War between the western allies and the Sovs in '45. Who wins?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Hmmmmm....How many millions of domestic Americans did the US
government have put to death in famines and gulags, again?

My memory is a bit shaky in that regard!

Why don't you ask an American Indian.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why don't you ask an American Indian.

Rubbish answer.

Why not ask a Kazan or a Siberian during Russia's expansion in the 1500s?

If that is how redundant your repsonses are, I will assume
victory and conclude you are another middle-class rebel.

The USA is a democracy (despite her faults) and Stalin's red
empire was a fiefdom of death. This is what you cannot deny.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Why not ask a Kazan or a Siberian during Russia's expansion in the 1500s?

Which has what to do with the question you asked?

How many millions of domestic Americans did the US
government have put to death in famines and gulags, again?

In the space of 100 years, the population of American Indians in what would become the lower 48 went from 3 million to a little over a quater million. That was largely due to starvation and diseases that ran rampant when they were crowded together on marginable tracts of land. The answer is 2.75 million.

Of course, your question was irrelevent to the questions of who would have started the war in the first place and which country was more aggressive.

Twist and spin as you might, you can't escape the historical truth.

The USA is a democracy (despite her faults) and Stalin's red empire was a fiefdom of death.

So when a democracy committs genocide its okay because at least we're a democracy?

This is what you cannot deny.

I haven't denied it. But the fact that a country murders its own citizens doesn't mean that country is going to start wars. The fact that Stalin's regime was a nightmare beyond belief isn't relevent when you are asking the question, which country would attack the other.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Which has what to do with the question you asked?

Short memory?

I was reacting to your redundant question.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In the space of 100 years, the population of American Indians in what would become the lower 48 went from 3 million to a little over a quater million. That was largely due to starvation and diseases that ran rampant when they were crowded together on marginable tracts of land. The answer is 2.75 million.

So they mowed down helpless people to colonise?
It is hideous, we can agree, but is the USA alone there?

What's new? I think just about every Western nation
can be accused of that one, Russia included...And your
precious communists are the last in line to be absolved
from the crime of domestic/indigenous annihilation.

But it makes it far worse that your enemy, the USA done it.
That is all that counts to effete commies, not the fact that
violent colonisation was widespread in history.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Of course, your question was irrelevent to the questions of who would have started the war in the first place and which country was more aggressive.

Actually who is more hostile? The USA or USSR?

Look at history, and try and tell me a straight answer.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara Twist and spin as you might, you can't escape the historical truth.

I know the historical truth.
The USSR declared wars on many nations, the USA mostly
had UN permission or war declared upon them...Face the facts.

You however, are letting your seeming distaste for your own
culture distort your view...That is your problem to solve.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So when a democracy committs genocide its okay because at least we're a democracy?

It is you who are saying this.

Atrocities are vile, regardless of governments or so-called justifications.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I haven't denied it. But the fact that a country murders its own citizens doesn't mean that country is going to start wars. The fact that Stalin's regime was a nightmare beyond belief isn't relevent when you are asking the question, which country would attack the other.

You are getting the wrong picture.

I accused Stalin's regime of warmongering *and* atrocities.
And what is worse, the USSR under blood-thirsty 'Uncle Joe' was not accountable.

At least the USA can be made accountable and must
explain her war actions to the so-called free world.

Where does this leave us now?

.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I was reacting to your redundant question.

It was neither a question nor was it redundent. You asked how many millions of people the U.S. had starved or put into camps.

It is hideous, we can agree, but is the USA alone there?

Sadly, we are not alone. Sad, not because oh the evil USA, but sad that so many countries have engaged in such practices. However, your question was specific to the USA, so I gave an answer specific to the USA.

[q]And your precious communists are the last in line to be absolved from the crime of domestic/indigenous annihilation.[q/]

Who's absolving them?

But it makes it far worse that your enemy, the USA done it.

No, what makes it worse for me is that my country has done it. My people, my history, my nation committed this deed. We have yet to come to terms with it like the Germans have for their misdeeds.

Actually who is more hostile? The USA or USSR?

As I previously stated, only one country ever invaded the other. Only one country ever supported rebellions and domesitc terrorism in the other. Only one country overtly threatened to attack the other.

Look at history, and try and tell me a straight answer.

History gives a very good answer. The US was far more hostile to the USSR than the other way around. You may justify this by the fact that the USSR was a nightmare regime under Stalin, but you can't get around the fact that it was the U.S. that was threatening the USSR, and not the other way around.

I know the historical truth.

Apparently not.

The USSR declared wars on many nations,

Did it? Whom? Finland, Poland . . . hmmmm. That's it. Poland had declared war on the USSR in 1919 and stolen a huge chunk of territory from them. If an aggressive war could be justified, then the 1939 invasion of Poland would be in that catagory, as they were recovering territories stolen from them. But I don't think it was justified.

Now, we can add in countries they simply occupied against their will: Transcaucasia, the Baltic states, Tuva, Mongolia. Then there are client states they occupied, Eastern Europe and Afganistan. Afganistan asked the Soviets to intervene, but it was a new government that came as the result of a coup, so we can discount that as a legitimate intervention.

the USA mostly had UN permission or war declared upon them...Face the facts.

The U.S. had permission to attack the Spanish in the Spanish American War? We had permission to attack Mexico? We had permission to invade Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Honduras, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines . . . ? Guatemala threatened us and we had to oraginze an army to overthrow it before they took our bananas away? Grenada was plotting our downfall and it was only a matter of time before they destroyed us? The U.S. had permission to invade Iraq?

When one adds up all of the invasions and interventions the the U.S carried out in the 20th Century, the U.S. engaged in seven times more aggressive, imperialist, unjustifiable actions than the USSR. We are and have been the chief threat to peace.

It is you who are saying this.

Not me. You're the one who seems to be saying that the colonial actions of imperial monarchies somehow cancels out the colonial actions of American democracy, that everyone did it.

I accused Stalin's regime of warmongering *and* atrocities.

Stalin's attrocities don't make him more likely to start a war. An aggressive country is more likely to engage in attrocities, but a country which kills its own isn't necessarily more likley to attack others.

And what is worse, the USSR under blood-thirsty 'Uncle Joe' was not accountable.

No superpower is accountable.

At least the USA can be made accountable and must
explain her war actions to the so-called free world.

It's both sad and humorous that you believe this. When has the U.S. ever been called to account?

[Patroklos]

During most of those years Indians were not citizens, not that it matters in context.

I would have considered the land grab by the Soviets an act of war against all those previous countries, most of whose governments were all in exile in the West and diplomatically recognized. If we did it for France, why not Poland.

Soviets start the war in any realistic scenario.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Soviets start the war in any realistic scenario.

Right, cuz the Soviet Union attacked us in 1919 . . . oh wait, that was the other way around, wasn't it?

[lord of the mark]

the US has been making efforts to come to terms with the things we did against the Native peoples in the 19th century. Our school history curriculums address harm to the indians, the Trail of Tears, etc. We have recently built a museum on the mall in Washington celebrating native American culture.

Has Russia been making any similar efforts with regard to what was done to native peoples in Siberia?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the US has been making efforts to come to terms with the things we did against the Native peoples in the 19th century.

Has Russia been making any similar efforts with regard to what was done to native peoples in Siberia?

I highly doubt it. But again, it was a response to a question about who the U.S. killed, not an indictment in general. Supposedly we expect democracies to behave better, though.

There's also still a lot of incensitivity towards the Native peoples here, and a backlash against trying to come to terms with our history.

[curtsibling]

Che, before you forget the orginal point, I am going to take
us back out of the distorted territory you are heading to.

My original point was that a war between Hitler and Stalin was certain.
You asked why, and then proceeded to add the USA into the mix.

You see:
Stalin desired the West of Europe more than we desired the Western steppes of the USSR.
Your odd assertion that only the wicked USA would go to war, and the angelic Stalinist USSR
would stay put, even when presented with an oppurtunity is close to total fantasy.

If you would have me think you understand even anything about capitalism/communism
and are not just an armchair weeny, with a part-time beliefs in what you claim,
then you will comprehend the fact that communism and nazism were complete enemies from their origins.

Look at the political creeds of Hitler and Stalin, do you really
think they would have maintained their friendship for long?

Given Hitler's hate for Slavs, and Stalins total loathing of the West,
if you think they would stay at peace, you are clueless about WW2.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[The U.S. had permission to attack the Spanish in the Spanish American War? We had permission to attack Mexico? We had permission to invade Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Honduras, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines . . . ? Guatemala threatened us and we had to oraginze an army to overthrow it before they took our bananas away? Grenada was plotting our downfall and it was only a matter of time before they destroyed us? The U.S. had permission to invade Iraq?

The Phillipines and Puerto Rico were attacked as part of the war with Spain - im not sure how you get three seperate wars out of that. The Phillipines resisted annexation, but AFAIK Puerto Rico did not. And the Phillipines WERE given their independence, at just the time the USSR was expanding into east central europe. Puerto Rico seems more interested in statehood than independence.

Some of the interventions in central america WERE authorized by the Organization of American States. It is difficult to discuss in detail, as you dont date them and so dont make clear which interventions you refer to. The overall picture though is of a US intervening regularly in a troubled region, for different motives at different times, but constantly needing to go back in after leaving - the USSR equivalent was Central Asia - which they did NOT need to repeated go back into, since they annexed it as soon as they could and didnt leave till 1991 - and they STILL dont seem to really acknowledge the independence of these states.

By going into Eastern Europe, the USSR went beyond a troubled near abroad - they invaded states that were A. More developed, and in a position to develop into democratic industrial states. (no, its not that they were white, but the socio-economic differences DO matter) and B. They went into a place that threatened the security of OTHER great powers, and was not simply their backyard.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I highly doubt it. But again, it was a response to a question about who the U.S. killed, not an indictment in general. Supposedly we expect democracies to behave better, though.

I hardly expect a 19th century white democracy to behave well towards nonwhite native peoples - neither history, nor an analysis of attitudes of the time provides a basis for that.

[curtsibling]

Well posted, LOTM!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The Phillipines and Puerto Rico were attacked as part of the war with Spain - im not sure how you get three seperate wars out of that. The Phillipines resisted annexation, but AFAIK Puerto Rico did not. And the Phillipines WERE given their independence,

Because both Puerto Rico and the Philippines were, for all intents and purposes, independent of Spain. Puorto Rico was an autonomous part of the Empire, and the Spanish only held Manilia in the Philippines. In fact, many argue that this was the real cause of the war, the fact that the U.S. was about to lose the chance to purchase these colonies from Spain, as even Cuba was winning it's fight for freedom. It would be harder to sell an invasion of three independent countries to the American people, as opposed to "liberating" three oppressed colonies.

Some of the interventions in central america WERE authorized by the Organization of American States.

Which until recently, was basically a ruber stamp for the U.S., and not a real international organization.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
.

There's also still a lot of incensitivity towards the Native peoples here, and a backlash against trying to come to terms with our history.

In the '90s Clinton apologized for the slave trade, for not doing enough for Africa, etc. I think he also apologized for acts against native Americans. There was a certain compassion fatigue on the part of the people who dont much like to apologize. Thats normal. Compare the situation to Japan, or to Russia. We've done a pretty good job of apologizing (the question of material amends is huge and not one i wish to discuss here) Really its only in comparison to postwar Germany that we dont look so good at coming to terms with our past - but I would argue that that is different, a much worse atrocity, done at a time in history when it DID defeat reasonable expectations, and further post-war Germany had tremendous political reasons, both internal and external, to make a special effort to come to terms with its past.