Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Can we make a nice gaussian-looking curve?

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

Pages: 1 ... 1052 1053 [1054] 1055 1056 ... 1393

Author Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta!  (Read 1751038 times)

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15795 on: April 06, 2015, 03:19:09 pm »

USSR tried allying with Britain and France in 1939.

Guess what happened.

Britain and France didn't like the terms he offered so he took his ball and went home.  Yay, what a statesman!  Reminds me of the famous quote by Tacitus "If at first you dont succeed then kill everybody."
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

andrea

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15796 on: April 06, 2015, 03:25:37 pm »

Actually, reading the article it seems that France and UK didn't even consider the deal. Terms weren't mentioned, besides polish opposition.
And I suppose Stalin didn't think he had much time to either stop germany early or get a non aggression pact and probably he was right.

Zangi

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15797 on: April 06, 2015, 03:32:26 pm »

But I wasn't talking about how "Stalin's rule is good", I was talking "Stalin's rule has achieved the highest rate of "shit to not-shit" conversion in Russian history", explaining why he's considered a great person in Russia.
Converting shit to not-shit justifies any amount of murder and oppression? You are one hell of a utilitarian. :P
One way to portray it:
Well, if it gets the job done...  You can say that Stalin was progressive for the time period/place...


As for whether or not the mass murder and what-not to achieve that progress is justified or not, reckon its up to the beholder in hindsight.  Since it obviously could have been done better, somehow.  As if the conditions for a freedom loving, humane democracy was waiting right there, ready to explode into prominence among the suppressed masses of the Russian Empire.
Logged
All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu...  This is the truth! This is my belief! ... At least for now...
FMA/FMA:B Recommendation

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15798 on: April 06, 2015, 03:43:21 pm »

Actually, reading the article it seems that France and UK didn't even consider the deal. Terms weren't mentioned, besides polish opposition.
And I suppose Stalin didn't think he had much time to either stop germany early or get a non aggression pact and probably he was right.
I'd say that he may have judged the possibility of UK-France-Germany alliance if he didn't get this non-agression pact through.

After all, all the appeasement of Germany combined with anti-communistic rhetoric of Hitler may have led Stalin to think that Germany will after conquering Poland, immediately attack USSR while France and UK forfeits Poland's guarantees of independence and start supporting Germany in its struggle with USSR.

Early weeks of WW2 sure do looked like they've had potential to turn that way, with the amount of help Poland received from UK and France (jackshit) and the sheer lack of any offensives, or even preparations for those, against Germany from UK and France.
Logged
._.

Phmcw

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damn max 500 characters
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15799 on: April 06, 2015, 03:51:54 pm »

I have no idea how that statement could be controversial. Well I guess I can, but only through misunderstanding.

To clarify, I don't mean that they were equal in terms of how awful they were, but only that the Soviet Union was as awful as it was, no more or less - the actions of the Russian Empire don't excuse the Soviets.

It definitely does excuse it up to a point, and explain it up to a point too.

Even at the worst of Stalin's rule, life for the average Russian improved. You cannot ignore that.
And the nobility/capitalists weren't going to forfeit their privileges (real ones) without bloodshed. 


Stalin was a monster and a madman, but his rules has positive effects, and peoples will like those. I'd add that the social policies in Europe wouldn't have been possible without the pressure of the USSR, and we've been suffering a downfall in our social policies ever since the USSR fell.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 03:53:48 pm by Phmcw »
Logged
Quote from: toady

In bug news, the zombies in a necromancer's tower became suspicious after the necromancer failed to age and he fled into the hills.

Digital Hellhound

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15800 on: April 06, 2015, 04:05:46 pm »

I can agree with that the quality of life for the average Russian improved after Stalin, but during Stalin - that's absurd. The aforementioned famines and lowered agricultural production, the effect of collectivization and the hunt for kulaks on Russian society (so many youths were orphaned juvenile crime exploded, leading to death penalties being authorized for non-adults!). Religion was persecuted, especially the minorities. Conditions for workers remained shitty in many places and industrialization didn't do much for consumer goods. The War can hardly be blamed on Stalin, but it certainly didn't improve anyone's life.

Stalin did put into action some rather progressive policies, even if he was to swing back to a more conservative way later on (for example restoring the Orthodox Church for the War).

It's a different matter if Stalin's policies improved things for the state, or for the nation's survival or whatever (I'd say yes, definitely).
Logged
Russia is simply taking an anti-Fascist stance against European Nazi products, they should be applauded. ¡No parmesan!

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15801 on: April 06, 2015, 04:11:58 pm »

I'd say that he may have judged the possibility of UK-France-Germany alliance if he didn't get this non-agression pact through.

After all, all the appeasement of Germany combined with anti-communistic rhetoric of Hitler may have led Stalin to think that Germany will after conquering Poland, immediately attack USSR while France and UK forfeits Poland's guarantees of independence and start supporting Germany in its struggle with USSR.

Early weeks of WW2 sure do looked like they've had potential to turn that way, with the amount of help Poland received from UK and France (jackshit) and the sheer lack of any offensives, or even preparations for those, against Germany from UK and France.
I don't think that was ever on the table, and Stalin probably could see that the way the events unfolded. For a time in the late 1930s Polish diplomacy  entertained an alliance with Germany* - how feasible that was is another matter, but a possibility existed. France and the UK giving assurances to Poland that they would lend their military aid in the event of a German attack was good enough an offer to make Poland accept it. Whether an actual aid ever came was beyond the point, as the UK-French-Polish alliance already served its purpose of removing the possiblity of Polish-German alliance, and thus weakening Germany.

*I'll be damned if I can dig up where I read that, so do take it for what it is.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 04:14:39 pm by Il Palazzo »
Logged

Ukrainian Ranger

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15802 on: April 06, 2015, 07:49:28 pm »

I know that this would bring little good to Ukraine but damn, I want Stalin 2.0 in Russia so they eat what they want... Kadyrov can fill the role perfectly.
Logged
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15803 on: April 06, 2015, 08:12:58 pm »

I have no idea how that statement could be controversial. Well I guess I can, but only through misunderstanding.

To clarify, I don't mean that they were equal in terms of how awful they were, but only that the Soviet Union was as awful as it was, no more or less - the actions of the Russian Empire don't excuse the Soviets.
Oh okay.

But I wasn't talking about how "Stalin's rule is good", I was talking "Stalin's rule has achieved the highest rate of "shit to not-shit" conversion in Russian history", explaining why he's considered a great person in Russia.

Saying "we would have been conquered by Nazis!" Doesn't make the USSR good, just that they were better than the alternatives. When every option is shitty, you don't take the least shitty option and say it's made of gold, you take it and work/wait/hope for an actually good one. And when you actually DO get a better (still shitty) option? You don't venerate the old least-shit option.

I think I answered that one. You don't understand why Russians venerate Stalin. That's not because his rule was not shitty, that's because he was the most efficient person at turning shit to not-shit.

Wasn't that mostly through brute force?
Logged

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15804 on: April 06, 2015, 08:49:32 pm »

Stalin is well liked in Russia (somewhat, anyway; he brings up polarizing viewpoints kind of like FDR in the US) because, for all his faults, he was exceptionally good at finding people that didn't like him in the Soviet Union and having them executed along with their families, friends, and possibly coworkers. His brilliant method of keeping people loyal to him was to first massacre nearly every person of importance from his generation, particularly old Bolsheviks that could possibly get enough support to rival him, including some of his closest and most loyal friends like Bukharin and the Alliluyevas. He would then indoctrinate the next generation to mindlessly follow his every command, and then massacre the higher-ups of that generation, too. He continued this up until his death, when he was probably assassinated by the "Heroes of the Great Patriotic War" like Molotov and Beria that he was planning to purge like every previous government he had led. Khrushchev and the rest were decidedly less willing to engage in wanton murder, and thus didn't get the honour of becoming "heroes" for future generations.

Anyhow, it's really debatable as to whether Stalin was the only reason Russia industrialized. Assuming the Whites had won, Russia would have industrialized anyway as indeed it was already beginning to, especially considering how the Lenin years basically put Russian economic growth to a halt as the new Soviet government tried to figure out how to prevent starvation (before coming to the conclusion that they may as well restore Capitalism for food, which worked more or less effectively up until Stalin decided to mix things up). Kerensky was a drugged-up nut to be sure, but Russia survived worse rulers than him and it's doubtful that he'd hold power for very long without the threat of Bolsheviks keeping the Whites looking for a "strong leader". A non-Soviet Russia by 1940 would be much more powerful than the Russia ineptly ruled by the Romanovs during 1914. Alternatively, nearly any of the other Old Bolsheviks, from Trotsky to Kamenev to Bukharin and Rykov would have probably led Russia to a better position than it was in under Stalin on the day of the German invasion. Ignoring industrialization, let's look at all the brilliant things Stalin did to lead the Soviet Union to victory:

-Refused to consider any defensive preparations to deal with a possible German invasion
-Had nearly all of his competent officers shot, including such leaders as Tukhachevsky, the fellow who basically pioneered the strategies that would end up being used to win the war. One side effect of this was a critical shortage of officers for a large portion of the war, leading to minimally trained squad commanders leading battalions and battalion commanders leading regiments.
-Completely ignored his spy rings and intelligence services, the best in the world at the time, when they basically gave him nearly exact dates for when the Germans would invade and how strong their forces were.
-Of the survivors, he had arrested or shot those that advocated any kind of defensive strategy for dealing with a potential German invasion, or indeed anyone that suggested the possibility of a German invasion at all (quite ironically, some of those arresting for suggesting that Germany may invade were still in jail well after the Germans actually invaded)
-When actually invaded, instead of having his existing forces hold their positions to delay the invaders or tactically retreat and bleed them white, he repeatedly threw his disorganized forces against the Germans in pointless, bloody counterattacks that crippled the Red Army up until mid/late 1942. He also had officers that either didn't obey these orders or "failed" in counterattacking superior forces - guess what! - imprisoned or executed.
-He continued to directly order pointless, bloody offensives that sapped Soviet strength right up until the end of the war, though he gave his generals slightly more leeway after 1941 fortunately enough
-Near the end of the war, when Soviet forces neared lightly defended Berlin and had an opportunity to end the war nearly a year ahead of time, Stalin ordered his forces to stop and instead focus on taking heavily defended territory in Central Europe so as to get a zone of control in Austria, resulting in tens of thousands of additional Soviet deaths when the Germans actually reinforced Berlin

This is ignoring the various atrocities preceding the war that led to millions of deaths, left Soviet agricultural production in shambles after years of relative efficiency, and very nearly caused the Germans to gain the support of peoples they quite openly expressed a desire to exterminate and relocate.

Industrialization and superior production absolutely saved the Soviet Union after the disasters of 1941-42, but the Germans absolutely should not have reached so close to seizing Moscow as they did. Had Stalin not utterly destroyed his own nation's ability to fight before the war and then destroyed the bulk of his initial forces during it, the Soviets would have easily been capable of rolling over the Wehrmacht by 1943 or so. Of course, if Stalin was so competent then there may well have been a red flag flying over Paris after the war, so there's that.
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15805 on: April 06, 2015, 11:47:05 pm »

Assuming the Whites had won, Russia would have industrialized anyway as indeed it was already beginning to, especially considering how the Lenin years basically put Russian economic growth to a halt as the new Soviet government tried to figure out how to prevent starvation (before coming to the conclusion that they may as well restore Capitalism for food, which worked more or less effectively up until Stalin decided to mix things up). Kerensky was a drugged-up nut to be sure, but Russia survived worse rulers than him and it's doubtful that he'd hold power for very long without the threat of Bolsheviks keeping the Whites looking for a "strong leader". A non-Soviet Russia by 1940 would be much more powerful than the Russia ineptly ruled by the Romanovs during 1914. Alternatively, nearly any of the other Old Bolsheviks, from Trotsky to Kamenev to Bukharin and Rykov would have probably led Russia to a better position than it was in under Stalin on the day of the German invasion.
1) The Whites couldn't have won, not with the way the proclaimed the restoration of the same regime that kept 90% of people in basically slavery. There's the reason why in the end, Bolsheviks got the popular support - because people were tired of that old White shit and wanted something new. Even if they crushed them militarily, there would be no way for White movement to gain the popular support of the people with the way they were operating.

2) I don't believe that Old Bolsheviks would've led Russia to anything meaningful. These people wanted a revolution in all of the world and only saw revolution in Russia as the first stepping stone towards building a world-conquering army that would've swept the old world away. They most likely would've basically turned Russia into a military dictatorship and started to attack all neighbors immediately in order to spread communism around.
Logged
._.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15806 on: April 07, 2015, 12:54:16 am »

Quote
1) The Whites couldn't have won, not with the way the proclaimed the restoration of the same regime that kept 90% of people in basically slavery. There's the reason why in the end, Bolsheviks got the popular support - because people were tired of that old White shit and wanted something new. Even if they crushed them militarily, there would be no way for White movement to gain the popular support of the people with the way they were operating.

The issue the Whites had was never gaining popular support (barring one specific issue), it was organizing an actual united front against the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were a minority for most of the Revolution/Civil War, but they had two things that led them to victory: they had a unified command structure and clear allegiances to prevent infighting, and they were anti-war, meaning they attracted the support of a lot of common people, especially soldiers. The Whites, meanwhile, had to somehow coordinate the efforts of Monarchists, Liberals, moderate socialists, supporters of a constitutional monarchy, angry anti-Semite militias, proto-fascists like Wrangel, and many other factions that basically shared no interests except opposition to the Bolsheviks. Further, they refused to back peace with the Germans when they had the chance despite the majority of Russians supporting it, which alienated many potential supporters and was basically the issue that brought a lot of moderates to the side of the Bolsheviks. Even with these factors, there were a few moments where it seemed that the Bolsheviks were doomed, so a Red victory wasn't necessarily inevitable.

Quote
2) I don't believe that Old Bolsheviks would've led Russia to anything meaningful. These people wanted a revolution in all of the world and only saw revolution in Russia as the first stepping stone towards building a world-conquering army that would've swept the old world away. They most likely would've basically turned Russia into a military dictatorship and started to attack all neighbors immediately in order to spread communism around.

Trotsky was the big "spread the revolution globally!" guy, and he probably would have been trouble as leader. Mind, in the early-mid 1920s, Communist movements were quite big in Europe, and the Red Army was exceptionally powerful. Had the Soviets successfully beaten the Poles at Warsaw, it is entirely possible they could have carried on to Berlin and, with the support of the powerful socialist militias there, taken control of Germany. Of course, who knows what would happen from there, and Trotsky never really demonstrated himself to be less brutal or ruthless than Stalin, just not quite as good with backroom dealings, so such a Soviet Union might be just as unpleasant.

On the other hand, there were a fair number of other Old Bolsheviks with different views than both Trotsky and Stalin that had legitimate opportunities to take power at various points, and they may have been more successful. The Leningrad Opposition of Kamenev and Zinoviev would likely have operated things similarly to how Lenin did, while Bukharin and Rykov in Moscow would have basically kept and possibly even extended the NEP. Either way, the brutality of the Stalinist era would have been averted, and under Bukharin the Soviet Union probably would have gone the way of China in the 1970s sooner or later.
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

reality.auditor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15807 on: April 08, 2015, 12:17:15 pm »

I see you ignored the little problem of "NATO stationed troops and equipment" which are currently in place in Baltic countries.
I already said this will happen after discrediting and dismantling NATO. Not that there is many "NATO stationed troops and equipment" there anyway.

Putin will just say "let us *wink*protect Russian miniority from Nazi fascist NATO and Nazi fascist West*winkwink* or we nuke something". EU leaders are already proven to be pathetic, spineless bunch of Ribbentrops and Chamberlains. I wonder how long they will appease Hi-... er, Putin before even they will say "enough is enough".

In 2020s, entire central-east europe will be Fun place to be (east of Ukraine is already Fun thanks to Putin). Including where I live. Oh joy.

But I will note one thing: you credit to Stalin good things that happened after his rule, yet opposite of these things happened during his rule. Like famines. I consider this kind of "credit" worthless.
Famines have ended by the end of Stalin's rule because of extensive work done in agricultural sector done during the 20s-50s period, including mechanization (tractors), actual science done in the area of what culture is better, cultivation and the sorts. It was done during Stalin's rule, and this is why USSR had no famines afterwards.
And you say something is "beyond ridiculous"... ::)

All I can see is another instance of russian logic. Russian Empire was murderous shithole, so it is okay that Stalinist Russia was murderous shithole. That after death of Stalin Russia became sligtly less murderous shithole is, of course, credited to Stalin. ::)

Sorry, I can't treat this drivel seriously.

Anyhow, it's really debatable as to whether Stalin was the only reason Russia industrialized. Assuming the Whites had won, Russia would have industrialized anyway
This is what I meant by "opportunity cost". Some things would happened anyway - anyone leading Russia in these times would industrialize it - and maybe, just maybe with less murderous shitholeness.
Logged
Are weapons like the least lethal thing in DF?

Sinistar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Absolutely detests Sinibombs
    • View Profile
    • http://dojo.fi/~rancid/loituma__.swf
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15808 on: April 08, 2015, 12:40:01 pm »

The main argument, I think, about either pro- or anti-Stalin was that it was a shithole of different kind, in some bays better, in some ways worse. But eh, I might as well be arguing semantics at this point. Never mind me.
Logged
Everything is an instrument if you hit it the right way.
Oh they know. Spiders are not stupid. They've just got disproportionally huge balls.

miauw62

  • Bay Watcher
  • Every time you get ahead / it's just another hit
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #15809 on: April 08, 2015, 01:17:17 pm »

Any Internet argument devolves into semantics, given enough time.
Logged

Quote from: NW_Kohaku
they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the raving confessions of a mass murdering cannibal from a recipe to bake a pie.
Knowing Belgium, everyone will vote for themselves out of mistrust for anyone else, and some kind of weird direct democracy coalition will need to be formed from 11 million or so individuals.
Pages: 1 ... 1052 1053 [1054] 1055 1056 ... 1393