It was a factory district for the japanese navy, though the actual population was primarily civilian.A random person said:
On topic: all of the ones I can think of have already been said
Lies they teach you in HIstory class
- Thread starter PatientGrasshopper
- Start date
On topic: all of the ones I can think of have already been said
I'd just like to point out that in the Fascism/Communism debate, people are seeing it as left vs. right, whereas the political spectrum is more advanced it broadens in four directions. These are Left Wing, Right Wing, Libertarian and Totalitarian. e.g. you can have a left wing government that controls everything (communism) but you can have a left wing government with free press etc (potentially still communism) although normally when applied in real life it ends up like the first option.
Left wing often gets mistaken for Libertarian and Right wing for Totalitarian, leading to people thinking Communism is Right wing when in any case it is always decidedly Left wing, just that leaders tend to get power hungry, just to get all that straight.
WALL OF TEXT AHHHH
Left wing often gets mistaken for Libertarian and Right wing for Totalitarian, leading to people thinking Communism is Right wing when in any case it is always decidedly Left wing, just that leaders tend to get power hungry, just to get all that straight.
WALL OF TEXT AHHHH
To be fair, I think Cheese agrees. We're talking more the interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" and the First Amendment.Evil Jak said:Oh I am not here to start an argument, I am here to shake the hand of the dude who knows that fact.Nuke_em_05 said:
Thomas Paine was my favourite.
Oh, the part before all of the freedom stuff where it states "No law respecting the establishment of religion".Nuke_em_05 said:To be fair, I think Cheese agrees. We're talking more the interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" and the First Amendment.Evil Jak said:Oh I am not here to start an argument, I am here to shake the hand of the dude who knows that fact.Nuke_em_05 said:
Thomas Paine was my favourite.
In fact I am feeling super generous today so I will supply you with a link, or should I just spoiler the video... nah, I shall link it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZLeWYkSPQ4&feature=PlayList&p=E2A228E858D7F91D&index=25
Even with silver or a gold standard inflation can happen, if a gold mine is found prices would go down, if an african guy goes around tossing jewels and gold to his peasants prices would shoot down.. Inflation happens when there is to much money in circulation, recession happens when not enough is moving around.MagicShroom said:
Note: Separation of church and state is most times misread.. When it was wrote he was expressing the thoughts that the government shouldn't meddle with religion.. Not from the church meddling with politics.
Actually, the north only won the war by accident. Robert E. Lee had a full plan for invading the union, and if some fuckwit southern officer hadn't dropped it off in a cigar box then the south could very well have won. Industrial capacity and financial resources don't mean shit when a child could be a better commander then the union generals.mshcherbatskaya said:
The Japanese did attempt a conditional surrender that included maintaining the Emperor in his current position and retaining some of their conquests in mainland Asia. The Allies, but mainly America, rejected this and pushed for a unconditional surrender just as they did with Germany.Computer-Noob said:
I'm not sure why you think people who defend the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "overly-patriotic fuckwits" but I can tell you this. If you were one of those brave men who'd fought for years against the Japanese you'd sure as hell want to use a weapon that saved as many of your friends and comrades as possible.
The casualty estimates were so high that 500,000 Purple Heart were made, so many that they haven't had to make any more since then. 1.2 million casualties with over 250,000 dead were the predicted Allied military casualties and these are seen as conservative. These estimates don't even consider the massive casualties that would be taken by the Japanese, estimates put these at between five and ten million dead.
When you compare this to the 150,000 to 200,000 killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings it's easy to see why they were the favoured option.
quote="PatientGrasshopper" post="18.125463.2611966"]I am trying to compile a list of lies or misinformation they teach you in History class. So far this doesn't even apply to current events which would make this list far more interesting. Do you have any you think you want to add or any rebuttals. Also note for those in other countries, this is written from an American perspective.
Lie #1
Communism and Fascism are opposites. The truth is they are both totalitarian governments run by dictators who oppose individuality. In fact the Nazis were the National Socialist German Worker'S Party.
Lie #2
Europe was better under Stalin than Hitler. The fact is Stalin was responsible for more deaths in Europe than Hitler was.
Lie #3
Inflation is a natural process of the Economy. The truth is inflation can be avoided or at the very least minimized if the Government didn't continue to over mint money and if we actually had money that was backed by something.
Lie #4
The civil war was fought primarily over slavery. The fact is, although slavery was on issue,the main one was state's rights vs. Federal power. If the main focus was slavery than states like Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri would have joined the South, they had slaves and were Northern states, and additionally the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to them.[/quote]
#2 This is true. He was just smarter about it. By carefully picking his fights on the international realm, creating a way to hide his transgressions, and being a flag waving hero in WWII, he was able to avoid the stigma that Hitler had. It's the difference between a smart evil dictator and a stupid evil dictator.
#3 I have no clue. I fell asleep in economics class.
#4 Also correct, but slavery was the "flag waving" reason for the masses, and was a major reason.
Not the OP, but let's answer them.
#5 Yes and no. Pilgrims did not survive very well, but not all stole from the native Americans. The Natives actually helped them! Cuz they were nice people and had no clue why those pale humans ended up on their shore. It was a few years later that the stealing and pillaging started, not at the beginning.
Aside: Roanoake was the first English Colony, but it failed. Jamestowne was the first successful one. And to be picky, Spain wins for colonising the US with Florida.
#6 Since there wasn't a war, nobody didn't defeat nobody. The "Cold War" wasn't a declaration of war. So this statement is false in that regard. Since I grew up in the Cold War era and watch the fall of it, I remember it was declared that Democracy had triumphed over Communism. Not exactly true either (China is still running and neither are a true Communist state) but it is easier to say, "US won the Cold War" to get a point across. IF it was a real war, then yes we won.
Lie #1
Communism and Fascism are opposites. The truth is they are both totalitarian governments run by dictators who oppose individuality. In fact the Nazis were the National Socialist German Worker'S Party.
Lie #2
Europe was better under Stalin than Hitler. The fact is Stalin was responsible for more deaths in Europe than Hitler was.
Lie #3
Inflation is a natural process of the Economy. The truth is inflation can be avoided or at the very least minimized if the Government didn't continue to over mint money and if we actually had money that was backed by something.
Lie #4
The civil war was fought primarily over slavery. The fact is, although slavery was on issue,the main one was state's rights vs. Federal power. If the main focus was slavery than states like Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri would have joined the South, they had slaves and were Northern states, and additionally the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to them.[/quote]
#1. Wrong Communism is supposed to be run by the people, if you ever read Marx. Fascism is a totalarist state where the leader of the country is elected (or apointed) in and decides he is running the country, usually by rigging the voting process. COmmunism, there is no leader. There has been no country that has been run by COmmunism. Socialism is something totally different but is like communism in the fact that the people either pay/benefit from something because it is "owned" by the people, aka the government. US Steel and Amtrak are two American examples.Cama Zots said:
#2 This is true. He was just smarter about it. By carefully picking his fights on the international realm, creating a way to hide his transgressions, and being a flag waving hero in WWII, he was able to avoid the stigma that Hitler had. It's the difference between a smart evil dictator and a stupid evil dictator.
#3 I have no clue. I fell asleep in economics class.
#4 Also correct, but slavery was the "flag waving" reason for the masses, and was a major reason.
Not the OP, but let's answer them.
#5 Yes and no. Pilgrims did not survive very well, but not all stole from the native Americans. The Natives actually helped them! Cuz they were nice people and had no clue why those pale humans ended up on their shore. It was a few years later that the stealing and pillaging started, not at the beginning.
Aside: Roanoake was the first English Colony, but it failed. Jamestowne was the first successful one. And to be picky, Spain wins for colonising the US with Florida.
#6 Since there wasn't a war, nobody didn't defeat nobody. The "Cold War" wasn't a declaration of war. So this statement is false in that regard. Since I grew up in the Cold War era and watch the fall of it, I remember it was declared that Democracy had triumphed over Communism. Not exactly true either (China is still running and neither are a true Communist state) but it is easier to say, "US won the Cold War" to get a point across. IF it was a real war, then yes we won.
Maraveno:
I don't pick on english very often but I did have some trouble reading that.
If I understood that correctly, I will say that you are correct. A lot of horrible things WERE done to Indians. The morally ambigious stuff however happened later on during periods of expansion, and was the result of attitudes that were gained by how things played out on the East Coast.
Generally speaking when tribes started getting run off in the east, they migrated west and conflicted with other tribes. Not being stupid everyone figured out that it was the colonists who were responsible for the problems. As the colonists expanded further they pushed more tribes back into other tribes and created more hatred and conflict.
Needless to say Indians started attacking the Colonists for being responsible, and ultimatly lost. They did some pretty bad things too like trying to poison wells at night to kill towns (and halt expansion), kidnap and torture women and children and leave mutilated corpses around to scare people out of territory so the colonists wouldn't expand through it, and everything else.
It was ultimatly a culture war, even if the colonists were organized on a greater scale. One the Indians lost, but in the end nobody's hands were "clean" either in the beginning or in later conflicts during the expansion.
Yes, Indians were hunted and driven off like vermin, targeted with primitive germ warfare, and everything else.
As a conquered people, while treated very well compared to others throughout history, their treatment wasn't exactly nice. For example people talk about the so called "Trail Of Tears" (way down the line historically) as a horrible American Atrocity, with all the people who died on the way, etc... BUT it's also notable that throughout history most conquerers wouldn't have bothered to try and relocate them at any cost, they would have just killed everyone and called it a day.
It's also notable that many (but not all) later examples of "white man cheating the Indian" are bogus especially in a lot of cases where claims went to court. While Indians are quick to invoke the term "Sovreign Nation" (especially nowadays) part of the agreements that gave them land put them under the jusisdiction of the federal goverment. This is why Federal Marshals have authority on reservations where State Police and such do not under most circumstances.
In many places Indians also agreed to work with the civil authorities of the surrounding areas, and while the police might not have direct authority, they DO have to follow local and state zoning laws (ie you can't build a mile tall billboard with a giant neon Indian Head for your casino that can be seen off the reservation without permission from the State and oftentimes the town... there have been actual issues about stuff like this).
At any rate, some of the famous Indian relocations and "crimes" fell under things like eminent domain. For example if a natural resource like gold (which used to be the standard for our currency) or oil is found the goverment has the right to see that it is harvested for the benefit of everyone in the nation. It doesn't matter if your an Indian or not, in the end that stuff comes out of the ground. It can get complicated as I understand things (since the property owner still owns the resource even if it must be exploited). Over the years churchs and graveyards have been relocated, houses have been lost, etc... in many cases you see situations where Indians demanded that things like sacred grounds not be disturbed, refused a cut of the profits, and had to be relocated by force, and then later going "waait a second we want a share of that" decades after the fact when they blew their chance.
See, non-Indians can be treated the same exact way. If the goverment needs to do something for the public good it CAN force you out of your house and take your land. This is a very contreversial power, and got a lot of attention fairly recently right where I live due to the planned renovations of an area called Fort Trumbull here in New London.
The basic gist of the issue involved in Fort Trumbull (which the goverment succeeded with despite massive outcry) was that the goverment basically wanted to oust a bunch of people for urban development rather than a resource or public works project (like a road). Basically it took private land away from the owners, and sold it to a private company to launch a development that the goverment felt would benefit the local area.
The whole thing however largely coming down to the developers basically working with the goverment to muscle people out of their lands so it wouldn't have to pay them to buy it conventionally. See if you feel that an area is ripe for development and can make like $20 million dollars a year, the guy owning parts of the land that you need might justifyably believe that his property is now worth FAR more than he paid for it and say "okay well, the land only cost me $50,000, but I want 5 million for it since your going to make 4x that amount in the first year according to your own estimates and have this thing running indefinatly".
Eminent Domain basically meant that the goverment came running in, "reimbursed" the people based on the "book value" of their property, and then sold the property to the development company in exchange for the higher taxes they would get from the development (and whatever seedy kickbacks you don't hear about).
That's a basic version, and it's pretty recent (I also confess to a fairly bad memory I might be missing some of the drama) you should be able to look it up. The goverment above is Local/State however, though it did go to the federal level during the battle.
The basic point of this is that the same powers used on Native Americans have also been used on regular American citizens. While a lot of people like to scream "Noes, it's differant" in the end it comes down to the same type of stuff.
In theory an American Citizen can be kicked off his land by the goverment and forcibly relocated for reasons of resources/public works/and now apparently economic development. The major differance is that if your typical redneck finds oil on his property he has a Jed Clampett Joygasm and gladly gives up his house, and does whatever the goverment tells him to collect on all that oil money. Either starting his own oil company, or selling out to one of the bigger ones for a huge amount of dough (of course the odds of ever hitting untapped oil in the US are basically zero, this is just an example). They don't go "noes, this is my land" and force the National Guard to roll in, evict them, and effectively turn down the resources as part of the protest along the way as part of the process.
I know many will of course disagree, but this is how I understand things.
I have a lot of pro-native american views (having worked for two tribes) but I depart from the politically correct version on a lot of the big issues.
I don't pick on english very often but I did have some trouble reading that.
If I understood that correctly, I will say that you are correct. A lot of horrible things WERE done to Indians. The morally ambigious stuff however happened later on during periods of expansion, and was the result of attitudes that were gained by how things played out on the East Coast.
Generally speaking when tribes started getting run off in the east, they migrated west and conflicted with other tribes. Not being stupid everyone figured out that it was the colonists who were responsible for the problems. As the colonists expanded further they pushed more tribes back into other tribes and created more hatred and conflict.
Needless to say Indians started attacking the Colonists for being responsible, and ultimatly lost. They did some pretty bad things too like trying to poison wells at night to kill towns (and halt expansion), kidnap and torture women and children and leave mutilated corpses around to scare people out of territory so the colonists wouldn't expand through it, and everything else.
It was ultimatly a culture war, even if the colonists were organized on a greater scale. One the Indians lost, but in the end nobody's hands were "clean" either in the beginning or in later conflicts during the expansion.
Yes, Indians were hunted and driven off like vermin, targeted with primitive germ warfare, and everything else.
As a conquered people, while treated very well compared to others throughout history, their treatment wasn't exactly nice. For example people talk about the so called "Trail Of Tears" (way down the line historically) as a horrible American Atrocity, with all the people who died on the way, etc... BUT it's also notable that throughout history most conquerers wouldn't have bothered to try and relocate them at any cost, they would have just killed everyone and called it a day.
It's also notable that many (but not all) later examples of "white man cheating the Indian" are bogus especially in a lot of cases where claims went to court. While Indians are quick to invoke the term "Sovreign Nation" (especially nowadays) part of the agreements that gave them land put them under the jusisdiction of the federal goverment. This is why Federal Marshals have authority on reservations where State Police and such do not under most circumstances.
In many places Indians also agreed to work with the civil authorities of the surrounding areas, and while the police might not have direct authority, they DO have to follow local and state zoning laws (ie you can't build a mile tall billboard with a giant neon Indian Head for your casino that can be seen off the reservation without permission from the State and oftentimes the town... there have been actual issues about stuff like this).
At any rate, some of the famous Indian relocations and "crimes" fell under things like eminent domain. For example if a natural resource like gold (which used to be the standard for our currency) or oil is found the goverment has the right to see that it is harvested for the benefit of everyone in the nation. It doesn't matter if your an Indian or not, in the end that stuff comes out of the ground. It can get complicated as I understand things (since the property owner still owns the resource even if it must be exploited). Over the years churchs and graveyards have been relocated, houses have been lost, etc... in many cases you see situations where Indians demanded that things like sacred grounds not be disturbed, refused a cut of the profits, and had to be relocated by force, and then later going "waait a second we want a share of that" decades after the fact when they blew their chance.
See, non-Indians can be treated the same exact way. If the goverment needs to do something for the public good it CAN force you out of your house and take your land. This is a very contreversial power, and got a lot of attention fairly recently right where I live due to the planned renovations of an area called Fort Trumbull here in New London.
The basic gist of the issue involved in Fort Trumbull (which the goverment succeeded with despite massive outcry) was that the goverment basically wanted to oust a bunch of people for urban development rather than a resource or public works project (like a road). Basically it took private land away from the owners, and sold it to a private company to launch a development that the goverment felt would benefit the local area.
The whole thing however largely coming down to the developers basically working with the goverment to muscle people out of their lands so it wouldn't have to pay them to buy it conventionally. See if you feel that an area is ripe for development and can make like $20 million dollars a year, the guy owning parts of the land that you need might justifyably believe that his property is now worth FAR more than he paid for it and say "okay well, the land only cost me $50,000, but I want 5 million for it since your going to make 4x that amount in the first year according to your own estimates and have this thing running indefinatly".
Eminent Domain basically meant that the goverment came running in, "reimbursed" the people based on the "book value" of their property, and then sold the property to the development company in exchange for the higher taxes they would get from the development (and whatever seedy kickbacks you don't hear about).
That's a basic version, and it's pretty recent (I also confess to a fairly bad memory I might be missing some of the drama) you should be able to look it up. The goverment above is Local/State however, though it did go to the federal level during the battle.
The basic point of this is that the same powers used on Native Americans have also been used on regular American citizens. While a lot of people like to scream "Noes, it's differant" in the end it comes down to the same type of stuff.
In theory an American Citizen can be kicked off his land by the goverment and forcibly relocated for reasons of resources/public works/and now apparently economic development. The major differance is that if your typical redneck finds oil on his property he has a Jed Clampett Joygasm and gladly gives up his house, and does whatever the goverment tells him to collect on all that oil money. Either starting his own oil company, or selling out to one of the bigger ones for a huge amount of dough (of course the odds of ever hitting untapped oil in the US are basically zero, this is just an example). They don't go "noes, this is my land" and force the National Guard to roll in, evict them, and effectively turn down the resources as part of the protest along the way as part of the process.
I know many will of course disagree, but this is how I understand things.
I have a lot of pro-native american views (having worked for two tribes) but I depart from the politically correct version on a lot of the big issues.
Where did all of you people go to school? I went to school in the south eastern united states, and all of these 'lies' you were taught... I was taught the facts, or it wasn't touched upon at all, we were just encouraged to go figure it out for ourselves. Was it because I went to public school? I don't know, but man...
You more or less ninja'd me there.Just to elaborate Japan's minimum conditions where the retention of the Emperor- the Americans where worried that if the Emperor stays he could be detrimental to the process of de-militarising and democratising Japan. So they used the atom bombs. It is however an arguable point though that if the Americans had used other means- such as diplomatic persuasion- to get Japan to surrender unconditionally then the atom bombs where not necessary.Faps said:
However the Americans did not have time on their side, the Soviet Union was sweeping into China and Korea as Stalin was attempting to assert his influence over East Asia. Naturally the Americans did not want this- Worst case scenario is that Japan, like Germany is divided between the western democratic allies and the Soviets. The Americans wanted to end the war quickly to make sure that as much of the Far East could be spared as possible from Soviet domination. North Korea was not so lucky, however South Korea and Japan where.
When the Americans used the atom bombs the Japanese, reluctantly, sent a message to the Americans saying that they would surrender on the one condition that the Emperor stays. The Americans replied that the Emperor could stay- but only if he is subject to the commander of Allied forces- this way, America got the quick surrender it was looking for, and it seemed hopeful that the Emperor would not cause a problem.
I remember my old history teacher, who had taught in Japan, that while Japanese school children are taught about the atomic bombs they are not taught about WW2. Which of course leads to a very unbalanced view to history.
With regards to the British system, it irked me how, while being taught about the Industrial Revolution- we where never taught about the British Empire- which always struck me as being a bit odd- it would be like learning about Roman History and never touching on the Roman Empire. I know that Britain's Imperial past is not a pleasant one- the Opium Wars where basically fought so we could sell illegal drugs to the Chinese- I think the spark that set off the Indian Mutiny was that the Indians serving in the Empire's Army did not want to use muskets where the gunpowder packets where lined with pig grease.
I know that Britain's Imperial history is not a virtuous one, but i think its safe to say that its roll in Britain's, and indeed global history, is to big to ignore.
The Civil War was not entirely about state's rights. That is merely a ploy used by southerners to deflect blame for something that was and is obviously wrong. And yeah, we're taught mutiple reasons for the Civil War these days but to us you're still slave owning dingbats. Fuck your rights. Why should I sympathize over state's rights with people who didn't have a problem getting 5 or 6 hundred thousand Americans killed because planatation owners needed slaves or because they were just proud of their states? Screw the South. Every time I see someone wearing a Confederate flag I want to beat them to death.
And yes, if the South did "rise again" we'd mop the floor with them, again. Southern states get more federal money than they pay into the system (and ***** about us the whole time, go figure), if that was cut off they'd shit their pants when they realized a nice chunk of their money is gone. Oops, trumped by the Northerners you've been fucking for decades. Leeches.
"Oh but the South would have won!" Nope. Sorry. You're like Germany in World War Two, great generals sure, even good soldiers. Too bad you don't have enough stuff to keep playing. There's a factory practically every square mile where I live. What do you have? A Honda plant? Oh man, that kind of industry is truly awe inspiring. Let's not forget all the steel plants and unemployed workers in the rust belt who would gladly go back to the factory to pump out war materials. In fact, I think a good civil war could even jumpstart all the heavy industry dickhead conservative businessmen shipped to foreigners (Real Americans let the Chinese do it!) and inspire a frightening brand of nationalism that we haven't seen since World War Two.
"Actually, the north only won the war by accident. Robert E. Lee had a full plan for invading the union, and if some fuckwit southern officer hadn't dropped it off in a cigar box then the south could very well have won. Industrial capacity and financial resources don't mean shit when a child could be a better commander then the union generals."
"Aww man! I had this big plan drawn up but I misplaced it! Oh well, we lose." Get real. If that plan did exist do you really think they couldn't just draw the plans up again? Are we to believe there were no copies? That good generals like Lee (He went to West Point. He was no dummy.) are just lost without their stuff written and in front of them? Nope. The South was ground down by our factories, our money, and our boatloads of Irish immigrants. The Union army wasn't great. We only had a few decent generals (and Sherman, who dealt with the South the right way), but we did manage to hold out against the Confederates when it counted. The Confederates failed to move into the North fast enough, we held em off, we built up, and we steamrolled em. Just like the Russians on the Eastern Front. The Confederacy had a chance to win early on, they blew it, end of story.
And yes, if the South did "rise again" we'd mop the floor with them, again. Southern states get more federal money than they pay into the system (and ***** about us the whole time, go figure), if that was cut off they'd shit their pants when they realized a nice chunk of their money is gone. Oops, trumped by the Northerners you've been fucking for decades. Leeches.
"Oh but the South would have won!" Nope. Sorry. You're like Germany in World War Two, great generals sure, even good soldiers. Too bad you don't have enough stuff to keep playing. There's a factory practically every square mile where I live. What do you have? A Honda plant? Oh man, that kind of industry is truly awe inspiring. Let's not forget all the steel plants and unemployed workers in the rust belt who would gladly go back to the factory to pump out war materials. In fact, I think a good civil war could even jumpstart all the heavy industry dickhead conservative businessmen shipped to foreigners (Real Americans let the Chinese do it!) and inspire a frightening brand of nationalism that we haven't seen since World War Two.
"Actually, the north only won the war by accident. Robert E. Lee had a full plan for invading the union, and if some fuckwit southern officer hadn't dropped it off in a cigar box then the south could very well have won. Industrial capacity and financial resources don't mean shit when a child could be a better commander then the union generals."
"Aww man! I had this big plan drawn up but I misplaced it! Oh well, we lose." Get real. If that plan did exist do you really think they couldn't just draw the plans up again? Are we to believe there were no copies? That good generals like Lee (He went to West Point. He was no dummy.) are just lost without their stuff written and in front of them? Nope. The South was ground down by our factories, our money, and our boatloads of Irish immigrants. The Union army wasn't great. We only had a few decent generals (and Sherman, who dealt with the South the right way), but we did manage to hold out against the Confederates when it counted. The Confederates failed to move into the North fast enough, we held em off, we built up, and we steamrolled em. Just like the Russians on the Eastern Front. The Confederacy had a chance to win early on, they blew it, end of story.
On the argument over the Communist, fascist similarities/differences the lie everyone is taught is that they are opposites and problem results in not that they are actually similar it is that its pointless to compare them extensively anyway.
Problem one being that 'fascism' is no where near as well defined as communism made worse still by the common example is the Nazis who were really just racist opportunists nothing but their racial policy and militarism is consistent. Problem two is that technically communism never has occurred in the way it was supposed to i.e. it never got further that the 'dictatorship of the Proletariat' and occurred first in Russia one of the least suited countries for it.
All in all to compare them as if 'they are different' they 'are similar' is impossible since the example on one side lacks a real definition and the other although defined only has very corrupt examples.
If forced to pick i would say opposites since Fascism usually in tails anti Communism as a key tenet and the rise of Fascist powers were often done to oppose Communists.
PS if i repeated ground sorry but i couldn't read every reply on here
Problem one being that 'fascism' is no where near as well defined as communism made worse still by the common example is the Nazis who were really just racist opportunists nothing but their racial policy and militarism is consistent. Problem two is that technically communism never has occurred in the way it was supposed to i.e. it never got further that the 'dictatorship of the Proletariat' and occurred first in Russia one of the least suited countries for it.
All in all to compare them as if 'they are different' they 'are similar' is impossible since the example on one side lacks a real definition and the other although defined only has very corrupt examples.
If forced to pick i would say opposites since Fascism usually in tails anti Communism as a key tenet and the rise of Fascist powers were often done to oppose Communists.
PS if i repeated ground sorry but i couldn't read every reply on here
Both systems most defiantely suck. Both have a very strong sense of "us and them". ("arayan"-"sub human" or "homo sovieticus" - "capitalist pig") Nazis exterminate the ones they deem not worthy of being alive, categorise people and organise military parades. Anyone who dares to critisize the leaders gets shot/a nice train ride. The standard of living is moderate, not brilliant, but people won't starve to death. In the Soviet (stalinist) system, the goverment decides who get shipped to siberia(and die), who get shipped to a gulag(possibly die), who are forced to move to a nother country and everyone has to join the red army(also possibly die). The KGB stalks and silences people and Kreml orders military parades to be organised. The standards of living are poor, food shortages common. (In the sixties the americans photographed the soviet lands with balckbird sr-71s. the massive collectivised fields were desolate, strange green dots here and there: the small privately run farms.)lostclause said:
Final point: You wouldn't want to live in either one of the systems, the risk of getting killed is about the same, you get 1 cookie more in the other, but the bosses shout at you.
Moving back to the Soviet union. Stalin was well aware of Hitler's plans. Uncle Joe relied on his standing army of 7 million men to act as a proper meat shield(it didn't, luckily Joe had more, lotsa more). Stalin was not a brilliant tactician and thus armed his soldiers with outdated gear and had most of the officers shot. Misdirected production caused the red army to take a beating at first. The Molotof-Ribbentrop treaty and the sectet add-ons included the invasion plans for the division of eastern europe and fennoscandia. Both the nazis ant the soviets were on a warpath in 1939. The Soviet attack to east poland would have happened regardless of what the germans did. Also one of Stalin's most epic fails, the assault to Finland, had been designed already in 1397.
Stalin may not have been a tactician, but he was a rather skilled dictator and recognised danger when he saw it: 2 superpowers right next to each other, both with immensly strong huge armed froces, both driven by an ideology bent on world domination and neither trusted the other, everyone in Berlin and Moscow knew what was inevitable.
Got any proof OP? Anything at all about this? No? Ah. Interesting. I think I'll blindly believe you.