Print

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

[a1s]

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.

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'.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Different people controlled everything with no restrictions, please do not embellish the 90s, Owlie.

That was a joke.

After the Western Europe invaded the Soviets first, and slaughtered them like Africans, for good measure.

That was a joke as well.

To be honest, the USA did save Western Europe from invasion by the Soviets.

Also, technically, Nazi Germany was ~Central~ Europe.

We here in the monolithic West don't take kindly to those Centrist bastards~

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?

Also, technically, Nazi Germany was ~Central~ Europe.

We here in the monolithic West don't take kindly to those Centrist bastards~

Hence why it was a joke, and not a serious statement.

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 was trying to make a joke about how Nazis and co. tried to grab some colonies in Russia and ended up as Russian colonies themselves.

Also, not all people view communism as a swear word.

Also @Owlbread: I never said that Guardian was extremist, only Sergarr.

Also, technically, Nazi Germany was ~Central~ Europe.

We here in the monolithic West don't take kindly to those Centrist bastards~

Hence why it was a joke, and not a serious statement.

I'm fairly certain that was a joke too. :p

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. Any fighting would take place in Poland, East Germany, Hungary etc rather than Russian soil. They were concerned about the Monolithic West encroaching in their border regions, as they seem to be today. But yes, the whole "Socialism in One Country" thing was a marked departure from the old international Communism espoused by Trotsky and his ilk - and lends itself well to a tyrant keen on both protecting his nation (you have to give him that much) and his rule over it.

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. Otherwise we're just recognising Russia as overlord of the East, when those countries should have no overlord - American or Russian.

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.
you are the leftest person on this forum, I think.

Well, Stalin turned all the countries he could occupy into Communist states, I don't see why he would have not done so any further. Buffers are nice, but why stop in the middle of Germany?

Well, Stalin turned all the countries he could occupy into Communist states, I don't see why he would have not done so any further. Buffers are nice, but why stop in the middle of Germany?

Because it wasn't necessary to protecting the USSR and keeping Stalin's grip on power and it would be very difficult to handle. Stalin was a monster, yes, but he wasn't some expansionist conquerer like Hitler. He wanted to maintain his grip on power and keep the country strong, he didn't want to rule the world. If Russia could rule the world it could do it like the Americans - through economics and military might and so on.

Why bother with trying to expand beyond the Iron Curtain when the East was more like a Bamboo Curtain? You could expand out there quite easily and people were more sympathetic to Communism because they had less. It didn't work out that way 100% of course - see the Sino-Soviet split and the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

Oh, I don't think it took that much. It was more subtle that simply being imposed at gun point. Also, every country at the time had a communist party willing to rule the country.

Well... they weren't all that powerful, remember. In most of those countries the Soviets had to support catch-all Left Bloc organisations, strengthen the Communist Party within them to make sure they were the most dominant force by far, then falsify elections (vote stuffing etc by soldiers), maintain a constant military presence to prevent dissent and to coerce and at the same time assassinate key figures that could act as threats. Imposing Soviet rule was so much more difficult for the simple fact that it was more subtle than being imposed at gun point.

Part of me wishes Russia had successfully invaded Japan because then they could have created some kind of Ainu Soviet Socialist Republic in Hokkaido + Sakhalin. I do wonder if the bloodshed there would have been worse than that caused by the atomic bombings, however.

The bloodshed of the invasion would have been many times worse than the atomic bombings. All things together, the atomic bombings didn't kill that many people.

Oh, I don't think it took that much. It was more subtle that simply being imposed at gun point. Also, every country at the time had a communist party willing to rule the country.

Well... they weren't all that powerful, remember. In most of those countries the Soviets had to support catch-all Left Bloc organisations, strengthen the Communist Party within them to make sure they were the most dominant force by far, then falsify elections (vote stuffing etc by soldiers), maintain a constant military presence to prevent dissent and to coerce and at the same time assassinate key figures that could act as threats. Imposing Soviet rule was so much more difficult for the simple fact that it was more subtle than being imposed at gun point.

Part of me wishes Russia had successfully invaded Japan because then they could have created some kind of Ainu Soviet Socialist Republic in Hokkaido + Sakhalin. I do wonder if the bloodshed there would have been worse than that caused by the atomic bombings, however.

The bloodshed of the invasion would have been many times worse than the atomic bombings. All things together, the atomic bombings didn't kill that many people.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

[Culise]

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.

I've heard this as well, but it's worth noting that this is only the case insofar as they could no longer rely on the Soviets to intervene in order to save the Empire.  What they sought was a mediated peace or armistice, whether it was by bleeding the Americans white or by convincing the neutral Soviets to broker a treaty.  Basically, they were hoping that the USSR would seek to prop them up as a counterweight against American influence in the East; one wonders how such a thing could ever have been the case, considering how Japan had actively invaded the USSR proper (Lake Khasan) and its allies (Khalkin Gol, in Mongolia) in the 30s, were actively waging war against another Soviet "friend" (the KMT), and were also simultaneously waging war with Soviet allies-of-chance (US, Britain, Australia, et. al.), but it's probable that Soviet non-intervention in the days between VE Day in May and the Soviet invasion in August gave them a false, desperate hope of the same sort that went into the logic behind their defensive operation Decisive.  While Soviet intervention didn't threaten the Home Islands (in spite of the general lack of fuel, what was left of the IJN in the East Sea could still have sortied and blocked an attempt by the anemic Pacific Fleet, which had suffered under neglect born other priorities during the war for very obvious reasons, to force a naval landing on the Home Isles, and Soviet resupply would have been a nightmare from their own lack of resources alone, let alone the fact that Western Allied forces had yet to crack open the East Sea to support), it did sign the death knell for any Soviet-mediated peace. 

[Sergarr]

That wall of quotes is nigh-unreadable.

Anyway, reposting this here:

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.

[Sheb]

Hard to say, Germany was making very significant gains in the beginning, it's not impossible that they would have been able to make enough to at least stalemate the Russians.

[Sergarr]

The problem is, if Germany is stalemated, it loses due to various reasons.

[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.

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/i] 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.

This is off-topic already, but production numbers =/= quality or spent working hours and many other things. There are many ways one can interpret statistics. For example, why pick armored vehicle production only? It alone was only minor part of overall war production (except for the maybe almost landlocked USSR that didnt have to build its own trucks even). The first link also looks at only a few figures. A nation won't produce much if half of your population and production centers are in enemy hands. In 1944 of the fighting countries, USA had 50% of the total GDP and UK and USSR both 11-12% or so, Germany and Italy together about 20%. It should be noted that more than every other of the 800,000 trucks built in the US were delivered to the USSR as were 4,5 million tons of food.

Sorry, but the fact is that USSR would have been incapable of the kind of (offensive) warfare it fought during the war without Western help.

[Sheb]

I wouldn't be so sure of that either Erkki: it is true that the USSR got most of its trucks from the US? but how do we know they wouldn't have been able to produce more of them if Lend-Lease didn't happen? I think that "What would have happened if Germany had been fighting the USSR alone" is firmly in the realm of idle speculation.

[Knit tie]

I wouldn't be so sure of that either Erkki: it is true that the USSR got most of its trucks from the US? but how do we know they wouldn't have been able to produce more of them if Lend-Lease didn't happen? I think that "What would have happened if Germany had been fighting the USSR alone" is firmly in the realm of idle speculation.

Absolutely. Tomes have been written on that topic, and most of them are pure historical fiction.

[10ebbor10]

And especially if you ask that question, you have to consider that Allied activities seriously complicated the German supply chain. Without that problem, their production might have been higher.

[Erkki]

I wouldn't be so sure of that either Erkki: it is true that the USSR got most of its trucks from the US? but how do we know they wouldn't have been able to produce more of them if Lend-Lease didn't happen? I think that "What would have happened if Germany had been fighting the USSR alone" is firmly in the realm of idle speculation.

For every non-armored combat vehicle USSR produced itself, it received over 2 from USA alone. Each nation had limited manufacturing capacities so had they built them themselves, they'd have lacked elsewhere. The ability to form so many motorized and mechanized units(more than Germany had had during Barbarossa actually) was what made it possible to push back the Germans or even attack in the first place. They also received many tanks, IIRC about 1/4 of the tanks were of Western origin, which isnt an irrelevant number at all.

I think had Germany and its allies been able to fight USSR alone(without European front, without lend-lease help to USSR) the USSR would have lost. Maybe not in 1941, but it would have. But, I think such a scenario would have been impossible because Case White had already happened and even if it hadnt, France and UK would not have stood idle. So its all fiction.

[Sheb]

What do you mean by Case White? This one only happened in 1943.

[Sergarr]

The USSR would have never technically lost since there is a lot of territory in Russia to retreat to.

[Culise]

I wouldn't be so sure of that either Erkki: it is true that the USSR got most of its trucks from the US? but how do we know they wouldn't have been able to produce more of them if Lend-Lease didn't happen? I think that "What would have happened if Germany had been fighting the USSR alone" is firmly in the realm of idle speculation.

They would have certainly been able to produce more of them.  The problem is that this would have taken factories and production time/resources away from building tanks, which is why using tank and aircraft production alone is inadequate to illustrate just how sorely (or not) the Germans were overmatched industrially. 

Which I would also assert they were, but not to the point of being a "military and economic powerhouse."  The Soviets went immediately to a total war footing industrially and societally; the Germans did not do this until 1943, a year later.  The Soviets did have a superiority in heavy industry (imbalances in their economy being irrelevant to the discussion), though I would suggest that German industry was more efficient.  Finally, German industry was under the guns and bombs of Allied air wings, whereas Soviets, after the early dislocation in 1942, steadily reaped the benefits of moving significant portions of their heavy industry out of the range of German bombers.

As for winning without Lend-Lease, the Soviets "won" in 1942 insofar as their survival was concerned, with the German failure to take the critical rail hub that was Moscow (even after the mud hardened, they still had another shot, and they failed again); the question was how much victory would cost.  You might actually see a status quo ante bellum, or a pre-1939 Soviet border where they cede their Molotov-Ribbentrop gains, but the USSR would survive. 

Also, Case White was also the code-name for the Invasion of Poland.  The Germans were almost as fond of their color plans as the Americans, but unlike the Americans, tended to recycle a few colors over and over again (like how Green represented first the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and later both the invasions of Ireland or Switzerland). 

[Erkki]

What do you mean by Case White? This one only happened in 1943.

Fall Weiß, the invasion of Poland that gave Germany and USSR a common border and made France, UK and its former dominions declare war on Germany.

Culise, yeah exactly, but Germany was also using a very non-insignificant amount of its industry to and military power to fight in the Atlantic, against the "leaning over the Channel" RAF and in the Mediterranean. For Germans, large numbers of first line troops and armor were also garrisoned in places like France and I kid you not Norway, basically doing nothing for years. The existence of the Western Allies kept them there.

[Helgoland]

PTW, but isn't this in Armchair General territory?