Well, that debate is finally settled, then. :)
http://tass.ru/en/russia/789871
QuotePutin: Nazism, Stalinism can't be equalized
Extermination of entire ethnoses was one of the aims of Nazis' policy, but the Stalin regime never set the goal of exterminating entire peoples, the Russian leader says
MOSCOW, April 16. /TASS/. Nazism and Stalinism can't be equalized, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday during an annual question and answer session officially known as "The Direct Line with Vladimir Putin."
"It's impossible to equalize Nazism and Stalinism," Putin said. "Because Nazis directly, openly and publicly declared extermination of entire ethnoses — Jews, Gypsies and Slavs — one of the aims of their policy."
He added that "even taking into account the ugliness of the Stalinist regime, all repressions, exiles of entire nations, the regime never set the goal of exterminating entire peoples."
"The attempt to equalize these and those is absolutely ungrounded," Putin said.
At the same time, he admitted that predecessors gave a reason for such a comparison.
"After the Second World War, we tried to impose on East European countries our model of development and did it by force," Putin said. He said it was not good and is "keeps backfiring on us today."
"By the way, Americans are behaving in the same manner, trying to impose their model practically worldwide," he said. "They are in for a failure too."
Is he wrong? :hmm:
I don't think Stalin wanted to exterminate any peoples, he just wanted them to live in different places and experience new things. :sleep:
:yes: Communism is nice. And I don't say that just because I wear glasses and speak a foreign language and know that I will get murdered if Communists come to power in Sweden.
Quote"By the way, Americans are behaving in the same manner, trying to impose their model practically worldwide," he said. "They are in for a failure too."
The real point here is that Amerikkka is worse than both.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPsLB11POtQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPsLB11POtQ)
I think they are both greatly misunderstood, because both were on the wrong side of history.
Just on this point, I actually agree with Putin. If I have to choose, I will also say that Hitler was worse than Stalin.
It's kind of nice that he semi-acknowledges Soviet oppression post-WWII but to call it imposing a "model of development" is an interesting choice of words.
He'll occasionally acknowledge that the Soviet Union did bad things, but he has to immediately follow up by slinging shit at everyone else.
Quote from: Josephus on April 17, 2015, 08:21:47 AM
I think they are both greatly misunderstood, because both were on the wrong side of history.
Yeah but the reason they were both on the wrong side of history has alot to do with their actions. As in: if Hitler had created a peaceful prosperous racist Germany history would think of Fascism very differently.
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 08:49:44 AM
It's kind of nice that he semi-acknowledges Soviet oppression post-WWII but to call it imposing a "model of development" is an interesting choice of words.
"Impose" carries a lot of meaning too.
Hitler and Stalin were the same in my book.
They both killed millions of jews.
That it was done for different reasons makes not difference to the victims.
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2015, 09:05:36 AM
Hitler and Stalin were the same in my book.
They both killed millions of jews.
That it was don't for different reasons makes not difference to the victims.
Eh I would like my chances better as a Jew under Stalin.
Stalin killed people he thought deserved to die
Hitler killed people he thought didn't deserve to live.
Those are different levels of evil, and the Hitler level is worse.
That doesn't make Stalin good, of course.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 09:14:28 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2015, 09:05:36 AM
Hitler and Stalin were the same in my book.
They both killed millions of jews.
That it was don't for different reasons makes not difference to the victims.
Eh I would like my chances better as a Jew under Stalin.
:huh: You are still thinking the Siege shtick is worth responding to? I enjoy it, but can't even pretend to take it seriously.
Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2015, 09:54:47 AM
:huh: You are still thinking the Siege shtick is worth responding to? I enjoy it, but can't even pretend to take it seriously.
I am just not very good at remembering who is worth responding to and who isn't. Oh I have tried in the past. I have thought many times 'why do I even talk to Hortlund...er...random poster? Best to just ignore his posts from now on.'
But I forget and do it anyway. And even when I do remember I lack the self discipline.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 09:14:28 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2015, 09:05:36 AM
Hitler and Stalin were the same in my book.
They both killed millions of jews.
That it was don't for different reasons makes not difference to the victims.
Eh I would like my chances better as a Jew under Stalin.
Depends. Get your Mischlinge papers and Hitler treats you like family.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 10:02:02 AM
I am just not very good at remembering who is worth responding to and who isn't. Oh I have tried in the past. I have thought many times 'why do I even talk to Hortlund...er...random poster? Best to just ignore his posts from now on.'
But I forget and do it anyway. And even when I do remember I lack the self discipline.
But, surely, you don't think that Siege and his "I think they are both equally evil because some Jews died there" comment was intended to be taken seriously?
i mean, feel free to respond to Siege' shtick, but you risk ending up sounding as silly as his shtick sounds.
Eh I think he appreciates it in some way.
Besides I just learned a new word: Mischlinge. How very useful.
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 10:08:12 AM
Depends. Get your Mischlinge papers and Hitler treats you like family.
Hitler murdered his family? I thought they died from a series of remarkably unlucky accidents.
No.
I notice you never come across anybody named Hitler much anymore these days, but I wonder if Germans still name boys Adolf?
Quote from: Josephus on April 17, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
I notice you never come across anybody named Hitler much anymore these days, but I wonder if Germans still name boys Adolf?
I have never heard of one that is for sure.
It is still used in spanish, Adolfo.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 17, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
I notice you never come across anybody named Hitler much anymore these days, but I wonder if Germans still name boys Adolf?
I have never heard of one that is for sure.
They only German named Adolf that I've known personally was born in Styria on the day Fall Gelb was launched. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though.
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 17, 2015, 11:06:40 AM
It is still used in spanish, Adolfo.
English speakers don't name their boys Jesus either.
On topic movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179121/
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 08:49:44 AM
It's kind of nice that he semi-acknowledges Soviet oppression post-WWII but to call it imposing a "model of development" is an interesting choice of words.
He'll occasionally acknowledge that the Soviet Union did bad things, but he has to immediately follow up by slinging shit at everyone else.
What is stupid is that the facts immediately contradict his comment.
"After the Second World War, we tried to impose on East European countries our model of development and did it by force"
OK, this is certainly true, the USSR used force to impose their political and economic model on Eastern Europe.
"By the way, Americans are behaving in the same manner, trying to impose their model practically worldwide,"
That is clearly false. American might be trying to impose our model worldwide (it isn't really *our* model per se though), but there is one rather key difference. We aren't doing it by force. Liberal capitalism isn't spread, with very, very few exceptions, by T-62s or M-1s rolling into other countries. Rather, it has spread simply by offering a better alternative than the options.
He would have been more accurate to say that in the past the USSR and the West engaged in a ideological war using proxies.
Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2015, 11:35:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 08:49:44 AM
It's kind of nice that he semi-acknowledges Soviet oppression post-WWII but to call it imposing a "model of development" is an interesting choice of words.
He'll occasionally acknowledge that the Soviet Union did bad things, but he has to immediately follow up by slinging shit at everyone else.
What is stupid is that the facts immediately contradict his comment.
"After the Second World War, we tried to impose on East European countries our model of development and did it by force"
OK, this is certainly true, the USSR used force to impose their political and economic model on Eastern Europe.
"By the way, Americans are behaving in the same manner, trying to impose their model practically worldwide,"
That is clearly false. American might be trying to impose our model worldwide (it isn't really *our* model per se though), but there is one rather key difference. We aren't doing it by force. Liberal capitalism isn't spread, with very, very few exceptions, by T-62s or M-1s rolling into other countries. Rather, it has spread simply by offering a better alternative than the options.
:yes: Iraq never happened.
Iraq is a good example as why it would be a terrible idea to impose our system on people.
Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2015, 12:07:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2015, 11:35:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 08:49:44 AM
It's kind of nice that he semi-acknowledges Soviet oppression post-WWII but to call it imposing a "model of development" is an interesting choice of words.
He'll occasionally acknowledge that the Soviet Union did bad things, but he has to immediately follow up by slinging shit at everyone else.
What is stupid is that the facts immediately contradict his comment.
"After the Second World War, we tried to impose on East European countries our model of development and did it by force"
OK, this is certainly true, the USSR used force to impose their political and economic model on Eastern Europe.
"By the way, Americans are behaving in the same manner, trying to impose their model practically worldwide,"
That is clearly false. American might be trying to impose our model worldwide (it isn't really *our* model per se though), but there is one rather key difference. We aren't doing it by force. Liberal capitalism isn't spread, with very, very few exceptions, by T-62s or M-1s rolling into other countries. Rather, it has spread simply by offering a better alternative than the options.
:yes: Iraq never happened.
Do you understand what the word "exception" means?
Yeah but now we have that hanging over our heads forever. Thanks guy-before-Obama.
Quote from: Josephus on April 17, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
I notice you never come across anybody named Hitler much anymore these days, but I wonder if Germans still name boys Adolf?
I know several people born in the late 40s and 50s who have Adolph as their second or third name. The stigma attached to Adolf/Adolph only started in the 70s iirc.
The situation is not helped by Hitler not even being the only unspeakably vile Adolf in Nazi Germany.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 12:37:55 PM
The situation is not helped by Hitler not even being the only unspeakably vile Adolf
Do you hate the SEC that much? :hmm:
Are you suggesting UK Basketball are the real Nazis? I cannot disagree.
Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2015, 12:07:29 PM
:yes: Iraq never happened.
:huh: You sound confused.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2015, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 17, 2015, 11:06:40 AM
It is still used in spanish, Adolfo.
English speakers don't name their boys Jesus either.
Is this some kind of weird Canadian joke?
Levon calls his child Jesus, cause he likes the name.
The US invaded Iraq to force the Iraqis to become capitalist? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:05:30 PM
The US invaded Iraq to force the Iraqis to become capitalist? :hmm:
Kinda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_reform_of_Iraq
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:05:30 PM
The US invaded Iraq to force the Iraqis to become capitalist? :hmm:
Saddam political party was theoretically socialist right? But part of the plan was to reform them as a capitalist liberal democracy so then they would be just like Germany and Japan.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:05:30 PM
The US invaded Iraq to force the Iraqis to become capitalist? :hmm:
Saddam political party was theoretically socialist right? But part of the plan was to reform them as a capitalist liberal democracy so then they would be just like Germany and Japan.
Right, but that was hardly the inspiration for invading them. There are plently of countries that are not "capitalist liberal democracies" that the US never thought of invading.
The actual reasons had more to do with the history with Saddam, and wanting him gone.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 01:47:35 PM
Saddam political party was theoretically socialist right?
Among other things. The entire Ba'athist movement was/is bizarre and fascinating.
True but the Soviet Union occupying Poland and company was not really out of Communist zeal either :P
There were certainly some in the US who were presenting this as a way to spread American ideas. It didn't work but that was never our primary strategy to make everybody adopt our way of life. We certainly did not force Russia to become capitalists or liberals of any sort. They pretended to do that on their own.
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 02:01:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 17, 2015, 01:05:30 PM
The US invaded Iraq to force the Iraqis to become capitalist? :hmm:
Saddam political party was theoretically socialist right? But part of the plan was to reform them as a capitalist liberal democracy so then they would be just like Germany and Japan.
Right, but that was hardly the inspiration for invading them. There are plently of countries that are not "capitalist liberal democracies" that the US never thought of invading.
The actual reasons had more to do with the history with Saddam, and wanting him gone.
Well, sort of. There was a belief amongst Neo-cons that that the way bring peace to the middle east was to impose a liberal capitalist democracy. Iraq was to be the model.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
True but the Soviet Union occupying Poland and company was not really out of Communist zeal either :P
There were certainly some in the US who were presenting this as a way to spread American ideas. It didn't work but that was never our primary strategy to make everybody adopt our way of life. We certainly did not force Russia to become capitalists or liberals of any sort. They pretended to do that on their own.
The neocon element was strong, though. I think it was a mix of that and wanting to take out a sworn enemy. I supported (and still support) the invasion based upon the latter.
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 12:09:08 PM
Iraq is a good example as why it would be a terrible idea to impose our system on people.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it requires an enormous amount of effort to change the nature of a country. Often we are better at
influencing a country through economics, culture, etc. For instance, the US didn't
force anything on post-communist Poland, but did influence directly and indirectly the Polish government and economy.
And now Martinus has a huge variety of pretentious shops and restaurants to frequent. :cool:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 17, 2015, 02:40:35 PM
And now Martinus has a huge variety of pretentious shops and restaurants to frequent. :cool:
'Murica!
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 02:14:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 17, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
True but the Soviet Union occupying Poland and company was not really out of Communist zeal either :P
There were certainly some in the US who were presenting this as a way to spread American ideas. It didn't work but that was never our primary strategy to make everybody adopt our way of life. We certainly did not force Russia to become capitalists or liberals of any sort. They pretended to do that on their own.
The neocon element was strong, though. I think it was a mix of that and wanting to take out a sworn enemy. I supported (and still support) the invasion based upon the latter.
Indeed - there was certainly an element of "Hey, this is an opportunity to go and make a sea change in another country and show the ME how awesome it is to be a western democracy of some form or another...".
In hindsight, we clearly picked the wrong example country. Iraq was too fragmented and screwed up for it to work.
Need to pick a nation that is actually a nation in and of itself. Like Iran.
Well it was not like every expert on Iraq was not saying this at the time.
Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2015, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2015, 12:07:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2015, 11:35:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2015, 08:49:44 AM
It's kind of nice that he semi-acknowledges Soviet oppression post-WWII but to call it imposing a "model of development" is an interesting choice of words.
He'll occasionally acknowledge that the Soviet Union did bad things, but he has to immediately follow up by slinging shit at everyone else.
What is stupid is that the facts immediately contradict his comment.
"After the Second World War, we tried to impose on East European countries our model of development and did it by force"
OK, this is certainly true, the USSR used force to impose their political and economic model on Eastern Europe.
"By the way, Americans are behaving in the same manner, trying to impose their model practically worldwide,"
That is clearly false. American might be trying to impose our model worldwide (it isn't really *our* model per se though), but there is one rather key difference. We aren't doing it by force. Liberal capitalism isn't spread, with very, very few exceptions, by T-62s or M-1s rolling into other countries. Rather, it has spread simply by offering a better alternative than the options.
:yes: Iraq never happened.
Do you understand what the word "exception" means?
Whoa! Rage down, dude.