Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Can anyone please remind me what does "right" and "left means? Are "left" the ones that are pro-government? How is Owlbread pro-government?

[Sheb]

It's confusing political labels that means a lot of different stuff.

Owlbread, I recently read Anne Applebaum's Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944–56, which while ridiculously anti-Soviets for some passage, provide a nice explanation of exactly what the Soviets had to do to get communists into power, so I'm quite familiar with this subject. I maintain that Soviet manpower was not an issue, and that they could has easily have imposed communists regime on the rest of Europe.

[smjjames]

Can anyone please remind me what does "right" and "left means? Are "left" the ones that are pro-government? How is Owlbread pro-government?

You're not alone, it can also be confusing over here in the US.

To me though 'right' and 'left' aren't 'democratic' or communist', they're 'conservative (to the point of bible bashing sometimes)' and 'liberal or progressive'.

[a1s]

Can anyone please remind me what does "right" and "left means? Are "left" the ones that are pro-government? How is Owlbread pro-government?

Are you referring to:

support the right parties and so on

He means "right" as in "correct", "aligned with your ideology", not "right-wing".

[Owlbread]

Can anyone please remind me what does "right" and "left means? Are "left" the ones that are pro-government? How is Owlbread pro-government?

It's easiest to explain through examples, but here's wikipedia's definition of "Right-Wing Politics":

Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition

Here's wikipedia's definition of "Left-Wing Politics":

Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It is typically justified on the basis of concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.

Examples of leftist political movements - Communism, Democratic Socialism, Anarchism, Social Democracy

Examples of rightist political movements - Social Conservatism, Fascism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Classical Liberalism.

That's it in a nutshell but there's far more movements that fit these classifications and so on.

You're not alone, it can also be confusing over here in the US.

To me though 'right' and 'left' aren't 'democratic' or communist', they're 'conservative (to the point of bible bashing sometimes)' and 'liberal or progressive'.

"Liberal" is actually independent of left and right. Classical liberals are very right wing for instance while "social liberals" like American Liberals/Progressives would be considered left-wing. My understanding of why American Liberals call themselves liberals is that they are "social liberals" so they believe that the by addressing the needs of the disadvantaged with a social-focus e.g. improving healthcare, welfare, education etc they can be made "more free". The aim isn't to achieve Socialism - which Social Democrats are supposed to be pursuing through democratic means.

Owlbread, I recently read Anne Applebaum's Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944–56, which while ridiculously anti-Soviets for some passage, provide a nice explanation of exactly what the Soviets had to do to get communists into power, so I'm quite familiar with this subject. I maintain that Soviet manpower was not an issue, and that they could has easily have imposed communists regime on the rest of Europe.

It's just mind boggling to me to think they could successfully impose Communist regimes on so many countries at the same time - especially as you encroach on bastions of capitalism the further West you go.

[Sergarr]

Can anyone please remind me what does "right" and "left means? Are "left" the ones that are pro-government? How is Owlbread pro-government?

Are you referring to:

support the right parties and so on

He means "right" as in "correct", "aligned with your ideology", not "right-wing".

No, I was referring to this strange remark:

Yeah, blaming the whole of Western Europe for the actions of Nazi Germany is kinda weird. And I'm not pushing an anti-Russian line, it's my opinion that the USSR did the actual job of defeating Nazi Germany, but that the US, by showing up and getting into France, Belgium etc, managed to grab a sphere of influence and saved us from communism.

Or is stating that the USSR imposed communism on Eastern Europe an anti-Russian line now?

I'm not really sure if the USSR ever really wanted to impose Communism on us after Trotsky got that ice pick that made his ears burn. Stalin just wanted to create a ring of buffer/puppet states to protect the USSR against more Western invasion, as Guardian has drummed into our skulls for the last few years. They were concerned about the Monolithic West encroaching in their border regions, as they seem to be today. Of course anybody arguing that point (as some do today) against NATO expansion around the Baltic/Black Sea/Central Asia etc always seem to miss that it's actually not Russia's right to impose its will on its neighbours and use them as meat shields whenever they feel threatened, or infringe on their right to national self determination - which includes choosing who they ally themselves with.

Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeft.

No seriously, you are the leftest person on this forum, I think.

[Erkki]

It would have been the same amount of bloodshed if the US invaded.

I heard a theory that Japan only really surrendered after the threat of Soviet invasion became a clear reality - rather than following the bombings.

But yes, off topic.

Yep. Japan still had what, 2 to 3 million combat ready troops in Manchuria, Korea and China and they were actually making progress despite having USA at their doorstep in Okinawa, when USSR declared war. So much about using those vast land areas, resources and troops as a last card in negotiations with US, UK and China.

About USSR vs. Nazi Germany: I dont think one can equal Nazi Germany to Europe or even Western Europe. Besides, USSR could have only dreamed of victory without all the help from UK and especially USA, let alone in a direct mano et many where good part of Germany's strength would not have been tied to defending Europe and fighting in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The material help alone including food, fuel and majority of the trucks to be used in 1944 and onwards to USSR was absolutely massive, and the Allies were fighting in fronts of their own too. In the spring of 1945 USSR was victorious but very much exhausted - the military and economic powerhouse of the to-be Cold War USSR was still way to the future.

[Knit tie]

I am just making a joke about how Nazi Germany with Allies invaded the USSR and got half of Europe under Soviet rule as a result.

Germany is only in The West because of Cold War shenanigans (the way Cuba is in The East), if you look at a 1940 map, you'll notice Germany was quite Central. Nor did Nazis slaughter Russians "like Africans". Racism aside (err... so to speak), Nazis only slaughtered Jews in any large numbers. Imprisoning might have been "a death sentence" for Russian troops, but that's entirely on Stalin.

I am so wanting to dispute that, but I'll rather point you to this article. And do read the comments, they are very informative.


But we are getting entirely off-topic here. Also, dollar is only 59 rubles right now.

[a1s]

Also, this is the Ветка о России. Let's take this discussion to Another thread

[Sheb]

Owlbread: The fact is that the occupation of Eastern Europe ws done with very little troops. Also, your thinking seems to be poluted by Cold War reality, Czechoslovakia or Poland were no less capitalists than France or Belgium.

[Sergarr]

It would have been the same amount of bloodshed if the US invaded.

I heard a theory that Japan only really surrendered after the threat of Soviet invasion became a clear reality - rather than following the bombings.

But yes, off topic.

Yep. Japan still had what, 2 to 3 million combat ready troops in Manchuria, Korea and China and they were actually making progress despite having USA at their doorstep in Okinawa, when USSR declared war. So much about using those vast land areas, resources and troops as a last card in negotiations with US, UK and China.

About USSR vs. Nazi Germany: I dont think one can equal Nazi Germany to Europe or even Western Europe. Besides, USSR could have only dreamed of victory without all the help from UK and especially USA, let alone in a direct mano et many where good part of Germany's strength would not have been tied to defending Europe and fighting in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The material help alone including food, fuel and majority of the trucks to be used in 1944 and onwards to USSR was absolutely massive, and the Allies were fighting in fronts of their own too. In the spring of 1945 USSR was victorious but very much exhausted - the military and economic powerhouse of the to-be Cold War USSR was still way to the future.

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/wartime-production.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

Even pre-war, USSR's production was still higher than Germany's one.

Your statement about USSR not being the economical powerhouse until after WW2 is not very true.

USSR would have been able to defeat Germany on its own. It just would take a year or two more and a few more millions of Russian lives to do it.

EDIT: fail (i) tag is fail

[a1s]

Please use the other thread.

[alway]

Meanwhile, it looks like the ruble has... well, not stabilized exactly (4% movement in a day can hardly be called stable in the currency exchanges), but most of the motion is at least more or less sideways as opposed to off-a-cliff, recovering to about where it was a week ago. So that crisis may have been at least temporarily put on hold by the government's recent moves (probably the result of selling off their foreign currency reserves).

[Knit tie]

Meanwhile, it looks like the ruble has... well, not stabilized exactly (4% movement in a day can hardly be called stable in the currency exchanges), but most of the motion is at least more or less sideways as opposed to off-a-cliff, recovering to about where it was a week ago. So that crisis may have been at least temporarily put on hold by the government's recent moves (probably the result of selling off their foreign currency reserves).

Or raising rates. Or preventing speculation. We honestly have no idea what the Russian CB is doing, but at least it's not just twiddling its thumbs like it used to.

[Descan]

Racism aside (err... so to speak), Nazis only slaughtered Jews in any large numbers.

Er... Look up Generalplan Ost. The Nazis were going to clear Russia and eastern Europe of Slavs and colonize it with Germans. Just because they never were able to put it into practice... :/