Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


View Poll Results: What do you think?
USSR were commie bastards and destroyed the world 21 48.84%
USSR were the saviors out to crush Western Capitalism 10 23.26%
USSR made life for the Eastern Bloc better 7 16.28%
USSR deter the world. 12 27.91%
MERICA!!! 8 18.60%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 18th, 2013, 11:04 AM   #131

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,352

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAlexMatt View Post
Because, axiomatically, self-government is a positive good.
Axciomatically? There is no such thing in politics. Your opinion about political systems is rather flat I would say and does not take in to account real conduct of various governments.
arras is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 18th, 2013, 11:20 AM   #132

mansamusa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,308

The Soviet Union may have been oppression for many Eastern European States. But beyond that world they were seen as champions of the oppressed and for good reason. In Congo the assaination of Lumumba stands out as an unequivocal example of the Soviets being the good guys.

The US and the West were so afraid of losing the mineralwealth of the Congo that they ousted a democratic government and replaced it with a kleptocrat.

........one more thing....I often wonder what Afghanistan would be if it had not been liberated from Godless Russian Communism by the American financed Jihadist warlords. Chechyna? Kazakhstan?. Arab socialist regimes inspired by or allied to Soviet Socialism seem mild compared to the Islamists extremes of Saudi Arabia or even Iran.

Last edited by mansamusa; January 18th, 2013 at 11:34 AM.
mansamusa is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 11:41 AM   #133

mansamusa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,308

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAlexMatt View Post
Because, axiomatically, self-government is a positive good.
You believe Abraham Lincoln was evil for not allowing selfgovernance for the Confedaracy during the civil war?
mansamusa is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 11:52 AM   #134
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 696

Quote:
Originally Posted by fuser View Post
Already dealt but you refuse to comment on that under the veil of accusations of me being supporter of ethnic cleansing. So, pay more attention.

Your double standards are quite appalling. Have you provided any stated goals of ethnic cleansing by USSR? Then, evidence is already there and you are willfully ignoring that for which I don't care now.
Ethnic cleansing already defines the goal in itself. As for the rest, defending such an operation - i.e. ethnic cleansing - like you have done already sets you apart.

Quote:
It cites three different sources, check them out.
UN document in question is very clear in its presentation - Links to documents. There is nothing in it to indicate that it would have in any way demanded condemnation of India. Again, look through the archives and read the document.

Quote:
Don't move in circles, this hilarious post has already been dealt and you are indeed ignoring the context. For the third time, UN only asked for peace when the Bangladeshi who were being massacred started to fight back not during the genocide and the US was busy building alliance with the said genocidal regime. So, seriously don't try to take morally superior position.
Read the document ( Links to documents ) if you do not believe me, it very clearly outlines the need to provide safety for both civilians in the war zone and the refugees of the conflict alike.
Vaeltaja is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:41 PM   #135

M.S. Islam's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Dhaka
Posts: 1,952

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
Regarding US Task Force 74:
The US government announced at the time that the task force may help evacuate Pakistani forces from East Pakistan following a ceasefire.[2]
So there we have completely opposing statement.
Well, the war ended the day after they arrived, so why didn't they even attempt to evacuate Pakistani forces?

Please spare us your naivete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post

So provide that evidence then. And not just some hearsay by the Soviets, show with documents what the task force was intended to do.
Can't you read? I have quoted twice, with making the key phrase bold and large. Lets do it third and last time:

Quote:
Near the end of the war and fearing Pakistan's defeat by the joint forces of Mukti Bahini and Indian forces, Nixon ordered the USS Enterprise into the Indian Ocean, although it was never used for actual combat fearing Russian response.[18]
This is from a US diplomat Garthoff. A little bio :"Raymond L. "Ray" Garthoff is a senior fellow at the
Brookings_Institution Brookings_Institution
, a specialist on
Arms_control Arms_control
, intelligence, the
Cold_War Cold_War
,
NATO NATO
, and the former
Soviet_Union Soviet_Union
. He is a former
United_States_Ambassadors_to_Bulgaria United_States_Ambassadors_to_Bulgaria
, and has advised U.S. State Department on treaties. "
M.S. Islam is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:54 PM   #136

M.S. Islam's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Dhaka
Posts: 1,952

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post

Quite the contrary. I noted that the resolution regarding the India-Pakistan issue (or given the location of the US carrier group, East Pakistan) contained only notes regarding the safety of civilians and refugees alike. Which would have provided for all infringed parties but was vetoed by USSR.
Pakistani army descended upon the unarmed, sleeping at home, civilians of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) with heavy military machinery since March 26. They massacred nearly 3 million people in nine months leading to December.

The US government fully equipped and diplomatically protected this monstrous regime for all that carnage. When India was about to get involved in December, on face of certain Pakistani defeat, then UN resolution to cease-fire (with all those flowery words) was attempted by the US to save Pakistan that defeat.

And why the conflict arose in the first place? Because in 1970, in the first free election in Pakistan, a party from Bangladesh (then E. Pakistan) swept that election. But the west Pakistanis refused to abide by the election results and transfer power to the democratically elected government. And the beast called Pakistani military was unleashed on Bangladeshis.

The US is the bastion of democracy!? Huh.
M.S. Islam is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:56 PM   #137

M.S. Islam's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Dhaka
Posts: 1,952

Yay for Soviet Union.
M.S. Islam is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 11:05 PM   #138

M.S. Islam's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Dhaka
Posts: 1,952

Quote:
Originally Posted by mansamusa View Post
The Soviet Union may have been oppression for many Eastern European States. But beyond that world they were seen as champions of the oppressed and for good reason.
You beat me to that, totally agree.
M.S. Islam is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 12:21 AM   #139
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 696

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.S. Islam View Post
Well, the war ended the day after they arrived, so why didn't they even attempt to evacuate Pakistani forces?
Last i checked the war ended in surrender. In other words there was nothing to evacuate so I'm not sure what you are after.

Quote:
Can't you read?
Sure i can read, i just ignore any and all text with childish and immature effects used on them like most other normal people do. Just like filters to ads, the bigger and more obnoxious the effects used on the text the less likely it is for me to read it.
Vaeltaja is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 12:52 AM   #140

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 8,488
Blog Entries: 11

In that historical moment the dissolution of USSR was a good thing first for the populations under Soviet power.

After a couple of decades today in the former Soviet Republic they live better and they've got a certain degree of civil freedom which they didn't know under the Soviets.

This said, at global level, the presence of Soviet Union was a factor of equilibrium. Today we are in the middle of the river of change. Not impossible that in a next future China will grant a new equilibrium at planetary level.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
dissolution, soviet, union, worse


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Housing in the Soviet Union Earl Byrhtnoth History Help 0 October 13th, 2011 07:20 AM
Collapse of the Soviet Union Isoroku295 General History 43 June 12th, 2011 01:09 PM
Could World War 2 have been won by the allies without the Soviet Union? mementomori War and Military History 354 February 8th, 2011 02:40 PM
Attitude of Soviet Union towards Japan in WWII as Japan tried to seek Soviet mediation? curiositay History Help 3 February 22nd, 2010 02:40 PM
Soviet Union 'as guilty as the Nazis for World War II' sabio War and Military History 118 August 27th, 2009 08:18 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.