Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities. Probably the worst thing the US did. The problem comes from how the event is interpreted in modern discourse. At the time, very few people had any issues with it, as it marked the end of the war.
Russians turning around and "fake sympathizing" with the Japanese makes no sense as they benefited from it back then. the Soviets were about to engage the Japanese in conflict.
It's similar with how many of them use colonization to portray the US as a nation that committed genocide against natives, while ignoring the fact that it applies to the whole continent. If you're going to mention that, then you need to consider the fact that it took place all the way from Canada to Argentina.
Overall I agree but the main point stand....the nukes could have been used as a demo in presence of Japanese officials and end the war without that final horrible chapter. It was well known already the effect of the radiation, especially with the use of a particularly "dirty" type of bomb (the gun type device) used in Hiroshima. Even back then the use of atomic bombs was controversial in some circles.
Overall I agree but the main point stand....the nukes could have been used as a demo in presence of Japanese officials and end the war without that final horrible chapter. It was well known already the effect of the radiation, especially with the use of a particularly "dirty" type of bomb (the gun type device) used in Hiroshima. Even back then the use of atomic bombs was controversial in some circles.
There is a lot of debate to this very day about the merits of the bombing. The Japanese were quite suicidal during the war as can be seen with the "Kamikaze". Even Tokyo's firebombing did little to change the outcome of the war. Perhaps if Roosevelt was still president, things would have played out differently.
P.S. I wanted to ask you about your username, cause I think it's really cool. Is it a reference to the Saturn V rocket, the Roman god Saturn or the planet itself?
This was actually the ONLY time in history, when Russians were involved in genocide for real. I don't think they were even making a secret out of it. And the reason?
"For her own part, Russia was eager to get rid of "unquiet" peoples and settle the area with Cossacks and other Christians. General Nikolai Yevdokimov advocated expelling the natives of the Western Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire.[42] He wrote that "resettlement of intractable mountaineers" to Turkey would be the easiest way to bring the prolonged Caucasian War to an end, while giving freedom to those who "prefer death to allegiance to the Russian government".
So there you have it. Russians simply found these people INCOMPATIBLE with their own culture, and thus marked them for expulsion/extermination.
Those they found COMPATIBLE - for the most part they tried to assimilate, and the reshuffling (i.e. mass exiles) of these people were often a result of it.
Now when it comes to Poles in particular - number one it was a political problem ALWAYS, not only because Poland was plotting against Russia before, but THROUGH Polish government OTHER political forces were usually getting involved, plotting against the Russian state. ( For example during the WWII it was Britain, and Stalin didn't want any complications on that end, not to mention that strong Polish state was not in his interests at all.) But other than that, it's just my personal opinion, that Polish people are not much different from Russians. It's just that this particular part of Slavs got under the different church- i.e. Catholic Church, and from that point on they were used for different political schemes against Russia.)t
The question I always wonder though, is that while Poles were under the Russian thumb ( during Soviet times) their numbers were steadily growing. Once they were liberated and the benevolent West took over, their numbers are really dwindling.
There are still Circassians in the Northern Caucasus, yet under the Soviet Union the Soviets attempted to divide them into different groups and blend with other people in that region, so they can have a distinct identity and that largely did succeed, however who knows what will happen in the future.
The Chechnyans still has instability, and large numbers joined ISIS in Iraq/Syria, and the problem if if they do return or the ones that have already returned. They can suffer honour killings from their families and honour killilngs are part of certain Middle Eastern cultures. They can be attacked and tortured by authorities as well, while Moscow turns a blind eye to it. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...hechnya-russia
Chechnya is a troublesome region and likely to continue in the future.
Poland has traditionally had mistrust with the Russian government more so than other Slavic groups and Western powers as well as the Vatican attempted to take advance of this. You are right a strong Independent Russia was opposed by Stalin. Actually there been huge numbers of Poles that have left the country when communism ended and that also was a factor of reduction in population there.
Originally Posted by Maksim_Frolov View Post
Presumption of innocence.
He is disqualified. Can you tell me what illegal drugs he used? When? Where? If you can not say this, then you must agree that your post is a stupid propaganda.
I'm waiting for an answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM
The IOC says their independent review panel has "serious indications" of doping in his past. No presumption of innocence can be given to any Russian athlete who competed in Sochi.
I asked a simple things. If you disqualified a person and ruined his/her career, you should say: what, when and where. You say "No presumption of innocence can be given" and "serious indications". As I thought, this is stupid propaganda.
Stalin's purges were going on since the late 20's early 30's when he started getting rid of political opponents from the Politburo like Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev. Then the Great Terror happened which claimed at least 20 million lives (and that's the lower estimate).
*Sigh* Please enough already of these speculations - they become tiresome. There were never "20 million killed during Great Terror" - it's just the scary fairy-tails for children that Westerners like to tell to each other. In reality Stalin was not some vampire, piling up mountains of corpses "just because." He needed labor, he needed soldiers, so even if you use common sense, with all the people that Russia lost during the recent civil war and than WWII, if it were true that it lost "20 million" on top of that in-between for real, the country would have simply demographically collapsed. No, the "Great Terror" took the lives of approximately 500-600 thousand people, but the BIGGEST human losses Russia experienced during the collectivization, not the purges/great terror. And that's what Stalin acknowledged during his conversation with Churchill. On another hand - if he wouldn't have conducted the collectivization, he wouldn't have been able to proceed with the rapid industrialization. And without it, Russia would have lost the war. Quit picturing Stalin like some medieval warlord - he was an intelligent statesman ( although a cruel one,) and the security of his state was his end goal after all.
Quote:
Stalin has Hitler beat domestically.
Oh sure. He was playing ping-pong with Hitler, and they both were keeping the score.
Quote:
By including WW2, Hitler may take the lead though it remains to be seen how many of the deaths are attributed to Japan and Mussolini's Italy.
You are missing the point.
And the point is, how many deaths Hitler brought by his desire to redesign the world.
First of all, just like Hitler in Germany, many Americans think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious.
The problem is that the tune over those events changed over the years. No one had a problem with the bombings back then, that's a recent phenomenon.
So Russia, talking about Hiroshima like a major tragedy is ridiculous. They were fine with it back then as it saved them from having to enter into conflict either Japan.
The tune of Stalin also changed. That's what I wanted to say.
Banning the Jehovah Witnesses will make them even more determined in their beliefs. Their religion thrives on persecution and they believe it is end times now. Banning them will not end them, but make the people more justified in their beliefs.
But the law will allow them to be imprisoned if they continue to go to an old people and break their brains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And also for incendiary bombs in Tokyo!