Piece of 20th century history

[quoudam72]

Well since all we do somethimes is talk politics for a change why get an indepth look at some of the political figures. Here's one that we all should know.....Stalin: Inside the Terror

[Davidu]

Damn it! Are all of you obsesed by communism??

Try something else like: Hitler, Mussonlini, Horty, (I'M not a nazi), Roosevelt, Churchill, Hindenburg, Goering, Margaret Thacher, Tony Blair, Antonescu, Franco, Charles de Gaulle, Ataturk, the Shah of Iran, Komeini, Mao, Mahatma Gandhi, and many more.

Try to talk different that RED :) .

[Dunenewt]

Maggie Thatcher and Winston Churchill!!!

[Davidu]

...so, I've got a supporter... ;D

[quoudam72]

Damn it! Are all of you obsesed by communism??

Try something else like: Hitler, Mussonlini, Horty, (I'M not a nazi), Roosevelt, Churchill, Hindenburg, Goering, Margaret Thacher, Tony Blair, Antonescu, Franco, Charles de Gaulle, Ataturk, the Shah of Iran, Komeini, Mao, Mahatma Gandhi, and many more.

Try to talk different that RED :) .

No I am not obsessed by communism, the show seems to be a good program. Why not go and post your message in one of the other threads where the problem you seek is acutally present.

[Caid Ivik]

Hitler - german utopic racist, RULING BY TERROR AND SLAUGHTERING GOOD PEOPLE who started a war and laughed to face of the old world order

Mussonlini - italian dictator raised by most radical socialist in Forli, even today honored by Romans

Horthy - hungarian admiral without a fleet, not very evil, because he couldn't crush even weakened Slovakia

Roosevelt - crippled free-mason, democrat, that tells everything

Churchill - only wise man in Britain before the WW2, altough carpet bombing wasn't best idea

Hindenburg - old hero form Tannenberg battle, at end just everyone waited for his death

Goering - pilot ace from WW1, miserable strategist and lazy fatman

Margaret Thatcher - sympathic woman, with big participation on eastern freedom from USSR

Tony Blair - one of the many other premiers, nothing specifical, just he is labourist (left wing...)

Antonescu - one Romanian tyran, you should talk more about it for us, Davidu, or EdricO

Franco - man who banned politics in lazy-minded Spain, and don't call him fascist please

Charles de Gaulle - nationalist who made France more "old" as it ever was

Ataturk - showman who brought Turkey to war with only minimal results

Khameyni - only pure shi'ite who walked this earth

Mao - communist dictator, expert military strategist, RULING BY TERROR AND SLAUGHTERING GOOD PEOPLE

Mahatma Gandhi - he, who brought chaos to India

and to not forget...

Stalin - previously georgian gangster, RULING BY TERROR AND SLAUGHTERING GOOD PEOPLE, number of victims comparable with Mao

I hope this will repair what you have misunderstood ;)

[Edric O]

Summarizing a person in one line... Wow, isn't that fun? ::)

You know, Caid, I'm beginning to have serious suspicions about your political alliegeance... you seem to go to great lengths to point out every single bad thing that so-called "communists" ever did, while at the same time sweeping the mass murders and terror of fascism/nazism under the rug.

You mention Stalin and Mao's slaughters, yet you mention NOTHING of Hitler's reign of terror and genocide, which was far greater than either one of the other two! "Laughed to face of the old world order"? What kind of a description for Hitler is that?

[Anathema]

Margaret Tatcher? Acting all high and mighty as if Britain owns the world, and then calling her sympathic? Lol.

[Caid Ivik]

I agree that my summary isn't complete biography. Hitler's genocidial acts are in the word "racist". I condemn that, but also I rationally see, that jewish holocaust wasn't so enormous (altough terriblity is same for any number of victims) compared to Stalin's or Mao's slaughteries. Just Germans everything filed, so we know about it more precisely. He was a fanatical anti-semitist who believed his nation is the best on the world, and tried everything to ensure it. That destroyed most democracies in Europe, from which many fell into hands of Stalin. Also he downed British Empire and non-straightly caused nuclear weapon spreading. About that what he did with whole german nation I have no power to say.

To say it roughly, all three were the worst this world has ever seen. They all changed the order of morale to order of force. There is only one way, which still hasn't need to kill millions to eliminate opposition - and this we have now. Marx's experiment was a failure, Hitler's too, both made enough bad to cover all its good and scars of them we feel still today.

About Thatcher, she was trying to make it a superpower again to ensure some order in Commonwealth, I respect that you as Dutch are unable to accept this.

[Davidu]

Woooow, Caid.. that's a looong post. (nice)

Well about Antonescu... he was a soldier, military. He ruled as he knew: by giving orders. Not a tyran I say...

We are under pressure to ban him 'cause he deported about 200.000 jews from newly reconquered Basarabia into the USSR. Those people were brought there by Stalin in order to replace the RO pop. deproted to Siberia, Kasahstan and other parts of the USSR. Those people didn't know even a single word in RO.

So, what he did was a big mistake... but I wouldn't call him a tyrant.

He also helped many RO jews to escape and tried to pull RO out of the war. He couldn't do this properly 'cause on 23 aug 1945 the king Mihai I(Michael I) arrested him and he switched sides suddenly. The result: confusion on the front against the USSR (many RO military were captured by the USSR and deported) chaos within the country (annihilation of the German units). We ended the war in Czechia as allies of the USSR, hough they never considered us that way.

He was finnaly executed in 1947 (not sure) along with his brother Mihai (ex-foreign minister) who tried to contact the Allies through the embasy in Turkey, but was refused several times.

It was said we betrayed in WWII. Not true. We were caught between USSR (wanted Basarabia and Bucovina), Hungary (supported by Germany and Italy - wanted the north on Transilvania) and Bulgaria (wanted the Cadrilater - southern Dobrogea).

We had to become the allies of the most powerful in order to maintain our hard-earned independace (1877) and our hard-earned unification (1919).

We had no sympathies towards Germany (former enemy, at that moment ruled by psychotic Hitler) nor USSR (since Stalin became president the USSR requested those 2 territories).

[Anathema]

I was more referring to such statements as "God didn't create the Chanal for nothing" (referring to the part of sea between Europe and GB, I'm not sure this is the correct english name) and always saying GB should keep it's distance from those Euros.

[Davidu]

I think UK would be a great addition to the EU.

Anyway, they're a part of Europe too, aren't they??

[Edric O]

They're technically a part of Europe, but in practice they're more a part of the United States.

Now, Caid...

I condemn that, but also I rationally see, that jewish holocaust wasn't so enormous (altough terriblity is same for any number of victims) compared to Stalin's or Mao's slaughteries. Just Germans everything filed, so we know about it more precisely.

Are you mad? Hitler killed about as many innocent civilians in 15 years as Stalin in 50. Remember, he slaughtered more than just the Jews. He also massacred the Polish, the Ukranians, and particulary the Russians. More innocent Russian civilians (approx. 10 million) were brutally murdered by the nazis than the number of Jews who suffered the same fate (approx. 6 million)

And that's just the civilian casualties - not to mention he started the whole damn war in the first place! If you count all the war victims as well (after all, if it hadn't been for Hitler, those people wouldn't have died), then Hitler makes Stalin look like an amateur.

Marx's experiment was a failure, Hitler's too, both made enough bad to cover all its good and scars of them we feel still today.

Wrong. On both accounts. First of all, Marx's principles were never actually put into practice, so you can't say they ever failed.

Second, although Hitler was eventually defeated (thank God), he did manage to enact a large part of his agenda while he was in power. His inhumane torture chambers and bloody genocides were sadly not failures... He managed to do what he wanted: Slaughter millions of people.

[Caid Ivik]

Stalin (anyway, yesterday it was 50 years of his riddance) ruled for 29 years (1924-1953), full of bad decisions which caused all-national famine (with about 10 million dead in early 30's), national transfers (Chechens, Tatars etc., about 20-30 million dead), bloody war strategies (other 10-20 million dead). And then his persecutions. This, excl.bad strategy, was caused in time of peace. Those who tried to mourn were persecuted. Don't call anyone of them amateurs - you don't need to be some kind of professional to massacre, altough you are true, that Hitler's slaughtery was much more sophisticated and systematic, what makes him true evil mastermind. Stalin was evil, but also too lazy to even define his victims.

Every time I use word "but" when talking about Hitler you attack me. Don't try to lower victims of communism by pointing on worse systems. Horriblity of stalinism, maoism and nazism was same, we don't need to care for straight numbers. Nazism was evil rule based on annihilation. It's vileness is undoubtable. Communism was some uncertain system based on "rebuilding society", but also enabling the bloody way. And this way was, however, only one tried. The final principe may sound nice; but there must be first some way to achieve it. And Marx's way WAS tried and failed.

And also, thanks Davidu for your Antonescu history ;)

[Davidu]

All the systems must be tried sooner or later, with all the consequenses!

This is the only way we'll ever find out if they're good or bad.

"Things" like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, or other can't be categorised: sophisticated, amateur... they're just murderers.

Caid - you're welcome. It brings me great pleasure to talk about the history of RO.

[Edric O]

Stalin betrayed the Revolution. He was the greatest disgrace ever to befall communism. He twisted and corrupted the noble ideals of communism beyond recognition. He murdered millions upon millions. He was a ruthless bastard, and the world was much better off without him.

However, there is one thing he did right. And that thing saved the world from a far greater evil, that could have plunged Europe back into the Dark Ages. Stalin crushed Nazism. This one good deed cannot even begin to atone for his endless crimes, but nevertheless it must be recognized at such.

You know, I wish they would have taken Hitler alive. That piece of filth deserved to die slowly and painfully.

[Anathema]

There are theories that they did. They're based on nothing however.

Hitler took over 50 million lives. Then he cowardly took his own, afraid of what the Soviets would did to him. Shame that while he killed millions, he only died once.

[Davidu]

I really don't know who was worse: Stalin or Hitler?

Stalin kept everybody under supression...

Hitler kept only the jews and gipsys under supression...

(in their own countries)

[Edric O]

LOL, you need a history lesson, Davidu. Hitler kept EVERYONE under suppression, even his own people. What do you think the Gestapo was for?

And he slaughtered more than just the Jews and the Gipsies... He slaughtered millions upon millions of Russians, Ukranians, Polish...

He planned the complete extermination of the Russian people and the "re-colonization" of Russia with Germans. The other slav peoples would suffer a similar fate - they would all be turned to uneducated illiterate slaves.

[Davidu]

History lesson?!

I was trying to see who was the most evil of them 2...

But there's no term of comparison!

[nemafakei]

"Tony Blair - one of the many other premiers, nothing specifical, just he is labourist (left wing...)"

Probably the first UK prime minister to be regularly called premier by even the BBC. Blair is New Labour - ie the Labour party without any Labour principles or ideals.

"Franco - man who banned politics in lazy-minded Spain, and don't call him fascist please"

What do the following words mean to you?

Guernica (and the tree of)

Gernika (and the tree of)

Compulsory linguistic conformation

Basque Subjugation

Handover of power to Juan Carlos, intending 'advised' autocracy.

Now why should he npt be called a fascist?

[Davidu]

He was fascist, only he knew how to hold on to power, and he knew when to redraw from his dictator's position. Quite a smart guy... Unfortunatelly I don't know much about him.

[Caid Ivik]

You know, I wish they would have taken Hitler alive. That piece of filth deserved to die slowly and painfully.

Ow, EdricO, that wasn't saying of merciful christian. You talk like him in this. That was a problem of his war, why it was so bloody. Both Stalin and Hitler had same vengeance feeling in their moraleless minds. Stalin freed about 50 million native Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, Hungarians and Germans from 5-year nazist slavery an terror, just to bring them to next 40 years of communist (or pseudo-communist to put your heart on right place), altough peaceful, but still evil rule.

"Franco - man who banned politics in lazy-minded Spain, and don't call him fascist please"

What do the following words mean to you?

Guernica (and the tree of)

Gernika (and the tree of)

Compulsory linguistic conformation

Basque Subjugation

Handover of power to Juan Carlos, intending 'advised' autocracy.

Now why should he npt be called a fascist?

Franco wasn't fascist. Attack on Guernica was committed by separate Legie Condor bombers, sent by Hitler to show german strength. Both Franco and Mola didn't know anything about it. They were supported by many countries, including fascistic Germany and Italy, but that doesn't mean that professional soldier, who came just in war from Africa, agreed with their ideology too. Same as republicans are many times showed as communists, because they were supported by USSR. War was fully on way even before Franco came, just there were much more counterparts (democrats, communists, fascists, monarchists, republicans, anarchists etc.) and Franco united them to two enemy sides.

[Davidu]

Hmm.. that's quite interesting about Franco...

The USSR didn't eliberate Romania. Since the 23rd of august 1944 when Romania left the Axis and joined the Allies, we eliberated ourselves. The soviets entered Bucharest as conquerors, but they did't do absolutely nothing to eliberate us. Actually we were stll fighting them on the easter front when the order came to attack the germans. The confusion was so big that some Romanian units surrendered to the soviets (or wre captured - pretty much the same thing) and were deported imediatelly in Syberia; a period of chaos and fightings followed 23rd of august as the Romanian Army fought the german units inside. After that we fought side-by-side with the soviets.

The Romanian Army eliberated Northern Transylvania, fought in Hungary (even strret fighings in Budapest), and reached as far as Czechoslovakia when the war ended.

During this time our new "allies" the soviets were robbing, raping, kiling the people back home and it was almost nothing we could do against them: they were our allies.

They even killed an actor on the stage while he performed in order to steal his watch.

So, Caid, they didn't "eliberate" Romania, they just robbed as much as they could!

[Edric O]

And who could blame them? Our troops fought alongside the nazis to subdue and exterminate the Russian people. We sacked their cities, killed their families, murdered their children and destroyed everything that they loved! Hell, we even fought at Stalingrad, side by side with the barbaric invaders that wanted to see every single Russian dead!

I am ASHAMED of Romania's behaviour in World War 2. Nowadays we whine and complain that the allies didn't treat us as equals when we switched sides like cowards in 1944. Well, it's our own damn fault! If we wanted equal treatment, we should have sided with the allies from the beginning!

As for liberation, you are a fool if you think we just liberated ourselves. Indeed, we did do most of the fighting against the Germans on our own land, but the only reason we won was because the Russians were keeping most of the German army buisy elsewhere!

Do you honestly think that our weakened army could have defeated the whole might of the Wermacht on its own? LOL!