Should East Europe countries be thankful to Soviet Union?

[Arrian]

It gives moral right to modern Russians to hate modern people from all of those countries. Their next generations who don't responsible for this.

I'm confused, Serb. The first sentence, I very much disagree with. Yeah, the Nazis and Nazi sympathizers killed a lot of people. That does not, however, give the "moral right" to hate all Lithuanians, Latvians or whatever. Because not all of them did it. The second part, if I understand it correctly, is that the generations following WWII bear no responsibility for the transgressions of (some of) their forebears. That I agree with.

The Nazis were a scourge on humanity. It was good that the SU defeated them. However, the occupation of Eastern Europe following the war was pretty bad (which you have acknowledged). Obviously no one (except Floyd) thinks it would be better if the Nazis had won. That's ridiculous (in fairness to Floyd, in his construct of alternative history, if the Nazis had taken down the SU, the US still would have taken down the Nazis, resulting in a free Europe & Russia, as opposed the the free West vs. the occupied East).

So, from what I have seen in this thread, if one ignores the unneeded fluff, spam, and inflamatory rhetoric, most people agree with the following:

1) Defeat of Nazi Germany = good.
2) Soviet role in that defeat = good.
3) Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe = bad.

The only real debate revolves around the relative "badness" of the Nazis and the Soviet occupation post-WWII. I think that's a silly debate. Hence my "frying pan to the fire" comment. Both Nazi and Soviet occupation was bad. Each in its own way, and quite probably which one was worse than the other varied for individuals and groups of people. Morally, they were both repugnant, but I do think the Nazis win the "most vile" trophy.

-Arrian

[Serb]

Arrian, you didn't noticed first paragraph or my English become worse and worse?
Just read it again and please explain where I did grammar errors.
I said: (perhaps I shoul add numbers "1)" and "2)" to point exactly what I mean. But I thought it's clear enough)
So:

"Arrian,
I don’t advocate that Soviet domination over Eastern Europe was a right thing. I advocate that two lines below are bullsh*t:

1) Germans + Italians+ Rumanians + Finns + Lithuanians + Estonians + Latvians + Hungarians + others who were on nazi side, killed 27 millions of Soviet people (majority of whom were Russians) in 1941-1945. It gives moral right to modern Russians to hate modern people from all of those countries. Their next generations who don't responsible for this.

2) Eastern Europe suffered from communists during 1945-1991 it gives moral right to population of those countries to hate modern Russians. Their next generations who don't responsible for this.

I mean that second and third paragraph (marked by "1)" and "2)" ) is equal nonsense from my point of view. That both of those statements are bullsh*t.

[Arrian]

*smacks forehead*

You are correct, sir. I somehow missed the lead-in line:

I advocate that two lines below are bullsh*t

Monday mornings suck.

-Arrian

[Serb]

Monday mornings suck.

Amen
You were missed in action during weekend?
Fortunately it's Tuesday morning here and after less then six hours I should be on my job, so I'm going to if you don't mind.

[Arrian]

Sleep well.

Yeah, I typically don't log on during my weekends. I did actually check in briefly yesterday, but only for a few minutes.

-Arrian

[Sonic]

Originally posted by Serb
Later panasonic, later. I have other things to do now.


Serb, at least you've admitted that you are incapable to argue to me .

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The ME is part of Asia, that makes Israel an Asian country.

This is a classic case of American literalism.

Can't you people see the deeper levels of the English language?

[chequita guevara]

In this particular case, it was an Asian man who noted Israel is part of Asia.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Arrian
Nazi Occupation -> Soviet Occupation = "From the frying pan into the fire"

-Arrian

True but nazi rule was far worse. Soviet rule was repressive but nowhere near as bad nazi rule. For a start the communists didn't set up extermination camps. They also allowed national governments and national development. Sure, it was on the Soviet model with all its weaknesses but by comparison the nazis basically wanted to destroy the societies of Eastern Europe, colonise the whole area and turn the people into slaves, especially the slavic peoples. After Stalin died the Warsaw Pact regimes were relatively benign - as long noone tried to break away from Moscow.

So again I think everyone owes a debt of gratitude to those who fought nazism in the Great Patriotic War.

And please remember that after what had happened to Russia in World War II, particulary the devastating surprise attack causing at least 20 million deaths, Stalin felt the Soviet Union had a right to friendly states on its borders. Britain and the United States were unhappy at first, particularly over the fate of Poland, but came to understand and accept this. That acceptance set the scene for a very long period, almost 50 years, of peace in Europe. We should be thankful for that.

[The Vagabond]

Nice holding out, Serb Good points, Che and AH.

While I'm sorry for what happened to EE and I don't think EE should be thankful to the USSR for the post-war period, yet it is wrong to paint everything only in black and white. And the good guys here already explained that. In essence, a large part of the problem reduces to the fact that communism didn't work out. It it worked out, everything would look very different now.

As an empire, the Soviet Union was rather benevolent. It fought for a noble cause (which finally didn't work). As already mentioned here, it cared about the development of its satellites and contributed $$ more than ever received back. The classical imperial scheme of colony exploitation didn't take place here.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, what do you expect? We spent trillions of dollars and lots of sweat and blood putting the stake in the heart of communism.

I have no interest in seeing communism rehabilitated at the expense of facism.

That, DanS, tells about you (and perhaps other Americans) more than you may realize. It tells that you are deeply and inherently biased against everything related to the Soviet Union. My recollection of your past posts is quite in agreement with this thesis.

Well, your bias is humanly understandable: after all, you spent trillions of dollars. Nevertheless, a bias is a bias.

Edit: grammar

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As an empire, the Soviet Union was rather benevolent. It fought for a noble cause (which finally didn't work).

hehehe

[Felch]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As an empire, the Soviet Union was rather benevolent. It fought for a noble cause (which finally didn't work). As already mentioned here, it cared about the development of its satellites and contributed $$ more than ever received back. The classical imperial scheme of colony exploitation didn't take place here.

The classical imperial scheme of colony exploitation is a myth by your standards. Overall, the Europeans spent more money building infrastructure and exsuring stability than they got back from exploitation.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Sonic
Hello,
No, we didn't benefited from USSR. They just destroyed everything. If not USSR we now would probably be like Netherlands or Switzerland - small but rich country, as we were before WW2. And now what we are? A poor country full of Russians, who are mostly criminals, addicts and mafiamen by the way.

You didn't benefit from the USSR? What about the city of Vilnius? *sigh* Unthankful Lithuanians...

In Russia, most Russians are not criminals. If they are criminals in your country, perhaps you should think which of your policies are wrong.

[Sonic]

Vagabond, probably if communism would have worked out it would have been better (however I think communism can't actually work. The only country which is near true communism is Lybia, and that is only because Lybia can afford that - most of the money required to support half-communism (Yamahiriah as they calls it themselves) comes from oil trade), but even if it would have worked out it wouldn't have compensated the loss of independence. Probably it would have been grayer then but definitely not white.

USSR invested to it's sattleites because it needed to if it wanted to support their puppet-governments there. Americans also helped Europe with Marshall plan for example. Both USA and USSR in the cold war needed to invest as much money as possible into their supporters to stop them going to the other side.