Oops! Russian Military In Nato Country

To many ifs, buts and maybe's. We can all wish history turned out differently than it did and everyone has 'eagle eye' hind sight. Trouble is none of that matters. History is what it is like it or not.

America remaining part of what evolved into the Commonwealth may or may not have made the World a better place than it is now. It is also possible that it could have ended up much worse.

Prior to WWII Briton and the US had long since, for the most part reached a fairly amicable detente (from their mutual perspectives) about their relevant zones of interest in the World. This being one of the the reasons IMO that the US readily declared war on Germany as well as Japan. Britain was a geopolitical entity they shared a common language and culture with and even more importantly an country with which they had done 'business with' for many decades. Germany was the new and aggressive power in Europe upsetting what was from the US 's perspective an apple cart they were comfortable with.

 

I don't know, since WWI had to do with Russia supporting Serbia, and Germany pulling a bluff to get Russia to back off, said it would support Austria. It was too late for the Tsar to pull back since his forces were at the front. It was the alliances that dragged the rest of the countries into the war. The alliances might not have existed if Britain was allied with the US. Who knows?

Could the South have survived without slavery? Maybe if they bettered the conditions of the blacks who worked in the field so they wouldn't want to leave. I know Britain was dependent on cotton for its textile factories.

I don't think the fleet was a provocation, but a threat to Japan - as is the 7th fleet to China. I know that China felt vulnerable because of it, and that's why it decided to find land routes for its exports.

 

Pooh-bear - There was no way the Americans would have entered WWI without the sinking of the Lusitania, considering the amount of Germans living here - not to mention the Irish who hated Britain. The ship was packed with explosives knowing that it would be torpedoed and thousands of American lives would be lost. The Germans kept trying to warn the Americans not to sail, but to no avail.

At the time Churchill was the Head of the Admiralty in Britain and Roosevelt was the Asst. Sec. of the Navy here, so Roosevelt had to have been in charge of the arm shipments to Britain. Personally I think Churchill and Roosevelt threw us not only into WWII, but also WWI. The only thing that I could find though, is that they met once in 1917. The relationship had to have been closer because Churchill knew Roosevelt's son, and gave him a large set of books while in Britain.

Now you know who the real culprits are. (I love solving historical mysteries).

 

Peace as in getting slaughtered when you don't want to do as your told?
Prosperity as in thieving the lands of the resources?
Railways as in how to effectively move the army around to oppress while use it to drain the lands of resources?
What industry? And what democracy?

As for taxes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India

And your entire idea how India was before the British is not based on anything.
India was one of the richest countries on the planet when the British came by.
They drained it so much from their resources, that people were dying from hunger.
35 million people died, and they left it totally impoverish and illiterate.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/o...itish-colonisation-india-170312082632399.html

 

India during the time of British rule increased its standard of live enormously.
And Indian trade throughout the Commonwealth made her a power to be
reckoned with. As stated before - this helped the rise of the English trade
unions because the English workers were losing their jobs to the Indians.
Rail was for commerce - not for war. India has a huge rail network. All this
was given by the British.
The real hunger in India came with Gandhi and Independence. Gandhi
wanted India to revert to the good ol' days before Empire where there was
little industry and everyone lived in little rural villages and plough with oxen.
It's been said that more people died under Gandhi than under Mao and Stalin.
And then India aligned itself with the USSR and established socialist policies.
That guarantees poverty.

 

What have the Romans ever done for us?
The Jews also paid taxes to Rome. I pay taxes too, and in return I get security, roads, hospitals etc..

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03ATOKKfG3RCZDUJUMASktXl9Qcpw:1586733448819&source=hp&ei=iKGTXqTpL8qL4-EP5v6ZwAo&q=life+of+brian+what+have+the+romans&oq=life+of+brian+what+&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyBQgAEM0CMgUIABDNAjoECCMQJzoFCAAQkQI6BQgAEIMBOgQIABBDOgcIABCDARBDOgQIABAKOgYIABAWEB5KNQgXEjEwZzI0MWcyNzdnMjI1ZzIyOGczMDRnMjUwZzIyMWcyMjZnMjM3ZzIyNWcyNTVnMjIxSh0IGBIZMGcxZzFnMWcxZzFnMWcxZzFnMWc1ZzVnNVCuQlifaWCIfmgGcAB4AIABnQKIAbspkgEGMC4zLjIxmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab#spf=1586796352772

 

This aint about Rome. And I backed up my sources. Rather petty to ignore.

 

I proved the opposite with a source.

That's just fake and disgusting. The Brits simply impoverished and depleted that nation out of their natural resources like the thug colonial power they were. It has been recorded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India#British_rule

The late 18th and 19th centuries saw increase in the incidence of severe famine.[fn 3] Millions died from 1850 to 1899 in 24 major famines; more than in any other 50-year period.[28] These famines in British India were bad enough to have a remarkable impact on the long term population growth of the country, especially in the half century between 1871–1921.[29] The first, the Bengal famine of 1770, is estimated to have taken the lives of nearly one-third of the population of the region—about 10 million people.

Florence Nightingale pointed out that the famines in British India were not caused by the lack of food in a particular geographical area. They were instead caused by inadequate transportation of food, which in turn was caused due to an absence of a political and social structure.

Nothing compares to a bunch of western capitalists treating your as a slave.

 

Can you name prosperous socialist countries? The latest socialist nation is Venezuela.
State ownership, state monopolies, tariff barriers etc has held back India's full potential.
This is why Communist China overtook India after Deng's reforms. There has been some
reform in India, but it is anemic - it shows in GDP growth figures. In due time India might
become the world's most powerful nation due to it being the largest, with a young population.
Had it stayed in the 1700's this wouldn't have happened.
Look, any attempt to argue about colonialism leads you up one of two paths - pro and anti
colonialism. Pick a book or web side on either side of the argument. Anti-colonialism is the
fashion - but I find those that are fervent in believing it usually come from a Marxist POV.

Did you see that link to Life of Brian? The Romans badly taxed the Jews, but Israel had a
lot of benefits in being a part of the Roman empire. You have to be balanced.

BTW famine was a regular thing in India. And India had an empire. It's neighbors still hate
India for it. Whereas many former colonies still want to be a part of the British Commonwealth.
That includes my own Australia - we are one country on one continent, not many fighting
each other. We speak one language, generally. One culture, generally. We have, like India,
inherited parliamentary democracy and we have the fruits of the Industrial Revolution, too.

 

My sources stand. Your fictional movie about the Romans has absolutely noting to do with how the British empire behaved in India. The British simply leeched that country dry to the bone, killing millions and millions with their capitalistic greed.

Droughts happen, while I sourced that the UK is responsible for the famines that happened. I sourced it.

 

I wonder why India aligned itself with the Soviet Union when the Soviet empire killed millions, many
through starvation?
I wonder why India rarely discusses its own murderous empire which once encompassed Afghanistan, Iran etc..
I wonder how Britain ruled over India with just a few civil servants?
I wonder who created the textile industries which so decimated English textiles?
I wonder why Indians are happy to ride on trains which (you claim) were built to crush Indians?
Why is India proud of its Westminster style democracy?
Why did the population explode under British rule?
You okay with the caste system and burning widows?
Why did the British educate so many Indians?
What's this about the emancipation of Indian women?
What about the Green Revolution which occurred?
How could India be a founding member of the League of Nations, the UN and an Olympic Game participant if it lived like it was before Britain?
How is it that Google "Indian Empire" you mostly get Indian restaurants? Do people downplay this unsettling time in India's history?
Try to find material on Gandhi's failed rural experiments which killed millions - you'll find next to nothing
Did you know there wasn't an Indian nation before the English?

If you read a "source" which ignores or downplays these f.a.c.t.s. then beware - you are being influenced rather than informed.

 

Excuse me, but NATO (which extended from Norway all the way around to Turkey) did not absolutely surround Russia:


What pissed-off Russia (when the Soviet Union came apart) is that from "East" Germany all the way around to Turkey (which was already a member) there were ex-Soviet countries that became a part of NATO.

Which is slightly understandable if you're a Russian general with the duty to "Defend Russia".

Russia does not want to invade Europe, to which it sells 70% of its oil/gas production ...

 

HISTORY IS AS HISTORY DOES

Who said that communism was great? Only the Russian Revolutionaries who brought it to the Russian People with a vengeance.

You've never read what happened in Russia after WW2 and Communism took power? The crooks like Stalin brushed aside the "intelligent Russians" and installed a Police State - where Communist Politicians each tried to take power from the other. Stalin became the ultimate leader. Then there was a war with Germany mixed when - in fact - Russia actually destroyed the German Army. Twice as many German soldiers on the Eastern-front lost their lives as were lost on the Western-front.

Total Military Deaths by Country (from Wikipedia here):
US - 407K
UK - 384K
France - 210
Total "Allies" - 1M

Germany - 4.4 to 5.4M
Italy - 320 to 340K
Soviet Union - 8.7 - 11.4M

Poland - 240K
Yugoslavia - 300 - 450K
Arbitrary total addition: 15/18M

Question: Was a change from the Agricultural to the Industrial Age worth the effort? (After all, the change of Ages happened at around the same time.)
My Answer:The developed-world had to get rid of its aristocracy, where the wealth had become concentrated in the Landed Gentry and Family Ownership.
But: We could have evolved otherwise. Besides, when the Industrial Age at the turn of the century finally installed itself fully, Agriculture was no longer the dominant money-earner.

Historical Lesson - Is the manner in which we are leaving the Industrial Age and entering the Information Age any different from what happened at the end of the Agricultural Age?
Suggested answers:
*Nope the rich are still obtaining the major part of the Wealth generated. Largely sprung from Technical Innovation (and particularly Information Technologies).
*But, the Middle&Poorer-classes have a far greater percentage of the total Wealth (simply by its dominance in population).

 

I sourced you're wrong. And it seems you're unable to debunk my claim with a source of your own.

 

The Lusitania was allowed to carry explosives. They were declared cargo and thus did not make the ship a legitimate target.

And there were not "thousands of Americans" aboard the Lusitania. Approximately 128 Americans were killed in the sinking.

 

Really cheap labor!

The British Regency in India all lived like regent Kings&Queens. The "locals" did all the hard-work. (Including managing other locals.

It was really heart-wrenching for some of the Brits forced to return to Mother England ...

 

Were the Indian people treated worse by the British, than the way the Indians were treating the Dalits (untouchables)? If the British came and conquered, they were only doing what the Arian occupier's did 2,500 (?) years before when they established the caste system. Besides I'm sure the British were a lot more humane than they were, and they did stop many of their cruel customs such as suttee.

As for the later Turkish conquerors, well the Ottomans had slavery until Attaturk abolished it. Before that, any babies born from black slaves were killed, so I don't think the Dalits would have fared very well.

Anyway what you said about the British leaving the people ignorant is a lie. They were the only colonial power that did educate people so that they were able to run the country when freed. The other colonies were a mess. As for the poverty today, wouldn't that have to do with the antibiotics and the higher survival rate? I know smallpox was rampant in India at one time since my grandfather had caught it when he was there.

The problem is we love to condemn and look at everything through tainted glasses, yet what would the world be without the exchange of knowledge that could only come from colonizing? Without colonies and the knowledge that came with it, Classical Greece and the Athens of Pericles wouldn't have existed and the Europeans would still be swinging on trees. (I'm only joking).

 

It seems like you're arguing like: the Indians treated the Dalits not that good. So you know... That the British got 10's of millions killed through starvation aint so bad. That's not really a good argument, you know. Not good at all.

The British spend 18 times less on education in India compared to other colonies. On average your random Indian was 0.88 years in school at 1940. And that was an "improvement" since 1870. So it aint no lie that the British left those people ignorant as hell. You're just talking total nonsense.
https://voxdev.org/topic/health-education/colonial-investments-education-india

Colonization was just thug oppression. Leaching the oppressed out of everything. Get over it.

 

I do hope you ARE joking because it takes colonisation back a few thousand years. The first notion of a "state" was the fact that human-animals banded together and developed a common language in which to communicate. Before become "static" they roamed around for thousands of centuries.

But there came a moment in time where they decided to settle down and benefit from both working the land and hunting in one place where they learned to build protective housing instead of live in caves. This agglomeration of "stable" individuals needed a common language in which to communicate - and is how languages evolved. People who do not roam around settle down and need a common language in which to communicate.

To this day when the Germanic, Anglo-Germanic and Latin-languages evolved to the point where they predominate in the West.

And though colonized, English is not the predominant language in the far-eastern part of this planet unless ancestral - meaning as a secondary language in those areas colonised by Britain and primary language in some others (New Zealand, Australia). Note that in Africa the colonizing countries- which have long since left- have adopted the original native-language as their common means of inter-communication.

PS: I also predict that one day - not so far off - English in the US and that spoke in Britain may one day need an interpreter. The British-English language is stable, whilst the American version is all-over-the-place. The American version of English is also far less literal having been invaded and conquered by slang which changes continually.
PPS: The evolution of a language has far more of an influence on a people's behaviour/belief patterns than one might think.

 

SARCASM

This is a DEBATE FORUM not a Message Board. There is no room for smart-ass sarcasm.

It's difficult enough to obtain a mature exchange of opinion based upon prepared thought.

We Yanks belittle one another with sarcasm. Which is no excuse whatsoever for replacing intelligent exchange of opinion with mindless sarcasm ...

PS: And I am the first to admit that I have indulged far-too-much in sarcasm far too often and I am as guilty as anybody here. Let's just stop it, shall we?

 

I can see your point. Before 1990 the Russians had the capacity to destroy you.

Now the Chinese economy is No 2...…..

 

Seems India was doing pretty well until Ghandi and his "back to the future" policies.
At WWII, if I recall, India had about the same level of international trade as Australia has today.
Through education, a good rail network, industrialization and a liberal democracy (of sorts) India
today could have been richer than China is today, had it chosen wisely after Independence.

 

The Soviets were a second world country with first world missiles. In the end, they were no match for the U.S.

The Chinese have stolen their way out of third world status. They're evil in a thousand different ways.

 

The Russians entered Berlin long before the "Allies did" in WW2. And at a much higher cost in loss-of-life than the Allies.

You do them a disservice ...

Just a handful at the top. They almost lost it once before in '89. The uprising in Tiananmin Square came as a BigSurprise.

It'll just take more time than elsewhere. And when it does finally happen, I'll bet it's Hong Kong that leads the way ...

 

The Russians did most of the damage to the Nazi’s. But they did nothing against Japan.