Was Communism ever really a threat? (economy, France, Russians, years)

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by erasure

Here we go;

"Throughout the European medieval period, attempts were even made to establish successors to the Roman Empire, including the Crusader state, the Empire of Romania and the Holy Roman Empire. By means of European expansionism through the Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, Russian, German, British and Belgian Empires, Greco-Roman culture was spread on a worldwide scale, playing a significant role in the development of the modern world."

"This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

- Voltaire

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Ariete

"This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

- Voltaire

Very well, subtract the "Roman" part and keep solely the "Greek culture" - it doesn't change much, now does it?

[Olle]

Finland are not good with communism and Sweden too. Denmark and Norway isn't nobody communism in Nordic plus US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and Austria in worlds. Why is different in manny Europeans, half South America, central America and Asia ? Cuba, Belarus, Finland and Sweden are poor communism two first only communism in one state country.

[Olle]

Communism aren't the strongest spice of all spices.

[Olle]

Poland was defetead by Nazism in first war in WW2. Strongest Poland can't win.

[Olle]

I like Nationalists more than Communism.

Why I can not explane but I have problems with outlaws in my country they allways believe after I listen to hard rock I am Nazi but I never say that to them so they can fight me.

I never wanted in that way with fights with outlaws communists.

Communism are stranger than every black.

[Olle]

Knowing communists are bad against America and Nazis.

[travric]

Re: 'I like Nationalists more than Communism'


And let it 'all bloom' perhaps?

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Dd714

It seems both sides were motivated by paranoia - you had two major powers with totally opposite ideological systems. The Soviet Union was motivated by two world wars and invasion from the west to create buffer states wherever there was opportunity for what it perceived as it's own protection, the US and the west in turn was motivated by what it perceived as the expansion of the Soviet and communist sphere of influence. One fed the other.

The fact that the world survived the cold war with two nuclear armed foes, and it never really turned "hot" (not including some limited proxy wars) indicates that at least on both sides, even with the tension, there was some sanity and something worked right. For the US - containment was the policy. And as many missteps that had occurred - McCarthyism, Vietnam, etc...the fact is, it worked. We outspent the Soviet Union, we outlasted Mao. And we did it all without a world war.

Was the "red menace" really that much a threat to our way of life? Perhaps not, but history shows that the Soviet and Maoist models of communism was a human failure in just about every way possible, and as much as this forum loves to condemn the evils of western imperialism and capitalism, 70 years of communism alone caused about 100 million deaths worldwide with a history of repression, famine, democide that rivals just about any of the evils in the history of man. The death of those versions of communism, and our contribution to it's early demise, should be celebrated.

And radical Islam, and the sham called Political Correctness are more of the same -- old poison in a new bottle; and all peddled in the pursuit of power. The phenomenae of people like Trump, Sanders, and Merkel in Germany are just passing ships on a distant horizon; as long as they have to answer to an open society and a free press, the democratic process will keep them from becoming too powerful. It was Eric Hoffer who once observed that the principal purpose of democracy is to make, and keep, every man (or woman) a paper tiger.

But if the individual is more easily held answerable for his/her misdeeds, It ought to be recognized that most, if not all of the worst examples of man's inhumanity to man were carried out in the name of collective beliefs and actions; the name of some supposed greater common good. And this is a trait which the laughable heirs of "hooded Americanism" share with the two threats cited above.

[Frihed89]

Our political leaders thought so and acted on that belief. Wasn't that "real enough"?