by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .25262728293031. . .3334»

Volksleben wrote:It rather was:
Socialism is doing okay -> Marxism-Leninism is abandoned because "Stalin bad" -> Khrushchev's market reforms, the Soviet economy enters stagnation, corruption skyrockets -> Corruption is not persecuted because "we are not Stalin" -> A mindless puppet of the corrupt bureaucracy comes to power, ruins everything under the guise of "Democratic Socialism" -> People are ready to support anything that isn't status quo at this point -> Yeltsin/Kravchuk/Corrupt-Bureaucrat-No.1231 comes, promising everything to everyone, wins, does nothing to fix the situation -> The former republics turn into de-industrialized unsustainable chauvinist hellholes with their State Apparatuses 10 times larger than the entire Soviet one under Stalin -> THE REFORMS WERE OBJECTIVELY GOOD! FREEDOM! PEOPLE! DEMOCRACY!

IMF LOAN IMF LOAN IMF LOAN IMF LOAN IMF LOAN IMF LOAN IMF LOAN

Buddy, that's the entire point of regions - to be groups of common interest, where people with similar outlooks, similar tastes, or similar ideas can hang out.
Try propagating radical republican views in a monarchist region, I'll see how fast you are banned.

Well, there was no war and famine during Khrushchev's rule.
Under Gorbachev - well, it was the only time when the ration stamps were introduced during peacetime.

Everyone rejoiced when the socialist system fell, only to find out that life is way worse now and they cannot do anything with it since the liberal system is way less democratic than the Soviets were.

You'd migrate to a richer place one kilometer away too. Not many consider the amount of Western investment done to make it a big luxurious-looking FREEDOM™ land though.

Yep, it certainly was PEOPLE, DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, and not local elites represented by the local SSRs' leaders or nouveau-riche oligarchs - with them totally not suspiciously becoming presidents after independence, sometimes for life.

Only to try overthrowing him after 2 years of a bright liberal future with mafia clans grabbing and robbing everything through accelerated market reforms.
Also, I like this emphasis on the PEOPLE. We do love denying the objective division of society and of the class interests tearing it apart.

17. Use words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ constantly. Do not accept any challenge to define these terms.
- 40 helpful tips for Anti-Communists

"Friendly debate"?
Boy, I sensed "I wish all you tankies died, oh my gosh I am so right and based" energy in your very first message here.

But, Stalin wasn't that great. I might be chastised for saying this, but Stalin was kinda crazy. Sending an assassin to Mexico just to kill your political opponent is crazy. So is literally offering your sons to the Nazis. Saying this, and then saying that Stalin was pretty authoritarian when it came to civilian politics is not a stretch. His many purges and random killings were pretty cruel to be completely honest. Khruschev's market reforms weren't bad, they were pretty good for agriculture and increased production a lot. His 7 Year Plan was honestly good. It just seems to me that you just straight up fabricated that information. Corruption was persecuted, but they didn't brutalize the criminals. Say what you want about Gorbachev's domestic reforms, but his diplomatic reforms were great. He not only ended the cold war and tried his best to limit nuclear weapons, withdrew troops from Afghanistan AND tore down the Berlin wall. The Eastern Bloc's people never supported the USSR, and were happy that they could finally leave. Freedom of speech and press was finally there. It wasn't just any corrupt socialist.
I wasn't the one who brought up Tito. I honestly do not know much about him.
That still doesn't mean you have to ban everyone if they aren't supporting your ideology. In the UGON days there was some guy who was pretending to be a communist but was actually a right-wing dude. But he was pretty chill so we just allowed him to stay until he stopped playing. I am grateful that I haven't been kicked out of the region (unlike the TLA).
Funnily, if Gorbachev didn't open up the country, the people would have still had xenophobic attitudes towards foreign countries giving them food during the shortage and it would have been worse.
So are you telling me the people in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Eastern Germany, Romania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, and Hungary (might have missed a few) would be happier in the USSR than now? No they wouldn't have.
The Western bloc was objectively better than the Eastern bloc throughout the Cold War. Wasn't just one place. That's like saying that New York was the only place where the USA spent tons and tons of money trying to make it look good and the rest of the USA was just dumps and rural farmlands.
The other SSR's people wanted to leave. That's why they left. But some of these countries had problems. But the people still wanted to leave. But some did well, like the Baltics. If all of them turned out like that, this wouldn't be an argument. But again, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle but she doesn't so she's not.
But.. they elected him. Over the communist candidate. It doesn't change the fact that they elected him. And to this day the Russian President is not a communist. (Although Putin is admittedly a sh*t example).
Now should I mention all the pops who voted for whom like it's Victoria 2?
Also, was I ever asked to define Freedom and Democracy?
Look, I didn't insult anyone. I didn't jump into your screen and punch you or anything. That's why it's a friendly debate. Because we don't know each other outside this game made to promote a book. If we were trying to fight over the fecking Holy Land then maybe that would be a non-friendly debate.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:But, Stalin wasn't that great. I might be chastised for saying this, but Stalin was kinda crazy. Sending an assassin to Mexico just to kill your political opponent is crazy.

Not just a political opponent, but a political opponent that was constantly sabotaging the Soviet control over the Communist International, gathering a large reformist opposition to the Leninist cause, and collaborating with anti-communist organizations like the Dies Committee.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:So is literally offering your sons to the Nazis.

His son who got into German captivity was a common artillerist, and prioritizing personal matters (a son) over the matters of the state (a German fieldmarshal) would be insane.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Saying this, and then saying that Stalin was pretty authoritarian when it came to civilian politics is not a stretch.

We never denied this.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:His many purges and random killings were pretty cruel to be completely honest.

"Random killings".
Imagine a leader being able to survive through party infighting, mass international pressure, and the deadliest war in human history while being a genocidal maniac who killed out of his sadistic whims. Never knew that sadism, bloodlust, and pointless violence could create a world superpower that managed to grow even during the war that not just decimated, but ravaged the country.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Khruschev's market reforms weren't bad, they were pretty good for agriculture and increased production a lot. His 7 Year Plan was honestly good.

Yeah, production increased, yet the productivity did not. Decentralization created a great pool for local officials to squander and steal in.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:It just seems to me that you just straight up fabricated that information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPGAbH6Vxjo

Can't provide any more links since all books and sites with information on this topic are in Russian. And I remember that providing actual statistics never works, people tend to just ignore them, so I won't bother translating.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Corruption was persecuted, but they didn't brutalize the criminals.

Lmao. They did when the criminals stole too much, the death penalty wasn't abolished, remember? The problem was that some criminals (like Yakovlev) were not considered as such.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Say what you want about Gorbachev's domestic reforms, but his diplomatic reforms were great.

Yeah, giving up everything in the greatest inter-power political standoff was a victory for his country, for sure.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:He not only ended the cold war and tried his best to limit nuclear weapons, withdrew troops from Afghanistan AND tore down the Berlin wall.

And all that was good for the Soviet Union? Or at least for the countries in question?

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:The Eastern Bloc's people never supported the USSR, and were happy that they could finally leave.

All the elections in the future Eastern Bloc countries were overseen by the Allies, fyi. The only country that had its elections falsified was Poland.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Freedom of speech and press was finally there.

20. Praise the newfound “freedom” of Eastern Europe. Ignore the massive depopulation via migration, plunging birthrates, huge alcohol and drug problems, political instability, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking and child prostitution, organized crime, high suicide rates, unemployment, disease, etc. Who cares about all that when you have freedom of speech?!
- 40 Helpful Tips for Anti-Communists

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:It wasn't just any corrupt socialist.

Socialism == Corrupt, got you there.
I wonder what is happening under capitalism... Oh no! "It isn't corruption when you call it lobbying."
I am devastated! L+fell off! Neoliberalism wins again!

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:I wasn't the one who brought up Tito.

Okay.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:I honestly do not know much about him.

Usual you.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:That still doesn't mean you have to ban everyone if they aren't supporting your ideology.

We don't even intend to ban you if you don't notice this. We should've banned you long ago though, but meh.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Funnily, if Gorbachev didn't open up the country, the people would have still had xenophobic attitudes towards foreign countries giving them food during the shortage and it would have been worse.

Yes, this is a systematic problem that the Party should've concentrated on. Yet the Party is the people, so if you have philistines in the population, the Party will philistinize as well - leading to petty-bourgeois degeneration and collapse.
How can you know it would have been worse? Because fascism and communism are literally the same?

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:So are you telling me the people in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Eastern Germany, Romania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, and Hungary (might have missed a few) would be happier in the USSR than now? No they wouldn't have.

No argumentation follows. Based.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:The Western bloc was objectively better than the Eastern bloc throughout the Cold War. Wasn't just one place. That's like saying that New York was the only place where the USA spent tons and tons of money trying to make it look good and the rest of the USA was just dumps and rural farmlands.

Yes, great that you noticed this. Iirc, places like Italy and Britain suffered from mass poverty for a dozen more years, with the rationing system being abolished in the late 50s at best.
Also, how's Detroit?

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:The other SSR's people wanted to leave. That's why they left.

Iirc, the only SSRs that formally left were the Baltics and Georgia, Moldova and Armenia boycotted the referendum. All others managed to stay long enough to participate in the referendum on the reorganization of the country into a confederation.
The Union was broken by an anti-constitutional gathering of three presidents of the three most-developed republics: Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine; while for the legal break-up, a convocation of all the republican representatives on a specific all-Union congress would be required.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:But some of these countries had problems. But the people still wanted to leave. But some did well, like the Baltics.

They did not. Massive depopulation and economic desolation, degeneration of democracies into police states, as well as total domination of the Scandinavian oligarchate in their territories.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:But.. they elected him. Over the communist candidate. It doesn't change the fact that they elected him.

Putin too was elected. So was Hitler. Stalin was elected as well. Elections are nothing more but a verification of the pre-determined result.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:And to this day the Russian President is not a communist. (Although Putin is admittedly a sh*t example).

He is a proud Yeltsinist carrying the banner, holding his anti-communist predecessor in high regard. He just like his good teacher decentralizes the economy, decreases state intervention, and persecutes these genocidal and authoritarian labor activists when they try to protest the mass violations of the Labor Code.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Also, was I ever asked to define Freedom and Democracy?

Freedom - yes, you were. Democracy - not yet.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Look, I didn't insult anyone. I didn't jump into your screen and punch you or anything. That's why it's a friendly debate.

Cold War was called peaceful coexistence by the Soviet government since Stalin as well. Doesn't change the nature of the event.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Because we don't know each other outside this game made to promote a book. If we were trying to fight over the fecking Holy Land then maybe that would be a non-friendly debate.

It would be one because then I would be limited by the criminal laws of our respective countries.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:because they were sick of communism and didn't elect another communist and instead electing a capitalist

So they weren't happy with his reforms

New Tyranniaa wrote:So they weren't happy with his reforms

You don't understand. They were happy with his reforms, they just hated communism, so they transformed their happiness into enthusiasm and then into resentment of the system. People existentially suffer under the hammer and sickle, it is in human nature.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Communism is great -> Corrupt leaders are easily made in the communist system -> Someone tries to fix this system by encouraging reforms, freeing the people and allowing the people to choose -> Communism is great and those idiots should be beheaded.
This is how you sound. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, but she doesn't and she's not. Everyone would have supported communism if all leaders were Titos, but not all leaders are Titos and hence no one support communism. Also unless I'm an idiot and I just missed it, nothing in this region says that "We strive to be an echo chamber where everyone agrees with each other and no one ever questions anyone's beliefs"
Also, are you saying that people were happier during Stalin's rule than they were in Gorbachev or Khruschev's?
By the way, you still ignored the Eastern bloc question. Are you going to run crying to your buddy Volksleben to help you in a debate that you started?

Corrupt leaders are made in easy in all systems, you just for some reason think that your Capitalist leaders are justified in it while Communist leaders are not. What I will say about Stalin is that Soviet Union was at it's peak. It was the strongest power in the world at that point, and under Stalin, we had the best chance at a world revolution. Happiness is tough to measure: some people certainly would've been happy under Stalin's rule, and of course he did things wrong, the problem with you people is that you look at him far harsher than you would anyone else, as if you wouldn't do the exact same things he did, minus the good stuff. And what exactly was your point in regards to the Eastern Bloc that I didn't answer? They wanted to leave because the last leaders they were under were terrible, it had nothing to do with the communist ideology.

It's also funny, I didn't start this debate, you did when you tried to get us to go worship the man that destroyed the counterweight to the United States' Crapitialist Imperialism. And in regards to Volks, he was annihilating you without me even being here, they just called me back because everyone gets a kick out of watching you lose arguments to multiple people at the same time.

And it ain't crying for help when we both happen to agree that you're wrong. Plus, at least I have friends I can count on to support me. You very clearly don't.

Volksleben wrote:Not just a political opponent, but a political opponent that was constantly sabotaging the Soviet control over the Communist International, gathering a large reformist opposition to the Leninist cause, and collaborating with anti-communist organizations like the Dies Committee.

His son who got into German captivity was a common artillerist, and prioritizing personal matters (a son) over the matters of the state (a German fieldmarshal) would be insane.

We never denied this.

"Random killings".
Imagine a leader being able to survive through party infighting, mass international pressure, and the deadliest war in human history while being a genocidal maniac who killed out of his sadistic whims. Never knew that sadism, bloodlust, and pointless violence could create a world superpower that managed to grow even during the war that not just decimated, but ravaged the country.

Yeah, production increased, yet the productivity did not. Decentralization created a great pool for local officials to squander and steal in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPGAbH6Vxjo

Can't provide any more links since all books and sites with information on this topic are in Russian. And I remember that providing actual statistics never works, people tend to just ignore them, so I won't bother translating.

Lmao. They did when the criminals stole too much, the death penalty wasn't abolished, remember? The problem was that some criminals (like Yakovlev) were not considered as such.

Yeah, giving up everything in the greatest inter-power political standoff was a victory for his country, for sure.

And all that was good for the Soviet Union? Or at least for the countries in question?

All the elections in the future Eastern Bloc countries were overseen by the Allies, fyi. The only country that had its elections falsified was Poland.

20. Praise the newfound “freedom” of Eastern Europe. Ignore the massive depopulation via migration, plunging birthrates, huge alcohol and drug problems, political instability, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking and child prostitution, organized crime, high suicide rates, unemployment, disease, etc. Who cares about all that when you have freedom of speech?!
- 40 Helpful Tips for Anti-Communists

Socialism == Corrupt, got you there.
I wonder what is happening under capitalism... Oh no! "It isn't corruption when you call it lobbying."
I am devastated! L+fell off! Neoliberalism wins again!

Okay.

Usual you.

We don't even intend to ban you if you don't notice this. We should've banned you long ago though, but meh.

Yes, this is a systematic problem that the Party should've concentrated on. Yet the Party is the people, so if you have philistines in the population, the Party will philistinize as well - leading to petty-bourgeois degeneration and collapse.
How can you know it would have been worse? Because fascism and communism are literally the same?

No argumentation follows. Based.

Yes, great that you noticed this. Iirc, places like Italy and Britain suffered from mass poverty for a dozen more years, with the rationing system being abolished in the late 50s at best.
Also, how's Detroit?

Iirc, the only SSRs that formally left were the Baltics and Georgia, Moldova and Armenia boycotted the referendum. All others managed to stay long enough to participate in the referendum on the reorganization of the country into a confederation.
The Union was broken by an anti-constitutional gathering of three presidents of the three most-developed republics: Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine; while for the legal break-up, a convocation of all the republican representatives on a specific all-Union congress would be required.

They did not. Massive depopulation and economic desolation, degeneration of democracies into police states, as well as total domination of the Scandinavian oligarchate in their territories.

Putin too was elected. So was Hitler. Stalin was elected as well. Elections are nothing more but a verification of the pre-determined result.

He is a proud Yeltsinist carrying the banner, holding his anti-communist predecessor in high regard. He just like his good teacher decentralizes the economy, decreases state intervention, and persecutes these genocidal and authoritarian labor activists when they try to protest the mass violations of the Labor Code.

Freedom - yes, you were. Democracy - not yet.

Cold War was called peaceful coexistence by the Soviet government since Stalin as well. Doesn't change the nature of the event.

It would be one because then I would be limited by the criminal laws of our respective countries.

Lol I don't know why yall called me back, you're making him look real stupid without me. Now I see why our fights were so entertaining to watch, I'm witnessing someone get cooked alive over here.

Union of Soviet State Republics wrote:Lol I don't know why yall called me back, you're making him look real stupid without me. Now I see why our fights were so entertaining to watch, I'm witnessing someone get cooked alive over here.

Because the more - the merrier.

this is a certified moment

Volksleben wrote:Not just a political opponent, but a political opponent that was constantly sabotaging the Soviet control over the Communist International, gathering a large reformist opposition to the Leninist cause, and collaborating with anti-communist organizations like the Dies Committee.

His son who got into German captivity was a common artillerist, and prioritizing personal matters (a son) over the matters of the state (a German fieldmarshal) would be insane.

We never denied this.

"Random killings".
Imagine a leader being able to survive through party infighting, mass international pressure, and the deadliest war in human history while being a genocidal maniac who killed out of his sadistic whims. Never knew that sadism, bloodlust, and pointless violence could create a world superpower that managed to grow even during the war that not just decimated, but ravaged the country.

Yeah, production increased, yet the productivity did not. Decentralization created a great pool for local officials to squander and steal in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPGAbH6Vxjo

Can't provide any more links since all books and sites with information on this topic are in Russian. And I remember that providing actual statistics never works, people tend to just ignore them, so I won't bother translating.

Lmao. They did when the criminals stole too much, the death penalty wasn't abolished, remember? The problem was that some criminals (like Yakovlev) were not considered as such.

Yeah, giving up everything in the greatest inter-power political standoff was a victory for his country, for sure.

And all that was good for the Soviet Union? Or at least for the countries in question?

All the elections in the future Eastern Bloc countries were overseen by the Allies, fyi. The only country that had its elections falsified was Poland.

20. Praise the newfound “freedom” of Eastern Europe. Ignore the massive depopulation via migration, plunging birthrates, huge alcohol and drug problems, political instability, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking and child prostitution, organized crime, high suicide rates, unemployment, disease, etc. Who cares about all that when you have freedom of speech?!
- 40 Helpful Tips for Anti-Communists

Socialism == Corrupt, got you there.
I wonder what is happening under capitalism... Oh no! "It isn't corruption when you call it lobbying."
I am devastated! L+fell off! Neoliberalism wins again!

Okay.

Usual you.

We don't even intend to ban you if you don't notice this. We should've banned you long ago though, but meh.

Yes, this is a systematic problem that the Party should've concentrated on. Yet the Party is the people, so if you have philistines in the population, the Party will philistinize as well - leading to petty-bourgeois degeneration and collapse.
How can you know it would have been worse? Because fascism and communism are literally the same?

No argumentation follows. Based.

Yes, great that you noticed this. Iirc, places like Italy and Britain suffered from mass poverty for a dozen more years, with the rationing system being abolished in the late 50s at best.
Also, how's Detroit?

Iirc, the only SSRs that formally left were the Baltics and Georgia, Moldova and Armenia boycotted the referendum. All others managed to stay long enough to participate in the referendum on the reorganization of the country into a confederation.
The Union was broken by an anti-constitutional gathering of three presidents of the three most-developed republics: Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine; while for the legal break-up, a convocation of all the republican representatives on a specific all-Union congress would be required.

They did not. Massive depopulation and economic desolation, degeneration of democracies into police states, as well as total domination of the Scandinavian oligarchate in their territories.

Putin too was elected. So was Hitler. Stalin was elected as well. Elections are nothing more but a verification of the pre-determined result.

He is a proud Yeltsinist carrying the banner, holding his anti-communist predecessor in high regard. He just like his good teacher decentralizes the economy, decreases state intervention, and persecutes these genocidal and authoritarian labor activists when they try to protest the mass violations of the Labor Code.

Freedom - yes, you were. Democracy - not yet.

Cold War was called peaceful coexistence by the Soviet government since Stalin as well. Doesn't change the nature of the event.

It would be one because then I would be limited by the criminal laws of our respective countries.

Yeah that's not really deserving of murder. That's like saying that I would go out my way to kill the Ghanaian president because he started opposing me in the UN.
Fine, they didn't want to exchange him for a field marshal. But, there was another proposal offering to exchange him for hitler's half nephew, but he still didn't accept that. Also, throughout his life, Yakov (the son) was basically ignored by Stalin as a child and he attempted suicide multiple times during his youth.
You treat Stalin like this Saint who didn't do anything wrong. You fail to mention his ethnic cleansings of Poles, Volga Germans and Koreans, how he killed many artists and scientists just over suspicion and many other things. But no no, those are just USA propaganda because Stalin = Greatest Human Ever
Yes this was bad. You know what made it even worse? Your infallible just system allowed the government to make show trials so the perpetrators couldn't be punished. Then your amazing free regime didn't allow reporting on the massacre because it would make them look bad.
Yeah corruption is a problem. Great observation. And it will never be fixed. You think Stalin wasn't corrupt or at least had corruption as a problem? There was extreme amounts of bribery in the Late Stalinist era.
That might not have been good for the USSR, might have not even been a great decision. But at least to the Eastern bloc they could finally elect their own leaders. They could finally have freedom of speech, press and many more. They could finally protest (unlike when they would get shot). How would you feel by the way, if your country was taken over by another country because that country was attacked by another country whom they had a non-aggression pact that they used to invade your country together, and after they defeated the other country they started ruling you with an iron fist.
You know that all countries have problems and they had those problems then too? You think every country is perfect? Half of these existed in the Soviet Union too. But no, "Capitawists invented pwobwems".
No, I didn't say that he was socialist because he was corrupt. You called him a corrupt democratic socialists. Twisting words is a pretty good tactic though. Keep it up.
Still, all of Tito's success wasn't just IMF loans. It also kept together a country that was trying to explode, and after he died, it slowly started to explode until boom. War.
It would have been worse because if the USSR couldn't import food from other countries, there would be very little food leading to unrest and probably mass protests and the USSR would've dissolved earlier.
Yeah after they got completely bombed of course they needed time to rebuild. After the 50s they did much better. And the quality of life was better than the eastern bloc.
Yes, of course it could have been handled better. But what could you fecking do? Also, the Central Asian SSRs did secede. Kazakhstan was the outlier, but even they left at some point.
The Baltics did do good. They are doing good. They're having good amounts of growth. They did not turn into police states.
Let's see this country by country.
Estonia: They had the peaceful revolution and seceded in 1991. Joined UN, privatized economy and made currency reform, joined NATO, EU and adopted the Euro. They're a peaceful country that is developing well. No police state.
Latvia: Protested for autonomy and later independence, got it, they did have some problems with citizenship which are mostly fixed now, joined NATO, put prewar currency back, joined EU and has been peaceful and developing well. Again, no police state.
Lithuania: Declared independence earlier than usual, got blockaded but refused to budge. The USSR tried performing a coup on them, but they didn't budge. Adopted new constitution, joined WTO, NATO, EU and is a peaceful country developing well. NO POLICE STATE!
Turns out, you can't just fool people saying stuff that sounds plausible but actually isn't.
Sometimes the people are wrong.
Yeah, I know Putin is bad.
Fine: Freedom is the state in which a person has the full liberties to speak, act, assemble and do anything as long as it doesn't physically harm or put anyone else in danger or damaged public or private property.
Yeah whatever

Union of Soviet State Republics wrote:Corrupt leaders are made in easy in all systems, you just for some reason think that your Capitalist leaders are justified in it while Communist leaders are not. What I will say about Stalin is that Soviet Union was at it's peak. It was the strongest power in the world at that point, and under Stalin, we had the best chance at a world revolution. Happiness is tough to measure: some people certainly would've been happy under Stalin's rule, and of course he did things wrong, the problem with you people is that you look at him far harsher than you would anyone else, as if you wouldn't do the exact same things he did, minus the good stuff. And what exactly was your point in regards to the Eastern Bloc that I didn't answer? They wanted to leave because the last leaders they were under were terrible, it had nothing to do with the communist ideology.

It's also funny, I didn't start this debate, you did when you tried to get us to go worship the man that destroyed the counterweight to the United States' Crapitialist Imperialism. And in regards to Volks, he was annihilating you without me even being here, they just called me back because everyone gets a kick out of watching you lose arguments to multiple people at the same time.

And it ain't crying for help when we both happen to agree that you're wrong. Plus, at least I have friends I can count on to support me. You very clearly don't.

Never did I say that the capitalist system was perfect. Okay if that's your opinion. Now now now, don't just say that Stalin is a saint because he made some reforms. I guess killing intellectuals and artists and ethnic minorities (he called them "dangerous") is a great reform, especially when there was no evidence of them doing anything wrong.
Yeah no one here is anyone else's friend. We don't know each other. What I will say is that you are a brilliant acolyte, blindly following anything everyone says. Even if it is against what you said. I could probably go to the fifth Empire and they would be more open minded than you lackeys.

Union of Soviet State Republics wrote:Lol I don't know why yall called me back, you're making him look real stupid without me. Now I see why our fights were so entertaining to watch, I'm witnessing someone get cooked alive over here.

Lmao
Stating that you won an argument is easier than winning an argument, you absolute idiot
I'm actually done with this region, can somebody ban me or something?

Volksleben wrote:

Yes, great that you noticed this. Iirc, places like Italy and Britain suffered from mass poverty for a dozen more years, with the rationing system being abolished in the late 50s at best.
Also, how's Detroit?

Iirc, the only SSRs that formally left were the Baltics and Georgia, Moldova and Armenia boycotted the referendum. All others managed to stay long enough to participate in the referendum on the reorganization of the country into a confederation.

Tbf both of those nations were suffering from the after effects of WW2, in the case of the former ‘having its entire government replaced and cleaning up after at least two military occupations’ and in the case of the latter ‘finally losing the colonial empire it had maintained for the previous 350 odd years’. I’m not sure if other Western countries (like the US) suffered to the same extent.

That’s correct, I believe, and perhaps understandable in the light that the USSR effectively invaded and conquered all of those (the Baltics in 1939-1940, and Georgia in 1921 ish after it had had three or so years of self government under a Menshevik group). Armenia technically boycotted the referendum but effectively seceded after a September 1991 referendum of its own iirc.

Onionist Randosia wrote:Tbf both of those nations were suffering from the after effects of WW2, in the case of the former ‘having its entire government replaced and cleaning up after at least two military occupations’ and in the case of the latter ‘finally losing the colonial empire it had maintained for the previous 350 odd years’. I’m not sure if other Western countries (like the US) suffered to the same extent.

Nevertheless, the Soviets managed to have their GNP increase at least 1.5 times in 1945 compared to 1941 and generally exceed the pre-war levels despite losing 27 million people and having 30% of their production potential ransacked and burned - abolishing the rationing already in 1947 and introducing the annual planned price decreases, managing to restore the pre-War levels of civilian production in just one-two five-year plans with annual rates of development and restoration being equal to these of Japanese Economic Miracle.

Volksleben wrote:Nevertheless, the Soviets managed to have their GNP increase at least 1.5 times in 1945 compared to 1941 and generally exceed the pre-war levels despite losing 27 million people and having 30% of their production potential ransacked and burned - abolishing the rationing already in 1947 and introducing the annual planned price decreases, managing to restore the pre-War levels of civilian production in just one-two five-year plans with annual rates of development and restoration being equal to these of Japanese Economic Miracle.

This accelerated recovery was very slightly in part due to assets seized from whatever was left of East Germany

Mardatan wrote:This accelerated recovery was very slightly in part due to assets seized from whatever was left of East Germany

War reparations, yes. Yet these resources, materials, and machinery would make no difference without a proper economic system that applied them well.

Volksleben wrote:War reparations, yes. Yet these resources, materials, and machinery would make no difference without a proper economic system that applied them well.

Yeah. A major problem with the United Kingdom and Italy were that Italian politics were honestly quite stunted due to foreign meddling while Britain was absolutely RAVAGED by the Blitz. Much of Europe didn't finish recovery until the late 50s, including much of the Warsaw Pact.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:Lmao
Stating that you won an argument is easier than winning an argument, you absolute idiot
I'm actually done with this region, can somebody ban me or something?

Bye Little guy, we won't miss you for the second time!

Huh activity really drops off without Ludwig

I don't miss that trashcan. We're more active in the Discord anyways.

Can I have the UGON password

Terikeyland wrote:Can I have the UGON password

No.
The UGON will eventually be preserved under a new governor account, when we get around to it.

Onionist Randosia wrote:No.
The UGON will eventually be preserved under a new governor account, when we get around to it.

Why not, I can be the Governor

Hey everyone, for those on Nation States only, it is providing to become more difficult to cross post RP information. So please join the discord if you have not already. Some small changes shall be happing in order to attempt to revitalize the RP.

«12. . .25262728293031. . .3334»

Advertisement