I seriously don't get it.........

[Happy Times]

See, the way you think Happy Times is that it seems a new war only with Russia this time with Nato's support would do for you. Is this what you want? Or you expect now Russia to hand back Korelia peacefuly, volonteraly.

No i would never want my country to suffer again.Finland isnt a Nato country BTW.So what could a country of 5million do to country of 150million?And no i dont that they will,atleast these leaders.But they are negotiating with Japan but hey,thats a bigger country.

Why don't you go to your parliament and demand your country do something about it, rather than sit here and type an angry rant every time. That might be more useful at least you could have said you did something. May be you'll learn along the way the reasons why it's not done.

Actually the person i voted for parlament is behind the idea,so hes doing the lobbying for me,thats his job.I have also put my name in a big citizen adress.The reason it is not done is because world isnt fair and you can take by force what you want.

Your mentality is what I don't like - you are hung up in the past and with people like you there will never be full piece because no matter what someone does, you will be bitter and angry about something else.

You dont like that i remind what USSR was really about and the Homo Sovieticus that it produced.This thread was about the past and you started defending the USSR,that gets to me.It hurts you to think about your family and yourself as victims without full comprehension.So its you that wants to hang to the past as it was told to you.And actually this is the only subject that gets me fired up like this.

A separate question: Can you tell me why Finland was fighting USSR with Hitler though near Leningrad or was it just revenge and Finland wanted to get its territories back only, and Hitler being there sieging leningrad was just a coincidence?

Separate answer:Look at the map!Finland wanted back her territories so that kinda blocks the north side out of the city.Hitler had his agenda we had ours,they coincided somewhat at that time.If we would have been after revenge the city would have been wiped out.

[Type941]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

If we would have been after revenge the city would have been wiped out.

Alas they thought better, because wiping out Leningrad would have been their dumbest move, don't you think?


And don't get me started on Japan. All they do is demand demand demand in no uncertain terms. With that sort of foreing policy I'm surprised that Russia is even talking to them. But they have to talk - to this day I think on paper Russia is at a state of War with Japan or something like that, because they never signed war ending agreement.

Your view, in EXTREME in the end will segreated every single country based on nationality. You don't suppose the Americans should get on the ships and sail back to UK/Netherlands/France and leave the continent to Mexico and native americans? Really, that's what you propose, with returning land once conquired in time of confilct.

Who owns Alsaise Loraine right now btw? France, right (honestly, curious). For example, Lithuania may demand a lot of land back because they once had a rather big empire. France can lay claim to may territories, etc. I think you are being very unrealistic about land grabs and how they happened.

I don't see why Russia wants to hold on to Karelia so much, but perhaps it is worse more to it than friendly relations with Finland? I don't really have a clue but the people who live there TODAY could probably be agaisnt being shipped out. Although if Finland will pay them and accomodate fully - who knows. Have they tried doing that (i.e. buy it back so to speak?).

[Type941]

just to add, the original discussion. The ideology chosen by USSR was wrong for it, and mainly was the opposite to what the Western countries thought was right. That along doesn't grant the West to be an agressor towards USSR. But the USSR government alone had twisted that ideology to serve their own personal greed and for that it failed.

Now, Nazi germany has created an ideology that was based on race superiority and that certain nations deserved to be wiped out completely as unworthy (among which, the slavs, jews). Hitler wanted this 'living space' and for that he tortured, murdered and killed millions of people. The way from the start of the war germans treated russian POWs was nowhere near the treatment french ond british pows recieved. Don't argue on that, it's a fact. Moreover, Hitler 'fabricated' this whole aric nation crap. Didn't he force his soldiers to 'mix' (rape) with the Norwegians in order to sort of get this 'tall, blond, blue eyed' generation. 10s of thousands of women were raped that way.

The key difference between USSR and Nazism was that one country chose communism and later twisted it into an ideology that made people into sheep and made the top very powerful, while the latter said that only certain nation deserves a right to live and the rest simply should be eliminated.

If this difference is hard to grasp, than I'd like to see you go to China and tell them about their communism. Apparently noone's doing that because China can probably kick some serious arse if it comes to this. So - let's beat on USSR and its communism in the past, it's just much safer and convinient.

YOu can get appaled by someone trying to protect USSR, and I'm not protecting it and saying it was ok. BUt I'm appaled that all of a sudden, 60 years on, the Nazi Germany is all of a sudden just some trouble maker and was very good, except Hitler spoiled the party with his nazi stuff, but hey - it was ONLY 10 million before th war, so that's ok. And to see people here almost sympathizing Nazi germany is disgusting and if you sympathise with Nazi ideology you are a dispickable human being.

[Damo1977]

Originally Posted by Type941

If this difference is hard to grasp, than I'd like to see you go to China and tell them about their communism. Apparently noone's doing that because China can probably kick some serious arse if it comes to this. So - let's beat on USSR and its communism in the past, it's just much safer and convinient.

Yes China is another one with 'Crimes against Humanity'. I choose the Soviet Union as a comparision for my question, not because I don't like the Russians, but I gathered people could relate to it more. Yes I could have choosen China with their human rights record

And the thing is this is still pretty much going on today. But you only hear some faint mumblings from our leaders about it...

'The megamurdering states of the 20th century have been: the U.S.S.R. (1917-1987), 61,911,000; Communist China (1949-1987), 35,236,000; Nazi Germany (1933-1945), 20,946,000; and Nationalist (or Kuomintang) China (1928-1949), 10,076,000. These are followed by the "lesser" megamurdering states: Japan (1936-1945), 5,964,000; Cambodia (1975-1979), 2,035,000; Turkey (1909-1918), 1,883,000; Vietnam (1945-1987), 1,678,000; North Korea (1948-1987), 1,663,000; Poland (1945-1948), 1,585,000; Pakistan (1958-1987), 1,503,000; Mexico (1900-1920), 1,417,000; Yugoslavia (1944-1987), 1,072,000; Czarist Russia (1900-1917), 1,066,000.'
Death by Government by R. J. Rummel

So please oh please don't think I hate Russians or anyone for that matter.

[Type941]

why isn't US on the list? Or is it only non-democracies listed? I suspect the US would be a few million, may be 2-4 if including Iraq, WW2 (Japan should be half a million?) and Vietnam/Korea; can you check that source you used?

[Damo1977]

Those stats were from a book, and are on at least 2 websites I know of. Cannot find the original website, but I think it was selling the book, the stats are the same but more explanation.

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse

heres the link
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Oh No!! I have started it.....


*1hr later....I came across this site, takes some reading but it is of interest*
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

[Kapitan]

none of those figures are 100% accurate

no one knows the exact number that were murderd that why most say 6 million jews were gassed cause they dont know the true total it was never recorded

[Damo1977]

Firstly, do you ever sleep Kapitan?

Secondly I wasn't saying they were, but what really is the difference between 1,000,000 and 100,000,000 because it is still a crime on a massive scale.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Type941

why isn't US on the list? Or is it only non-democracies listed? I suspect the US would be a few million, may be 2-4 if including Iraq, WW2 (Japan should be half a million?) and Vietnam/Korea; can you check that source you used?

BS alert!! Why are you including WW2 or say Korea? Both wars started by others? The US was hardly alone in inflicting casualties during WW2, how many German civilians were killed by British bombings or Soviets at the end fot he war? Anyway caualties in war are a bit different from genocides. Japanese civilians casualties were 300-400000 AFAIK.

[Skybird]

Numbers.

This is what they're about:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.RINGS.OF.TEARS.HTM
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/RM1.PHOTOS.ROOM1.HTM

The horror cannot be understood numerically. Is there really a difference between the hell one life went thorugh, and one hundred million hells? If so, where is that difference marked? At a hundred being slaughtered? Thousand? Ten thousand? Or just one family of five?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM#FIG search the figures and tables to get some impressions. They are part of a complete book you can find on that page. i have linked to that site before.
Especially this summary is revealing, comparing democides (different from genocide) between democracies and totalitarian regimes.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.FIG23.3.GIF
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.FIG23.4.GIF
And this despite the clear difference in domestic democides:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.FIG1.2.GIF

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/LIST.HTM The author and owner of that website is a highly reputated international researcher on these matters, author of several international empirical studies and books. Most other authors having published on these themes practically adressed parts of his statistical findings in the last twenty years or so. I know part of his work from former occupation of mine. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM

Be aware that by definition of the UN declaration of 1948 rejecting help for desasters like starvations is defined as genocide. War and tyranny have not been the most murderous tools of death in government's toolkits in the last century. We must not reach as far as Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany and MaoTsTung'S China to find mass killings of scales and dimensions human mind cannot make an image of. just look at your own country, whereever you come from, and your own government, and see how they deal with present world genocide and play it down for economical reasons and strategical advantages, and you already see the statistics of "evil". "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung", if you flee an accident site or do not care for a person in medical emergency, is a crime and must be penalized according to German law. It should be the same for politicians splitting hairs in the general UN essambly over wether that mass dying in let's say Sudan is "genocide" or for some perverted, man-hating logic is not. The money it would take to give immediate help to those dying for lacking food and water and most basic medial supplies is NOTHING against the brain-killing ammounts of moneys we shout hooray about when the get pumped into the lastets hightech toys for generals. None of our countries has reasons to be proud in this. Right now not a single man on earth should have to die by hunger, thirst or disease, if we would have the will not only to bring up the money (and it takes so bitterly small money only), but to effectively organize it, and this immediate help to secure immediuate survival could be done without us beeing in need to lower our living standards at all, that small the needed sum of money is for just the immedate hotspots is. Building an aircraft carrier costs MUCH more. Just a little bit of modesty in our own demands concerning living standards, and a long-term perspective could be realized that chnages the world in such a way that such catclysmic genocides even would no more appear, and thus would not needed to be adresssed by emergency rescue efforts. The specliests for these issues are the help organizations, not the governments, the latter used to come up with exaggerated costs as an escuse not to get started. All of our countries should die of shame. We all are a$$holes spilling moraline and superior ideas onto each other, but truth is: we don't give a damn if masskilling takes place right under our own eyes, now, on this planet, with our acceptance. And if we get reminded of the bloodbath going on - we shoot the messenger, for we prefer to continue with the TV show instead of getting reminded of what sick, murderous psychopaths we are.

We are in desparate need to readjust our priorities, really.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The horror cannot be understood numerically. Is there really a difference between the hell one life went thorugh, and one hundred million hells?

Well said! But we can hardly blame states to make war as long as we as humans sometimes make hell for one another as well.

Originally Posted by Skybird

It should be the same for politicians splitting hairs in the general UN essambly over wether that mass dying in let's say Sudan is "genocide" or for some perverted, man-hating logic is not.

Yep Skybird, it's called "politics".
When something is defined as "genocide" by the General Assembly it is compulsary for the U.N. to do something about it. Which means - in practice - sending Peacekeepers or full military intervention. Which will inevitably means choosing sides. Much like the NATO in Kosovo and Bosnia. Who will provide the troops? The U.S.? NATO?
And countries like Zimbabwe and Burma will be very afraid about creating a precedent. Because after all, it is mingling in the internal affairs of the country concerned and the authonomy of member states is one of the principles of the U.N.
The principles of the U.N. are its strength and weakness at the same time.

As can be seen from history, even if you intervene with the best of intentions you may cause a mess...

[Skybird]

I know - that's one of the reasons why "genocide convention" was implemented - to m ake sure that help in case of immedtae emergncy is mandatory, and not an uncalculatable question of voluntary action - where the lack of any mandatory, binding solidarity could lead to we just have seen in America and her rendezvous with Katrina.

It is politics, yes. seriously flawed politics, having created the most murderous political system our history has ever seen, an international conspiracy of economy and governments to reach and secure the status quo. Compare to what we see today, Stalin and Hitler were dilletants. Orwell was a dilletant, too. Control is not from outside, but inside of people's heads. That way we even manage to hide from our awareness the massacre that we accept to take place. Secret police is no longer needed that way. everyone guards and protects the regime by himself and even does not know it. the vocabulary to cover this is huge. Emotions coming from usage of these magic words are charming. How can it be any diffrent than that we are right in what we think and what we do, or not do?

"Let's be reasonable about it!" - what is that any different than just our valium and justification of inaction?

Concerning troops - if we wpould stop makling arms sales and coprrupt politcal deals with local evil-doers because we expect economical advanatges from that, if we wouldn'T have messed up so damn many places over the last decades for these reasons, the problem wouldn't be so big as it is now. I see no problem why we shouldn'T be able to militarily protect help efforts in meegncy supply operations. western nations are sending hundreds of thousands of troops around the globe for far more idiotic intentions. If Iraq or Afghanistan can be done that way, then operations in Africa or southeast Asia can be done, too.

This is immediate rescue only. There must be a change in global economy and longterm polciy as well, else the blood level sooner or later will raise to our chins and noses.

[Kapitan]

damo my sleeping pattern is quite muffed so i do but i dont sleep

[Type941]

Originally Posted by joea

BS alert!! Why are you including WW2 or say Korea? Both wars started by others? The US was hardly alone in inflicting casualties during WW2, how many German civilians were killed by British bombings or Soviets at the end fot he war? Anyway caualties in war are a bit different from genocides. Japanese civilians casualties were 300-400000 AFAIK.

BS Alert Indeed. Next time read what's written, not what you think is written.

Here's some for you.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Type941

BS Alert Indeed. Next time read what's written, not what you think is written.

Here's some for you.

http://leighhouse.typepad.com/blog/images/kool_aid.jpg

Thanks I needed that like to join me? I read what you wrote about non-democracies, I just don't think you can include casualties inflicted in the course of military ops in WW2 or Korea by democracies or non-democracies with these genocides.. I would consider a better comparison for what we are talking deaths in Iraq during the UN embargo, or of course what the native americans or slaves went through (not restricted to the USA but in varying degrees throughout the New World ) I never thought the USSR should be compared to Nazi Germany. You should know I have many close freinds from the ex-USSR and other East bloc countries they have said stuff similar to what you and CCIP have said. A real eye opener for me. Sorry if you took it personally.