Hillary Clinton slams Russia for attempting to rebuild the Soviet Union - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793945]My eye twitched :v:[/QUOTE] she's like 15, give her a break :P and she's a fan of[I] Собачье сердце [/I]so you can guess what her opinion on the USSR is.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793950]she's like 15, give her a break :P[/QUOTE] In my experience, a painfully large number of teenagers don't care about history. Even in my Advanced Placement history classes in high school I saw people sleeping during class

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793554]You jest, surely? "published by anyone"?[/quote] Publishing is a business that can be run by anyone. This is capitalism. [Quote]The book is published by The University of North Carolina Press - a fricken university publisher.[/quote] Interesting fact. I don't see the relevance, am I supposed to accept everything written as fact because of the publisher, reputation or no? [Quote]And written by a college professor [url]http://www.fpri.org/contributors/vladislav-zubok[/url][/QUOTE] Grover furr is also a professor specializing in russian history. He has completely contradictory positions vs this man or many others. Robert conquest is a historian and while not a professor, has scholarly ties and is regarded as an authority on the subject by many academics. These are appeals to authority scorpius.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38793978] Interesting fact. I don't see the relevance, am I supposed to accept everything written as fact because of the publisher, reputation or no?[/QUOTE] uhm, it's an academic publisher, academic publishers have peer review [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793882]Peer reviews do not look to see if a person is "right or wrong" in any academia. They review to see if the published work substantially backs up its claims with facts and sources.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Conscript;38793978] These are appeals to authority scorpius.[/QUOTE] Come on man, at least spell my name right.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;38793239]Collaboration ? You mean forceful conscription into a legion the people of my land never should of "joined" up in the first place ? Dishonest ? Well, if you making shit up and me proving you wrong is being dishonest.[/QUOTE] So why praise the 'bravery' of conscripts for killing Soviet soldiers if they didn't want to be there? What could the point be?

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38794019]uhm, it's an academic publisher, academic publishers have peer review[/QUOTE] Hooray. Robert conquest and grover furr cite sources too (I'm going to keep throwing this out until you get it in your head), and they also throw out the 'russian archives' card like scorpius's source. The fact these peer reviewers don't try to confirm or deny the truthfulness of claims made makes them worthless in this case. As I said before, historians aren't a homogeneous mass that hold the same positions, peer review does nothing to bring clarity to the issue. In thise case, they make sure authors at least try to seem scholarly.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38794087]Hooray. Robert conquest and grover furr cite sources too (I'm going to keep throwing this out until you get it in your head), and they also throw out the 'russian archives' card like scorpius's source. The fact these peer reviewers don't try to confirm or deny the truthfulness of claims made makes them worthless in this case. As I said before, historians aren't a homogeneous mass that hold the same positions, peer review does nothing to bring clarity to the issue.[/QUOTE] Do you have a boner for this conquest guy or what? Is he like, the only man you've ever heard of? You claim historians "aren't a homogeneous mass" yet your point seems to strongly say they're a "homogeneous mass" of liars.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38794137]Do you have a boner for this conquest guy or what? Is he like, the only man you've ever heard of?[/QUOTE] The fact you don't even know the man is amusing after writing out personal attacks about me never picking up a history book. He was, and still in some regards is, the foremost historian writing from a western point of view on the cold war and THE biggest name when it comes to anti-communist literature, thanks to black book of communism. I guess my time is up if this is all you have to say. It was fun, but you have too many personal attacks. [Quote] You claim historians "aren't a homogeneous mass" yet your point seems to strongly say they're a "homogeneous mass" of liars.[/quote] On the contrary, my points have been talking about the divide in academia on the subject and the influence of politics on honesty with the matter. You are the one pointing to a homogeneous mass, that academia is one of simple fact reporters, or something.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38794174]The fact you don't even know the man is amusing after writing out personal attacks about me never picking up a history book. He was, and still in some regards is, the foremost historian writing from a western point of view on the cold war and THE biggest name when it comes to anti-communist literature, thanks to black book of communism. I guess my time is up if this is all you have to say. It was fun, but you have too many personal attacks.[/QUOTE] So you're trumping the existence of an anti-communist historian as what negates all other historians? What part of "My historian is Russian" did you not read? Does "Vladislav M. Zubok" [I]look[/I] like an English name? Fuck, I gotta go to work, I'll be back later

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38794199]So you're trumping the existence of an anti-communist historian as what negates all other historians?[/quote] No...this is a strawman. I merely use him as evidence of a trend among historians and damning evidence of supposed widespread honesty in academia after a significant chunk of it regarded him as an authority on the subject. [Quote]What part of "My historian is Russian" did you not read? Does "Vladislav M. Zubok" [I]look[/I] like an English name?[/QUOTE] What part of appeal to authority did you not read? Yes, I appreciate you going out of your way to find a russian-ish source. But I never asked for that or said it was the criteria for credibility. Edit: well, now that you're going to work I guess I should get back to studying. By the way, if you don't feel like continuing this when you get back, by all means. I wouldn't mind dropping this.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;38789899]Nuclear annihilation will never happen as long as one side can keep the other in check. Hell, the only reason the Cuban Missile Crisis got as heated as it did was because the USSR didn't expect the US to be so willing to increase hostilities (which was due to constituent pressure on the Government, something the USSR isn't exactly cognizant in.) The only thing you really need to worry about are glitches and human error.[/QUOTE] I do. Which is why another cold war would be a terrible thing.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;38777713]It wouldn't (and doesn't) benefit from a singular superpower bloc right now either.[/QUOTE] But how would two super powers fighting all the time help?

[QUOTE=toaster_2.0;38794565]But how would two super powers fighting all the time help?[/QUOTE] space race advanced technological development less nuclear proliferation

[QUOTE=Conscript;38794262]No...this is a strawman. I merely use him as evidence of a trend among historians and damning evidence of supposed widespread honesty in academia [B]after a significant chunk of it regarded him as an authority on the subject.[/B] [/QUOTE] For the hell of it, citation please?

to be fair a lot of history regarding the ussr isnt necessarily outright reliable. almost everyone writing about the cold war lived through the cold war. there is hardly a lot of objectivity regarding such a scary time period. and primary sources aren't necessarily the end-all with this shit anyways. primary sources can be deceiving, different sources can contradict each other, they can be manipulated or ignored to create skewed views of a particular period. it's obviously better to have primary sources than having no primary sources, but the fact of the matter is that the historians collecting and writing about these sources might not be reliable in the first place. i doubt the ussr was as bad as us history tends to paint it(history is written by the victors anyways), but it wasn't a good place to live by any means. it would probably be much preferable to be a citizen in soviet russia than a citizen in a country that the soviets or us fucked with(chile, nicaragua, romania, north korea, south vietnam, etc.), but that's more revealing about how horrible the cold war was rather than a justification of soviet domestic policies.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38799011]to be fair a lot of history regarding the ussr isnt necessarily outright reliable. almost everyone writing about the cold war lived through the cold war. there is hardly a lot of objectivity regarding such a scary time period.[/quote] Simply living through the time period does not give automatic bias. For example, not 100% of all Americans living during the Cold War were all "Fuck the USSR, Fuck yeah America!". That's too much of a generalization. [QUOTE=yawmwen;38799011]and primary sources aren't necessarily the end-all with this shit anyways. primary sources can be deceiving, different sources can contradict each other, they can be manipulated or ignored to create skewed views of a particular period. it's obviously better to have primary sources than having no primary sources, but the fact of the matter is that the historians collecting and writing about these sources might not be reliable in the first place.[/quote] Do you seriously believe historians do not realize that all primary sources are bias in some way when they take them into account? Hell, for my paper this semester, I had to dedicate a whole page of it explaining how my sources used by my thesis had a bias to them. Believe me, [I]we know.[/I]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38799031]Simply living through the time period does not give automatic bias. For example, not 100% of all Americans living during the Cold War were all "Fuck the USSR, Fuck yeah America!". That's too much of a generalization.[/QUOTE] it isn't that, but that time period was very scary, and for good reason. nuclear war was a very real danger present, at least subconsciously, in the minds of a very large percentage of the population. not everyone is going to be gung-ho anti-communist anti-ussr in the usa, but they might subconsciously reflect that attitude that was so pervasive throughout the time period and they might reflect those fears the were present during the time period. im not saying that any of these guys have an agenda(although some of them certainly may), but they might be susceptible to memories of a traumatizing time period.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38799102]it isn't that, but that time period was very scary, and for good reason. nuclear war was a very real danger present at least subconsciously in a very large percentage of the population. not everyone is going to be gung-ho anti-communist anti-ussr in the usa, but they [B]might [/B]subconsciously reflect that attitude that was so pervasive throughout the time period and they [B]might[/B] reflect those fears the were present during the time period. im not saying that any of these guys have an agenda(although some of them certainly may), but they [B]might[/B] be susceptible to memories of a traumatizing time period.[/QUOTE] "might"?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38799111]"might"?[/QUOTE] like i said im not calling anyone out specifically. im just saying why i tend to take what people say on soviet history with a grain of salt.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38799118]like i said im not calling anyone out specifically. im just saying why i tend to take what people say on soviet history with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE] These are peer reviewed professors with doctorates, what more do you want? :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38799130]These are peer reviewed professors with doctorates, what more do you want? :v:[/QUOTE] i want people who werent raised in the cold war to start reviewing everything.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38799164]i want people who werent raised in the cold war to start reviewing everything.[/QUOTE] There's been a great deal of that. Especially now that, with the USSR gone, a lot of disclosed documents are now open to them for the past 20 years. If you're in college, look up your university's databases. With the right search words, you'll find dozens and dozens of newly published journal articles on the USSR collapse using new information. (My favorite was one article that theorized the collapse of the USSR could be directly tied to their war in Afghanistan) For my paper, we were banned from using any secondary sources that were published after 1993 so any books we read would be a "post-USSR" publication entirely.

[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;38783204][B][I][U]NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION[/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE] Fucking this. Do you fools really wanna risk full-on thermonuclear war, [B][I]twice[/I][/B]? I sure don't.

[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;38799454]Fucking this. Do you fools really wanna risk full-on thermonuclear war, [B][I]twice[/I][/B]? I sure don't.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding? I don't see how a union of eastern countries would risk nuclear war. This isn't the 70's. There are more then 2 spheres of influence today.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38782832]I do. we progressed more during the cold war than we ever did before or after it ended[/QUOTE] r u avin a giggle m8 [editline]12th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38784506][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction[/url][/QUOTE] a fucktarded concept. all it takes is for the premier or president to have just enough balls to launch during a crisis and we're all fucking screwed.

I find it quite sad how relations between Moscow and Washington have degraded since the presidential election and Obama's victory. Yet everyone thought they would improve, Obama even pledged to improve them.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38799829]I find it quite sad how relations between Moscow and Washington have degraded since the presidential election and Obama's victory. Yet everyone thought they would improve, Obama even pledged to improve them.[/QUOTE] Putin happened.

[QUOTE=galenmarek;38800514]Putin happened.[/QUOTE] Kind of a bias approach isn't it, considering Putin's been in office since May 2012. I personally blame US politicians for being stuck in the mid 1970's. US politicians including Hillary Clinton are stung with the red scare. This article proves my theory.

People who ruled USSR now rule Russian Federation. Russian Federation is just re-designed USSR. Also CPRF has nothing to do with the old good USSR...