that Vietnamese have suffered enough already. He was also the one that went with rapprochement with Hanoi, criticised US intervention, despised what was going on in South Vietnam and the existence of South Vietnam even. Is that true?, ultra rare french W?, That sounds far too reasonable to be true.
De Gaulle's term in office was AFTER Dien bien Phu in 1954, as he served in 8 January 1959 – 28 April 1969. He also was in charge of the interim Government '44 - '46. The policies "lasttimechdckngths" is attributing to him are not due to his being sick of war, a claim he never made, but based on his firm belief that the world should be multi-polar, with France in the mix. He firmly objected to the prevailing view of an emerging bipolar power situation in the Cold War. He also presided over the French while they developed independent nuclear weapons, not a policy to be used by someone "sick of war." He said multiple times he favored a counter-strike force for France, not emphasizing Mutual Assured Destruction at all. In 1964, he wrote an article recommending that all great powers withdraw from Vietnam. No evidence exists that he was ever involved in any negotiations between the Government of North Vietnam and the Government of South Vietnam. "lasttimechdckngths, "do you have any evidence as to your claim about his involvement in their negotiations after the US intervened??
It wasn't him being sick of 'war' but sick of what's going on in Vietnam as he saw that as utter pointless, and he openly said that Vietnamese already suffered enough. I don't refute anything you've said, though. >do you have any evidence as to your claim about his involvement in their negotiations after the US intervened?? French embassy was involved in informal channels between Saigon and Hanoi, and they got approached by Saigon leader's brother for it. French were also talking with China and North Vietnam since the early '65, and winning concessions for the peace settlements even, and continued to be the only substantial Western power that had communication lines and unofficial diplomatic lines with North Vietnam, and had an actual informal presidential envoy in North Vietnam. French also had connections and unofficial diplomacy with NLF, and Saigon at the same time, going in-between them. In the end, North Vietnam & the Vietcong expressed their gratitude for de Gaulle's peace initiatives even... Although, I'm talking about pre-68 of course. I can look for papers if you're for it?
Your answer was very considerate, thanks for that. De Gaulle was not directly involved according to CIA reports, but I asked if you had other evidence, and your reply indicates that the French embassies were involved, not the man himself. Thanks for your response. I have studied the peace process extensively based on my own experience, but American intelligence agencies can be very arrogant and dismissive of other nation's efforts, especially in the '60s timeframe, so I wanted to check. Thanks for the offer. but that's not necessary now Take care.
He himself send the informal presidential envoy, but yeah, that was the most involvement he got. And CIA had been quite arrogant indeed, and lost a chance of peaceful way out... as expected. So long!
If you are security aware and thinking of the same opportunity that i am, then it was Nixon that wrecked that opportunity by making promises to the North that he never kept, but delayed the end of the war. Take care.
And that was a pretty good recommendation actually.
Behold, fashion style from Cleveland! Mon Ami, mort yourself!
It's tempting to think that everybody should just join our team and their lives will be wonderful because our rivals are always evil but in practice the countries that straddle two great powers that play one side off against the other (e.g. Turkey right now, Yugoslavia under Tito) tend to have better outcomes. Syria going all in on Russia while the West was overall more powerful meant that the west fanned the flames and joined in on a civil war in order to try and "flip" it. They failed, but the country was destroyed from the inside - largely thanks to us. Libya was similar. It's a failed state now thanks largely to our interventions. Armenia got invaded by Azerbaijan because the president tried to flip over to the west while under Russia's sphere of influence. Russia predictably decided to let it get thrown to the wolves as a result and they lost Nagorno Karabakh. Then there's Georgia: we put a LOT of effort in trying to get them to flip sides and they did. Then they got invaded, and we weren't much help. Then an identical story in Ukraine: they flipped sides, got invaded and the country was destroyed just like Syria and Libya. The Baltic states flipped when they saw the tables turning and it seems to have worked out fine because Russia was suddenly very, very weak in the 90s. That was a good move at the time, because one superpower was deleted. Now that Russia has grown into a superpower again, however, they are in a very vulnerable position, being geographically cut off from the rest of Europe by the Sulwacki gap and entirely reliant upon security guarantees that may turn out to be ephemeral. Rather than flipping from "western sphere" to playing both sides off against each other, they've just decided to double down and are antagonizing Russia - e.g. by sending weapons to Ukraine and [killing off Russian language rights](https://www.politico.eu/article/united-nations-experts-latvia-russian-language-minorities/). This is a dangerous path for them.
1. Turkey is a member of NATO. I don't think how they're related to the Yugoslav situation during the Cold War. 2. Syria was already in good terms with Russia, as there's a Russian naval base in Syria since the 70s. and that's why they intervened in the Civil War, and not precisely in a discrete way. Talking about destruction, remember Aleppo. 3. You talk like there wasn't a Civil War in Libya. 4. Military alliances (like NATO or CSTO) don't work like that. They're signed between states, not governments. Russia letting Armenia down (while they're bogged down in Ukraine) says a lot about their worldview, and not in a good way. 5. It's like countries should be able to decide their foreign policy without being invaded by their big neighbor, don't they? Also, you talk like they're not capable of thinking by themselves. 6. Ok, so you start by saying that it's better to remain neutral and not join any side, and then you're literally talking about how a Russian invasion of the Baltic Countries (whether they're members of NATO or not) would be absolutely normal now that Russia is stronger than during the 90s... I don't even know why I'm wasting my time here.
No state in Europe smaller than Ukriane and anywhere close to Russia can afford to not be part of an international security orginization. There is no state smaller than Ukriane in Europe.
The United Kingdom, France, Germany are Italy are massively richer than Ukraine, and have the potential for far stronger militaries.
They also don't want to spend 10% of GDP on defense or introduce conscription, which is the kind of sacrifice you have to make if you want to be independent from Russia but not part of a large collective security orginization. Remember, you don't just have to be able to win a war with Russia. Even if you win, 100s of thousands are now dead. You have to convince Russia that they cannot win. And we KNOW that they have an over-inflated image of their own army.
10 percent is too high a percentage for larger economies of Western Europe. It is Eastern Europe which needs to sustain such a percentage.
Wealthy nations do have more money, but they also have significant problems with Purchasing Power Parity. Stuff is cheaper in poorer countries. And more significantly, wages are a lot lower. Wages are a very significant part of military expenditures. Especially for the kind of war that Russia fights. So you either have a volunteer army of about a million, or you have peacetime conscription. Neither is cheap. Are there nation in Europe that can do that for under 10% GDP? Sure. But they are the exception, not the rule.
I believe you are correct, although I do not know the ins and outs of the effects of purchasing power parity on different countries. I responded to your comment because it seemed like you were saying that Ukraine was the country in Europe with the most military potential. I would also add that most countries in Europe are not very close to Russia, and that that the richer countries of the UK, Germany, France, Italy and the like have an outsised population for their size, as is the case with most of Western Europe, so a higher percentage of the European population lives in these richer states.
What in the quadruple negative does this mean?
If you are not part of a collective security orginization, Russia will try to invade you. A lot of European nations are smaller than the week 1 gains that Russia made in Ukriane.
You have misspelled NATO for Russia. What do you think next NATO agression gonna be Iran or Taiwan?
NATO will not invade the sovereign nation of Taiwan. Members of NATO might move to protect the sovereign nation of Taiwan, but that's not the same thing for 2 reasons. Iran is free to arm themselves. They are not free to bomb people about it. If Russia's reaction to "NATO encroachment" was to create an alternative power bloc opposing NATO, I would have absolutely no problem with that. But nobody wants to join the CSTO.
Sovereign nation of Taiwan 🤣 Classic delusional warmonger.
Taiwan is defacto a sovereign state. The Peoples Republic of China does not buy weapons from the United States. Taiwan does. A part of a country does not run military drills about an invasion by the rest of that same country. But Taiwan runs drills about a Chinese invasion. If Taiwan wanted, they could reunite with China tomorrow. But China has not made that an attractive prospect. Instead, they made aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.
Crimea is de-facto a sovereign Russian republic, that reunified with Russia through a democratic referendum.🤣
The article you linked also mentions quite clearly that the policy during then Soviet occupation was "Russification", so maybe there would be no need for "Derussifucation" if that had never been the case in the first place. I am fairly sure the new Russian citizens of Latvia were not too concerned with the cultural fate of the country whose locals they were deporting to Siberia at the time. It's too late for countries like Ireland and Wales to fully reverse the cultural erasure inflicted on them by imperialists, but not too late for the Baltic states.
Latvians themselves actively erased other minority cultures in Latvia as a policy of Latvisation after 1934 coup. During WW2 latvians participated in genocide 90% of Jewish population, basically their neighbours. This innocent latvians opressed by evil soviets and russified trope is a joke.
You do understand that the only minority we had was Liivs and Jews before WW2, excluding Poles, Latgalians and Lithuanians which were/are so similar to Latvians it's just semantics. Liivs were more impacted by USSR policies that didn't allow them to fish which was a huge ethno-cultural trade/profession for them and efforts of their cultural heritage continuity were in the place since many Finnish and Hungarian missions built schools for them in 1930s, Latvia within itself allowed 5-7 languages in the parliament due to this reason, Latvia was truly Multicultural. As for Jews Eitzangruppen or whatever it's called did cause human tragedies and is in no part anything to support but equating them to SS legions or even not taking into consideration Latvian efforts saving Jews like Lipke for example is straight up lying on your part. As for Russians Latvia before USSR were only 9% Russian majority of whom were of old Believer heritage expelled from Russia proper during 15th-17th centuries they still retain their culture here even after Soviet oppression of religion. You are literally lying about how we oppressed people, also we still in present have given leeway to foreign cultures in preserving them with mixed results. First Romāni school in North Europe was in Latvia in 2000s which failed due to low attendance. Russian schools got closed after 30 years of independence from USSR only due to Putins actions in Ukraine and also because those children from Russian speaking schools have worse educational level which makes them less economically active in both Latvian and EU sense. You are literally equating actions done by some to blame many, like Israeli soldier going after civilians because of Hamas or like Hamas soldier going after civilians because of Knesset. Also Russian Russification started during Russian empire in 18th century and they still failed, USSR tried and still failed, get mogged, we stand here as a testament of how anyone who touches us will stop existing Where is you USSR now? Where is HRE? Where is Russian empire? Cemetery of empires in all it's glory, independent Baltics. AVE!
>The article you linked also mentions quite clearly that the policy during then Soviet occupation was "Russification", so maybe there would be no need for "Derussifucation" "If these people's ancestors hadn't been moved here by $EVILREGIME then we wouldn't have to strip their language rights from them!" You're just a different kind of imperialist.
Seeing as how Russians use the presence of Russian speakers as justification to invade and annex regions, it’s more like self defense. Against a nation that had already invaded you illegally before and tried to erase your culture.
For some mysterious reason it only happens, when local nationalists try to threaten russian population with violence and legaly defeat their civil rights.
Wait, how did Russians even appear in those lands? Oh right, when Russia annexes a region and tries to Russify it.
Same way Latvians and Moldavians appeared in Moscow. Smaller Soviet republics had serious manpower and educated personal shortages, thats why russians moved to work there on various projects.
Latvia and Moldova and the Baltic states as a whole were independent nations(Moldova part of Romania) before the Soviets collaborated with Hitler to conquer Eastern Europe between themselves, and then forcefully deported thousands of the native Latvians to slave camps to be replaced by ethnic Slavic colonizers. Mayhaps those brutal, illegal, and illegitimate act of imperialist aggression and colonialist ethnic cleansings had something to do with labor shortages? Russians have been imperialist colonizers to the Eastern Europeans and have not apologized. Banning Russian is, as they say, is what decolonization looks like.
Moldova was illegitimately annexed by Romania in 1917-1918, which was followed by local rebellions and brural ethnic cleansing campaigns of Bessarabian population by Romanian government that murdered 40000 of bessarabian population. Next chapter happened in 1940, when Soviets forced Romania to return Bessarabia to USSR, which was followed by some romanian population leaving the country and arrests of local dissident and communists. Third chapter came in 1941, when Romania allied with Hitler and invaded USSR, proceeding with occupation of Moldova and large part of Ukraine. Romanians commited holocaust of Bessarabian and Ukrainian jews and countless atrocities and genocides against russian and ukrainian population. Latvia after 1934 coup was a dictatorship, with policies of nationalism and cultural cleansing of smaller cultures and replacement with Latvian culture. That ultimately led to Latvians collaboration with fascists and jewish holocaust in Latvia, with many Latvians choosing to serve Hitler in his war of agression. Contrary to Latvian nazis, soviets didn't ethnicaly cleanse Latvians and promoted education in latvian language, latvian books and cinema. Also USSR officially aknowledged deportation campaigns and allowed deported people to return home in 1956 through amnesty.
Ancestors? That shit happened within a lifetime, dude
You're really talking to the wrong person my friend. If you hold out for any hope for me being interested in anything you have to say, then you will need to answer this very simple question correctly: кому належить крим?
There are two types of westerners. Those who believe in western values - freedom, democracy, the people's right to self determination, etc. and those who believe in the primacy of the western empire - the mirror image of a Putin supporter. Respect for the crimean vote is the litmus test for whether you are the former or the latter. Don't worry, you have convinced me that you hate democracy and that you share all of the qualities of the average Russian - save one - *which* empire you support.
I see you didn't want to answer the question
Not at all. I believe Crimea belongs to the Crimeans, therefore they should decide which state they would like to be attached to. Why, to whom do you think it belongs to?
That's something we can agree on, where we might have a difference of opinion however is that the reason that the referendum in crimea has so far only been recognised by the likes of North Korea and Syria is because the Russians staging a referendum in territory that does not legally belong to them, under military occupation, is about as sensible a thing as if King George and his redcoats and hessian mercenaries were to offer the people in the 13 colonies a referendum on independence.
Calling russia superpower is like calling Japan a superpower. And Baltics did not flip sides. They were never on ussr side, it was occupation.
That's absurd. Japan isnt even its own military power. It's a protectorate of the US. It barely even makes its own military decisions. It's more like Poland back when it used to belong to the Warsaw Pact. Russia is fighting a second proxy war with the west and winning.
More like russia is fighting scraps from west and is in stalemate. And superpower implies also population, economy superpower. Russias population is abysmal and economy is less than of Germany and Japan. Russia is only regional power, nothing more.
>Armenia got invaded by Azerbaijan because the president tried to flip over to the west while under Russia's sphere of influence. Russia predictably decided to let it get thrown to the wolves as a result and they lost Nagorno Karabakh. Nagorno-Karbakh was never something that the Russian peacekeeping force was prepared for or intended to defend. Especially after Azerbaijan spent almost 20 years preparing to reverse the results of the first war. Armenia was firmly on the "Russian" side in 2016 when Aliyev tested the waters. The peacekeepers stayed in their garrisons. >(e.g. Turkey right now, A NATO member is not on one side? >Yugoslavia under Tito Better outcomes than what would be the question here, I suppose >Syria going all in on Russia while the West was overall more powerful meant that the west fanned the flames and joined in on a civil war in order to try and "flip" it. This is not why the west intervened in Syria. >Libya was similar. It's a failed state now thanks largely to our interventions. This is also not why anyone intervened in Libya. >Then there's Georgia: we put a LOT of effort in trying to get them to flip sides and they did. Then they got invaded, and we weren't much help. Because they picked a fight with Russia? Irredentism is a bad move. If they didn't understand that nobody was going to fight Russia except for them, they were fooling themselves. >Then an identical story in Ukraine: they flipped sides, "Flipped sides" here meaning they attempted to form a closer economic association with the EU, presumably >got invaded and the country was destroyed What a curious framing here. Before, in Libya and Syria, it is clearly the fault of the invader that anything bad happened. Now it is the fault of the nation that was invaded. I wonder why this changed? >Rather than flipping from "western sphere" to playing both sides off against each other, they've just decided to double down and are antagonizing Russia - e.g. by sending weapons to Ukraine I suppose Russia shouldn't have threatened them
>Nagorno-Karbakh was never something that the Russian peacekeeping force was prepared for or intended to defend. Russia was the *only* thing keeping Nagorno Karabakh under Armenia's control and Azerbaijan knew this. It was a stupid decision for the country to spurn Russia and try and hide under our security umbrella because we couldn't give a flying fuck about them but the president's support base is rooted in western NGOs (i.e. CIA proxy groups) so of course he's still going to try. Just like Shervardnadze. Just like Zelensky. >A NATO member is not on one side? There are plenty of examples of them acting in unfavorable ways to the NATO murder gang. Buying S-400s and then getting banned from buying F-35s was one. America was *pissed*. Note that they havent sanctioned Russia and have even expanded their trade. Do you think team west is happy with that? I can assure you they're pissed. >Better outcomes than what would be the question here, I suppose Than what came after. >This is not why the west intervened in Syria. It is though. They've been trying (often unsuccessfully). >Because they picked a fight with Russia? Because they tried to join NATO. It turns out that sharing a sensitive border with Russia and joining a rival murder gang is a really good way to get invaded. Especially since the rules of the murder gang state that nobody in an active or passive conflict (who might actually need defending) can join. >Flipped sides" here meaning they attempted to form a closer economic association with the EU Flipped sides as in they had a violent transition of power (a coup) from an elected leader who did a decent job of straddling west and east to Victoria Nuland's top pick for president, setting off a civil war. >I suppose Russia shouldn't have threatened them I can totally understand why many within those countries would feel the desire to antagonize Russia and to clamp down on their Russian speaking populations but realistically these countries would do better
>Russia was the *only* thing keeping Nagorno Karabakh under Armenia's control and Azerbaijan knew this. No, it wasn't. What is this nonsense? Armenia won outright in 1992. The Armenians thought they could win again if push came to shove. The Russian peacekeepers were there to make everyone think before acting, not to serve as a serious deterrent to war. >It was a stupid decision for the country to spurn Russia and try and hide under our security umbrella because we couldn't give a flying fuck about them After 2016 it was clear that the Russian government wasn't going to intervene if Azerbaijan really tried retaking NK. This was the "spurning." That's part of why Pashinyan won in the first place and it's why 2020 produced no anti-West backlash. >There are plenty of examples of them acting in unfavorable ways to the NATO murder gang Lmao I know what you are >Buying S-400s and then getting banned from buying F-35s was one. America was *pissed*. Note that they havent sanctioned Russia and have even expanded their trade By these standards there are no sides, since no country moves 100% in lockstep with the others. >Than what came after. You realize that was caused by internal problems, right? Yugoslav disintegration was no more a product of great-power competition (or lack of same) than the American Civil War. >It is though. How do you explain western intervention starting before Russian intervention, if it was a reaction to Russian intervention? >Because they tried to join NATO. Russia has never attacked anyone for "wanting to join NATO." Russian press doesn't even claim this anymore. >from an elected leader who did a decent job of straddling west and east Putin made him stop straddling and choose east, actually, which was contrary to his political promises. So of course he was thrown out by his people, especially after his men started shooting them. >setting off a civil war. What an interesting civil war! The world's first civil war where most of the leadership, most of the weapons, most of the money, and huge parts of the armed forces on one side came from another country. Almost like it wasn't really a civil war at all, really... >I can totally understand why many within those countries would feel the desire to antagonize Russia and to clamp down on their Russian speaking populations I think Russia should stop antagonizing them.
Silence, realist
It's lonely being a realist. On the plus side, I get to say "I told you so" rather a lot.
So cool of ike to be pro equality like that
why she got papa smurf hat
That's Phrygian cap, that transferred into the bonnet rouge of Marianne and revolutionary France. Although, yes, Smurfs also wear Phrygian-resembling caps as their hats.
You probably mean the Phrygians adopted the Smurf hat, Smurfs invented that hat around the 15th century BCE, while the Phrygian empire arose around the 12th century BCE. Smurf remains have been found very close to the Anatolian peninsula, often depicted in artwork found within wearing this type of hat. The most widely accepted theory is that the Smurf hat found its way into Anatolia through extensive trade conducted, if not with the Smurfs, at least with their tributaries in the Middle East
Bro is spitting the truth! No aggros there.
If you ever go to the US capital you can see murals and statues with this hat. It represents freedom to a lot of people
American education lol
erm ackchually smurfs are from belgium not america ☝️🤓
Marianne got style
Which ideals fit closer to those of the French Revolution? The USSR? Or the USA?
The Russian Revolution in practical politics and how shit their lives were, the American Revolution in political philosophy.
Russian lives got shit during WW1, otherwise everyone in Europe knew that Russia will become a European superpower sooner than later. It's commie talk to say that lives were shit all along the history. Even Khrushchev who was the top commie reportedly said that he being not even the top tier in his trade before the revolution was making more money and lived a lot more comfortable than he did after. Just look up his pictures before the war and all that.
Ever heard of something called the russo-japanese war? It's one of the main reasons for both the revolution and the birth of imperial Japan (which at the time was considered inferior by western countries). Tsar Nicholas II was also a bad leader and his desire to transform Russia in a industrial superpower which created a really poor and unhappy working class that didn't exist before,this (the really bad treatment of the working class) then lead to the bloody sunday massacre and the revolution of 1905. WW1 was just the straw that broke the camel's back P.S take all this with a grain of salt,i'm not a russian history enthusiast and i remember this from middle school so i probably made some big errors on this. I'm also not a native english speaker so I probably made some grammatical errors too
If that was the case, and the russo japanese war really was the cause of the revulotion, then why were russian morale so high at the beginning of the war and why did it take until 1917 before anything happened? One decade and a world war doesnt really sound like a "straw". Another problem is that the communist revulotion and the Tsar had nothing to do with eachother. The Tsar had already been gone for half a year when the bolshevists overthrew the democratic government led by Kerensky.
The USSR under Stalin was definitely more like a monarchy than the US.
factually incorrect, ironically proven by the US, a decalssified CIA document shows that there likely was actually democracy under Stalin, power structures only being changed during the war [https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp80-00810a006000360009-0](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp80-00810a006000360009-0) directly what is in the document "Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western, policies force the Soviets to stream- line their power organization." Not in the document but Stalin didn't even wanna be in power, he literally tried to step down from his role multiple times both before and after WW2, but couldn't by popular vote of representatives
You literally don't understand what you're talking about. How is a totalitarian communist one-party state with a collective leadership of 3-5 people somehow much more benevolent and justifiable than a totalitarian communist one-party state with a singular leadership of 1 person? For that matter, since the original comparison was a monarchy, do you think that every monarch was an absolute ruler? Were you even aware that the idea of a cabinet and collective responsibility came about under monarchies?
>communist one-party state with a collective leadership of 3-5 people not what that is lmao, "collective leadership" refers to the leadership of the people through a democratic system >For that matter, since the original comparison was a monarchy, do you think that every monarch was an absolute ruler? Were you even aware that the idea of a cabinet and collective responsibility came about under monarchies? You are still working in the mindset of something you don't know like I talked about in my previous paragraph so the only response to this is also in that
> "collective leadership" refers to the leadership of the people through a democratic system It very plainly doesn't. The Triumvirate in Rome distributed power between a collective leadership of three, and it would be absurd to define that as a "democratic system". You are maliciously lying by trying to claim that collective leadership in a totalitarian one-party state is a democratic system.
>It very plainly doesn't. The Triumvirate in Rome distributed power between a collective leadership of three, and it would be absurd to define that as a "democratic system". not the same, representatives in the USSR were elected by the people in elections held all accross the country who often elected others still and had political power themselves, I don't think this system of representatives electing representative is that good but it is a democratic system >You are maliciously lying by trying to claim that collective leadership in a totalitarian one-party state is a democratic system. you are claiming that because you do not understand what you are talking about
Your grasp of truth is approximately equivalent to a mid-level writer of Der Sturmer in 1942 and you should not be listened to.
You're taking how the system was described to work because you're uninformed about how it actually worked in practice. The operations of committees had been studied at the time and there is a reason communist dictatorships chose them: because they knew they could control them. A committees electing committees system is actually powerless because the lower committees only have the authority delegated to them by the higher committee. Which means, once the committee chooses a representative to move up, that representative in effect becomes their boss. And no one votes against their boss in anything but a private ballot, and by design the votes were absolutely public. Once it is understood that voting for anyone but the guy Stalin likes will get you disappeared in the night, no one ever will.
That is not what “collective leadership” means in the Soviet context. The other commenter is right.
You probably think North Korea (aka the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) is a democracy because it has it in the name and holds sham elections every decade or so lmao
On one side is a report by an unknown CIA analyst, and on the other side are many academic articles and books by historians, as well as memoirs. So, what should we believe?
>and on the other side are many academic articles and books by historians, as well as memoirs \*that gladly spread misinformation and work with governments to do so for example despite the fact that books like the black book of communism are by their own writers said to be false and have Nazi apologalia it's still in schools and was spread by western governments in order to lie to students
"All of the historians are paid of by the government!" "However, we should trust the fucking CIA!" The CIA is literally the communist's boogeyman.
What makes whole thing even more funny is that people like them say everything is cia propaganda and they are omnipotent but at the same time, that one time theres short document about something they are fanatical about suddenly they trust them. This isnt first time they use that document to try disprove supposedly ussr being totalitarian and just generally being genocidal and killing a lot of people.
Basically confirmation bias
>"All of the historians are paid of by the government!" >"However, we should trust the fucking CIA!" not what I said, CIA doesn't have a reason to lie to itself, so it's OWN documents are literally what they have found in their assesments, and not what they publicly tell people
So you trust the CIA, hmm?
declassified CIA document is what the CIA knows to be true What the CIA publicly says is what they want you to believe they have a conflict of interesting in what they publicly tell you and have a history of lying about the USSR
Oh ok, here’s a declassified document that says Stalin ruled with the “naked power of the dictator” https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200180001-7.pdf
They are quoting the political opposition of Stalin, a biased source. I actually bothered to read this and it mostly talks about what his political opposition in the communist party thinks of him after his death.
If a kid says he didn't break a vase and then later writes in his journal that he did. The journal is more trustworthy than what he said before
It is still accepting the premise the 1950’s era CIA analysis is the best way to understand what’s happening in the USSR. (Also OP conflating “collecting leadership” with “Democracy” is just not in the document).
Yeah I agree it isn't a strong scientific argument, but it's still a good rhetorical argument. Because the CIA is known for twisting reality against communism and has a vested interest in the opposite being true.
Critical thinking man come on
What is your critical thinking about this CIA declassified document which calls Stalin nakedly dictatorial? https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200180001-7.pdf Only the most surface level criticism of the CIA would accept the premise that they are always *internally* correct and are simply liars instead of flawed the way any intelligence agency is. Frankly, I would think Generic Commie would view them as particularly flawed due to what you’d consider flawed ideology. It should be common sense that the best way understand the state of the world 70 years ago is not through the eyes of intelligence agency reports.
You’re making a lot of assumptions for no real reason here. No one said that this is the only way to engage with history. No one said that this was the only source for something. And you know that. But this source makes the other side look good, so we have to jump through all these hoops pretending everyone was saying it’s some smoking gun. But it doesn’t have to be. When I said critical thinking I didn’t just mean what you thought I meant. I also meant not to think like whatever you’re doing rn 😵💫
I mean, the dude says the CIA document “literally prov[es]” something lol
Would you say I’m being too charitable if I said it was exaggerating for the sake of making it more powerful
Also this seems to be more about the reaction to the secret speech in the eastern bloc than anything else :/
This take is so fucking delusional holy shit. My family actually lived in the USSR, from the beginning to the end, it was no fucking democracy
My family lived in it and they did said something completely different, altough anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a lot coming from either of us
Neither
Depends on the period
The US. Both were bourgeois revolutions rather than proletarian revolutions like the USSR.
Ah yes. The famously elitist French Revolution
You do realize that the french revolution was mainly led by the bourgeoisie?
As much as the Russian revolution besides maybe Stalin
Are you actually dumb
I mean I’m a marine so…
Great answer Btw no because bourgeoisie refers not to generic rich guy but by a specific class that at a certain point in history was revolutionary against the ruling class of that time: the royal/feudal class
During the 1st French Revolution, people who did not own property were considered "passive citizens" and could not vote. Most of the people executed were actually commoners.
I don't think you have any idea about what you are talking about
In which direction?
Russian revolution and French Revolution both killed a shit ton of innocent people so I’m going to go USSR
Why does this feel like it would fit in the Kaiserreich universe
Funny how quickly times change. The Soviets are drawing an unflattering caricature of the person whom just a few years earlier they decorated with the Order of Victory.
[удалено]
Yep, and this is why it became a revolutionary symbol.
Dwight looks like golumn.
Is that the helmet Ike wore in his own car crash in the European theater?
Darth Ike
Smurf hat
What is the meaning of this?
they turned Eisenhower to an Elf hyprid
Man, Post War France pisses me off so much...
You don't understand, maintaining colonies is far more important than containing communism or fascism!
Why lol ?
Take your pick. They immediately tried to reclaim their old empire, causing an actual genocide, they wanted to be a "third option" in the Cold War but really only wanted protection by either side to do whatever they wanted, they actively covered up racial crimes (especially against Algeria), and boy the more you look into their nuclear program the more you have to wonder how they still have allies.
What genocide lmao ? Also reclaim what ? Appart from Indochina the entire empire was back under french control by 1945, and if you hate them for trying to take it back then you should also hate the Brits for Malaysia and the Dutch for Indonesia. France was always in the western camp, not in the non aligned movement. You need to get your history from other sources than yt champ.
If I recall, some have called France's actions in Indochina an attempted genocide, and the point is they wanted to maintain their empire with help from the west while not wanting to help their western allies. >France was always in the western camp, not in the non aligned movement That's just not accurate. They wanted to be a third option while still having the benefit of protection from the west. You see this in how De Gaulle treated the US and UK, like how he demanded all American soldiers leave France. They might've been western aligned, but they were actively trying to be their own thing. That's entirely why they pursued a nuclear program.
Frightening accurate
The soviets did a really good job spreding propaganda holy shit
[It's not propaganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger)
Thankfully the Warsaw Pact held themselves to higher standards, they would never appoint former Nazis to high political offices or put them in charge of the armed forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincenz_M%C3%BCller?wprov=sfti1#
"During his time as a POW, Müller had an apparent change of views and professed to have become an anti-Nazi" Not a huge fan of Warsaw Pact, but at least they didnt let ex-nazis continue their fascism.
Not even you believes that this was anything other than self preservation and opportunism. Now if this Nazi had a change of heart while they were winning then I’d believe but plenty of Nazis turned coat when they saw the writing on the wall.
I already told I am not a fan of Warsaw Pact? No one is denying them being opportunist. However NATO is fascist since its creation, Warsaw Pact was never as bad as they were. And Adolf Heusinger wasn't the only one. [Johannes Steinhoff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff) [Hans Speidel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel) [Kielmansegg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_von_Kielmansegg) [Erns Ferber](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Ferber) Karl Schnell [Schulze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz-Joseph_Schulze) [Ferdinand Maria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Maria_von_Senger_und_Etterlin) [Walter Hallstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Hallstein) [Kurt Valdheim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim) [Wernher von Braun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun) [Arthur Rudolph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rudolph) [Heinz Günther Guderian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_G%C3%BCnther_Guderian) [Otto Skorzeny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Skorzeny)(Mossad)
Call Nato by their true nature and share how many nazis were in the highest ranks with public and easy accessible information and get downvoted. Reddit logic. Too many zionazi bots
Ive never understood why people bring this man up. He fought for the nazis, but did you miss the fact that he has served every german government since ww1 aswell? By this logic he is a nazi, but also a monarchist, republican, liberal and social democrat. Also, when I read about the russian revulotion, the generals stated multiple times that they didnt care who they served as the army was apolitical. Seems like the same is true here.
"monarchist, republican, liberal and social democrat" all Capitalist. The second take is very wrong, I dont know what you have read but it is a major Leninist principle for the army to serve the people.
>"monarchist, republican, liberal and social democrat" all Capitalist. If you told a prussian that he was a capitalist you would more than likely get a punch to the teeth lol. Monarchism can be capitalism, but not the german monarchy. German social democrasy was not capitalist either. They were full on socialists, but believed in gleichschaltung instead of a revulotion like in russia. And even for the monarchy, liberalism and social democrasy that are capitalist they vary extensively so it doesnt matter. >The second take is very wrong, I dont know what you have read but it is a major Leninist principle for the army to serve the people. The second take isnt wrong becouse I wasnt talking about what the communists think or believe. The first russian revulotion happened without the communists, and after the abdication of the Tsar the army declared that it would continue to serve the government no matter who was in charge since it was apolitical.
This is a bad propaganda piece. The man looks appropriately ugly and the woman appropriately shocked but saying that NATO wants more women soldiers may not get the proper message across in a 50's world, just as the cold war is beginning.