Gorbachev to Defend Putin at Berlin Wall Anniversary - Polidicks

That's very nice, but he should perhaps consider that none of this would have happened if he hadn't let that wall come down in the first place? [URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11213081/Gorbachev-to-use-Berlin-Wall-festivities-to-defend-Putin.html[/URL] [QUOTE]Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said on Thursday he would seek to defend Vladimir Putin's policies when he travels to Germany for ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall this week. Gorbachev, who is praised for his decision not to use force to quell uprisings in Eastern Europe, allowing the Berlin Wall to fall, said that Washington did Moscow wrong and Putin was the best man for the job of protecting the country's interests.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Gorbachev, whose "perestroika" and "glasnost" reforms helped pave the way to the Wall's fall, is set to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Joachim Gauck and will greet crowds at the former Checkpoint Charlie border crossing. In some of his most explicit comments endorsing Putin's policies, Gorbachev said he was convinced that the raging Ukraine crisis pitting Russia against the West provided an "excuse" for the United States to pick on Russia. "Russia agreed to new relations, (and) created new cooperation structures. And everything would be great but not everyone in the United States liked it," he said in an interview with the Interfax news agency on Thursday. "They have different plans, they need a different situation, one that would allow them to meddle everywhere. Whether it will be good or bad, they don't care," Gorbachev said, referring to Washington. In his meetings with EU leaders and public figures Gorbachev said he would seek to protect Russia and its president. "I am absolutely convinced that Putin protects Russia's interests better than anyone else."[/QUOTE]

are you insinuating that the Berlin Wall should have not been taken down?

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46430536]are you insinuating that the Berlin Wall should have not been taken down?[/QUOTE] Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] The fall of the wall and the stability of the USSR are linked - but should not be treated as the same issue. If you wanted Gorbachev to reorganise the USSR, then that is fine. However, it should not be at the expense of the German people's wellbeing. The Wall was a bad idea and it coming down was good.

No! Mouthsheeptounge! No!

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] You're mental.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] Poe's law?

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] Gorby tried to do that. He couldn't because even the slightest reform in the SU was met with opposition in Russia and heralded as its end abroad. Europeans didn't want the SU. Germans certainly didn't want the SU. It was at a boiling point: the SU fucked with Europe too much and even small actions like Solidarity in Poland exploded in size and popularity because everyone wanted the Soviets to just fuck off already. I, for one, am genuinely happy that the peoples of Eastern Europe were brave and idealistic enough to tell the Soviets to get lost after years of disillusionment. The Russians simply reap what they sow here.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] As somebody whose family suffered immensely under Soviet rule, lost everything they had, and were forced from the land of their birth, I would like to say that I would have several very offensive words to say to you. Instead, I would like to tell you that the Soviet Union was a catastrophic social experiment. To argue that it should have remained so that "The west gets btfo" is a shallow, and fucking annoying view of history. These people who can't fix their own problems instead bitch and moan and whine about "The evil west" before shooting anybody who tried climbing over the wall into west Berlin.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] Holy christ you're absolutely nuts

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46430630]You're mental.[/QUOTE] he's not really, Gorbachev tried to do exactly as you said but it resulted in the 1991 coup

The SU was pretty shit

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] Get perma'd please.

If there's one thing people around here hate more than Nazis then it must be the Soviets

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] Fuck fucking off

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46430573]Yes, I think Gorbachev should have ensured the Soviet Union reformed and reorganized on it's own terms. Slowly abandoning the more messed-up aspects of communism (like state-atheism) in such a way that would not allow the West to think they'd "won".[/QUOTE] How about no? No one wanted to be part of that shitty union. Lol, disagrees, for what? Who, except Russia, wanted that union? Why does everyone in Eastern Europe hate Russia nowadays? Because they loved the union so much?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46430913]Holy christ you're absolutely nuts[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46430630]You're mental.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GoldenDargon;46430953]Get perma'd please.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=markedOne;46430961]Fuck fucking off[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][IMG]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--0fPxl4jt--/18m7tuyanxopfjpg.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]Reagan would be proud

Its not making Reagan proud, its just not wanting to live in a russian occupied and run country, thanks

[QUOTE=Showgun;46430970]Reagan would be proud[/QUOTE] So, how were your experiences in the USSR?

[QUOTE=deltasquid;46430695]Gorby tried to do that. He couldn't because even the slightest reform in the SU was met with opposition in Russia and heralded as its end abroad. Europeans didn't want the SU. Germans certainly didn't want the SU. It was at a boiling point: the SU fucked with Europe too much and even small actions like Solidarity in Poland exploded in size and popularity because everyone wanted the Soviets to just fuck off already. I, for one, am genuinely happy that the peoples of Eastern Europe were brave and idealistic enough to tell the Soviets to get lost after years of disillusionment. The Russians simply reap what they sow here.[/QUOTE] The Soviet Union fell because, for a brief time, the Russian people believed that the grass would be greener on the other side. That if they just adopted a western capitalist system then everything would change for the better. The Yeltsin years soon shattered that illusion. If they had chosen to tough it out, and change things on their own terms they would have outlasted Reagan, who would have left office in disgrace over the Iran-Contra scandal. With the Soviet Union surviving Regan's presidency, republicans would never have been able to use that signature achievement to anoint him with sainthood. The attitude of the American political establishment would have pivoted back to the Carter-esque perspective that the Soviet Union was there to stay.

[QUOTE=Showgun;46430970]Reagan would be proud[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://cdn1.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/eagle-july-eagleexplosion.jpg[/IMG] Behind the eagle is the soviet union. God bless the land of the red white and blue [QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46431069]The Soviet Union fell because, for a brief time, the Russian people believed that the grass would be greener on the other side. That if they just adopted a western capitalist system then everything would change for the better. The Yeltsin years soon shattered that illusion. If they had chosen to tough it out, and change things on their own terms they would have outlasted Reagan, who would have left office in disgrace over the Iran-Contra scandal. With the Soviet Union surviving Regan's presidency, republicans would never have been able to use that signature achievement to anoint him with sainthood. The attitude of the American political establishment would have pivoted back to the Carter-esque perspective that the Soviet Union was there to stay.[/QUOTE] It's really not a good idea to speak definitely when it comes to alternative history. Reagan could very well still end up being praised for "forcing the Soviets to adopt capitalism" or something, you never know. And also you're ignoring the fact that the rest of the warsaw pact was ditching communism too, another potential "victory" for reagan. Unless you count them too when you say "if they had chosen to tough it out".

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46431069]The Soviet Union fell because, for a brief time, the Russian people believed that the grass would be greener on the other side. That if they just adopted a western capitalist system then everything would change for the better.[/QUOTE] The Soviet Union had been rotting ever since Stalin died. Their economy stopped growing and they had no idea how to move forwards as a society. Books were still censored, travel was restricted, information tightly controlled, etc.

Maybe once we take down Russia and have them taking it deepthroat from us we can finally get reparations for every last German murdered by STASI and other collaborator fucks during their illegal occupation?

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46431069]The Soviet Union fell because, for a brief time, the Russian people believed that the grass would be greener on the other side. That if they just adopted a western capitalist system then everything would change for the better. The Yeltsin years soon shattered that illusion. If they had chosen to tough it out, and change things on their own terms they would have outlasted Reagan, who would have left office in disgrace over the Iran-Contra scandal. With the Soviet Union surviving Regan's presidency, republicans would never have been able to use that signature achievement to anoint him with sainthood. The attitude of the American political establishment would have pivoted back to the Carter-esque perspective that the Soviet Union was there to stay.[/QUOTE] I thnik soviet union was too tainted. Pieces wanted to break off and would do so, with them gone the rest of the union would suffer and demand change. It wasn't a sustainable system.

[QUOTE=certified;46431145]Maybe once we take down Russia and have them taking it deepthroat from us we can finally get reparations for every last German murdered by STASI and other collaborator fucks during their illegal occupation?[/QUOTE] What the Germans tried to do the Russians was as bad as what the White man did to the Native Americans in the 1800s. Now consider what would have happened if the Native Americans had beaten the white man and pushed them back to the East Coast. The Native Americans were (relatively) peaceful people, but do you think they would not have done cruel things to the White Man's women and children as revenge for all the terrible things the White Man did to them? The same principle applies to the Eastern Front in World War II: when one group of people launches a war of genocide against another, they should prepare for the consequences if they lose. The only difference between the Eastern Front and the American West is that, unlike the Native Americans, the Russians were able to exact revenge.

[QUOTE=Showgun;46430970]Reagan would be proud[/QUOTE] Go and ask someone from Germany if they feel like they should have kept the Berlin Wall. I'm sure you'll get the same unanimous response.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46431233]The Native Americans were (relatively) peaceful people,[/QUOTE] No they weren't. Most of them were pretty violent. The least violent Amerindian societies were the Aztecs, Incans, and anywhere with complex social hierarchies and urban settlement. [quote]The same principle applies to the Eastern Front in World War II: when one group of people launches a war of genocide against another, they should prepare for the consequences if they lose. Unlike the Native Americans, the Russians were able to exact revenge.[/quote] Innocent people died. Even if you accept that revenge is justified, you still have to explain the piles of dead Polish and Ukrainians and Latvians who were never on Germany's side.

[QUOTE=Deng;46431261]No they weren't. Most of them were pretty violent. The least violent Amerindian societies were the Aztecs, Incans, and anywhere with complex social hierarchies and urban settlement. [/QUOTE] This seems pretty far from the truth. The aztecs were incredibly warlike, they had to be, a rather young empire raising in an area with other empire generally has to fight to survive. In north america the nomadic groups were less warlike living in more sparsely populated areas, there was war of course. For an example of peaceful north americans look at thanks giving.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46431279]This seems pretty far from the truth. The aztecs were incredibly warlike, they had to be, a rather young empire raising in an area with other empire generally has to fight to survive.[/QUOTE] The Aztec frequently engaged in warfare, but it was overall less violent. The Aztec state held a monopoly on violence, and made efforts to reduce violence between different groups, because that's bad for the strength of the state. [quote]In north america the nomadic groups were less warlike living in more sparsely populated areas, there was war of course. For an example of peaceful north americans look at thanks giving.[/quote] Not true either: [IMG]http://unsafeharbour.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/pinker-violence.jpg[/IMG] The most violent societies in history have historically been non-agrarian peoples living in states. As Thomas Hobbes succinctly put it: The life of a man solitary is nasty, brutish, and short. Also you must still account for the Russians unjustified genocide of Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, etc.

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46431233]What the Germans tried to do the Russians was as bad as what the White man did to the Native Americans in the 1800s. Now consider what would have happened if the Native Americans had beaten the white man and pushed them back to the East Coast. The Native Americans were (relatively) peaceful people, but do you think they would not have done cruel things to the White Man's women and children as revenge for all the terrible things the White Man did to them? The same principle applies to the Eastern Front in World War II: when one group of people launches a war of genocide against another, they should prepare for the consequences if they lose. The only difference between the Eastern Front and the American West is that, unlike the Native Americans, the Russians were able to exact revenge.[/QUOTE] Lol. You're totally brainwashed aren't you. The Indians weren't a group of peaceful people led by a wise old kind sage who all spoke of respecting nature and all life and that suit. Yes, it was bad what we did to them. But it's an Israel Palestine situation, just because Israel is considered worse doesn't mean the palestinians are a super peaceful group who just want to be left alone! Wow. You're justifying the atrocities committed by the USSR.