Political Crossfire Forums

[Wyatt Earp]

Melcar wrote: antonio62 wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: antonio62 wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: Anonio, are you fogetting something?

Russia did not declare war on japan untill Aug 8th 1945
The USA nuked Hiroshima on Aug 6th 1945.
The big bad Commies foundly delcared war after the war was over.

You do realise that they had already fought a war against Japan and defeated them before this. Are you also forgetting that they crushedn army of 1 million in 1945.

Say what? the only war that I am familiar with was in what was it 1903? something like that were the Jap's Kicked Russia's *** and won that northern Island of japan and the Russians's been complaining about it ever since.

Beside, Russia has what 8 time zone's?, no interior road infrastructure at that time and as far as I know still don't. To move her army east to west it would take forever.

The Battle of Lake Khasan in 1938 and the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939. Both Soviet victorys.

Both Soviet victories, yes. But the Japanese war machine had long lost its momentum; add to that the repeated defeats at the hands of the Americans and you have a very ineffective and defeated army. The war was over as soon as the Soviets attacked the Japanese. No need for an atomic or an American led invasion of main land Japan (I'm sure the Soviets would have been more than happy to do it themselves); its true use was to deny the Soviets another victory, scare the s**t out of the Soviets, and test the new weapon in battle conditions.

Looks like I have to do two things now write another strognly opionated letter to my old History teacher and read another book to find out what you guys are talking about.

[DSwain]

Wyatt Earp wrote: Melcar wrote: antonio62 wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: antonio62 wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: Anonio, are you fogetting something?

Russia did not declare war on japan untill Aug 8th 1945
The USA nuked Hiroshima on Aug 6th 1945.
The big bad Commies foundly delcared war after the war was over.

You do realise that they had already fought a war against Japan and defeated them before this. Are you also forgetting that they crushedn army of 1 million in 1945.

Say what? the only war that I am familiar with was in what was it 1903? something like that were the Jap's Kicked Russia's *** and won that northern Island of japan and the Russians's been complaining about it ever since.

Beside, Russia has what 8 time zone's?, no interior road infrastructure at that time and as far as I know still don't. To move her army east to west it would take forever.

The Battle of Lake Khasan in 1938 and the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939. Both Soviet victorys.

Both Soviet victories, yes. But the Japanese war machine had long lost its momentum; add to that the repeated defeats at the hands of the Americans and you have a very ineffective and defeated army. The war was over as soon as the Soviets attacked the Japanese. No need for an atomic or an American led invasion of main land Japan (I'm sure the Soviets would have been more than happy to do it themselves); its true use was to deny the Soviets another victory, scare the s**t out of the Soviets, and test the new weapon in battle conditions.

Looks like I have to do two things now write another strognly opionated letter to my old History teacher and read another book to find out what you guys are talking about.

It's not that well known, WE, so you shouldn't be too hard on your history teacher!

Here's a starter link with a brief overview

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/sierra/sovietjapan1939.htm

[Melcar]

Wyatt Earp wrote: Melcar wrote: antonio62 wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: antonio62 wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: Anonio, are you fogetting something?

Russia did not declare war on japan untill Aug 8th 1945
The USA nuked Hiroshima on Aug 6th 1945.
The big bad Commies foundly delcared war after the war was over.

You do realise that they had already fought a war against Japan and defeated them before this. Are you also forgetting that they crushedn army of 1 million in 1945.

Say what? the only war that I am familiar with was in what was it 1903? something like that were the Jap's Kicked Russia's *** and won that northern Island of japan and the Russians's been complaining about it ever since.

Beside, Russia has what 8 time zone's?, no interior road infrastructure at that time and as far as I know still don't. To move her army east to west it would take forever.

The Battle of Lake Khasan in 1938 and the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939. Both Soviet victorys.

Both Soviet victories, yes. But the Japanese war machine had long lost its momentum; add to that the repeated defeats at the hands of the Americans and you have a very ineffective and defeated army. The war was over as soon as the Soviets attacked the Japanese. No need for an atomic bomb or an American led invasion of main land Japan (I'm sure the Soviets would have been more than happy to do it themselves); its true use (the A-bomb) was to deny the Soviets another victory, scare the s**t out of the Soviets, and test the new weapon in battle conditions.

Looks like I have to do two things now write another strognly opionated letter to my old History teacher and read another book to find out what you guys are talking about.

Not everything in history is well known. Remember that it depends largely on who writes it. I'm sure Russian history texts mention these particular battles.

[zelda]

Esin wrote: The following is an essay written by a favourite amature author of mine. It's very good and I believe hits the nail right on the head. Too often we Americans try to over-emphasis America's role in WWII, and while I believe we did play a very significant role in that war, we did not win it alone; not by a long shot. So, that being said, here we go....


"Yesterday, I overheard an old woman who didn’t know any better telling someone how America had crushed Nazi Germany and thus saved the world. She continued with an oversimplified history of the Cold War and subsequent events. I felt I needed to voice my concerns over what seems to be a major misconception among Americans today: We did not win World War II in Europe alone, nor could we have.

The fact is, without the Soviet Union, Hitler would have prevailed. What Europe would look like today is for another essay; I will simply try to focus on why Western civilization owes quite a bit to Stalin and Russian communism.

From the beginning of the war in 1939 and up to around late-1943 to early-1944, Germany possessed the best army in the world. Its air force was quite capable as well, and though modern historians now believe its effectiveness may have been exaggerated as a playing chip in Nazi infighting, it was no doubt an astute war machine. The German navy relied heavily on submarines, and practically starved out Britain, but Germany was always a continental power first. Even into early 1945, after considerable losses on all fronts, the German military was still capable of putting up a vicious fight, and did so until its surrender in May 1945.

Around eighty percent of these highly capable forces were arrayed on the Eastern Front, against the USSR, along with Italians, auxiliaries from captured Soviet territories, and the bulk of the armies of Germany’s lesser allies, Rumania and Hungary (Bulgaria did not participate in the invasion of the Soviet Union). At various times, practically all of Germany’s best commanders save for Erwin Rommel commanded troops on the Eastern Front. The two largest battles in human history, Stalingrad and Kursk, occurred on the Eastern Front, along with other titanic battles at Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kiev, Budapest, and the destruction of numerous German armies. Ultimately, the Soviets took Berlin in weeks of horrific fighting and raised their flag over the Reichstag.

Along with doing the bulk of the fighting, the Soviet Union paid the highest price in blood. World War II cost 62,536,500 lives (including the Holocaust), of which 23,200,000 were from the Soviet Union, compared to 418,500 from the United States and 450,400 from the United Kingdom. Indeed, 64 percent of Allied military deaths were Soviet, whereas the UK and US each made up two percent of Allied military deaths. The USSR lost 13.7 percent of its population, while the US lost 0.94 percent and the US 0.32 percent. (China had the most dead after Russia, with ten million, and 24 percent of Allied military deaths. It had been at war with Japan since at least 1937, arguably since as early as 1931.)

The Soviets did most of the fighting, most of the dying, and most of the destruction of Nazi Germany. However, the Allies did play a major role. The well-known invasion of Europe, via Italy and France, as well as the African campaign before, had the effect of diverting much-needed German troops from the Eastern Front. Strategic bombing played an even more important role, devastating German cities and gutting German industry on levels that had never before been attained in war, and would only be exceeded by the even more comprehensive bombing campaign against Japan.

Perhaps the most important contribution made by the United States to the fighting was in the prewar and early-war supply of Britain and the USSR with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act. This was especially important to the Soviets. American weapons and equipment supplied the Red Army at the time when it most needed materiel. Without it, the Soviet Union likely would have been unable to turn the German onslaught, and Moscow would have fallen. By the end of the war, millions of tons of food and cloth, thousands of aircraft, tanks, and firearms, hundreds of thousands of trucks and machine guns, and millions of boots were delivered to the Soviet Union by the United States.

Could the Allies have beat Germany without the military might of the Soviet Union? No. Could the Soviet Union have defeated Germany without Allied assistance? Again, no. Ultimately, winning the war was a joint effort, one in which no one side can claim all the credit. However, the role of the Soviet Union in World War II cannot be underestimated."


Fictionpress - How the Commies Saved Civilization, by Mbwun.

All that being said, I believe that the thing that most Americans are especially proud of in WWII, is that we elected to fight in Europe without any need to do so. Russia was attacked, and drawn into the war forcefully when Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbontrop treaty. Had it not been for Hitler's aggression, I am fairly sure Russia wouldn't have gone to war. Perhaps England wasn't required to fight, but had it not, it would have had to face Hitler alone in Europe, a prospect I am sure wouldn't have been to pleasurable. America really didn't have to. It would have been exceedingly difficult for Hitler to attempt an invasion of the mainland United States due to its relative geographic isolation, and personally I don't believe Hitler ever really had any intentions to invade the States. Hitler's WWII was primarily a European War, and only spilled into Africa and the Near East because of Europe's presence in those areas. The Far East was a different story and could almost be classified as an entirely seperate but cocurrent war.

Please post your thoughts, ideas, and comments.

Regard,
-Esin

i'm sorry, i didn't have the time to read the other posts so i might be repeating some stuff.
i strongly disagree with you though. ussr did not help humanity or civilisation or whatever in any way. stalin was forced to join the allies because an alliance between him and hitler would have been impossible even in the short run: they both wanted power and as much control as they could get over the world. to me it seems logical that nothing could have ever worked between these two freaks, therefore they joined separate camps.
as for ussr saving humanity.......suffice it to take a quick look at how former communist countries look like now, 16-17 years after the fall of the regime.
stalin did nothing else than to take advantage of the context in order to fulfill his "lofty" ideals of conquering the world...or at least a part of it. and the way i see things, he does not deserve a statue nor does he deserve to be called saviour and not even one single good word should be said about him because he was nothing else but a horrible mass murderer..... he didn't care about saving something, he was just interested in conquering and destroying!

you say "the Commies Saved Civilization".....assuming you're talking only about eruope.....you must be talking about western europe, right? because eastern europe lived a 50 years-long nightmare thanks to this "saviour of civilisation". or is just western europe civilised?
and as for us, eastern europeans, i don't believe the difference between stalin and hitler would have really been noticeable.... so about your commies saving civilisation, i guess it all depends on what you understand by civilisation....

[zelda]

Lucky Luke wrote:
I can't see the good side of Fascism, what was before in Germany and Italy was far superior. I can see the good side of Communism, what was before was awful in Russia and China.
you must be able to rationally explain this s**t!!!

[locke862]

I too didn't have much time to read the other post so somebody might have said this

many Russian's died because they were poorly trained, didn't have much supplies, Russian soldiers took Russian prisoners gave them a couple of grenades and told them to run at the Germans before every battle and if they turned around they would be shot, some civilians were at russian work camps, and a lot of them died just becuase they didn't have food on the table. I'm not saying that russia didn't contribute but they did a lot of stupid things to get many killed.

Also, Hitler just didn't see the russians as equals to the German race. The brown haired brown eyed people. He saw America and Britain as equals so he didn't kill as many as he did Russian.

[Slava]

Looks like American and Polish textbooks were written by the same author. Not only all of us, Russians, have brown eyes and brown hair, but also horns and tails.

I just wonder how one can make judgments having so little knowledge of the subject?

[Lucky Luke]

zelda wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
I can't see the good side of Fascism, what was before in Germany and Italy was far superior. I can see the good side of Communism, what was before was awful in Russia and China.
you must be able to rationally explain this s**t!!!

Quote: The Russian Empire was politically, economically and socially backwards. There was little industry and the vast majority of the population were peasant farmers working in an agricultural system that had changed little since the middle-ages.

Furthermore, most of the population were illiterate and many still existed as serfs - effectively slaves under the control of wealthy landowners.

Autocratic government
This vast, diverse Empire was ruled by the Tsar. The Tsars were autocrats. This meant that the Tsar, and only the Tsar, governed Russia. There were no legal or constitutional methods by which Tsarist power could be challenged. The Empire did not have a parliament or elected assembly and there were no elections.

To help him run the vast Russian Empire, the Tsar had a number of ministers who were appointed by him and responsible only to him. In fact, the only way in which Tsarist autocracy could be challenged was by acts of violent rebellion.

Freedom of speech was strictly censored and the Tsar's will was enforced by a large police system that would report suspicious behaviour and destroy subversive groups.

The only genuine limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer vastness of the Empire and the scale of corruption and incompetence on the part of his ministers and state officials. The far-flung corners of the Empire, some many thousands of miles away from Moscow, would often prove ungovernable, even for the Tsar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/history/russia/tsar1_rev.shtml

After years of civil wars and foreign invasions China became communist in 1949 and got rid of it's class society and of its feudal backward imperial system to make sure that every chinese family could work and eat. It was a success until the cultural revolution of 1966 stopped China's progress for close to half a century. One could compare China to India and see that democracy is not the best way to transform an old feudal or religious class society for the better. Even with the mistake of the cultural revolution China is in many ways more advanced than India.
:-D
:-D

[locke862]

Slava wrote: Looks like American and Polish textbooks were written by the same author. Not only all of us, Russians, have brown eyes and brown hair, but also horns and tails.

I just wonder how one can make judgments having so little knowledge of the subject?

Yea well not all Jews have horns, big noses, and curly hair, but in the eyes of others they do. I know for a fact that not all russians are brown and brown, but that is the reason why Hitler didn't like the russians. Englishmen and Americans aren't known to be brown and brown which is why Hitler saw them as equals. I am not saying that I think that I am saying that Hitler thinks that.

[eynon]

Lucky Luke wrote: zelda wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
I can't see the good side of Fascism, what was before in Germany and Italy was far superior. I can see the good side of Communism, what was before was awful in Russia and China.
you must be able to rationally explain this s**t!!!

Quote: The Russian Empire was politically, economically and socially backwards. There was little industry and the vast majority of the population were peasant farmers working in an agricultural system that had changed little since the middle-ages.

Furthermore, most of the population were illiterate and many still existed as serfs - effectively slaves under the control of wealthy landowners.

Autocratic government
This vast, diverse Empire was ruled by the Tsar. The Tsars were autocrats. This meant that the Tsar, and only the Tsar, governed Russia. There were no legal or constitutional methods by which Tsarist power could be challenged. The Empire did not have a parliament or elected assembly and there were no elections.

To help him run the vast Russian Empire, the Tsar had a number of ministers who were appointed by him and responsible only to him. In fact, the only way in which Tsarist autocracy could be challenged was by acts of violent rebellion.

Freedom of speech was strictly censored and the Tsar's will was enforced by a large police system that would report suspicious behaviour and destroy subversive groups.

The only genuine limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer vastness of the Empire and the scale of corruption and incompetence on the part of his ministers and state officials. The far-flung corners of the Empire, some many thousands of miles away from Moscow, would often prove ungovernable, even for the Tsar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/history/russia/tsar1_rev.shtml

After years of civil wars and foreign invasions China became communist in 1949 and got rid of it's class society and of its feudal backward imperial system to make sure that every chinese family could work and eat. It was a success until the cultural revolution of 1966 stopped China's progress for close to half a century. One could compare China to India and see that democracy is not the best way to transform an old feudal or religious class society for the better. Even with the mistake of the cultural revolution China is in many ways more advanced than India.
:-D
:-D

you forgot about the purge of the land lords and the great leap forward.......as to it making China class-less, well it just replaced one ruling class with another.

[Lucky Luke]

wannabe wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: zelda wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
I can't see the good side of Fascism, what was before in Germany and Italy was far superior. I can see the good side of Communism, what was before was awful in Russia and China.
you must be able to rationally explain this s**t!!!

Quote: The Russian Empire was politically, economically and socially backwards. There was little industry and the vast majority of the population were peasant farmers working in an agricultural system that had changed little since the middle-ages.

Furthermore, most of the population were illiterate and many still existed as serfs - effectively slaves under the control of wealthy landowners.

Autocratic government
This vast, diverse Empire was ruled by the Tsar. The Tsars were autocrats. This meant that the Tsar, and only the Tsar, governed Russia. There were no legal or constitutional methods by which Tsarist power could be challenged. The Empire did not have a parliament or elected assembly and there were no elections.

To help him run the vast Russian Empire, the Tsar had a number of ministers who were appointed by him and responsible only to him. In fact, the only way in which Tsarist autocracy could be challenged was by acts of violent rebellion.

Freedom of speech was strictly censored and the Tsar's will was enforced by a large police system that would report suspicious behaviour and destroy subversive groups.

The only genuine limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer vastness of the Empire and the scale of corruption and incompetence on the part of his ministers and state officials. The far-flung corners of the Empire, some many thousands of miles away from Moscow, would often prove ungovernable, even for the Tsar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/history/russia/tsar1_rev.shtml

After years of civil wars and foreign invasions China became communist in 1949 and got rid of it's class society and of its feudal backward imperial system to make sure that every chinese family could work and eat. It was a success until the cultural revolution of 1966 stopped China's progress for close to half a century. One could compare China to India and see that democracy is not the best way to transform an old feudal or religious class society for the better. Even with the mistake of the cultural revolution China is in many ways more advanced than India.
:-D
:-D

you forgot about the purge of the land lords and the great leap forward.......as to it making China class-less, well it just replaced one ruling class with another.

Certainly not when compared to its past or democratic India, China has been virtually classless for half a century.
The purge of any lords is usually welcome by any progressing society. We are just in the process to get rid of ours here.
:-D
:-D

[mr crunchy]

for the 1st time its history everyone in china is eating food and not each other
same goes for russia

[eynon]

Lucky Luke wrote: wannabe wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: zelda wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
I can't see the good side of Fascism, what was before in Germany and Italy was far superior. I can see the good side of Communism, what was before was awful in Russia and China.
you must be able to rationally explain this s**t!!!

Quote: The Russian Empire was politically, economically and socially backwards. There was little industry and the vast majority of the population were peasant farmers working in an agricultural system that had changed little since the middle-ages.

Furthermore, most of the population were illiterate and many still existed as serfs - effectively slaves under the control of wealthy landowners.

Autocratic government
This vast, diverse Empire was ruled by the Tsar. The Tsars were autocrats. This meant that the Tsar, and only the Tsar, governed Russia. There were no legal or constitutional methods by which Tsarist power could be challenged. The Empire did not have a parliament or elected assembly and there were no elections.

To help him run the vast Russian Empire, the Tsar had a number of ministers who were appointed by him and responsible only to him. In fact, the only way in which Tsarist autocracy could be challenged was by acts of violent rebellion.

Freedom of speech was strictly censored and the Tsar's will was enforced by a large police system that would report suspicious behaviour and destroy subversive groups.

The only genuine limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer vastness of the Empire and the scale of corruption and incompetence on the part of his ministers and state officials. The far-flung corners of the Empire, some many thousands of miles away from Moscow, would often prove ungovernable, even for the Tsar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/history/russia/tsar1_rev.shtml

After years of civil wars and foreign invasions China became communist in 1949 and got rid of it's class society and of its feudal backward imperial system to make sure that every chinese family could work and eat. It was a success until the cultural revolution of 1966 stopped China's progress for close to half a century. One could compare China to India and see that democracy is not the best way to transform an old feudal or religious class society for the better. Even with the mistake of the cultural revolution China is in many ways more advanced than India.
:-D
:-D

you forgot about the purge of the land lords and the great leap forward.......as to it making China class-less, well it just replaced one ruling class with another.

Certainly not when compared to its past or democratic India, China has been virtually classless for half a century.
The purge of any lords is usually welcome by any progressing society. We are just in the process to get rid of ours here.
:-D
:-D

shooting people who own land is progressive huh? people like you who defend murder make me sick...........

also your views of class in Chinese society are naive and silly, I'd go into detail, but why bother, just google the Hu-kou system.......

[eynon]

mr crunchy wrote: for the 1st time its history everyone in china is eating food and not each other
same goes for russia

there's still starvation....I've seen it.

[Lucky Luke]

wannabe wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: wannabe wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: zelda wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
I can't see the good side of Fascism, what was before in Germany and Italy was far superior. I can see the good side of Communism, what was before was awful in Russia and China.
you must be able to rationally explain this s**t!!!

Quote: The Russian Empire was politically, economically and socially backwards. There was little industry and the vast majority of the population were peasant farmers working in an agricultural system that had changed little since the middle-ages.

Furthermore, most of the population were illiterate and many still existed as serfs - effectively slaves under the control of wealthy landowners.

Autocratic government
This vast, diverse Empire was ruled by the Tsar. The Tsars were autocrats. This meant that the Tsar, and only the Tsar, governed Russia. There were no legal or constitutional methods by which Tsarist power could be challenged. The Empire did not have a parliament or elected assembly and there were no elections.

To help him run the vast Russian Empire, the Tsar had a number of ministers who were appointed by him and responsible only to him. In fact, the only way in which Tsarist autocracy could be challenged was by acts of violent rebellion.

Freedom of speech was strictly censored and the Tsar's will was enforced by a large police system that would report suspicious behaviour and destroy subversive groups.

The only genuine limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer vastness of the Empire and the scale of corruption and incompetence on the part of his ministers and state officials. The far-flung corners of the Empire, some many thousands of miles away from Moscow, would often prove ungovernable, even for the Tsar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/history/russia/tsar1_rev.shtml

After years of civil wars and foreign invasions China became communist in 1949 and got rid of it's class society and of its feudal backward imperial system to make sure that every chinese family could work and eat. It was a success until the cultural revolution of 1966 stopped China's progress for close to half a century. One could compare China to India and see that democracy is not the best way to transform an old feudal or religious class society for the better. Even with the mistake of the cultural revolution China is in many ways more advanced than India.
:-D
:-D

you forgot about the purge of the land lords and the great leap forward.......as to it making China class-less, well it just replaced one ruling class with another.

Certainly not when compared to its past or democratic India, China has been virtually classless for half a century.
The purge of any lords is usually welcome by any progressing society. We are just in the process to get rid of ours here.
:-D
:-D

shooting people who own land is progressive huh? people like you who defend murder make me sick...........

also your views of class in Chinese society are naive and silly, I'd go into detail, but why bother, just google the Hu-kou system.......

The point is that it was a lot worst before or in next door democracy.

:-D
:-D

[eynon]

Lucky Luke wrote: wannabe wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: wannabe wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: zelda wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
I can't see the good side of Fascism, what was before in Germany and Italy was far superior. I can see the good side of Communism, what was before was awful in Russia and China.
you must be able to rationally explain this s**t!!!

Quote: The Russian Empire was politically, economically and socially backwards. There was little industry and the vast majority of the population were peasant farmers working in an agricultural system that had changed little since the middle-ages.

Furthermore, most of the population were illiterate and many still existed as serfs - effectively slaves under the control of wealthy landowners.

Autocratic government
This vast, diverse Empire was ruled by the Tsar. The Tsars were autocrats. This meant that the Tsar, and only the Tsar, governed Russia. There were no legal or constitutional methods by which Tsarist power could be challenged. The Empire did not have a parliament or elected assembly and there were no elections.

To help him run the vast Russian Empire, the Tsar had a number of ministers who were appointed by him and responsible only to him. In fact, the only way in which Tsarist autocracy could be challenged was by acts of violent rebellion.

Freedom of speech was strictly censored and the Tsar's will was enforced by a large police system that would report suspicious behaviour and destroy subversive groups.

The only genuine limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer vastness of the Empire and the scale of corruption and incompetence on the part of his ministers and state officials. The far-flung corners of the Empire, some many thousands of miles away from Moscow, would often prove ungovernable, even for the Tsar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/history/russia/tsar1_rev.shtml

After years of civil wars and foreign invasions China became communist in 1949 and got rid of it's class society and of its feudal backward imperial system to make sure that every chinese family could work and eat. It was a success until the cultural revolution of 1966 stopped China's progress for close to half a century. One could compare China to India and see that democracy is not the best way to transform an old feudal or religious class society for the better. Even with the mistake of the cultural revolution China is in many ways more advanced than India.
:-D
:-D

you forgot about the purge of the land lords and the great leap forward.......as to it making China class-less, well it just replaced one ruling class with another.

Certainly not when compared to its past or democratic India, China has been virtually classless for half a century.
The purge of any lords is usually welcome by any progressing society. We are just in the process to get rid of ours here.
:-D
:-D

shooting people who own land is progressive huh? people like you who defend murder make me sick...........

also your views of class in Chinese society are naive and silly, I'd go into detail, but why bother, just google the Hu-kou system.......

The point is that it was a lot worst before or in next door democracy.

:-D
:-D

not really....well.......it depended on where you lived.........the one thing the CCP did was unify the country.

In historic terms they were much like the Qin dynasty....unified the country, brutalized it, and did a lot fo stupid things.

Now lets see if the Han rise up and make China great again......

[Lucky Luke]

wannabe wrote: mr crunchy wrote: for the 1st time its history everyone in china is eating food and not each other
same goes for russia

there's still starvation....I've seen it.

Not like before and not like in next door democratic India.

Whatever we think of Communism, its goal is to feed people first and foremost, democracy does not do that to large countries, democracy increases the difference between poorest and the wealthiest and makes starvation and misery a growing problem.

It made a lot of sense for Russia to become Communist and a lot more sense for China to become Communist too. Germany, Italy and Spain did not need to become Fascist, they did not gain anything to do so.
:-D
:-D

[eynon]

Lucky Luke wrote: wannabe wrote: mr crunchy wrote: for the 1st time its history everyone in china is eating food and not each other
same goes for russia

there's still starvation....I've seen it.

Not like before and not like in next door democratic India.

Whatever we think of Communism, its goal is to feed people first and foremost, democracy does not do that to large countries, democracy increases the difference between poorest and the wealthiest and makes starvation and misery a growing problem.

It made a lot of sense for Russia to become Communist and a lot more sense to China to become Communist too. Germany, Italy and Spain did not need to become Fascist, they did not gain anything to do so.
:-D
:-D

that's just not true, the 2 worst famines in history were under Communist regimes.....under the Soviets in the 30's and under Mao during the great leap forward.

[zelda]

Lucky Luke wrote: zelda wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
I can't see the good side of Fascism, what was before in Germany and Italy was far superior. I can see the good side of Communism, what was before was awful in Russia and China.
you must be able to rationally explain this s**t!!!

Quote: The Russian Empire was politically, economically and socially backwards. There was little industry and the vast majority of the population were peasant farmers working in an agricultural system that had changed little since the middle-ages.

Furthermore, most of the population were illiterate and many still existed as serfs - effectively slaves under the control of wealthy landowners.

Autocratic government
This vast, diverse Empire was ruled by the Tsar. The Tsars were autocrats. This meant that the Tsar, and only the Tsar, governed Russia. There were no legal or constitutional methods by which Tsarist power could be challenged. The Empire did not have a parliament or elected assembly and there were no elections.

To help him run the vast Russian Empire, the Tsar had a number of ministers who were appointed by him and responsible only to him. In fact, the only way in which Tsarist autocracy could be challenged was by acts of violent rebellion.

Freedom of speech was strictly censored and the Tsar's will was enforced by a large police system that would report suspicious behaviour and destroy subversive groups.

The only genuine limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer vastness of the Empire and the scale of corruption and incompetence on the part of his ministers and state officials. The far-flung corners of the Empire, some many thousands of miles away from Moscow, would often prove ungovernable, even for the Tsar.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/bitesize/higher/history/russia/tsar1_rev.shtml

After years of civil wars and foreign invasions China became communist in 1949 and got rid of it's class society and of its feudal backward imperial system to make sure that every chinese family could work and eat. It was a success until the cultural revolution of 1966 stopped China's progress for close to half a century. One could compare China to India and see that democracy is not the best way to transform an old feudal or religious class society for the better. Even with the mistake of the cultural revolution China is in many ways more advanced than India.
:-D
:-D

let's get real a bit! china's economy is not really what you'd call communist now, isn't it? why don't you look at north korea for example? nice place to live in, right? how about cuba? or perhaps you've read about the former soviet block, you know...eastern europe.... more great places to be in during the communist regime!!
are you one of those guys wearing t-shirts of che and reading marx and lenin and sharing your food with strangers on the streets and believing communism was a great thing and hoping you and some friends of yours could bring it to life and make it work once again?
people who defend the cause of communism without having freezed at least once in their lives, right in the middle of their own homes at 10 degrees C should really not open their mouths!


PS: i also have a suggestion for you, take off those smilies, they are pretty annoying and they also look quite dumb...

[Lucky Luke]

wannabe wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: wannabe wrote: mr crunchy wrote: for the 1st time its history everyone in china is eating food and not each other
same goes for russia

there's still starvation....I've seen it.

Not like before and not like in next door democratic India.

Whatever we think of Communism, its goal is to feed people first and foremost, democracy does not do that to large countries, democracy increases the difference between poorest and the wealthiest and makes starvation and misery a growing problem.

It made a lot of sense for Russia to become Communist and a lot more sense to China to become Communist too. Germany, Italy and Spain did not need to become Fascist, they did not gain anything to do so.
:-D
:-D

that's just not true, the 2 worst famines in history were under Communist regimes.....under the Soviets in the 30's and under Mao during the great leap forward.

Yes, at the start of the Communist regime and they both addressed this problem and sorted it out while India and other large democratic countries cannot sort the problem out.

Don't misunderstand what I am saying please, I do not claim that Communism is better than democracy, I am saying that in both cases of China and Russia Communism made a lot of sense at the time. I wish democracy could be as efficient in feeding people and to reduce the gap between poorest and the wealthiest but it doesn't.

:-D
:-D