(SPOILERS) Dialydd's report

Let's make things straight, i DO NOT deny, that the russian (i talk only about the russian) communist goverment done a lot of atrocites against the peoples of Soviet Union. Some of them was the results of incompetense and poor control; some of them was a results of goverment paranoia or the internal struggle for power. After all, my own family also suffered a lot in that time.

But i deny, and would deny, that "the nazi was actually not so bad in comparsion to communists". Because it's a LIE. The nazi was evil; true, i may even say almost unbelievable evil on the ficion scale. Their both methods and goals was evil and regressive, because they tried to turn the humanity progress backward. The history dealt with them.

The communist do a lot of evil - it's pointless to deny. But they also do a lot of good, and they truly believe that all that they doing is for the eventual benefit of ALL humans. This does not justify them, but a priori puts a notch.

Dilandu wrote:Well... before the revolution, the Russia was one of the last in the list of world powers.

After the revolution, the Russia eventually became one of the TWO world superpower.

Tsarist Russia was merely incompetent with some corruption. Due to Human nature this will always occur as any organisation gets larger.
Bolshevik Russia was just the same but with murderousness added.

Would you not consider that having "World Powers" is part of our modern problem and that ALL countries should "mind their own business"

Assadite Syria was no "earthly paradise" but is infinitely preferable to any of the potential replacements.

Louis XVI was incompetent, but definitely preferable to Robespierre, Danton and Napoleon

If the "13 colonies" had stayed with Britain they would have avoided at least 4 wars, and probably more

The Shah was corrupt, but definitely preferable to the Khomeniite Theocracy that replaced him

(When I say "preferable" I am not commenting politically, but about the lives of the ordinary people of the country)

Not lies but differences in points of view Dilandu. CCCP was a union of socialists republics, socialism the precursor to true communism. In a socialist state the state rather than the individual determines right or wrong. To western eyes the only difference between Hitler and Stalin was Hitler's raciest crap. The NAZIs were The National Socialist German Worker's Party note the word socialist.

However Hitler was a piker in that he had fewer years in power to do his evil work. IMHO you can add Hitler to the list of Socialist mass murders of note.

That said all are pikers compared to the imperialist murder of native peoples around the world, and yes Virginia the USA had a dog in that fight, ask any Native American. But then socialism has had just a little under a century while Spain kicked off imperialist expansion in the early 1500 nigh on five centuries of massacring our brown brothers to save them.

Poker

Tsarist Russia was merely incompetent with some corruption. Due to Human nature this will always occur as any organisation gets larger.
Bolshevik Russia was just the same but with murderousness added.

Well, who lose the war with germany and who won? And some point as sending the first satellite into space...

Would you not consider that having "World Powers" is part of our modern problem and that ALL countries should "mind their own business"

The problem is, that without world powers there would probably be much worse. The "all countries" would start to "mind their own business" not only in good things, but also with territorial claims, trade barriers, and blaming the others to dircet the attention from internal problems. Actually, the bipolar structure of the Cold War was the best; she was stable enough, and both great power were cautious not to make mistakes that the opponent may use.

If the "13 colonies" had stayed with Britain they would have avoided at least 4 wars, and probably more

Really? And in how many BRITAIN wars they would be dragged into? Does the Canada avoided wars? Or Australia?

Louis XVI was incompetent, but definitely preferable to Robespierre, Danton and Napoleon

Well, let's recall the Cuba. That clearly live much better AFTER the Castro came to power that before.

(When I say "preferable" I am not commenting politically, but about the lives of the ordinary people of the country)

Maybe. But there is a "after-knowledge". There is a ideom for that: "if i knew that i would fall, i'll place a lot of hay over that place"

All the revolutions, excluding that which was made by intervention, began when a large number of peoples think that they couldn't live that way anymore. They may be right: they may be wrong. But in present, they think that they are suffering and their goverment can not or even didn't want to do something with that.

pokermind wrote:...To western eyes the only difference between Hitler and Stalin was Hitler's raciest crap.

Maybe to your eyes, but I'm pretty sure that most people recognize that Nazi party was about as "socialist" as pigs are aerialists.

The word that everyone is avoiding that makes Hitler and the Nazi party "Evil" and "Communists" like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot just murderous paranoids is Genocide.

Even modern News reporters avoid that word because it is so closely associated with "Evil" -- choosing less antagonistic terms like "Ethnic Cleansing."

Of course, to "western eyes" (i.e. "Real 'Muricans" ) anything other than "Democracy" is "evil" -- that is what I was taught in grade school in the 50's. Except for those of my generation who embraced the "Hippie Philosophy" -- to one degree or another -- and recognize that any form of government that brings peace and stability to the majority of its citizens is acceptable.

Weird Harold wrote:

pokermind wrote:...To western eyes the only difference between Hitler and Stalin was Hitler's raciest crap.

Maybe to your eyes, but I'm pretty sure that most people recognize that Nazi party was about as "socialist" as pigs are aerialists.

The word that everyone is avoiding that makes Hitler and the Nazi party "Evil" and "Communists" like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot just murderous paranoids is Genocide.

Even modern News reporters avoid that word because it is so closely associated with "Evil" -- choosing less antagonistic terms like "Ethnic Cleansing."

Of course, to "western eyes" (i.e. "Real 'Muricans" ) anything other than "Democracy" is "evil" -- that is what I was taught in grade school in the 50's. Except for those of my generation who embraced the "Hippie Philosophy" -- to one degree or another -- and recognize that any form of government that brings peace and stability to the majority of its citizens is acceptable.

Then you haven't really looked at what the National Socialists did. They effectively combined the state and industry through regulation. The state effectively planned the output of those industries just as if they owned them. That is very much like socialism practiced today. The distinction is very similar to porcine aerialists in that neither exist.

I agree with your assertion that genocide was indeed practiced by the Nazis. However, the socialists of the CCCP killed people who did not agree with their philosophy. Which is worse? Would dehumanizing people sufficiently because of their genetics or their thoughts and beliefs be worse? Would killing people by the millions and tens of millions for one reason or the other be more morally acceptable?

To put other labels on this, the former is a racist and the latter is politically correct. Is the racist more evil for killing particular genetics groups of people than the politically correct who kills people that disagree with acceptable political thought?

Peace and stability are but 2 factors, eh? I would assert that any government that reduces the moral agency of its citizens too much is evil. By moral agency I mean the ability to choose between doing good and doing evil. Governments that aggregate too much power unto itself must take that power away from its citizens. Taking that power away means the majority of citizens do not make the moral choices in their lives and society. That invariably leads to greater evil propagated by the state.

IMO the debate on "who's worse, the Nazis or the Soviets" belongs elsewhere.

IMO the debate over "were Nazis Socialists" also belongs elsewhere.

I'm not a moderator but those debates aren't what I want to see before I've gotten enough coffee in me or at any other time.

DrakBibliophile wrote:IMO the debate on "who's worse, the Nazis or the Soviets" belongs elsewhere.

IMO the debate over "were Nazis Socialists" also belongs elsewhere.

I'm not a moderator but those debates aren't what I want to see before I've gotten enough coffee in me or at any other time.

Amen,

The Inquisition is (in RFC's created world) the Combination of many historic Evils: The Spanish Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin and others. How is evil defeated? The combined actions of people that have the will, faith and drive to do that.

Evil Prospers when good men look the other way. The CoGA has had centuries of good men looking away and providing for creeping corruption. The SSK seems to be one of the only known organizations actively looking for and documenting that evil and corruption.

Dialydd took direct action against that Evil and again put notice to the Inquisition of what ramifications there are to their actions. The 'hang Inquisitors' at every opportunity is the same. The responce to War is everything Charis has done. War was brought to them by the Tyrants of the day (Go4).

Like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Robespierre and a litany of others, Tyrants generally think they are doing what they must to secure their position and their people.

Individual faith, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (truth - not cliches) is what should drive opposition to Evil. From this western point of view anyway

chrisd wrote:If the "13 colonies" had stayed with Britain they would have avoided at least 4 wars, and probably more


(When I say "preferable" I am not commenting politically, but about the lives of the ordinary people of the country)

We (those 13 Colonies) removed ourselves from the Political and Economic turmoil of Europe and England as much as possible. Those Colonies would have been embroiled in and supported the Wars of England and Europe - not unlike the Countries of Safehold and the Churches Jihad.

That would have stifled the development of North America.

The DoI stated the grounds for that revolution in human terms.

I sometimes enjoy a good debate on the American Revolution but I don't think this forum is the place for it.

dwileye13 wrote:

chrisd wrote:If the "13 colonies" had stayed with Britain they would have avoided at least 4 wars, and probably more


(When I say "preferable" I am not commenting politically, but about the lives of the ordinary people of the country)

We (those 13 Colonies) removed ourselves from the Political and Economic turmoil of Europe and England as much as possible. Those Colonies would have been embroiled in and supported the Wars of England and Europe - not unlike the Countries of Safehold and the Churches Jihad.

That would have stifled the development of North America.

The DoI stated the grounds for that revolution in human terms.