North Korean propaganda translator - Page 3
Blogs > CDRdude |
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
| ||
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On March 11 2009 11:45 omninmo wrote: in beijing girls hold hands when talking around together. families dont have hummers but they have love. parks are full of elderly people do synchronized taiji and exercising. "oppressed" children go to school 6 days a week and wear uniforms. they dont play 10 hours of video games a day but go to chess and Go practice and learn more in middle school than I did with my "liberal and free" american public education. There are "propaganda" posters like "a prosperous community starts with you" . I havent seen a gun in 5 years. when i visited america last xmas i was nervous the whole time amid obese grazing cows and cops with guns. This is actually pretty true as far as I'm concerned. The parks have like people singing and choruses and stuff it's pretty cool. I don't know about Beijing, but yeah my cousin from HK always says that he already learned everything that the high schools here try to teach when he moved here. But really if you live in Beijing it's unfair to say there's no crime in China because of how many fucking cops there are in Beijing. There's cops everywhere there so I really wouldn't expect there to be crime. That definitely isn't the same for the rest of China, and I've been to the cities in Guangdong around Hong Kong like Shenzhen and Hoiping where there are practically no cops at all compared to Beijing. | ||
yal
Germany6 Posts
| ||
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
How much you try to sugar coat it, the fact remains that the entire country is a huge violation to human rights. The lack of health care is disturbing, people are blinded for the majority of their lives because they cant even fix cataract, which is an extremely easy thing to cure. Ignorance is bliss comes to mind, if the people of north korea knew how bad they had it compared to the rest of the world, I still dont think there would be any kind of protests, since they're scared to death of being sent to consentration camps and tortured for the rest of their lives. Even if it means that the brain washed population would hate being invaded, you have to think of future generations. Something has to happen eventually, and unless some outside contry decides to do something about it, north korea is doomed to shit infidently . | ||
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
On March 12 2009 04:51 yal wrote: apropos North Korea: (hope it works) Super Kim! Hehe, somehow it being in german made it even better :3 | ||
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
On March 12 2009 05:11 Epicfailguy wrote: If there is one country in the world I support invading, its north korea. How much you try to sugar coat it, the fact remains that the entire country is a huge violation to human rights. The lack of health care is disturbing, people are blinded for the majority of their lives because they cant even fix cataract, which is an extremely easy thing to cure. Ignorance is bliss comes to mind, if the people of north korea knew how bad they had it compared to the rest of the world, I still dont think there would be any kind of protests, since they're scared to death of being sent to consentration camps and tortured for the rest of their lives. Even if it means that the brain washed population would hate being invaded, you have to think of future generations. Something has to happen eventually, and unless some outside contry decides to do something about it, north korea is doomed to shit infidently . The linked article in the OP mentions that their medical care is pretty good, the only reason that they can't fix a lot of things is because they can't get the medical supplies from the capitalist countries that have embargoes against them. I really think you should read a lot of the article, it might change your opinions. Who's to say what brainwashed happiness really is? Would I be happy if I become wealthy? The reason for happiness is not as important as the state of happiness itself. | ||
omninmo
2349 Posts
On March 12 2009 02:46 Fontong wrote: This is actually pretty true as far as I'm concerned. The parks have like people singing and choruses and stuff it's pretty cool. I don't know about Beijing, but yeah my cousin from HK always says that he already learned everything that the high schools here try to teach when he moved here. But really if you live in Beijing it's unfair to say there's no crime in China because of how many fucking cops there are in Beijing. There's cops everywhere there so I really wouldn't expect there to be crime. That definitely isn't the same for the rest of China, and I've been to the cities in Guangdong around Hong Kong like Shenzhen and Hoiping where there are practically no cops at all compared to Beijing. cops in beijing drink tea, smoke cigs, sleep, fill out paper work, chat with locals and direct heaps of traffic. they dont carry guns. they are just government bureaucrats who live in the police station or nearby apartment complex and less than 1% has ever witnessed or been a part of any brutalization. there is crime in china.. of course. but its not publicized and sensationalized, packaged and sold. | ||
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
That aside, I myself think that yeah, according to my own values about human rights and the waste of brainwashing, I'd forcefeed them the red pill. But I would totally second guess myself as a villain, seeing as how I just totally imposed my will upon them and telling them what's right and wrong and true and false and shit. Do I really know better? Maybe north korea is the last outpost of truth and all that I think I know about Hiroshima and stuff is actually propaganda? Omg WHO AM I?!?! | ||
omninmo
2349 Posts
On March 12 2009 05:11 Epicfailguy wrote: If there is one country in the world I support invading, its north korea. How much you try to sugar coat it, the fact remains that the entire country is a huge violation to human rights. The lack of health care is disturbing, people are blinded for the majority of their lives because they cant even fix cataract, which is an extremely easy thing to cure. Ignorance is bliss comes to mind, if the people of north korea knew how bad they had it compared to the rest of the world, I still dont think there would be any kind of protests, since they're scared to death of being sent to consentration camps and tortured for the rest of their lives. Even if it means that the brain washed population would hate being invaded, you have to think of future generations. Something has to happen eventually, and unless some outside contry decides to do something about it, north korea is doomed to shit infidently . countries with state sponsored concentration camps need to be invaded and liberated? then you support the invasion of the US since we have government sponsored concentration camps too. search FEMA concentration camps. Protests? protests are allowed and only serve to marginalize the population, put us at odds with each other and give a false sense of freedom to the participants. also, most protests end in riots which are started by agent provocateurs. If the US was really trying to help save the world from "evil doers" then NKorea would have been made into a parking lot a long time ago. Wake up man. America needs people like kim jong il. otherwise what would they show on TV and who would buy US made weapons? | ||
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On March 11 2009 19:18 zatic wrote: hmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian–Vietnamese_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(WWII) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_invasion_of_Tibet_(1950–1951) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis Update: Oh man there is no end to it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria_(1945) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Sino-Indian_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Georgia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hungarian_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_January Took me 2 minutes using our excellent Western propaganda tools. With about an hour of research you will probably find more communist engaged conflicts than you'd like. To the OP I read the first two chapters and it is indeed fascinating. I don't like the author's political opinion to most of what he describes but reading up on NK is really interesting. I agree the article was a good read, and I disagree with his political opinion too. But the bulk of this post will be addressing the tangential debate about Western media skew. This is not to say that communists have not launched major and unjust offensives, but that we have too, and our media blames the communists for many things that are indeed our fault, even today. To be fair, look a little bit closer into each war mentioned above. Which ones are actually invasions by communism, and which ones are wars that people in the West always allege as an invasion by communism to mask the true fault of the West? Let’s take a closer look: 1) The Soviet War in Afghanistan happened as a direct result of a request from the Afghan parliamentary government for intervention by the Soviet Union (a measure the Soviet Union delayed for years), as the USSR’s relationship with Afghanistan stems back from their close economic ties in the 20's when the Soviets supported the Afghan insurrection against the Western imperialist powers following WWI (the Soviet Union provided many times more economic assistance in the latter years to the government of Afghanistan than the nascent World Bank ever would). The US and Western allies instead, opted to support the radical extremist Mudhajadeen (spelling?), which had an opportunity to participate in the Afghan Parliamentary government but chose not to due to their status as a fringe minority group. Now look where the West is, fighting the same government that we helped set up of fundamentalist theocracy, in favor for the parliamentary system. And yet, the “Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan” is almost synonymous for aggressive communist expansion, when in fact the parliamentary government actively sought Soviet aid, the same Soviet Union that helped build the parliamentary government in Afghanistan that, thanks to us, is now dead today. 2) The war in Vietnam was hardly a communist expansion (though Western media would portray it this way, feeding back to the point of the post at the beginning of this quote ziggurat). Rather, it was primarily a Civil War; Ho Chi Minh himself, the leader of the Vietnamese war for independence (a popular non-firebrand/demagogue), was one of the primary backbones in the war effort against Japan during the Second World War. Yes he was a “communist”, as he was a founder of the French communist party in the 1920’s, but he in no way was a Stalinist or Soviet. Similar to George Washington, in a way, though the French exploiters of the raw resources and laborers of Vietnam were far more oppressive than the British ever were to the American colonies. At this point, the US funds over 70 percent of the French expenses for suppression of Vietnamese independence, allegedly to keep France economically strong and thereby stifle internal communist movements. Never mind the near-slavery that occurs under French governmental oversights in the colonies. Never mind the exploitation of both human and natural resources in Southeast Asia by Western Imperialism. Never mind the fact that the Vietnamese popular support is behind self-determination. But wait! The self-determiners are communists, and we all know that means that the communists are invading Vietnam. So basically what happens is that the Geneva Accords get signed, slating for total mobility between North and South Vietnam, and for reunification elections to be held in 1956. Truman gives Geneva a middle finger, sets up a puppet in Noh Zinh Diem and tries to capitalize on his base of support to reject the reunification elections as declared in the Geneva Accords (he specifically mentions in his memoirs that he supports the containment of “communism” over national self-determination, and favors keeping the territorial divisions permanent; Truman recognizes that communist governments such as Tito's Yugoslavia aren't necessarily in support of the Soviet Union, but decides that he'd rather go US military supremacy), and then Kennedy later decides to give Diem the middle finger and supports a corrupted military coup d'etat to establish a ruling junta in South Vietnam. The United States funnels tons of arms and munitions to the South Vietnamese in resistance of the more popular communist movement of the North. The US Navy works with the military junta to launch unprovoked attacks on North Vietnamese settlements years before war breaks out. Then when they fire back, we essentially declare war with the Tonkin gulf resolution. We ravage the Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside, spray Agent Orange all over the place, etc. We send 2 million active duty US troops. But the communists are the aggressors! We just tried defending a military junta that we generated against international mandates to support Western spheres of influence! And yet, in this light, the war is still viewed in the West as communist expansion, and not as a Western imperialist effort? The West instead skews the conflict like hell, as evidenced by the above-quoted post. 3) Spanish Civil War- the Communists won the 1936 elections. And who was essentially the only supporter of the Republic of Spain over the fascist Franco and various other anarchist factions? The Soviet Union. The West remained for the most part neutral (the US entirely isolated while Europe sent incredibly limited munitions) and let the Republic of Spain fall against the direct military support of fascists of Italy and Germany, backed by Mussolini and Hitler. So of course the Soviet Union was the aggressor here. The West sits back and watches as the Soviet Union funds the Republic in an effort to prevent continental Europe from falling under Fascist orbit, a s the West pulls up some popcorn, lemonade, and an easy chair while spectating the conflict. And then Franco wins, we (the West) don’t blame ourselves, and Spain plunges into the dark until 1975. But look! Today this war for the Spanish Republic is painted as an example of communist invasion! (ok, it sortof was part of Stalin’s aim, but supporting the Republic still beats doing nothing any day). Not much else to say. Everything else in the above quote is a pretty prime example of Communist belligerence (although most of them stem from Stalinism and not necessarily, Communism). But keep in mind, via either soft or hard influence (that is, media and cultural/social influence of ideologies vs actual banning of opposing materials), the Western governments still do swing public opinion with 'propaganda'. The key difference though between the West and whatevercountrieswithcensorship is that if those living in the West aren’t lazy, they can seek the opposite viewpoints, whereas the peoplelivingundercensorship can't. And that, in general, I can rest easy knowing that I wont be jailed tomorrow. (But do the maintenance of these political freedoms come from the fact that we value freedom, or because we value laziness?) | ||
omninmo
2349 Posts
On March 12 2009 12:38 SerpentFlame wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 11 2009 19:18 zatic wrote: hmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian–Vietnamese_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(WWII) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_invasion_of_Tibet_(1950–1951) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis Update: Oh man there is no end to it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria_(1945) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_Sino-Indian_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_invasion_of_Georgia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hungarian_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_January Took me 2 minutes using our excellent Western propaganda tools. With about an hour of research you will probably find more communist engaged conflicts than you'd like. To the OP I read the first two chapters and it is indeed fascinating. I don't like the author's political opinion to most of what he describes but reading up on NK is really interesting. I agree the article was a good read, and I disagree with his political opinion too. But the bulk of this post will be addressing the tangential debate about Western media skew. This is not to say that communists have not launched major and unjust offensives, but that we have too, and our media blames the communists for many things that are indeed our fault, even today. To be fair, look a little bit closer into each war mentioned above. Which ones are actually invasions by communism, and which ones are wars that people in the West always allege as an invasion by communism to mask the true fault of the West? Let’s take a closer look: 1) The Soviet War in Afghanistan happened as a direct result of a request from the Afghan parliamentary government for intervention by the Soviet Union (a measure the Soviet Union delayed for years), as the USSR’s relationship with Afghanistan stems back from their close economic ties in the 20's when the Soviets supported the Afghan insurrection against the Western imperialist powers following WWI (the Soviet Union provided many times more economic assistance in the latter years to the government of Afghanistan than the nascent World Bank ever would). The US and Western allies instead, opted to support the radical extremist Mudhajadeen (spelling?), who had an opportunity to participate in the Parliamentary government but chose not to. Now look where the West is, fighting the same government that we helped to topple the parliament of Afghanistan in favor of fundamentalist theocracy. And yet, the “Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan” is almost synonymous for aggressive communist expansion, when in fact the parliamentary government actively sought Soviet aid, the same Soviet Union that helped build the parliamentary government in Afghanistan that, thanks to us, is now dead today. 2) The war in Vietnam was hardly a communist expansion (though Western media would portray it this way, feeding back to the point of the post at the beginning of this quote ziggurat). Rather, it was primarily a Civil War; Ho Chi Minh himself, the leader of the Vietnamese war for independence (a popular non-firebrand/demagogue), was one of the primary backbones in the war effort against Japan during the Second World War. Yes he was a “communist”, as he was a founder of the French communist party in the 1920’s, but he in no way was a Stalinist or Soviet. Similar to George Washington, in a way, though the French exploiters of the raw resources and laborers of Vietnam were far more oppressive than the British ever were to the American colonies. And yet, in common Western perception, we aren’t the aggressors, communism is! At this point, the US funds over 70 percent of the French expenses for suppression of Vietnamese independence, allegedly to keep France economically strong and thereby stifle internal communist movements. So basically what happens is that the Geneva Accords get signed, slating for reunification elections to be held in 1956. Truman gives this a middle finger, sets up a puppet in Noh Zinh Diem (he specifically mentions in his memoirs that he supports the containment of “communism” over national self-determination, in favor of keeping the territorial divisions permanent), and then later decides to give Diem the middle finger and supports a corrupted military junta. The US Navy works with the military junta to launch unprovoked attacks on North Vietnamese settlements. Then when they fire back, we essentially declare war with the Tonkin gulf resolution. We ravage the Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside, spray Agent Orange all over the place, etc. But the communists are the aggressors! We just tried defending a military junta that we generated against international mandates to support Western spheres of influence! And yet, in this light, the war is still viewed in the West as communist expansion, and not as a Western imperialist effort? The West instead skews the conflict like hell, as evidenced by the above-quoted post. 3) Spanish Civil War- the Communists won the 1936 elections. Who was essentially the only supporter of the Republic of Spain over the fascist Franco and various other anarchist factions? The Soviet Union. The West (the United States’ involvement in the conflict was zero, and Britain and France sent very limited aid to the republic) remained neutral and let the republic fall against the direct military support of Mussolini and Hitler. Of *course* the Soviet Union was the aggressor here. So the West sit back and watch as the Soviet Union funds the republic in an effort to prevent continental Europe from falling under Fascist orbit, doing absolutely nothing. And then Franco wins, we don’t blame ourselves, and Spain plunges into the dark until 1975. But look! Today this war is painted as an example of communist invasion (ok, it sortof was part of Stalin’s aim, but supporting the Republic still beats doing nothing any day). Not much else to say. Everything else in the above quote is a pretty prime example of Communist belligerence (although most of them stem from Stalinism and not necessarily, Communism). But keep in mind, via either soft or hard influence (that is, media and cultural/social influence of ideologies vs actual banning of opposing materials), the Western governments still do swing public opinion with 'propaganda'. The key difference though between the West and whatevercountrieswithcensorship is that if those living in the West aren’t lazy, they can seek the opposite viewpoints, whereas the peoplelivingundercensorship can't. Orz glad to see someone who can read between statistics. great post | ||
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On March 12 2009 12:28 omninmo wrote: cops in beijing drink tea, smoke cigs, sleep, fill out paper work, chat with locals and direct heaps of traffic. they dont carry guns. they are just government bureaucrats who live in the police station or nearby apartment complex and less than 1% has ever witnessed or been a part of any brutalization. there is crime in china.. of course. but its not publicized and sensationalized, packaged and sold. Chinese cops definitely carry guns, though not all of them do. And the lack of crime is a benefit of living in a powerful centralized government. Benito Mussolini annihilated the entire all-pervasive Italian Mafia in just two years. Of course, there was a price to pay of freedom. There's a difference though. Organized crime is still alive and well in China. Illegalization of citizen gun onwership hasn't decreased gun crimes relative to other developed regions of the world, the US included; China remains a hotbed of illegal gun and drug smuggling. Small-time theft, mugging, etc, *were* (this was definitely true 10 years ago, I don't know about now) also definitely prevalent in China. About the point on Chinese citizenry and life, the quality of Chinese education is debatable (I'm willing to doubt the chess and go point, since most kids have maybe an hour or less of free time every night due to the intensity of Chinese schoolwork), and the relevance of Chinese education compared to the burden it forces is sometimes questionable (required to memorize and learn all sorts of things that you might not even care about or even be relevant to the career due to the one-exam-determines-all style of education, when instead that time could be refocused on a driving passion or deep intellectual pursuit). (source: one of my friends who is a complete genius at physics and math, but felt that the Chinese education system killed his chances. This isn't really a scientifically accepted source, but w/e) However, the characterization of Beijing as a community of love *that loves eachother more than communities elsewhere in the world* is naive. It may be one built on such, but the idea that it is more loving or w/e than anywhere else in the world is simply ridiculous and unsubstantiated. Still, how did we get here again? The article in the beginning was about North Korea. (About North Korea, their GDP is roughly that of Sudan, while the stubbornness of their "dear leader" led to them remaining in an ossified economic system. Countries everywhere around it under similar circumstances boomed ridiculously, such as our beloved Starcraft home of South Korea, as well as China and the other Asian tigers. Yes the west embargoes NK, but for good reason. Even when the United States and other countries sent aid to North Korea as part of an agreement for NK not to pursue nuclear weapons, North Korea still 1) sucked and 2) pursued nukes anyways. There's not much you can say to exonerate this while people are basically eating grass.) | ||
zatic
Zurich15247 Posts
On March 12 2009 12:38 SerpentFlame wrote: I agree the article was a good read, and I disagree with his political opinion too. But the bulk of this post will be addressing the tangential debate about Western media skew. This is not to say that communists have not launched major and unjust offensives, but that we have too, and our media blames the communists for many things that are indeed our fault, even today. To be fair, look a little bit closer into each war mentioned above. Which ones are actually invasions by communism, and which ones are wars that people in the West always allege as an invasion by communism to mask the true fault of the West? [....] The reasons for invasion are irrelevant and the morals behind it can be debated. Still, invasion is invasion and that is the question I was trying to answer. You will notice that I also included WW2, which also saw a communist invasion in Germany. Granted, the Spanish civil war was a bad example since it was, well, a civil war, not an invasion. Oh and, why the long post about the Vietnam War? | ||
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On March 12 2009 15:07 zatic wrote: The reasons for invasion are irrelevant and the morals behind it can be debated. Still, invasion is invasion and that is the question I was trying to answer. You will notice that I also included WW2, which also saw a communist invasion in Germany. Granted, the Spanish civil war was a bad example since it was, well, a civil war, not an invasion. Oh and, why the long post about the Vietnam War? Well I suppose its a matter of connotation vs denotation, since I took "invade" to be used as to have negative connotations surrounding it (didn't catch the WWII part, my bad). In any case, it *sortof* ties back to omino's point and a looser point regarding the article in general about Western skew. | ||
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
On March 12 2009 10:51 CDRdude wrote: The linked article in the OP mentions that their medical care is pretty good, the only reason that they can't fix a lot of things is because they can't get the medical supplies from the capitalist countries that have embargoes against them. If they can't get the supplies they need, how can you say their medical health care is good? When you decide not to trade anything with countries outside of north korea, this happens. A direct result of how the country is run. But honestly, do you really think it would be that hard to aquire these things if they really wanted? It is estimated that between 500,000 and 3 million people died from famine in the 1990s, and a 1998 United Nations (UN) World Food Program report revealed that 60 percent of children suffered from malnutrition, and 16 percent were acutely malnourished.UN statistics for the period 1999–2001 reveal that North Korea’s daily per capita food supply was one of the lowest in Asia, exceeding only that of Cambodia, Laos, and Tajikistan, and one of the lowest worldwide.Because of continuing economic problems, food shortages and chronic malnutrition prevail in the 2000s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_North_Korea They dont have aids though. I really think you should read a lot of the article, it might change your opinions. Who's to say what brainwashed happiness really is? Would I be happy if I become wealthy? The reason for happiness is not as important as the state of happiness itself. Who's to say that they're actually happy. I havent read the entire article, but as far as I know, he's not from north korea, but he's working there. That itself is reason enough to take everything he says with a grain of salt, considering how north koreans have tried to make their country good to the few who's allowed to visit there. Huge hotels and cities are left empty, only to be filled with north koreans when there's people from outside the country visiting, to make it look like the country isnt as shitty as everyone knows it is. When they're gone, the north koreans are being moved back into their homes, leaving the newer and better places to live, empty. North korean has a lot of natural resources they could trade for food and other shit to make the country a better place to live, but they dont, and the end result is suffering for the general population, while the asshats at the top can do whatever the fuck they want. | ||
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
On March 12 2009 12:35 omninmo wrote: countries with state sponsored concentration camps need to be invaded and liberated? then you support the invasion of the US since we have government sponsored concentration camps too. Yeah, thats the only reason I support an invasion of north korea. Due to the concentration camps. Nothing else at all. | ||
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Vietnam also had little to with communism, and must be examined through the post-colonial prism. Spain's case is more complicated.It's not true that Spain fell into the Fascist orbit, or even that Franco was a fascist. The Falangist movement was essentially conservative and reactionary. Fascism and National Socialism were essentially not. The political association of Franco with Hitler and Mussolini during the Spanish civil war has no ethical implication beyond what is pushed by leftist smear propaganda. (Hitler would later on more than one occasion remark in private that he regretted not aiding the reds.) Furthermore, it would be difficult to call the Moscow-orchestrated popular front a democratic force enacted with the purpose of pre-emptive action against "fascism," given the dynamics of the "popular fronts" orchestrated in the political systems of Eastern Europe in the post-war period. The very universalist connotation of fascism is a product of Soviet propaganda during the 1930's. Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were very different men running very different kinds of states. It's also a danger drawing any kind of universalist implication from Lenin's initially expansionist idealism as a blueprint for later Soviet actions. As the Soviet Union stablized as a political entity, its actions came to increasingly resemble that of a traditional great power- the successor of the Russian Empire, with the paradoxial encumbrance of being both a champion of anti-colonialism and itself a Slavic empire. | ||
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
| ||
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
On March 13 2009 03:27 Xeris wrote: People who link to wikipedia articles make me want to gouge out someone's eyes. Make sure you do it properly :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-gouging | ||
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
On March 13 2009 03:27 Xeris wrote: People who link to wikipedia articles make me want to gouge out someone's eyes. Do you even know how wikipedia works? | ||
| ||