Found this to be interesting, it was mentioned on CNN NOT Fox News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1409sXBleg
Nobody 's talking about Ukraine in here.... Why?
- Thread starter centaurus
- Start date
That number is just for the 1932 famine. If I remember correctly, the total estimate for the Soviet Union is 20-30 millions. 50 millions in China. Only 2 millions in Cambodia, but that' a third of the population worked to death in the Killing Fields (there's a good movie with John Malkovitch based on the book of the same name).
Btw, I must say I find funny the way people are now sending wikipedia links about serious matter like if it was a reliable source...
Reliable enough for the likes of an internet forum. If you think I am going to go to a library to get proper citations of books and journal articles you are daft.
But hey if you don't think the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact or the Holodomor are actual things without more significant references you are not in a position to be judging anyone.
Citing wikipedia is not about proving anything. It's just to show someone that something exists. If they are interested to know more they can go and find real documentation. Preferably from a hot sexy librarian (with a Rrrrusssian accent).
Most of what I know about the Soviet comes from Le Livre Noir du Communisme. But I prefer to read historical novels. ''Rendezvous at Katyn'' is a short novel written by Foster Furcolo, a US politician who was on the committee that investigated the massacre.
.Most of what I know about the Soviet comes from Le Livre Noir du Communisme. But I prefer to read historical novels. ''Rendezvous at Katyn'' is a short novel written by Foster Furcolo, a US politician who was on the committee that investigated the massacre.
Well "to show someone something exsits" is a kind of proof.
Wikipedia is not the good place to find the proof that something exists. No real historians realy check it. It could even be dangerous if all the young people think that they can find the "truth" on Wikipedia. That was just my point....
Putin: Ukraine Is Not A State
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/03/opinion/stent-putin-ukraine-russia-endgame/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/03/opinion/stent-putin-ukraine-russia-endgame/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Not surprising that the U.S. is behind all the problems in Ukraine:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...olution-in-ukraine-is-backfiring-dramatically
http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...olution-in-ukraine-is-backfiring-dramatically
Well if you are going to go that far, neither is some random twat on the internet pointing out a book and article. Do you really expect anyone to rush down to the local book suppository to check out references on a forum. Assuming they have the actual work in question.
Also I think you are being excessivly negitive on wikipeadia. Sure there are errors but at least in the past on scientific issues it has held up well to Britannica. I find in those areas that I know it is usually pretty straight on. Yes I've noticed errors but I can say the same thing about books 've gotten from various university libraries. For issues that don't get people riled up it works pretty damn well. If you toss in the discussion section you can get a pretty good feel on the article.
I am not saying you want to use it as a citation in a peer reviewed work, but for getting up to speed on a subject and general farting around it is pretty good. Close enough for government work as they say. Wikipedia deserves more respect than it often gets.
Regarding wikipedia, most of the historical articles and commentaries are footnoted. If a statement in the article is footnoted, read the article cited, which is the authority for the stated assertion. If the statement is not footnoted then there is no support and it is just a statement. You guys are making very general assertions about wikipedia without referring to specific commentaries and whether those commentaries are footnoted.
it is no different than reading any book that contains footnotes. Some are more scrupulously researched than others. Wikipedia commentaries range from scrupulously researched to not researched. Without references to specific commentaries, all of the comments about wikipedia are pretty meaningless.
it is no different than reading any book that contains footnotes. Some are more scrupulously researched than others. Wikipedia commentaries range from scrupulously researched to not researched. Without references to specific commentaries, all of the comments about wikipedia are pretty meaningless.
There are a lot of 20's young men that read merb even if they don't dare posting. My opinion is that the best advice we can give to them is to read serious books or newspapers article if they want to learn and know.
Moreover we can add that Wikipedia is not really independant, like google if you know what I mean. We can easily see the danger if a private society becomes the place where all the young people think they can find the truth or " if something exists" like Sionarf said.
Internet is like a mirage when you're looking for an information. You win time, but lose in accuracy and details. Nothing will never replace books, newspapers, studies or researches.
Moreover we can add that Wikipedia is not really independant, like google if you know what I mean. We can easily see the danger if a private society becomes the place where all the young people think they can find the truth or " if something exists" like Sionarf said.
Internet is like a mirage when you're looking for an information. You win time, but lose in accuracy and details. Nothing will never replace books, newspapers, studies or researches.
I am well aware that my views on the Soviet Union is not shared by a lot of people here, but its not the first time i expressed it Hungry i would like to discuss military history with you next time we meet, if we do in a less "drunk" setting lol. I am always open to learn more. But before people think i am not aware of anything, i do know Stallin was not a sweet heart. It was all a different era than today, and decisions had to be made, and nothing was pink all the way like it may happen today.
Anyway, its touchy matter to discuss on an open board like that.
Hungry i would like to discuss military history with you next time we meet, if we do in a less "drunk" setting lol. I am always open to learn more. But before people think i am not aware of anything, i do know Stallin was not a sweet heart. It was all a different era than today, and decisions had to be made, and nothing was pink all the way like it may happen today. Anyway, its touchy matter to discuss on an open board like that.
Gentlemen,
Hungry101...you seem to have a good general historical knowledge.
There's nothing wrong with Wiki as a start. Just don't trust it to be completely accurate.
To put it plainly, I don't think you two care about the Ukraine at all. You're exploiting the crisis in the Ukraine to rehash ONE AGENDA...Blame Obama. You're hoping the situation will be as useful as possible for that agenda, and if people die or the world economy suffers it's just more fodder for that agenda. If you cared you would be focused on the causes and complications that are particular to the Ukraine, not beating the same old blame Obama drum as is your habit.
Frankly, I think that if a mouse fart in Mongolia reached the U.S. you'd both drool to seize the chance to blame Obama. :lol:
As a Moderate I'm personally discouraged with President Obama on some domestic issues, but not on foreign policy. I don't regret my choice because they've been rational, if not very effective.
Here is some of the real problem in the Ukraine:
Why Ukraine’s Crimea crisis is even more complicated than it appears
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/03/why-u...ven-more-complicated-than-it-appears-4391938/
1. Ukraine is so hopelessly divided its government has collapsed
Half of Ukraine wants to be protected by Russia, in both military and economic terms. The other half – mainly lured by the prosperity of the west – is attracted by the European Union.
Ukraine had been flirting with the EU but the decision of its president, Viktor Yanukovych, to turn its back on Europe prompted uprisings which eventually toppled him.
Now a new government has taken over. It is weak and may not survive the current political turmoil; just look at what happened to Egypt’s first post-revolutionary government.
2. Crimea confusion
The Crimea – that bit of the Ukraine that sticks out into the Black Sea – has always been a bit of an oddity.
It is viewed as crucial to Russia because it gives the superpower a naval presence in the south.
It was also Russian until 1954, so it’s no surprise its population is predominantly ethnically Russian. It doesn’t get more ‘Russian backyard’ than that.
And with Russian troops already allowed in the Crimea because of existing treaties between Kiev and Moscow, the idea of an ‘invasion’ just seems ridiculous.
3. Iraq hypocrisy
Western countries, including Britain, are trying hard to prevent the situation escalating out of control. Military conflict seems highly possible, though. The Ukraine government may be weak but it has ordered a total mobilisation. And Russian behaviour in making a grab for the Crimea is so brazen many think anything less than fighting will not stop Putin.
Britain’s problem is that its efforts to talk the two sides down is undermined by its 2003 invasion of Iraq. US secretary of state John Kerry has criticised Russia for ‘invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext’. Don’t mention the weapons of destruction, anyone…
Remember Centaurus and Octavian, who was the author of this WMD excuse embarrassment...the G.W. Bush administration.
4. A desperare leader
Putin has a track record of ignoring pressure from the west, but he will have to handle this situation very carefully indeed. If he continues to ramp up Russia’s military involvement in the Crimea, there will be an economic price to pay. All the goodwill generated by the Winter Olympics in nearby Sochi will be sacrificed in a moment. There are not going to be many winners from the current standoff.
But what other options does Putin have? His leadership rests on the fact that, like Stalin, he is brutally strong when he has to be. Now seems to be another of those moments when credibility matters more than ever. If there is one reason to be pessimistic about the situation in Ukraine, it’s this: Putin doesn’t like to give up without a fight.
No, what ever the U.S. could have done it cannot control someone like Putin who is especially given to fight more against greater pressure.
Everyone knows I'm a believer in understanding the historical factors and motivations of a crisis situation. However, it's discouraging to see how people often automatically leap back to the Munich Agreement of 1938 by applying the terrible specter of "APPEASEMENT" to every international situation. Yes, appeasement is and always has been a grave mistake, but that doesn't mean saber-rattling against aggressive nations is the only answer...as some have inferred. Even the frequent Obama critic Republican Senator John McCain said a military option is off the table.
The big problems here are: the Ukraine is not a single nation, it's a country of two basic nationalities with divided loyalty...and it's location is strategically extremely valuable. Nothing the U.S. or any other country does or could have done could change this situation.
Merlot
Hungry101...you seem to have a good general historical knowledge.
There's nothing wrong with Wiki as a start. Just don't trust it to be completely accurate.
To put it plainly, I don't think you two care about the Ukraine at all. You're exploiting the crisis in the Ukraine to rehash ONE AGENDA...Blame Obama. You're hoping the situation will be as useful as possible for that agenda, and if people die or the world economy suffers it's just more fodder for that agenda. If you cared you would be focused on the causes and complications that are particular to the Ukraine, not beating the same old blame Obama drum as is your habit.
Frankly, I think that if a mouse fart in Mongolia reached the U.S. you'd both drool to seize the chance to blame Obama. :lol:
As a Moderate I'm personally discouraged with President Obama on some domestic issues, but not on foreign policy. I don't regret my choice because they've been rational, if not very effective.
Here is some of the real problem in the Ukraine:
Why Ukraine’s Crimea crisis is even more complicated than it appears
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/03/why-u...ven-more-complicated-than-it-appears-4391938/
1. Ukraine is so hopelessly divided its government has collapsed
Half of Ukraine wants to be protected by Russia, in both military and economic terms. The other half – mainly lured by the prosperity of the west – is attracted by the European Union.
Ukraine had been flirting with the EU but the decision of its president, Viktor Yanukovych, to turn its back on Europe prompted uprisings which eventually toppled him.
Now a new government has taken over. It is weak and may not survive the current political turmoil; just look at what happened to Egypt’s first post-revolutionary government.
2. Crimea confusion
The Crimea – that bit of the Ukraine that sticks out into the Black Sea – has always been a bit of an oddity.
It is viewed as crucial to Russia because it gives the superpower a naval presence in the south.
It was also Russian until 1954, so it’s no surprise its population is predominantly ethnically Russian. It doesn’t get more ‘Russian backyard’ than that.
And with Russian troops already allowed in the Crimea because of existing treaties between Kiev and Moscow, the idea of an ‘invasion’ just seems ridiculous.
3. Iraq hypocrisy
Western countries, including Britain, are trying hard to prevent the situation escalating out of control. Military conflict seems highly possible, though. The Ukraine government may be weak but it has ordered a total mobilisation. And Russian behaviour in making a grab for the Crimea is so brazen many think anything less than fighting will not stop Putin.
Britain’s problem is that its efforts to talk the two sides down is undermined by its 2003 invasion of Iraq. US secretary of state John Kerry has criticised Russia for ‘invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext’. Don’t mention the weapons of destruction, anyone…
Remember Centaurus and Octavian, who was the author of this WMD excuse embarrassment...the G.W. Bush administration.
4. A desperare leader
Putin has a track record of ignoring pressure from the west, but he will have to handle this situation very carefully indeed. If he continues to ramp up Russia’s military involvement in the Crimea, there will be an economic price to pay. All the goodwill generated by the Winter Olympics in nearby Sochi will be sacrificed in a moment. There are not going to be many winners from the current standoff.
But what other options does Putin have? His leadership rests on the fact that, like Stalin, he is brutally strong when he has to be. Now seems to be another of those moments when credibility matters more than ever. If there is one reason to be pessimistic about the situation in Ukraine, it’s this: Putin doesn’t like to give up without a fight.
No, what ever the U.S. could have done it cannot control someone like Putin who is especially given to fight more against greater pressure.
Everyone knows I'm a believer in understanding the historical factors and motivations of a crisis situation. However, it's discouraging to see how people often automatically leap back to the Munich Agreement of 1938 by applying the terrible specter of "APPEASEMENT" to every international situation. Yes, appeasement is and always has been a grave mistake, but that doesn't mean saber-rattling against aggressive nations is the only answer...as some have inferred. Even the frequent Obama critic Republican Senator John McCain said a military option is off the table.
The big problems here are: the Ukraine is not a single nation, it's a country of two basic nationalities with divided loyalty...and it's location is strategically extremely valuable. Nothing the U.S. or any other country does or could have done could change this situation.
Merlot
Maybe the country is not meant to be united and should be divided into two states. Let the EU sympathizers have one piece of land and the Russian sympathizers the other. Isn't this how the Israel/Palestine situation has been negotiated out? Maybe everyone needs to be pragmatic and see the writing on the wall. The unity of a divided country only happens when there is an all out civil war and devastation, check the US Civil War 1861-1865 when the infrastructure of the southern confederacy states was destroyed by the northern union armies, and then rebuilt after the south capitulated. Since in 2014 nobody has the stomach to do what is necessary to achieve unity (namely such an all out war), maybe you just need to see the writing on the wall and carve Ukraine up into two states.
Not really the best exemple
But yes you're right, 2states would be better than 1state devastated by a civil war... But it's a long and hard process...
Well, it all depends if the people in the 2 parts of the country want to separate or not. The problem is that the pro-Russian part would become part of Russia, not an independent country, and the rest of the country probably does not want that. If Putin gets half of Ukraine why would he stop there?
Putin, Obama Debate Ukraine in 90 Minute Phone Call
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/04/obama-putin-debated-ukraine-facts-during-phone-call/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/04/obama-putin-debated-ukraine-facts-during-phone-call/
It's easy to blame all your problems on the powerful. This is exactly what the pipsqueak commie dictator of Venezuela is doing, accusing Obama of fomenting rebellion in Venezuela. The Nicaraguan leaders in the 1980s made similar allegations against Reagan. This is nothing new. When a Latin American dictator is having trouble with the ruthless suppression of political dissidents, the go-to strategy is to accuse foreign agents of fomenting rebellion. It is a tired and worn out strategy and although there is historical precedent for these accusations, there is little basis in modern political realities. However, when the public dominated by these dictators is poor and uneducated, it is easy to get them to believe anything that will prevent them from supporting "troublemakers" being funded or supported by foreign agents.
Of course, and it is exactly why the Germans invaded it in World War II.....lebensraum........oil and natural gas to power their tanks.....
Similar threads
- Poll
