Soviet Union's Possible Success

[Serb]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, they probably won't. Because we tend to take care of them better than the USSR did. Meltdowns can be prevented with care... and the USSR didn't provide any.

Funny I've heard about incedents on your nuclear plant and even saw movie (american movie) about one of them. Of course I didn't mean that you had such disaster as Chernobyl, but for sure you had problems with your plant.
Chernobyl was a tragedy this could happen enywhere, nuclear power is very dangerous thing. I don't think that you doing great, when you making points for yourself from people's tragedy.

That is my last comment to the nationalistic Russian who seemingly knows nothing but government propaganda.

Fine.
Thanks for the kind words.
Whatch out of your own government propaganda, today American propagandistic machine works much, much better then even soviet was in it's best days.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only difference is that I critisize my government and you don't .

I don't say that it was better for Eastern Europe to be under the hand of a dictator and be colonies, rather than full functioning democracies.

[Inverse Icarus]

you blame the USSR for starting the cold war?

crazy capitialists...

[David Floyd]

Very interesting.
May be forget who started the Cold war? Was it SU or it was the West? It was you who start iot so don't blame us in this.

Oh, and I suppose that the massive American military drawdown after WW2 started the Cold War, huh? Or possibly the formation of NATO? LOL I think after Soviet invasions of Poland (twice) and Finland pre-WW2 the SU probably had a little suspicion coming there way. Oh and I suppose strealing US nuclear secrets was OK - unless you think the SU developed atomic weapons on their own?

I suppose after Nazi killed 27 millions of Soviet people

Ironic, considering how many Ukrainians Stalin starved and how many "political prisoners" he sent to the gulags.

we should just leave from Europe and let Americans and Brits to took all benefits from OUR victory. Right!!! Why Stalin didn't do so? What a stupid Stalin!!!!

Do the benefits of your victory morally include forced German slave labor?
Not to mention that without Lend-Lease and a second front, you would have lost. Your victory, my ass.

You said that we are enslaved Eastern Europe, do you have ANY fècking idea what was nazi plans for us, citizens of Russia?
DEATH. Wipe out of population of whole country.
Now you are rewriting history, tommorow you will be blame us for what we destroyed nazi and saved our lives and lives of millons of people from other nations.

I fail to see how forcing a government - a puppet government - on Eastern European nations - saves their lives.
And I suppose German actions against you justify YOUR actions against Poles

Chernobyl was a tragedy this could happen enywhere

Oh bull****. US nuclear plants have something called safeguards

Whatch out of your own government propaganda, today American propagandistic machine works much, much better then even soviet was in it's best days.

As much as I hate the current US government, it's better at its worst than the Soviet government at its best - you see, we don't starve people for disagreeing with government policy

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Serb


Oh....
I suppose after Nazi killed 27 millions of Soviet people and destroeyd the most industrialized part of our territory, we should just leave from Europe and let Americans and Brits to took all benefits from OUR victory. Right!!! Why Stalin didn't do so? What a stupid Stalin!!!! He should trust to the west (who burden his country) instead of afraid that someday west could make another attempt to conquer SU.

You said that we are enslaved Eastern Europe, do you have ANY fècking idea what was nazi plans for us, citizens of Russia?
DEATH. Wipe out of population of whole country.
Now you are rewriting history, tommorow you will be blame us for what we destroyed nazi and saved our lives and lives of millons of people from other nations.
Thanks for your gruttitude.

We know the Nazis were scum. We know they would have done terrible things to the Russians if they won, you were fighting for your survival, and it came at a great cost. I recognize you and respect you for that. But why do you feel that this justifies the Soviet Union dominating all of Eastern Europe?

Sure there is a rebuilding phase, which the West went through as well. It can certainly be argued that we occupied Japan and W. Germany for several years, but then we turned them over to run themselves. Why couldn't the Soviet Union do this with the countries they occupied?

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Chernobyl was a tragedy this could happen enywhere

Oh bull****. US nuclear plants have something called safeguards

So did Chernobyl. The problem was that a tech. over-rode the safeguard.

He is actually right that this accident could happen in any nuclear plant anywhere though. However US plants are much better maintained than their Soviet counterparts.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


So did Chernobyl. The problem was that a tech. over-rode the safeguard.

He is actually right that this accident could happen in any nuclear plant anywhere though. However US plants are much better maintained than their Soviet counterparts.

and the new reactors, which are mostly found in Europe, are far better than our reactors

our reactors are safe and good, but reactor technology has blossomed n the over 30 years since we built our last

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sceptor107
add to that the support you gave to the greek communist's attempting to overthrow a western democracy. So after all...look who started the cold war?

What Western democracy? The the pro-Fascist monarchy that was installed by the British after the Communists threw the Germans out of Greece?

OzzyKP, the Soviets were as justified in dominating Eastern Europe as the United States was in dominating Western Europe. We trashed elections in West Germany, Italy, and southern France just because they didn't suit our needs. In the Cold War, both sides were the bad guys.

David Floyd, when only one country in the world has the atomic bomb, and has demonstrated a willingness to use it, everyone is justified in trying to steal it. Perhaps if the US hadn't threatened to nuke the USSR over the USSRs occupation of Northern Persia, they might not have felt the need to get their hands on it as quickly as possible.

Yes, Serb is correct, the US started the Cold War, not the Soviets. They were completely devastated, their economy was in ruins, 27 million people were dead. The last thing they wanted was an arms race and the threat of a new war. Stalin may have been a mediochre intellect, but he wasn't going to make the same mistake twice, trusting the peaceful intentions of Western Europe.

The US started the Cold War by overturning the elections in Italy, refusing to allow West German states their own constituions that had "socialistic overtones," by arming the Greek fascist-monarchy and having them slaughter the Gerek Communists who had liberated the country, by overturing communist revolutions in Vietnam and South Korea, by interferring in the civil war in China, and by creating NATO.

I think you'll have to excuse Stalin if he saw an ominous pattern there. He was an evil, evil man, but just because he was a paranoid f*ck doesn't mean the West wasn't out to get the USSR.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
He is actually right that this accident could happen in any nuclear plant anywhere though. However US plants are much better maintained than their Soviet counterparts.

Actually, it is more likely that an accident will occur in the US. My friend who is a nuke tech on a boomer explained to me that unlike other countries, almost every nuke plan in the US is a prototype. They make new plans for plants whenever someone decides to make a new plant, whereas most other countries recycle their working plans.

What happened at Chernobal was human error. They were running a test to simulate what actually did happen, and mesed it up.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
OzzyKP, the Soviets were as justified in dominating Eastern Europe as the United States was in dominating Western Europe. We trashed elections in West Germany, Italy, and southern France just because they didn't suit our needs. In the Cold War, both sides were the bad guys.

Hmmm, I don't doubt this happened, but could you provide some sources for this? I never did regard the west's actions during the cold war as very honorable, this could make things worse. Still better in degree, of course, than what the Soviet Union did, but equal in principle.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and I suppose that the massive American military drawdown after WW2 started the Cold War, huh? Or possibly the formation of NATO? LOL I think after Soviet invasions of Poland (twice) and Finland pre-WW2 the SU probably had a little suspicion coming there way.

1946 Churchill's fulton speach it is almost a declaration of war against Soviets, if you didn't read it I can give you a link.
Formation of NATO- of course.
Poland & Finland your know little about those events as you already proved to me in some earlier posts.

Oh and I suppose strealing US nuclear secrets was OK - unless you think the SU developed atomic weapons on their own?

The development of Soviet's nucler bomb was started in 1943 in Kurchatov's lab.

Ironic, considering how many Ukrainians Stalin starved and how many "political prisoners" he sent to the gulags.

There was no Ukranian genocide, there was Stalin atrocities.

Do the benefits of your victory morally include forced German slave labor?

WTF are you talking about. If you are talking about POW, what do you think we should do with man who killed our wemens and children, who burned entire cities with its population alive, who come to our country to destroy it? You think Stalin should take him a ticket to home and let them go after all those crimes such "soldiers" done. Every crime must be punished.
And btw, 6 millions of Soviet civilians, not even a POW, but wemen and childrens were took from my country and used as slaves in concentrations camps in Germany.

Not to mention that without Lend-Lease and a second front, you would have lost. Your victory, my ass.

You have no idea about our war. Absolutely.
Lend-Lease, yes I don't want to be rude but..... Yes during first year of war it was helpfull, very helpfull, because Nazi took the most industrialized part of our territory and just evacuated plants didn't produced weapons in needed quantity. When evacueted plants started mass production, Lend-Lease become unimportant for us. Overall part of Lend-Lease in resourses spend by us in this war is 5%. Not big, but we apreciate it, thank you, just please don't say that we win war using American weapons, it's not true. And btw, isn't was that you always do- to make profit? You make a lot of money selling weapons to combantants.
As for second front, Stalin asked about them all the time since war began, all his reqests were denied, and second front was opened in 1944 only when everything was almost done. Done by us btw.

I fail to see how forcing a government - a puppet government - on Eastern European nations - saves their lives.

You know nothing about Nazism then, it's very sad.

And I suppose German actions against you justify YOUR actions against Poles

You know nothing about 1939.

Oh bull****. US nuclear plants have something called safeguards

It is sad that you are think so. I guess untill last time many Americans like you are, were absolutely sure that it is impossible that in USA could happen disaster like Sept 11.

As much as I hate the current US government, it's better at its worst than the Soviet government at its best - you see, we don't starve people for disagreeing with government policy

I do not talked about government, I'm not a commie or dictatorship fan. It was response about propaganda.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MrFun
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't part of the communist ideology require that ALL people have the same level of quality of life.

If I am right on this -- then all the upper-class leaders and rulers of the Soviet Union needed to live the same quality of life that their working class were living in. Or vice versa -- all people in the working class needed to live the same quality of life that the rulers lived.

In this aspect then, communism would have failed even in a more peaceful world.

Could someone knowledgeable in communist ideology answer my question and state their argument if I am correct??

[Serb]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't part of the communist ideology require that ALL people have the same level of quality of life.

The general meaning is that there should be no poor people.

If I am right on this -- then all the upper-class leaders and rulers of the Soviet Union needed to live the same quality of life that their working class were living in.

When I lived in Moscow, I was in Lenin's museum and saw things wich belong to him. It was very simple wear, chairs, tables etc. Being a ruler of country he lived almost as simple worker.

Or vice versa -- all people in the working class needed to live the same quality of life that the rulers lived.

No, leader may have privelegies, the qustion is that everyone could become a leader. Since born every men have equel chances to became leader, scientists etc. due costless education, hospitals etc.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Hmmm, I don't doubt this happened, but could you provide some sources for this?

Can I just point you at a book? Check out Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, by William Blum. He has a website, also, The American Holocaust.

Mr. Fun, communism isn't about guaranteing equality of outcome, although we are accused of that. We are about levelling the playing field, so that no one gets ahead, just because of who their family is, and no one gets left behind, because thy weren't provided the opportunity to explore the possibilities inherent in their being. Basically the premise is, if say, the first three levels of Maslow's needs are met, then instead of having to struggle for them and ignoring the next levels, we could concentrate on those next levels, and everyone would be able to fully express their humanity.

Under the USSR, there was inequality. Lenin proposed that the top people in the country might make as much as five times the lowest people. Towards the end there wasn't even that much disparity (IIRC). Compared with the US, where the top people make hundreds of times what the lowest people make. For instance, Castro lives in a one bed room apartment. Andropov lived in an apartment complex with average people. Yes, the had nice cars, and good things, but they weren't rich.

[steelehc]

This is gonna take a while.

Very interesting.
May be forget who started the Cold war? Was it SU or it was the West? It was you who start iot so don't blame us in this.

The start of the Cold War is largely a matter of opinion. It can be easily seen as being done by both sides, or just one, or even neither, just a continuation of WW2. The blockade of Berlin, and refusal to move troops out of Eastern Europe point to the USSR, while the formation of NATO, and counterrevolutions in Communist-leaning countries point to the west.

You have very interisting info about ecology, considering that I was on Baikal few years ago and saw it with my own eyes. There is no nothing, even a close like ecologists of all kinds are screaming about. It's very clean and one of the most beautyfull places I ever been. And I dont remember things you said about Siberian forests, it's strange because I'm living in Siberia. I'm understand that it is pretty big place, but... when it happen?

Lake Baikal has been cleaned up a lot, however, it is still very dirty water. I doubt that you ran chemical tests while you were there. Siberia is very big, this was in the early 1970s, I forget exactly which year.

Oh common,
you are so superior, we are so backward. I know this song and heard it many times. And from you too btw,
If it's true why your CIA always tried and trying now to steal some of our advances.

Yes, you have heard this song from me a few times, but that wasn't my point. I am sure there are things that the west could have benefitted by getting from the USSR, but I could not think of anything in particular.

I suppose in absolutely different manner, in different way like Western corporations do so.
And you talking about ecology here!!!
You defenders of nature. You Americans- who don't want to sign a Kyoto agreements to reduce global warming.

The environmental destruction in the US and in Russia are uncomparable. Sure, there is much pollution in America, but comparing that top what happened in some places in Russia is like comparing a spark to a nuclear reaction. I'm not glorifying four environmental performance, but Russia's is worse.

Oh....
I suppose after Nazi killed 27 millions of Soviet people and destroeyd the most industrialized part of our territory, we should just leave from Europe and let Americans and Brits to took all benefits from OUR victory. Right!!! Why Stalin didn't do so? What a stupid Stalin!!!! He should trust to the west (who burden his country) instead of afraid that someday west could make another attempt to conquer SU.

I fail to understand much of this. Yes, the Nazis killed millions of Russians (the exact amount will never be known), yes, they leveled many industrial areas, but Europe was never yours. What the nazis did in Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, the Baltic States, or any other countries they overran really should not concern the USSR that way. And it wasn't your victory. Without the US and Britain, the USSR would have fallen.

-Pressure in France (minimal until 1944)
-Bombing (oil fields, refineries, factories, railroads, etc...)
-Lend-Lease (roughly 30% of Russian war material was built or designed in America.
There are others. Russia would have fallen without Allied assistance. It would have taken a long time, but it would have happened.

You said that we are enslaved Eastern Europe, do you have ANY fècking idea what was nazi plans for us, citizens of Russia?
DEATH. Wipe out of population of whole country.
Now you are rewriting history, tommorow you will be blame us for what we destroyed nazi and saved our lives and lives of millons of people from other nations.
Thanks for your gruttitude.

The USSR enslaved Eastern Europe for about 50 years. The Eastern Europeans did nothing to harm you. The fact that someone hurt your people (and yes, the Nazis did terrible things) does not justify you hurting other people.

The Nazi goal for the Slavs was enslavement, not death BTW. They wanted your land, and they wanted you to work for them.

Sure there is a rebuilding phase, which the West went through as well. It can certainly be argued that we occupied Japan and W. Germany for several years, but then we turned them over to run themselves. Why couldn't the Soviet Union do this with the countries they occupied?

Exactly. Good point. The USSR failed to remove their occupation of Eastern Europe until 1989, while American troops were vastly decreased in number in Western Europe by 1949.

The develiment of Soviets nucler bomb was started in 1943 in Kurchatov's lab.

Kurchatov was more then 10 years away from building his own bomb, and without information stolen from the Manhattan Project, he would likely never have finished it. The US was the only country that could seriously afford to invest in a project of that magnitude, and the other countries' projects were, quite seriously, jokes.

Japan-Spent the equivalent of $350,000. Didn't ever figure out how to sustain a chain reaction.
Germany-Likewise, but they spent more money. Their experiments with heavy water were valuable in post-war research, but otherwise were useless.
Britain-Joined forces with the US
Russia-Was asked by the Allies to join forces in the Manhattan Project, but refused.

You have no idea about our war. Absolutely.
Lend-Lease, yes I don't want to be rude but..... Yes during first year of war it was helpfull, very helpfull, because Nazi took the most industrialized part of our territory and just evacuated plants didn't produced weapons in needed quantity. When evacueted plants started mass production, Lend-Lease become unimportant for us. Overall part of Lend-Lease in resourses spend by us in this war is 5%. Not big, but we apreciate it, thank you, just please don't say that we win war using American weapons, it's not true. And btw, isn't was that you always do- to make profit? You make a lot of money selling weapons to combantants.
As for second front, Stalin asked about them all the time since war began, all his reqests were denied, and second front was opened in 1944 only when everything was almost done. Done by us btw.

See above. Lend-Lease contributed roughly 30% of RUssian war material, either designs or actual production. Tens of thousands of fighter and bomber planes, thousands of tanks, hundreds of thousands of machine guns, artillery pieces, and other weapons were shipped to Russia.

As for the Second front, FDR wanted to open one in early 1943, but Churchill refused, saying it would be another WW1 trench battle. You also cannot discount the vast difficulty of charging ashore on an entrenched foe who outnumbers you, and who has been building fortresses all along the coast.

I have nothing against Russia, or indeed the USSR, even though I was largely trained to sink Russian ships, but I am trying to make an argument.

Steele