• Americans march in Russian WW2 Victory Parade
    79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Devil Traitor;21857012]Canada was at war too you know.[/QUOTE] I never said that Canada never fought in the war. He said that Australia was missing from the parade and I pointed out that Canada was also missing. Not to mention that Canada was sending tons of supplies to Russia during the war.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;21859954]Afghanistan and the Baltic Nations to name two. Oh, and the Winter War was also imperialistic.[/QUOTE] Coming to the aid of an ally against fundamentalist insurgents is imperialist? The baltics were originally going to be part of the USSR, it was one of the cradles of the revolution. But it was prevented by the german empire and later, the entente, from doing so. The baltics became fascist dictatorships that were given to the USSR in a concession that recognized the soviet claim on them. Hardly imperialist. Imperialism is the whole reason the USSR was forced to go through this process. The winter war started because nationalist finns wouldn't give a tiny strip of land north of leningrad so the major city wasn't the border. The soviets offered increasingly generous deals for it, including a swath of land more then double the size of the land the soviets were asking for. It's no surprise a state that's hated by the world will go to such lengths to secure its borders. [editline]04:15PM[/editline] you guys do realize there was a communist government in afghanistan before the soviets even thought about entering. The 'invasion' of afganistan is purely a western phenomenon. [editline]04:20PM[/editline] Even if all 4 of these were imperialist it would still pale in comparison to the US and other western capitalist countries.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21861510]The baltics were originally going to be part of the USSR, it was one of the cradles of the revolution. But it was prevented by the german empire and later, the entente, from doing so. The baltics became fascist dictatorships that were given to the USSR in a concession that recognized the soviet claim on them. Hardly imperialist. Imperialism is the whole reason the USSR was forced to go through this process.[/quote] They were annexed by the USSR. They were forced to be absorbed into the union regardless of what they said. [quote]The winter war started because nationalist finns wouldn't give a tiny strip of land north of leningrad so the major city wasn't the border. The soviets offered increasingly generous deals for it, including a swath of land more then double the size of the land the soviets were asking for. It's no surprise a state that's hated by the world will go to such lengths to secure its borders.[/quote] What if the USA decided that the Canadian border was too close to Seattle? It wouldn't be imperialistic for us to invade over it? They used their military power to extend their borders. That wasn't their land until they decided to use brute force to take it. [quote]you guys do realize there was a communist government in afghanistan before the soviets even thought about entering. The 'invasion' of afganistan is purely a western phenomenon.[/quote] I don't know much about Afghanistan so I won't argue about it. [quote]Even if all 4 of these were imperialist it would still pale in comparison to the US and other western capitalist countries.[/QUOTE] I never said anything about whether the US was imperialistic or not. My point is that the USSR was an empire as well.
I can't agree more with conscript's statement.
I completely forgot about V-day. :smith:
[QUOTE=yawmwen;21861892]They were annexed by the USSR. They were forced to be absorbed into the union regardless of what they said.[/quote] That constitutes the USSR as an empire about as much as ireland being an empire if it annexed northern ireland. [Quote]What if the USA decided that the Canadian border was too close to Seattle? It wouldn't be imperialistic for us to invade over it? They used their military power to extend their borders. That wasn't their land until they decided to use brute force to take it.[/quote] Again, doesn't constitute an empire, as using military to extend border is not necessarily imperialist. Would ireland be imperialist if it conquered northern ireland? Furthermore, empires don't make generous offers for a small strip of land. Crappy comparison though. The US isn't threatened by world powers and nor is their northern neighbor aligned toward a powerful adversary.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21861510] [editline]04:15PM[/editline] you guys do realize there was a communist government in afghanistan before the soviets even thought about entering. The 'invasion' of afganistan is purely a western phenomenon. [/QUOTE] You did know that the Soviets assassinated President Amin because they wanted to preserve a Soviet-aligned communist government? Kinda like how the Americans deposed Noreiga in Operation Just Cause.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21863168]That constitutes the USSR as an empire about as much as ireland being an empire if it annexed northern ireland.[/quote] Except Northern Ireland isn't a sovereign nation that doesn't want to be a part of the Republic of Ireland. [quote]Again, doesn't constitute an empire, as using military to extend border is not necessarily imperialist. Would ireland be imperialist if it conquered northern ireland?[/quote] If Northern Ireland was independent and didn't want to be part of the Republic then yes. [quote]Furthermore, empires don't make generous offers for a small strip of land.[/quote] Says who? [quote]Crappy comparison though. The US isn't threatened by world powers and nor is their northern neighbor aligned toward a powerful adversary.[/QUOTE] Ok, better comparison. The US backed coup of Chile in 1973 wasn't imperialistic either, because the US was trying to secure their border. If Chile had a pro-soviet regime it could be a threat to the US.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;21855280]China took Russia [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation[/URL] Ok, maybe not an alliance, but something similar to Nato.[/QUOTE] Imagine if Nato went to war with the Shanghai Organization, would be a devastation. I'm not talking nukes, I'm talking men, aircraft, navy, etc.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21863404]You did know that the Soviets assassinated President Amin because they wanted to preserve a Soviet-aligned communist government? Kinda like how the Americans deposed Noreiga in Operation Just Cause.[/QUOTE] Amin was radically changing the direction the government was going in. He pushed for the government to portray itself as islamic in character, and distance it from the USSR so he could begin to establish links with the west and other anti-communist arab states. [QUOTE=yawmwen;21864282]Except Northern Ireland isn't a sovereign nation that doesn't want to be a part of the Republic of Ireland.[/quote] That's not the point. Ireland has a fairly legitimate claim to it, would it be imperialist for it to take it back by force? [QUOTE=yawmwen;21864282]If Northern Ireland was independent and didn't want to be part of the Republic then yes.[/quote] So you would agree that any serbian reconquest of kosovo would be imperialist? Or a native american reconquest of america would be imperialist? Or let's say arabs in south england declare independence. Would it be imperialist for britain to reconquer it? Do you see where I'm going with this? Northern ireland has been conditioned to be loyal to britain. The division is, for lack of a better word, artificial. [QUOTE=yawmwen;21864282]Says who?[/quote] Says logic. Why would an empire offer generously for a slice of land instead of just conquering it? Especially for such a minor country like Finland. Honestly, if the USSR was an empire, they would have conquered finland. They certainly had the opportunity to do so, and it wouldn't have been the first time it happened. [QUOTE=yawmwen;21864282]Ok, better comparison. The US backed coup of Chile in 1973 wasn't imperialistic either, because the US was trying to secure their border. If Chile had a pro-soviet regime it could be a threat to the US.[/QUOTE] That's not securing their border, that's securing their sphere of influence. It's not self-defense of the nation, it's self-defense of the empire.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21865135]Amin was radically changing the direction the government was going in. He pushed for the government to portray itself as islamic in character, and distance it from the USSR so he could begin to establish links with the west and other anti-communist arab states.[/QUOTE] Whatever happened to self-determination? The communist government was already very unpopular amongst the Afghan people. Is shooting another country's president and then occupying the country with a large military force to uphold essentially a puppet regime an invasion to you?
[QUOTE=Jessesmith1;21846746]Russia played a key role in the downfall of nazi dictatorship in France. I think the least France could do in return was show up at the parade.[/QUOTE] what
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;21866087]what[/QUOTE] im speaking indirectly they weren't in france so to speak, but they did help in eliminating nazi dictatorship without russia it would be a lot harder to win the war
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21865717]Whatever happened to self-determination? The communist government was already very unpopular amongst the Afghan people. Is shooting another country's president and then occupying the country with a large military force to uphold essentially a puppet regime an invasion to you?[/QUOTE] The government wasn't that unpopular. It was mainly the traditionalists that had a gripe with it. With the communist government came a whole range of social reforms that troubled them. Amin was an opportunist. He requested large amounts of soviet aid and when that didn't work instantly, he tried to appeal to the west. This wasn't self-determination, it was the indecision of a president. In the end, it led to his death and a soviet expansion of operations to finally crush the insurgency.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21865135] That's not the point. Ireland has a fairly legitimate claim to it, would it be imperialist for it to take it back by force?[/quote] Taking it from the UK, no. However, absorbing an entire nation forcefully would be. [quote]So you would agree that any serbian reconquest of kosovo would be imperialist? Or a native american reconquest of america would be imperialist?[/quote] I don't know much about Kosovo and the Native Americans have no rightful claims on the US outside of their reservations anymore. [quote]Or let's say arabs in south england declare independence. Would it be imperialist for britain to reconquer it? [/quote] Putting down a rebellion in your country is not the same as absorbing another country. [quote]Northern ireland has been conditioned to be loyal to britain. The division is, for lack of a better word, artificial. [/quote] People in the USSR were conditioned to be loyal as well. [quote]Says logic. Why would an empire offer generously for a slice of land instead of just conquering it?[/quote] It eliminates the need for bloodshed. An empire can use more influence than just their military. [quote]Especially for such a minor country like Finland. Honestly, if the USSR was an empire, they would have conquered finland. They certainly had the opportunity to do so, and it wouldn't have been the first time it happened.[/quote] Do you know what happened in the Winter War? The Soviets barely even won that small piece of land, and had over 300,000 casualties in the process. [quote]That's not securing their border, that's securing their sphere of influence. It's not self-defense of the nation, it's self-defense of the empire.[/QUOTE] It's no different. If the USSR wasn't an empire they wouldn't have invaded Finland. They also wouldn't have absorbed the Baltic States.
[QUOTE=Conscript;21861510]Coming to the aid of an ally against fundamentalist insurgents is imperialist? The baltics were originally going to be part of the USSR, it was one of the cradles of the revolution. But it was prevented by the german empire and later, the entente, from doing so. The baltics became fascist dictatorships that were given to the USSR in a concession that recognized the soviet claim on them. Hardly imperialist. Imperialism is the whole reason the USSR was forced to go through this process. [/QUOTE] You fucking kidding me? You're saying we (the Baltic countries) were suppose to be in the USSR? You understand you're insult about 5 million people? Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was FORCEFULLY OCCUPIED and ANNEXED into the USSR. The only reason neither of these country started a war was because the government didn't want more people to die. Up until this day Russia doesn't acknowledge that they occupied us which is an insult to us. End of WW2 meant genocide for Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians. No reason to celebrate that.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;21877893]Taking it from the UK, no. However, absorbing an entire nation forcefully would be. [/QUOTE] It is a nation, in the same sense that Scotland is anyway. And though I wouldn't agree with taking it by force the Republic of Ireland has a valid claim, and could hardly be called imperialist. [QUOTE=yawmwen;21877893] Native Americans have no rightful claims on the US outside of their reservations anymore. [/QUOTE] Their land was stolen and reservations seem to me like more of an insult than anything else. Sort of like if I stole the computer you're using and gave you a screw back. They have a more valid claim than the people currently living there.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;21879075]It is a nation, in the same sense that Scotland is anyway. And though I wouldn't agree with taking it by force the Republic of Ireland has a valid claim, and could hardly be called imperialist.[/QUOTE] Scotland is a nation in the sense that Ukraine and Kazakhstan were nations in the USSR. [quote]Their land was stolen and reservations seem to me like more of an insult than anything else. Sort of like if I stole the computer you're using and gave you a screw back. They have a more valid claim than the people currently living there.[/quote]The culture isn't Native American, the people aren't Native American. This land is not Native American, it is American. They have no rightful claims on the land. It would be like if you stole my computer and then switched every single part out for a new one. I don't have any claim on that computer because it's different.
[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21878714]You fucking kidding me? You're saying we (the Baltic countries) were suppose to be in the USSR? You understand you're insult about 5 million people? Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was FORCEFULLY OCCUPIED and ANNEXED into the USSR. The only reason neither of these country started a war was because the government didn't want more people to die. Up until this day Russia doesn't acknowledge that they occupied us which is an insult to us. End of WW2 meant genocide for Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians. No reason to celebrate that.[/QUOTE] YES, i agree, the Goddamned Ruskies hate to admit that they occupied us. [editline]05:51PM[/editline] They hate to admit that my grandmother was sentenced to siberia for 30 years :frown:
[QUOTE=Conscript;21866787]Amin was an opportunist. He requested large amounts of soviet aid and when that didn't work instantly, he tried to appeal to the west. This wasn't self-determination, it was the indecision of a president. In the end, it led to his death and a soviet expansion of operations to finally crush the insurgency.[/QUOTE] If Amin felt that the Soviet aid didn't work for him, then he had every right to say "stop all operations and get out of my country". Regardless of his incompetence, it still doesn't eliminate the fact that the Soviets did indeed invade to halt the proceeding of policies which they thought was a threat to their hegemony. Anways, this discussion has veered far too topic from Americans marching in Russia's victory parade. I'm going to stop now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.