U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What Do You Believe Are the World's Most Negative Events?
The Russian Revolution of 1917 and in Particular the October Revolution 14 37.84%
The French Revolution 2 5.41%
Hitler's Accession to Power in 1933 19 51.35%
The American Revolution 1 2.70%
England's Glorious Revolution of 1689 0 0%
September 11, 2001 6 16.22%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2019, 08:17 PM
 
15,137 posts, read 13,761,770 times
Reputation: 6975

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
In what country or countries is this utopia where "it's a different story"? Utopia Parkway in Queens, New York perhaps?

There is no such one country in particular, because ALL countries include both types of people.
However SOME cultures are more predisposed to communal way of thinking/living than other.

Russia would be one of them, America ( White America that is) on another hand is not.

Quote:

The results of the same agrarian policy were identical, however.
No they were not.
Because "agrarian policy" was closely connected to industrial one.
While in Russia the sacrifices that were made on agrarian front brought the victory on the industrial front, in Cambodia those sacrifices were made for nothing.


And that's what sets Russia apart from typical third world countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2019, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Estonia
2,644 posts, read 1,447,018 times
Reputation: 977
The worst event on this list is Hitler's Accession to power in 1933, I chose it from the list.

It is also worth remembering that the aggression initiated by Hitler in Europe in the late 1930s also influenced Stalin to conquer other countries. (By the end of the 1930s, Stalin had been quietly sitting in the Kremlin, killing quietly his own generals, ministers (and tons of other people) but he had not attacked foreign countries).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
I conclude that the Russian Revolution, along with Hitler's accession to his role as Chancellor and Fuehrer were among the world's great tragedies. Europe,far from being a birther of culture, was a charnel house. I'm glad that we, as Americans, are here and they are there. Particularly since I am a Jew of largely Middle and Eastern European extraction.
At least the peoples of Eastern Europe should however, regard the Russian revolutions of 1917 as positive events. Or is there anyone who believes the very Romanovs would have given Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia etc independence? And with regard to the Jews for example their rights in tsarist Russia were very very limited. The revolutionary year changed a lot here.


(I'd say the most positive event on this list is the French Revolution. It seems to me that today people are often underestimating the impact of the French Revolution.)

Last edited by Anhityk; 08-10-2019 at 03:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 03:59 PM
 
914 posts, read 208,328 times
Reputation: 3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhityk View Post
The worst event on this list is Hitler's Accession to power in 1933, I chose it from the list.

It is also worth remembering that the aggression initiated by Hitler in Europe in the late 1930s also influenced Stalin to conquer other countries. (By the end of the 1930s, Stalin had been quietly sitting in the Kremlin, killing quietly his own generals, ministers (and tons of other people) but he had not attacked foreign countries).
I would say it enabled Stalin's conquest.

Stalin, in contrast to Hitler, was fairly conservative in his foreign adventures. Hitler was willing to take risks; Stalin, not so much. The infamous Molotov Pact gave the USSR a large of Poland, gave Stalin to launch a war of blatant aggression against Finland (which resulted in the Soviet Union slicing off a chunk of that country, along with a few other concessions on the part of Finland), and allowed Stalin the latitude to seize and annex Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Absent Hitler, it is very unlikely that Stalin would have done any such thing. This is not to say that Stalin was above such things, but that he prioritized his own skin above all else, whereas Hitler had a do-or-die attitude. And once Hitler's military was running amok in Europe (and in Africa, and in the Atlantic) Stalin's comparative minor aggressions were ignored out of necessity.

As a consequence of rolling back the German invasion of 1941, most of eastern Europe fell into Stalin's lap, though Yugoslavia (sooner) and Albania (later) broke with the USSR, while Romania under Ceaușescu managed to keep the Soviets at arm's length.

Another ultimate consequence of Hitler was a tremendous amount of technology flowing to the USSR. Some came from the western Allies that Russians instead of Americans, Brits and Canadians would die, some was seized from Germany, and some - which arose specifically as a result of Hitler - was stolen from the West. This technological transfer allowed the USSR to soon become a superpower after the war.

While Hitler's existence was a terrible tragedy for the people of the Soviet Union in general, it was one of the best things ever to happen to Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili as an individual and to communism as a movement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 05:30 AM
 
Location: New York Area
16,232 posts, read 6,404,180 times
Reputation: 12541
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
No they were not.
Because "agrarian policy" was closely connected to industrial one.
While in Russia the sacrifices that were made on agrarian front brought the victory on the industrial front, in Cambodia those sacrifices were made for nothing.


And that's what sets Russia apart from typical third world countries.
Russia was not and is not an industrial success. Not under free trade conditions, certainly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 05:35 AM
 
Location: New York Area
16,232 posts, read 6,404,180 times
Reputation: 12541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhityk View Post
At least the peoples of Eastern Europe should however, regard the Russian revolutions of 1917 as positive events. Or is there anyone who believes the very Romanovs would have given Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia etc independence?
Those grants of independence were generally under compulsion, economic or otherwise. When oil prices fell during the 1980s and by and large stayed down, Russia needed to accommodate the West. And as we've seen with Putin, the grant of independence has not sat well with Russia. Poland and the Baltic states have joined with NATO in order to discourage Russian revanchism (not sure if I picked the right word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhityk View Post
And with regard to the Jews for example their rights in tsarist Russia were very very limited. The revolutionary year changed a lot here.
Those rights were almost as limited thereafter. It was only the fall of the Soviet Union that permitted widespread emigration of Jews. And many took that opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhityk View Post
(I'd say the most positive event on this list is the French Revolution. It seems to me that today people are often underestimating the impact of the French Revolution.)
If the streets running with blood is a "positive event", surely. Napoleon was only selectively an adherent to those revolutionary values.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 10:50 AM
 
9,293 posts, read 9,365,774 times
Reputation: 29219
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Modern writer Thomas Reiss would beg to differ. See The Orientalist: Solving the Mystery of a Strange and Dangerous Life. Reiss is a Harvard graduate (1987) and a Pulitzer Prize winner. His opinions carry more weight with me than Buxus or 2x3x29x41. As far as 2x3x29x41 can you explain what you admire about Stalin?




I certainly don't admire Stalin. Yet, I have wondered ironically if Stalin was not one of the best things that ever happened to the United States of America.

I have always wondered if the Soviet Union would have collapsed in the face of the invasion from Nazi Germany without his harsh, unyielding, driving leadership.

The presence of the Soviet Union in World War II as an ally was a godsend for Britain and the USA. Without them, far more American soldiers would have died during the invasion of Europe--if we had ever gotten around to invading Europe. Its a subject I am sensitive about because both my parents were World War II vets. I can easily imagine one or both of them being killed had we not had the support of the USSR during this conflict.

Yes, Stalin was a blood thirsty, murdering, butcher. He also unintentionally did America and Britain a favor that probably no one else could have.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 11:29 AM
 
914 posts, read 208,328 times
Reputation: 3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I certainly don't admire Stalin. Yet, I have wondered ironically if Stalin was not one of the best things that ever happened to the United States of America.
That qualifier is never enough to satisfy those for whom any acknowledgment of Stalin's abilities, or the rather obvious fact that his interests and those of the western Allies dovetailed to a significant degree during the war, is akin to reverence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I have always wondered if the Soviet Union would have collapsed in the face of the invasion from Nazi Germany without his harsh, unyielding, driving leadership.

The presence of the Soviet Union in World War II as an ally was a godsend for Britain and the USA. Without them, far more American soldiers would have died during the invasion of Europe--if we had ever gotten around to invading Europe. Its a subject I am sensitive about because both my parents were World War II vets. I can easily imagine one or both of them being killed had we not had the support of the USSR during this conflict.

Yes, Stalin was a blood thirsty, murdering, butcher. He also unintentionally did America and Britain a favor that probably no one else could have.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
One wonders how it would have gone for Germany in the long run had the Soviet leadership [ie, Stalin] collapsed (and that may well have come close to happening, depending on how one interprets Stalin's behavior in the first two weeks post-invasion). Stalin had so ruthlessly eradicated potential rivals, while factionalizing the remaining subordinate sources of power in the USSR, that it seems very unlikely that any could have united the country without a prolonged power struggle, which would have facilitated the German takeover.

However, the German garrisoning of such a vast swath of conquered territory would have been exceedingly difficult. It would have been unending guerrilla warfare waged by every local populace. A less ideologically-blind leadership might've created useful puppet states in Belarus and Ukraine, and perhaps even a rump Russian state, to handle that work. But Hitler was temperamentally unsuited to such a policy. Surely, it would have freed a lot of forces to guard the Atlantic Wall. But in the long run, I suppose, atomic weapons would have broken Germany's back.

As a side note, one also wonders how much more dangerous to the West Stalin might ultimately have been had he been able to better temper his raging paranoia so as to better harness the skills of so many that he rubbed out on the off chance that they might one day pose a threat to him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 11:31 AM
 
15,137 posts, read 13,761,770 times
Reputation: 6975
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Russia was not and is not an industrial success. Not under free trade conditions, certainly.

What are you even talking about?
What "free trade conditions?"
Soviet Russia of Stalin's times was an industrial success because;
A. From predominantly agrarian, semi-colonized country in total ruin after the civil war, it turned into industrial state ( that was not as easy to take advantage of by the Western European countries)
and B.If not for industrialization, Russia wouldn't have been able to withstand the upcoming WWII. It would be the end of it as a state and a nation.


I understand that some of you would celebrate it, but that's already a different story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 11:36 AM
 
15,137 posts, read 13,761,770 times
Reputation: 6975
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
[/b]


I certainly don't admire Stalin. Yet, I have wondered ironically if Stalin was not one of the best things that ever happened to the United States of America.

I have always wondered if the Soviet Union would have collapsed in the face of the invasion from Nazi Germany without his harsh, unyielding, driving leadership.

It would have most likely, since the country was still divided somewhat after the recent civil war.
(On top of that, we already know how Tzarist Russia *performed* during the WWI.)


Quote:
The presence of the Soviet Union in World War II as an ally was a godsend for Britain and the USA. Without them, far more American soldiers would have died during the invasion of Europe--if we had ever gotten around to invading Europe. Its a subject I am sensitive about because both my parents were World War II vets. I can easily imagine one or both of them being killed had we not had the support of the USSR during this conflict.

Yes, Stalin was a blood thirsty, murdering, butcher. He also unintentionally did America and Britain a favor that probably no one else could have.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I'm glad that at least SOME people realize that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 11:42 AM
 
914 posts, read 208,328 times
Reputation: 3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Modern writer Thomas Reiss would beg to differ. See The Orientalist: Solving the Mystery of a Strange and Dangerous Life. Reiss is a Harvard graduate (1987) and a Pulitzer Prize winner. His opinions carry more weight with me than Buxus or 2x3x29x41. As far as 2x3x29x41 can you explain what you admire about Stalin?
Nothing.

The implication that I do is either:

*Idiotic, or
*A pathetic strawman

I suspect that latter. You try and shift the discussion from Bey to me: "Oh, so you like Stalin, huh?". As I said, you don't discuss history. You just wallow in your ideological obsessions, and anyone who doesn't join in your circle jerk over Bey therefore 'admires' Stalin.

I'd suggest you stop embarrassing yourself, but I know a hopeless cause when I see one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top