Why is Communism not as hated/viewed as evil as Nazism? (European, empire)

[LINative]

Originally Posted by Ian_Lee

Fascist states got along with each other than the Communist states do.

For example, Franco's Spain got along well with Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. And Fascists didn't have a tendency to kill each other.

On the other hand, Communists have a tendency to kill each other. Stalin couldn't get along with Trotsky and murdered the latter in Mexico. Vietnam fought with the Khmer Rouge; Vietnam fought with China, China fought with USSR and the latter almost nuked China in 1969.

But when one of them got rid of Communism, they usually can along with each other very well. For example, Putin's Russia and China.

And when Fascist leaders met with each other, they just shook hands. But the way the Communist leaders greeted each other made me have goosebumps, i.e. Khrushchev and Mao, Brezhnev and Castro, they bear-hugged each other and cheek touched cheek.

I really suspect that all Communists are closeted gay.

That is really hard to prove. To be fair to the Communist countries, Fascist countries simply do not have a longer enough history to judge. The longest, Fascist Italy only lasted about 20 years (1920s to 1940s) while Fascist (Nazi) Germany only dates from 1933 to 1945.

Remember that for a while the Soviet Union and Communist China enjoyed good relations before they declined. So in other words, if the Fascist countries had more time, relations between Fascist countries may also have declined. Hitler, I believe even had plans to drawn up to invade Fascist Spain at one point.

Also for quite a while Mussolini was not a fan of Hitler until the breakdown of relations between Italy and the Allies, largely over the Italian invasion of Ethiopia.

[damba]

Originally Posted by erasure

Are you saying Polish children were prohibited from speaking ( and being taught in schools) in Polish language?

No, of course they still used their Polish, but they were forced to learn Russian in school. My Polish relatives said they did this, but with the older kids especially, it was arguably with the middle finger in the air some days (!)

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by X14Freak

The Eastern Bloc was poorer than the West even before Communism. The exceptions were the Czech Republic (Bohemia) and East Germany. China was also incredibly poor prior to Communism and in fact it can be argued the country became Communist because of how inept Chiang Kai-Shek was in running the country. Vietnam lags behind Thailand because it was devastated by a horrific war that ended in the late 70s. North Korea was slightly ahead of South Korea until the Eastern Bloc collapsed and it began to double down on its autarky (none of the Communist states were truly autarkic). I am not saying Communism isn't a significant factor in impeding economic development but there are also important factors that played a role.

Fine, they were poorer, but the exact same areas grew at breathtaking speed once Communism was removed in the Eastern Bloc.

The same applies to China. China was certainly down on her luck, as it is historically a superpower. The opium wars and the end of the Emporers were not the greatest of entrances for democracy, but they did have elections, and were getting started. While Kai-Shek was fighting the Japanese, the cowardly communists were knifing him in the back. The communist solution starved millions of people who were not allowed to leave land, with the same stupid land laws surviving even today. Only upon embracing a more capitalistic approach has China's long awaited ascendancy begun, delayed by communism.

We won't know on Vietnam. At some point the country became so poor that people started to invest there. Decades of communism have permanently thwarted the country's future. It will be interesting to see if Cuba begins to grow as Communism releases there....still with her cars from the 50's.

And North Korea....how can you even consider the welfare rat of N. Korea to be a success compared to S. Korea. They too had a war to contend with. N. Korea hasn't even ended its war as it will have nothing else to focus on but the millions and millions of lives thrown away. A whole nation afraid to admit the most basic of truths that their leader is insane and their system is run entirely by a leader.

Here in the US, we can regularly elect insane leaders and we still do fine, because we're not communist.

[Ian_Lee]

North Korea was slightly ahead of South Korea until the Eastern Bloc collapsed
__________________________________________________ ________________

Those who believe that North Korea was ahead of South Korea economically until 1992 might as well persuade other fellow posters that it was South Korea which invaded the North in 1950.

South Korea had already been known as one of the "Four Dragons" or "Four Tigers" since 1970s which recorded exponential economic growth in the subsequent decades.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by artillery77

Fine, they were poorer, but the exact same areas grew at breathtaking speed once Communism was removed in the Eastern Bloc.

Not so fast.
They were poorer; in fact they were more or less under German control ( for the most part) and that's where they were returned to. So it's basically German investments that account for "breathtaking speed."
Leave these four on their own and they'd go back to poverty.
I am not going to mention that Poland ( which was not under German but Russian control for the most part before revolution) is staying half-empty now, because Poles are used as cheap labor in E.U.
When it comes to Bulgarians, ( that are not part of "Visegrad group" - i.e. four countries that went to Germany,) they are simply dying out now, since they can't afford "the breathtaking speed" - i.e. "the survival of the fittest" that has been pushed upon them in E.U.
I am not gloating here, I am merely pointing to you that the picture is not as rosy as you are trying to present it here.

The same applies to China. China was certainly down on her luck, as it is historically a superpower. The opium wars and the end of the Emporers were not the greatest of entrances for democracy, but they did have elections, and were getting started. While Kai-Shek was fighting the Japanese, the cowardly communists were knifing him in the back. The communist solution starved millions of people who were not allowed to leave land, with the same stupid land laws surviving even today. Only upon embracing a more capitalistic approach has China's long awaited ascendancy begun, delayed by communism.

We won't know on Vietnam. At some point the country became so poor that people started to invest there. Decades of communism have permanently thwarted the country's future. It will be interesting to see if Cuba begins to grow as Communism releases there....still with her cars from the 50's.

And North Korea....how can you even consider the welfare rat of N. Korea to be a success compared to S. Korea. They too had a war to contend with. N. Korea hasn't even ended its war as it will have nothing else to focus on but the millions and millions of lives thrown away. A whole nation afraid to admit the most basic of truths that their leader is insane and their system is run entirely by a leader.

Th rest of the countries you describe here are non-European countries, and they were poorly developed with or without Communism.

Here in the US, we can regularly elect insane leaders and we still do fine, because we're not communist.

There were no "insane leaders" in the US, plus any "insanity" is controlled by another group of people - i.e. congress and senate.

[X14Freak]

Originally Posted by artillery77

Fine, they were poorer, but the exact same areas grew at breathtaking speed once Communism was removed in the Eastern Bloc.

The same applies to China. China was certainly down on her luck, as it is historically a superpower. The opium wars and the end of the Emporers were not the greatest of entrances for democracy, but they did have elections, and were getting started. While Kai-Shek was fighting the Japanese, the cowardly communists were knifing him in the back. The communist solution starved millions of people who were not allowed to leave land, with the same stupid land laws surviving even today. Only upon embracing a more capitalistic approach has China's long awaited ascendancy begun, delayed by communism.

We won't know on Vietnam. At some point the country became so poor that people started to invest there. Decades of communism have permanently thwarted the country's future. It will be interesting to see if Cuba begins to grow as Communism releases there....still with her cars from the 50's.

And North Korea....how can you even consider the welfare rat of N. Korea to be a success compared to S. Korea. They too had a war to contend with. N. Korea hasn't even ended its war as it will have nothing else to focus on but the millions and millions of lives thrown away. A whole nation afraid to admit the most basic of truths that their leader is insane and their system is run entirely by a leader.

Here in the US, we can regularly elect insane leaders and we still do fine, because we're not communist.

I didn't state that North Korea was a great place to live. All I said was that they were slightly ahead of South Korea from the 50s to the 70s and a big reason why is because Japan built factories and dams in North Korea prior to WWII. I will even argue that North Korea was better off under Japanese rule as controversial as that assertion is. Imperial Japan was awful in its wartime conduct but they did contribute to culture (Yasunari Kawabata wrote his best work during this period) and science while North Korea contributes absolutely nothing to culture or science.

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by erasure

Not so fast.
They were poorer; in fact they were more or less under German control ( for the most part) and that's where they were returned to. So it's basically German investments that account for "breathtaking speed."
Leave these four on their own and they'd go back to poverty.
I am not going to mention that Poland ( which was not under German but Russian control for the most part before revolution) is staying half-empty now, because Poles are used as cheap labor in E.U.
When it comes to Bulgarians, ( that are not part of "Visegrad group" - i.e. four countries that went to Germany,) they are simply dying out now, since they can't afford "the breathtaking speed" - i.e. "the survival of the fittest" that has been pushed upon them in E.U.
I am not gloating here, I am merely pointing to you that the picture is not as rosy as you are trying to present it here.




Th rest of the countries you describe here are non-European countries, and they were poorly developed with or without Communism.



There were no "insane leaders" in the US, plus any "insanity" is controlled by another group of people - i.e. congress and senate.

German investment negates growth that Soviet investment couldn't offer? There's little room for debate on this. Eastern Europe did much better economically in the 90's than it had in prior decades under communism. It might not be the Four Seasons on the Baltic and Black Seas everyday, but that's pitting better as the enemy of perfect.

Those non-European countries that were poorly developed? What is that? Japan had little choice but to accept Democracy and Capitalism. They did ok. Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well. Australia turned out pretty good. The countries that clung to Communism stagnated until they got rid of the stupidity of government controlled economies.

And the last point is exactly correct. We have a system of rules and checks and balances in America. That America is so good, even as Reagan is succumbing to alzheimers he can take down the worthlessness of communism, because communism has no redeeming values. It's government by thieves who make everyone and everything expendable.

[karstic]

Russia should forget about countries they consider theirs, or their buffer zone. Russia is not an empire anymore and nobody wants to invade that country. Not a matter of communism, but Russian imperialism.

What Poles or Ukranians want is not Russian business. Russians do remind British and their laughable imperialism.

French are also somewhat ridiculous with all the "grandeur", etc. Antics.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by karstic

Strange as it might seem, the person that saved the Russian Revolution was Rockefeller,

He did? Then I'd like to know more about it, because judging by this description - "Rockefeller Octopus’s tentacles into every facet of America’s banking, oil (through their control of Standard Oil), military, educational, and foreign policy apparatus was exposed in a monograph prepared by the Soviet Union in 1959" - this is hardly a "thank you" note for a "savior" of the Russian Revolution)))

http://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefe...-union/5308763

( The person whose name is REALLY tied to the USSR in America in this respect was actually Armand Hammer.)
But that was later than "Russian Revolution" of course..)

also Ford and GM. Russian trucks, for example, were built under licence by GM. Paradoxs in history. There are many books about the subject, there are even idiotic conspiranoic theories about the subject. I'm talking about the 20's and 30's...etc.

Yes, that was business - what else? Where do you see a paradox here?

" Later, in 1929 under Josef Stalin, the Soviet Union persuaded Ford to cooperate on building and supervising a car plant in Gorky to turn out Model T cars. Ford made $30 million on the deal, and in the 1930s 100,000 cars a year were built in Gorky."

Soviets Failing a Lesson Taught by Henry Ford - latimes

Americans also shipped enormous amounts of weapons during the war.
Once I talked with a very cultured engineer from the USSR. I was amazed by the fact that he ignored the molotov-ribbentrop pact and US military aid. Maybe he knew, but they were being watched all the time.

Of course he knew, simply Russians were looking at things differently.
"Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact came AFTER the Munich agreement - i.e. when Russians already knew that Europeans were not going to fight Hitler, but they rather went for appeasement, so for Russians it was the next logical step to not to get involved into the war with Germany.
And as far as "US military aid" goes - all Russians knew that they were receiving it INSTEAD of what they REALLY needed - i.e. the opening of the second front, when they were in dire need of it. But that badly needed help came too late - when Russians already managed and prevailed themselves.

You are right, the "new men" in communist countries were scum before and after communism.

So there you go - it's really negative human traits to begin with and they'll let themselves to be known WITH communism or without it. They just might take different forms under different social systems.

I met a Russian Jewish industrialist that lived in Moscow before the revolution, and amazing as it might seem, he caught "the last train to Vladivostock" and ended in Shangai. Jews were rich and powerful in Tzarist Russia and... I know about ghettoes and progroms, but there were very powerful people too. Yes, there were many Jewish Bolsheviks, but that was used as baiting.

I am not sure about that one, since they were really an "underclass" in staunchly Orthodox Tzarist Russia.

Lenin was always accused of being Jewish, but Ii read somewhere that he was something called Karmulk, just like Yul Brinner.

Yes, usually by those who push the idea of Bolshevism as "Jewish conspiracy" that destroyed mother-Russia)))

In reality Lenin was of a very mixed origin; this is the picture of his father, who ( it looks like) had an admixture of some Russian ethnic minorities (Kalmyks most likely,) while Lenin's mother was either of strictly German ( both parents) or German/Jewish origin ( her father's origin is not clear.)

Strange as it might seem, "Fascist" Spain had very good economic relations with the USSR. They shipped enormous amounts of oil from Odessa to Alicante, Spain. The proceeds were used to ship goods to your internationalistic allies, including weapons. Part of the proceeds went to private accounts, and the deals with SOVIET EXPORT, etc, etc, were in no way different from deals with African and Latin American countries.

I'm sorry I don't know much about Spain, Franco's period including, even though one of my contacts on FB is a descendant of one of those Spanish children sent to Russia during those years it seems.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by artillery77

German investment negates growth that Soviet investment couldn't offer?

Soviet economy was not about "investments" and "return on investments."

There's little room for debate on this. Eastern Europe did much better economically in the 90's than it had in prior decades under communism.

Except for it stays half-empty now, since Eastern Europeans are used as cheap labor in Western Europe. ( Except for some of those, that Germany purchased as I've already mentioned earlier. )There is plenty of room to discuss it.

Those non-European countries that were poorly developed? What is that?

You don't know "what is that?" Really? It goes pretty much to the most part of the world, except for Europe, and colonies settled and organized by Europeans - i.e. The US, Canada and Australia.

Japan had little choice but to accept Democracy and Capitalism.

Japan is somewhat of exception, yet even in this case "Democracy and Capitalism" that made Japan prosperous were established there with the help of Americans.

They did ok. Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well.

Yet again small part of China managed initially by Great Britain.

Australia turned out pretty good.

Settled and organized yet again by the Britons.

The countries that clung to Communism stagnated until they got rid of the stupidity of government controlled economies.

To begin with - these countries turn to communism because capitalism had negative impact on them. Some people have strange ideas sometimes, that "flourishing capitalist countries turn to Communism out of stupidity and that's how their prosperity gets ruined."
Which is obviously a joke, since they turn to communism out of desperation, that capitalism brings them.

And the last point is exactly correct. We have a system of rules and checks and balances in America.

As I've already pointed to you - capitalism was meant to serve well only CERTAIN nations - those of Western European origin, and those that European nations chose to serve their purpose.

That America is so good, even as Reagan is succumbing to alzheimers he can take down the worthlessness of communism, because communism has no redeeming values. It's government by thieves who make everyone and everything expendable.

If Communism wouldn't have had any "redeeming values," the conservatives in Western countries ( and the US in particular) wouldn't have been so weary of it.
I mean if Communism wouldn't have had ANYTHING positive, and its ideals were not attractive to anyone, then sure no one would have questioned the "redeeming values" of capitalism?
But they are questioned over and over again.