This is the Open Bar Chatroom
Here you can discuss all that you want, about who you want and this thread will not be moderated strictly so that all the users here can have their own space.
@whowh @Karl von Krass @GrandEmpire @RBoi200 @Comrade genz I invite you to engage with eachother here
Please log in to post a reply.
Arta boutta pull a "Balkan Boi" account on usCarking the 6th wrote:
We have 3 Balkan accounts now. How?
In favor of looking at a more nuanced angle. You seem to paint it as how American propaganda during the Cold War did; constantly sad poor and depressed. While it was like that often, it also wasn’t. The history of this country is much more complicated and then you may think, and we’re many positive qualities into the USSR. Worse than the west? Probably, but also better in some ways. If Gorbachev had succeeded, it may live on in a far better sense than we remembered…Donk2.0 wrote:
I thought you were and were arguing in favor of it.Carking the 6th wrote:
I think I sound like a tankie
What are you trying to say with this?Carking the 6th wrote:
Gorbachev had succeeded
Gorbachev was a MUCH more moderate leader who advocated for more West-Centric reforms. Had he stayed in office, the Soviet Union may have turned out much better.
Had the perestroika reformed the country into a democracy with greater economic and political freedom while not collapsing the country.
Yeah.Carking the 6th wrote:
Had the perestroika reformed the country into a democracy with greater economic and political freedom while not collapsing the country.
I'm not a Soviet apologist, by the way. Just take a look at my pfp. By no means would Gorbachev be viewed as moderate if he were running for American presidency, for example. But, he might have saved the Soviet Union from the abject poverty it suffered before and after him.
It's hard to have a unified country of cultures that never wanted to be under the same flag in the first place. It may just have been destined to collapse when the government loosened control. Ever think of it that way?
The Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway, of course. But I feel as though a lot of suffering would have been spared between Gorbachev's time in office and the inevitable collapse if he had become General Secretary.Donk2.0 wrote:
It's hard to have a unified country of cultures that never wanted to be under the same flag in the first place. I may just have been destined to collapse when the government loosened control. Ever think of it that way?
Sometimes I wonder how the modern state of Russia is still unified as well.
The RFSR almost underwent a collapse of its own immediately following the collapse of the USSR. These revolutions were stopped by force. Chechnya is a more recent example, but it shows how, even after years of a centralized government, some parts are loose. Loosen the screw and they all fall apart.Talvisota wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how the modern state of Russia is still unified as well.
It’s supposed to be a democratic federation… dictatorship and oligarchy gets in the way.Donk2.0 wrote:
The RFSR almost underwent a collapse of its own immediately following the collapse of the USSR. These revolutions were stopped by force. Chechnya is a more recent example, but it shows how, even after years of a centralized government, some parts are loose. Loosen the screw and they all fall apart.Talvisota wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how the modern state of Russia is still unified as well.
Westerners can't understand the love that the people of Russia feel for their country. Not their government, but their country. No matter what bad stuff happens, famines, suppression, kleptocracy. Millions died for it in WW2, even the staunchest opponents of Stalin became brave heroes dying for it. And that attitude still exists. I know we all love our own country to some degree, but the Russian's love for Russia is bigger than anything a different people can understand.Talvisota wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how the modern state of Russia is still unified as well.
This is not to say conflict won't happen between superpowers or large-ish countries. War sparks improvement, industrialization, and overall advancement. Weimar Germany was poor after WWI, but the Nazi rise to power and WWII made the country a superpower and they developed technology that the world had never seen. Russia has still been in a sort of "cold war" with the west even after the collapse of the USSR, so that conflict has been promoting development. Same thing with the war in Ukraine, both countries were relatively weak before but now the economies are stimulating and becoming increasingly powerful. People make the mistake of thinking that China is a true rival to America, but they forget that both economies are so heavily intertwined that conflict would be senseless and almost impossible as sanctions on one another would lead to economic failure. We can even go deeper into political scandals in the USA where some of the higher ups have collaborated with China. These years of nations collapsing are completely theoretical and in my opinion hold no ground because the world is constantly changing. There's no way we can realistically see into the future 50-75 years on such a specific level.
I agree, I have noticed that eastern countries are some of the most patriotic but for some reason some of the most unstable. I think it's like a mass scale Yugoslavia where cultures are mixed under 1 flag, but it's only a matter of time until war starts.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Westerners can't understand the love that the people of Russia feel for their country. Not their government, but their country. No matter what bad stuff happens, famines, suppression, kleptocracy. Millions died for it in WW2, even the staunchest opponents of Stalin became brave heroes dying for it. And that attitude still exists. I know we all love our own country to some degree, but the Russian's love for Russia is bigger than anything a different people can understand.Talvisota wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how the modern state of Russia is still unified as well.
Here we go again...
Yes, Russians are very patriotic, but that isn't necessarily as much of an advantage as you may initially think. Patriotism is generally good until it gets to the point where it's used to justify things that are just downright horrific. Dictatorships, human rights abuses, starvation... all for the greater good of "The State" and "Great Russia". There has to be some point where you stop and say, this is too much, it's gone too far. Patriotism is a pretty good mask for wrongdoing. Never trust *too* much.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Westerners can't understand the love that the people of Russia feel for their country. Not their government, but their country. No matter what bad stuff happens, famines, suppression, kleptocracy. Millions died for it in WW2, even the staunchest opponents of Stalin became brave heroes dying for it. And that attitude still exists. I know we all love our own country to some degree, but the Russian's love for Russia is bigger than anything a different people can understand.Talvisota wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how the modern state of Russia is still unified as well.
god this thread is turning political
National identity and patriotism is what hold countries together and make them stronger. Nothing wrong with them. A true “patriot” sees the bad within their country and wants to do something about it. The Union in the civil war and people of the civil rights movements were real patriots. Those who opposed the Soviet government as well. The thing about those fascists and Jihadists who took over their country is that they are not real patriots or Muslims. They hate the true culture of their people. They hate the real version of Islam. Rather they seek to change everything about it- what groups are considered part of theirs, what certain people can do, etc… and omit whatever parts of their religion and culture they don’t like to gain power and control.
That (mixing cultures leads to war) is a myth. Multi cultural states actually tend to be more powerful than split off nation states. The problem is when their government and borders are not formed well. An example are past African kingdoms, which were some of the wealthiest and most powerful civilizations that the world has ever seen. They manage to have systems in place that balanced the myriad of cultures within their borders, giving a sort of harmony within their empire. Same could be said of successful Indian empires like the Mughal, who saw their greatest heights (when they were the wealthiest and most powerful states on earth, mind you) during periods of religious and cultural tolerance. The reason we see so much ethnic conflict these days is on the fault of colonial borders. Groups who used to rivals and groups with with no communication in their history were suddenly forced into countries, breeding conflict. Going to back to India, the splitting caused a huge humanitarian crisis that led to wars, when remaining United and creating a multi cultural democracy that guaranteed human rights may have led to much more prosperity. Other examples are the US, which gained much of its wealth from immigrants and has the backbone of its manual labor done by immigrants. The Soviet Union was a union, and needed all its republics to succeed as a state.Commander Schleicher wrote:
I agree, I have noticed that eastern countries are some of the most patriotic but for some reason some of the most unstable. I think it's like a mass scale Yugoslavia where cultures are mixed under 1 flag, but it's only a matter of time until war starts.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Westerners can't understand the love that the people of Russia feel for their country. Not their government, but their country. No matter what bad stuff happens, famines, suppression, kleptocracy. Millions died for it in WW2, even the staunchest opponents of Stalin became brave heroes dying for it. And that attitude still exists. I know we all love our own country to some degree, but the Russian's love for Russia is bigger than anything a different people can understand.Talvisota wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how the modern state of Russia is still unified as well.
Yugoslavia collapsed not just because of racism, but due to economic loans and failures by Tito. The next governments dropped the ball and it ended up with Serbian control, and that government was pretty racist. Things escalated. Another example is the Ottoman Empire. It weakened not due to religious differences but due to the lack of tolerance at times. It was at its strongest when minorities received full rights. Under those who treated Christians as lesser, revolts took place, which were brutally crushed, leading to resentment. Had the Ottoman Empire’s sultans been more considerate, and extremely racist young Turks not taken power (don’t forget that governments enlightened enough to not be racist assholes are more likely to focus on modernization and industrialization, also vital to its survival), a federation ruling over the South Balkans, Middle East minus Iran and North Africa except for Sudan, Morocco and maybe Algeria and Tunisia could very well have made it to this day.even in Europe, erasing them are vital to all these cultures survival. Don’t forget that France and the UK were made up of different people groups and would be in abject poverty to this day if they did not unite. Examples like Iran, Indonesia and Spain go on.
Race and culture wars are started by racists and prejudice people. By giving in and letting them win you only create ethno-states which in hyper diverse places like Africa could not survive. Institutions meant to balance cultures and unite cultures into a society while not erasing them are a better option for most places. Remember, racism (and I know that word is overused) is a really bad thing. Not just because it’s wrong but because it genuinely weakens a society. Fun example is had it not been for racism, Germany maybe may have won ww2. Since with millions of Jews (including literal Einstein) and non-murdered Slavs cooperating and even working with the Germans, along with countless resources not wasted on warcrimes, Germany could have brought down the USSR and taken over Europe. Throw in a more Competent Italy and Britain may be forced into the negotiating table. But I could ramble on endlessly. Point made.
minor question
how do you exactly keep patriotism/nationalism when your nation is not at threat.
such things only occurs in war, pretty much the only thing that keep milita-farmers keep fighting.
after that, meh.
propaganda and exaggeration seem to be methods of keeping the nationalism alive
football too
Please log in to post a reply.
