|
|
Post by Baise-moi on Jun 2, 2017 17:46:49 GMT -4
Just a little thing I've been thinking of recently.
It sincerely bothers me that the UK's sovereignty over the Falklands, Gibraltar, and Northern Ireland are still debated to this day.
Gibraltar shouldn't even be questionable. Over 300 years ago it was ceded to the UK in a treaty that specifically used the term 'forever'. There it is, set in stone, but people still think that Spain has a valid claim to it despite failing to recapture it more than once afterward. Not only that, but every time so far that a referendum has been held, an overwhelming amount wanted to remain British. In the 2002 referendum, 99% did. And this whole idea that Gibraltar belongs to Spain was started by a fascist dictator, Francisco Franco.
As for the Falklands, only three people in the 2013 referendum wanted to be something other than British. Hell, they lost a war over the islands already and failed to take them back from the British, who I'm fairly certain had a claim to it before Argentina even EXISTED as a country. Their argument is something like 'since spain had it once, the rightful ownership goes to us now' which is just unbelievably stupid.
Once again, the most recent votes of Northern Ireland show that they want to remain British as well. Ireland, which is the only nation that could possibly even dispute this, removed any claim it had to Northern Ireland in 1999, in an updated constitution. If even they have admitted it, then I don't see why there's still disagreement over it. Though it definitely is less noticeable than the other two.
In the end it just seems certain countries are trying to start something petty using outdated, irrelevant, and usually invalid arguments to support their claims to another country's territory. It's like asking why the US owns Alaska or some shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Death on Jun 2, 2017 18:07:16 GMT -4
Nah, People in NI voted to Stay and got ignored by Britain. Not that I want unification but there has been a significant increase of Republican support. Also, this sounds like it's coming from a person from England.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 2, 2017 18:32:31 GMT -4
If Spain gets Gibraltar "back" it should give Ceuta and Melilla "back" to Morocco.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 2, 2017 18:34:49 GMT -4
Nah, People in NI voted to Stay and got ignored by Britain. Not that I want unification but there has been a significant increase of Republican support. Also, this sounds like it's coming from a person from England. [controversial opinion that I'm not thinking through]I'm in favour of unification - that is, reuinification of the entire British Empire. The 13 colonies, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, Ireland, Cyprus, Arabia, Egypt - it all ought to be British again, and the queen should have more power than parliament.[/controversial opinion that I'm not thinking through] |
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 2, 2017 18:38:21 GMT -4
Nah, People in NI voted to Stay and got ignored by Britain. Not that I want unification but there has been a significant increase of Republican support. Also, this sounds like it's coming from a person from England. [controversial opinion that I'm not thinking through]I'm in favour of unification - that is, reuinification of the entire British Empire. The 13 colonies, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, Ireland, Cyprus, Arabia, Egypt - it all ought to be British again, and the queen should have more power than parliament.[/controversial opinion that I'm not thinking through] In all seriousness, though, I don't get why people hate colonialism/imperialism as much as they do. The only difference between what the Brits and French did and what the Americans and the Russians did at that same point in history was that Russia and America are (mostly) contiguous landmasses while the British Empire and the French Second Empire were overseas. EDIT: I am not downplaying in any way the fact that the British did some horrible things during Imperialism; I'm simply saying that, in much the same way as Russia doesn't currently give Jews subhuman legal status or that America is at least trying to make amends for Manifest Destiny, slavery, etc., if the British Empire had remained intact until this day I bet it would be much more egalitarian than it was during the 1800s. |
|
|
|
Post by Baise-moi on Jun 2, 2017 22:46:50 GMT -4
Yes, I'm from England (don't live there currently), but I consider the United Kingdom to be one unified country - as it is and should be.
Either way, I'm not referring to the Brexit vote. That was the decision of the United Kingdom as a whole, not as a divided group of territories. In general, the majority (just barely) voted to leave the EU. What I'm talking about is Northern Ireland's state of actually being part of the United Kingdom as opposed to Ireland, or being its own completely separate entity from the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 2, 2017 23:18:20 GMT -4
Yes, I'm from England (don't live there currently), but I consider the United Kingdom to be one unified country - as it is and should be. Either way, I'm not referring to the Brexit vote. That was the decision of the United Kingdom as a whole, not as a divided group of territories. In general, the majority (just barely) voted to leave the EU. What I'm talking about is Northern Ireland's state of actually being part of the United Kingdom as opposed to Ireland, or being its own completely separate entity from the UK. If you want to be technical about it, the United Kingdom, like Belgium, is what's called a multinational country. |
|
|
|
Post by Baise-moi on Jun 5, 2017 15:05:02 GMT -4
Adding more onto these territorial disputes, although not British, some people seriously believe that Germany should be given land such as Prussia and Silesia from Poland (which also had a fair amount of land taken from it by the Soviets in WW2). I'd like to point out how absurd this claim is, because firstly the loss of land is punishment for losing not just one, but two world wars. Honestly, the first one wasn't necessarily justified in my eyes. But without question it was, after the second world war. Germany got off easy. The Allies technically had the right to permanently break up Germany as they unconditionally surrendered. World War 2 was Germany's fault, and considering what they did in the war they should consider themselves lucky that they were able to keep what they did.
Losing a war has its drawbacks. You don't just get to claim that land which was rightfully integrated as part of another nation is something you still have a right to. There isn't even a sound argument. Germany didn't exist back in the days of Prussia, and the land which they claim was theirs first really wasn't. It's unbelievable to me that people can say that, after what Germany did during both world wars, they deserve any of their old land back from Poland. Or Russia, for that matter (Kaliningrad).
|
|
|
|
Post by Death on Jun 5, 2017 16:42:47 GMT -4
Adding more onto these territorial disputes, although not British, some people seriously believe that Germany should be given land such as Prussia and Silesia from Poland (which also had a fair amount of land taken from it by the Soviets in WW2). I'd like to point out how absurd this claim is, because firstly the loss of land is punishment for losing not just one, but two world wars. Honestly, the first one wasn't necessarily justified in my eyes. But without question it was, after the second world war. Germany got off easy. The Allies technically had the right to permanently break up Germany as they unconditionally surrendered. World War 2 was Germany's fault, and considering what they did in the war they should consider themselves lucky that they were able to keep what they did. Losing a war has its drawbacks. You don't just get to claim that land which was rightfully integrated as part of another nation is something you still have a right to. There isn't even a sound argument. Germany didn't exist back in the days of Prussia, and the land which they claim was theirs first really wasn't. It's unbelievable to me that people can say that, after what Germany did during both world wars, they deserve any of their old land back from Poland. Or Russia, for that matter (Kaliningrad). IDK The First World War was caused because all of the European powers were scared of each other, and basically did a Cold War for a while. When the war did break out, Britain was doing it because they wanted to stop the expansion of Germany's Empire, which is ironic considering they covered a quarter of the globe at the time. And another thing is, if the French (the Americans and British wanted to just let them off lightly, but the French didn't) had not given them such harsh sanctions, there would not have been a Second World War- and both Britain and France would still have their Empires because they wouldn't have exhausted their resources fighting the Second World War and would have been able to put down all the rebellions springing up across the world against them. Not that I agree with this- Imperialism is shiiiiiit, but I'm just making an observation. |
|
|
|
Post by Baise-moi on Jun 5, 2017 20:36:44 GMT -4
Adding more onto these territorial disputes, although not British, some people seriously believe that Germany should be given land such as Prussia and Silesia from Poland (which also had a fair amount of land taken from it by the Soviets in WW2). I'd like to point out how absurd this claim is, because firstly the loss of land is punishment for losing not just one, but two world wars. Honestly, the first one wasn't necessarily justified in my eyes. But without question it was, after the second world war. Germany got off easy. The Allies technically had the right to permanently break up Germany as they unconditionally surrendered. World War 2 was Germany's fault, and considering what they did in the war they should consider themselves lucky that they were able to keep what they did. Losing a war has its drawbacks. You don't just get to claim that land which was rightfully integrated as part of another nation is something you still have a right to. There isn't even a sound argument. Germany didn't exist back in the days of Prussia, and the land which they claim was theirs first really wasn't. It's unbelievable to me that people can say that, after what Germany did during both world wars, they deserve any of their old land back from Poland. Or Russia, for that matter (Kaliningrad). IDK The First World War was caused because all of the European powers were scared of each other, and basically did a Cold War for a while. When the war did break out, Britain was doing it because they wanted to stop the expansion of Germany's Empire, which is ironic considering they covered a quarter of the globe at the time. And another thing is, if the French (the Americans and British wanted to just let them off lightly, but the French didn't) had not given them such harsh sanctions, there would not have been a Second World War- and both Britain and France would still have their Empires because they wouldn't have exhausted their resources fighting the Second World War and would have been able to put down all the rebellions springing up across the world against them. Not that I agree with this- Imperialism is shiiiiiit, but I'm just making an observation. Personally, I don't think Germany deserved what they got after the First World War. It wasn't really fair to pin the blame entirely on them - although they had done some pretty lowly war crimes during the war, it wasn't even them who started it. I'd blame Russia or Austria-Hungary to be honest, but not Germany. They were punished extremely harshly, but I guess that's what happens when you lose a massive war and piss off a bunch of the world powers. And yeah, the French wanted to cripple Germany so bad that they would never recover from the war. They essentially believed that Germany should never start another war again. Maybe they were right, in a way, but to say Germany alone started the First World War is something I disagree with, and the ridiculously harsh terms (I think the territory loss was somewhat justified, but forcing them to take ALL the blame and reducing their military and humiliating them like that was sort of childish) weren't all necessary. After World War Two, though, Germany got off really easy. They surely started that one alone. Then again, so did the USSR, but that's what happens when you win the war, even if you're ruled by a dictator equally as bad as - or worse than - Hitler. |
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 5, 2017 20:52:13 GMT -4
IDK The First World War was caused because all of the European powers were scared of each other, and basically did a Cold War for a while. When the war did break out, Britain was doing it because they wanted to stop the expansion of Germany's Empire, which is ironic considering they covered a quarter of the globe at the time. And another thing is, if the French (the Americans and British wanted to just let them off lightly, but the French didn't) had not given them such harsh sanctions, there would not have been a Second World War- and both Britain and France would still have their Empires because they wouldn't have exhausted their resources fighting the Second World War and would have been able to put down all the rebellions springing up across the world against them. Not that I agree with this- Imperialism is shiiiiiit, but I'm just making an observation. Personally, I don't think Germany deserved what they got after the First World War. It wasn't really fair to pin the blame entirely on them - although they had done some pretty lowly war crimes during the war, it wasn't even them who started it. I'd blame Russia or Austria-Hungary to be honest, but not Germany. They were punished extremely harshly, but I guess that's what happens when you lose a massive war and piss off a bunch of the world powers. And yeah, the French wanted to cripple Germany so bad that they would never recover from the war. They essentially believed that Germany should never start another war again. Maybe they were right, in a way, but to say Germany alone started the First World War is something I disagree with, and the ridiculously harsh terms (I think the territory loss was somewhat justified, but forcing them to take ALL the blame and reducing their military and humiliating them like that was sort of childish) weren't all necessary. After World War Two, though, Germany got off really easy. They surely started that one alone. Then again, so did the USSR, but that's what happens when you win the war, even if you're ruled by a dictator equally as bad as - or worse than - Hitler. World War One was started by individuals, not nations. Extra Credits did a great series on it, from the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to the ego of Tsar Nicholas II clouding his better judgement, but the fact of the matter is that the war was started largely by individuals and the citizens of none of the countries wanted to go to war (instead, they wanted to play football against eachother over Christmas). |
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 5, 2017 21:07:42 GMT -4
Also the reason for France pushing for harsh terms for Germany in WWI was because France got destroyed in the Franco-Prussian War and considered WWI a chance for revenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kynikos on Jun 5, 2017 23:20:12 GMT -4
[controversial opinion that I'm not thinking through]I'm in favour of unification - that is, reuinification of the entire British Empire. The 13 colonies, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, Ireland, Cyprus, Arabia, Egypt - it all ought to be British again, and the queen should have more power than parliament.[/controversial opinion that I'm not thinking through] In all seriousness, though, I don't get why people hate colonialism/imperialism as much as they do. The only difference between what the Brits and French did and what the Americans and the Russians did at that same point in history was that Russia and America are (mostly) contiguous landmasses while the British Empire and the French Second Empire were overseas. EDIT: I am not downplaying in any way the fact that the British did some horrible things during Imperialism; I'm simply saying that, in much the same way as Russia doesn't currently give Jews subhuman legal status or that America is at least trying to make amends for Manifest Destiny, slavery, etc., if the British Empire had remained intact until this day I bet it would be much more egalitarian than it was during the 1800s. america was imperialistic to some extent. see philippines, cuba, and others. the british empire was simply 'doomed to fail' in a few words. with the advent of nationalism, regressive policies, and inability to project their power as they once did (for multitude of reasons). ireland and india were their two most rebellious colonies and any real hope of them holding on to them is laughable (i mean, i guess technically ireland is small enough for them just to genocide... but let's assume they don't). india in particular was a region britain never actually wanted control over but hey presto, look at the Company go. prestige and loot? sure, sign me and the rest of the isles up. canada, australia, and south africa were mostly self-autonomous and were largely in it by name the later you go. america and the ussr's stance on colonialism pretty just rubber stamped what everyone knew. france's inability to hold on to vietnam and then algeria are just case studies in why colonialism doesn't work. if you're looking for less colonialism more nationalism, yugoslavaia and the ottoman empire. nationalism put an axe to them. for it's time, it was probably the most effective way to assert power (netherlands, france, portugal, britain, spain) and you can clearly mark the decline of countries that didn't have this (notable exception being germany, but germany is weird and filled with '... and got fucked over, but it's ok they're better now'). the system collapsed for a reason russia's not really relevant. they just did some fucked up things to their populace and has their share of awful leaders. Adding more onto these territorial disputes, although not British, some people seriously believe that Germany should be given land such as Prussia and Silesia from Poland (which also had a fair amount of land taken from it by the Soviets in WW2). I'd like to point out how absurd this claim is, because firstly the loss of land is punishment for losing not just one, but two world wars. Honestly, the first one wasn't necessarily justified in my eyes. But without question it was, after the second world war. Germany got off easy. The Allies technically had the right to permanently break up Germany as they unconditionally surrendered. World War 2 was Germany's fault, and considering what they did in the war they should consider themselves lucky that they were able to keep what they did. Losing a war has its drawbacks. You don't just get to claim that land which was rightfully integrated as part of another nation is something you still have a right to. There isn't even a sound argument. Germany didn't exist back in the days of Prussia, and the land which they claim was theirs first really wasn't. It's unbelievable to me that people can say that, after what Germany did during both world wars, they deserve any of their old land back from Poland. Or Russia, for that matter (Kaliningrad). political concerns kept germany together. it's the cold war and guess who has a fucking ton of officers, scientists, and whatnot? germany does. and guess who's right on the front lines for the cold war? germany. there was no luck about it. no one was going to break germany apart again because it'll weaken their hand (and probably be a short lived effort). really, if they did split up germany i wouldn't be surprised if you saw a pan-germanic empire come out of it when the USSR fell. push for a mass unification instead of a 'unify W/E germany' movement? i'm not saying it would 100% happen but... the argument that germany isn't prussia is weird. they were the same people, had the same administration, and whatnot. they just effectively changed their names. it was essentially a higher title. prussia didn't stop existing when germany formed, it just became less prestigious then germany. wilhelm kept the kingdom of prussia in his title. if we were to use game terminology - prussia had enough territory to form germany. did prussia go away? no, the title of germany is just more significant as an empire level one. (if this makes sense) The First World War was caused because all of the European powers were scared of each other, and basically did a Cold War for a while. When the war did break out, Britain was doing it because they wanted to stop the expansion of Germany's Empire, which is ironic considering they covered a quarter of the globe at the time. And another thing is, if the French (the Americans and British wanted to just let them off lightly, but the French didn't) had not given them such harsh sanctions, there would not have been a Second World War- and both Britain and France would still have their Empires because they wouldn't have exhausted their resources fighting the Second World War and would have been able to put down all the rebellions springing up across the world against them. Not that I agree with this- Imperialism is shiiiiiit, but I'm just making an observation. france's colonial empire was falling apart really quickly anyway, despite what the french leaders tried to present at the time. france was not the same as napoleon's france. same with britain although to not the same extent. france was literally unable to stop vietnam despite american assistance (and eventually it became their war). the people simply didn't care about what amounted to worthless scraps of land and really, if the administration was at all sane they wouldn't have cared either. britain probably could have kept it together to the 60s, maybe longer due to american political concerns. but it wasn't going to last forever. kinda like arguing that if the axis didn't invade yugoslavia it would've stuck together since the croats wouldn't have gone all nationalist wow i wrote a ton for a site i'm barely active on. |
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 5, 2017 23:52:50 GMT -4
It's also worth noting that the Soviets heavily colonized East Prussia, so that the region is now much more Russian than German.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kynikos on Jun 5, 2017 23:56:07 GMT -4
It's also worth noting that the Soviets heavily colonized East Prussia, so that the region is now much more Russian than German. i don't 100% know this but didn't most of the resettlement schemes fail or was that just the germans |
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 5, 2017 23:57:36 GMT -4
It's also worth noting that the Soviets heavily colonized East Prussia, so that the region is now much more Russian than German. i don't 100% know this but didn't most of the resettlement schemes fail or was that just the germans When it was East Prussia the region was mostly ethnically German, and yet nowadays the Kaliningrad Oblast (as it's been renamed) is about 80% ethnically Russian. |
|
|
|
Post by Kynikos on Jun 5, 2017 23:58:35 GMT -4
oh
|
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 6, 2017 0:03:53 GMT -4
My sources are wikipedia, admittedly, but this is the page on modern ethnic statistics and everyone who's studied history knows that WWII started because Hitler wanted East Prussia back because it was both mostly German and considered "an integral part of the German country" or some such bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by Baise-moi on Jun 6, 2017 15:08:11 GMT -4
Prussia historically is Germany I guess, but that doesn't mean Germany is entitled to the land that Prussia once owned. Besides, fairly certain that land was slavic before it was ever germanic/Prussian. Besides, if we reverted borders back to what countries had way back when, the borders of Europe would be crazy. Instead it was decided that letting Stalin have a field day with the borders of eastern Europe and being generally terrible at drawing maps was the better option. Germany does not have ANY claim to that land, and if their only ground is that Prussia (which I meant was a different state than Germany by the way, though it technically was an integral part) once had it, then such an archaic statement is ridiculous and invalid.
The Allies had the right to do whatever they wanted to Germany, and that included breaking it apart permanently if they so wished. They didn't, but they could have. One of the terms of reunification of east and west was that they would rescind all former claims to any of the land that was given up, and that was what they agreed to. "Prussia", as I said earlier, wasn't even originally German. At least, not the land itself.
At any rate I think they got what they deserved, or actually got off way too easy after all they did. Then again, the USSR arguably did worse... But the victors of war are almost never punished, so they didn't get hit quite as hard as Germany did for losing the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Death on Jun 6, 2017 15:20:12 GMT -4
Prussia historically is Germany I guess, but that doesn't mean Germany is entitled to the land that Prussia once owned. Besides, fairly certain that land was slavic before it was ever germanic/Prussian. Besides, if we reverted borders back to what countries had way back when, the borders of Europe would be crazy. Instead it was decided that letting Stalin have a field day with the borders of eastern Europe and being generally terrible at drawing maps was the better option. Germany does not have ANY claim to that land, and if their only ground is that Prussia (which I meant was a different state than Germany by the way, though it technically was an integral part) once had it, then such an archaic statement is ridiculous and invalid. The Allies had the right to do whatever they wanted to Germany, and that included breaking it apart permanently if they so wished. They didn't, but they could have. One of the terms of reunification of east and west was that they would rescind all former claims to any of the land that was given up, and that was what they agreed to. "Prussia", as I said earlier, wasn't even originally German. At least, not the land itself. At any rate I think they got what they deserved, or actually got off way too easy after all they did. Then again, the USSR arguably did worse... But the victors of war are almost never punished, so they didn't get hit quite as hard as Germany did for losing the war. Stalin was fucking crazy, Hitler was fucking crazy and stupid, and for all the stuff he did for his country- Winston Churchill was kind of an asshole too and so was Roosevelt if you actually look into it. Most people in power have negative traits, and a lot of them sometimes don't see things like the people would. An example of this would be Catherine the Great- arguably one of the best world leaders, yet still fucked over Serfs by allowing their masters to 'look after their interests'. She also had no qualms about completely erasing Poland from existence. So we can't really say who was worse than who- we can have our opinions on it (I think Hitler was fucking horrible, and Stalin was too), but we cannot say entirely for definite that country X was in the right or country X was in the wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Baise-moi on Jun 6, 2017 16:18:06 GMT -4
Prussia historically is Germany I guess, but that doesn't mean Germany is entitled to the land that Prussia once owned. Besides, fairly certain that land was slavic before it was ever germanic/Prussian. Besides, if we reverted borders back to what countries had way back when, the borders of Europe would be crazy. Instead it was decided that letting Stalin have a field day with the borders of eastern Europe and being generally terrible at drawing maps was the better option. Germany does not have ANY claim to that land, and if their only ground is that Prussia (which I meant was a different state than Germany by the way, though it technically was an integral part) once had it, then such an archaic statement is ridiculous and invalid. The Allies had the right to do whatever they wanted to Germany, and that included breaking it apart permanently if they so wished. They didn't, but they could have. One of the terms of reunification of east and west was that they would rescind all former claims to any of the land that was given up, and that was what they agreed to. "Prussia", as I said earlier, wasn't even originally German. At least, not the land itself. At any rate I think they got what they deserved, or actually got off way too easy after all they did. Then again, the USSR arguably did worse... But the victors of war are almost never punished, so they didn't get hit quite as hard as Germany did for losing the war. Stalin was fucking crazy, Hitler was fucking crazy and stupid, and for all the stuff he did for his country- Winston Churchill was kind of an asshole too and so was Roosevelt if you actually look into it. Most people in power have negative traits, and a lot of them sometimes don't see things like the people would. An example of this would be Catherine the Great- arguably one of the best world leaders, yet still fucked over Serfs by allowing their masters to 'look after their interests'. She also had no qualms about completely erasing Poland from existence. So we can't really say who was worse than who- we can have our opinions on it (I think Hitler was fucking horrible, and Stalin was too), but we cannot say entirely for definite that country X was in the right or country X was in the wrong. I definitely agree. I do think some countries are certainly more wrong than others, though. Nazi Germany (Hitler) and Soviet Union (Stalin) come to mind during World War II as the ones that stand out. But yeah, all leaders have some negative traits. A lot are generally self-centered assholes. You're right about that. In this case it kind of goes to show that no matter who committed atrocities, the only ones who will ever be punished for it are the losers. Victors, for obvious reasons, pretty much always get off scot-free, like the Soviet Union did. Because really, what was anyone going to do about them? They were virtually unstoppable. EDIT: Mao was also an evil motherfucker. |
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 6, 2017 20:39:26 GMT -4
Prussia historically is Germany I guess, but that doesn't mean Germany is entitled to the land that Prussia once owned. Besides, fairly certain that land was slavic before it was ever germanic/Prussian. Besides, if we reverted borders back to what countries had way back when, the borders of Europe would be crazy. Instead it was decided that letting Stalin have a field day with the borders of eastern Europe and being generally terrible at drawing maps was the better option. Germany does not have ANY claim to that land, and if their only ground is that Prussia (which I meant was a different state than Germany by the way, though it technically was an integral part) once had it, then such an archaic statement is ridiculous and invalid. The Allies had the right to do whatever they wanted to Germany, and that included breaking it apart permanently if they so wished. They didn't, but they could have. One of the terms of reunification of east and west was that they would rescind all former claims to any of the land that was given up, and that was what they agreed to. "Prussia", as I said earlier, wasn't even originally German. At least, not the land itself. At any rate I think they got what they deserved, or actually got off way too easy after all they did. Then again, the USSR arguably did worse... But the victors of war are almost never punished, so they didn't get hit quite as hard as Germany did for losing the war. Yes, but given that everyone here is from a NATO country, I think we'd all prefer if Russia didn't control East Prussia either. Also, it was the Baltic peoples who were there before the Germans, and that was during the 13th century. |
|
|
|
Post by Bannanachair on Jun 6, 2017 20:43:46 GMT -4
Stalin was fucking crazy, Hitler was fucking crazy and stupid, and for all the stuff he did for his country- Winston Churchill was kind of an asshole too and so was Roosevelt if you actually look into it. Most people in power have negative traits, and a lot of them sometimes don't see things like the people would. An example of this would be Catherine the Great- arguably one of the best world leaders, yet still fucked over Serfs by allowing their masters to 'look after their interests'. She also had no qualms about completely erasing Poland from existence. So we can't really say who was worse than who- we can have our opinions on it (I think Hitler was fucking horrible, and Stalin was too), but we cannot say entirely for definite that country X was in the right or country X was in the wrong. I definitely agree. I do think some countries are certainly more wrong than others, though. Nazi Germany (Hitler) and Soviet Union (Stalin) come to mind during World War II as the ones that stand out. But yeah, all leaders have some negative traits. A lot are generally self-centered assholes. You're right about that. In this case it kind of goes to show that no matter who committed atrocities, the only ones who will ever be punished for it are the losers. Victors, for obvious reasons, pretty much always get off scot-free, like the Soviet Union did. Because really, what was anyone going to do about them? They were virtually unstoppable. EDIT: Mao was also an evil motherfucker. If we're going to be naming terrible leaders that list would be way too long. Here's just a small handful from the 20th century Hitler Stalin Mao Franco Mussolini Hirohito Kim Il Sung Ho Chi Min Roosevelt (social security, Japanese internment camps) Churchill (look up his views on India and Ghandi; he wasn't just in favour of Britain keeping India but he also thought that using violence on nonviolent protestors was the way to go) Castro Nixon Lenin That's just off the top of my head |
|
|
|
Post by Death on Jun 7, 2017 4:27:48 GMT -4
I definitely agree. I do think some countries are certainly more wrong than others, though. Nazi Germany (Hitler) and Soviet Union (Stalin) come to mind during World War II as the ones that stand out. But yeah, all leaders have some negative traits. A lot are generally self-centered assholes. You're right about that. In this case it kind of goes to show that no matter who committed atrocities, the only ones who will ever be punished for it are the losers. Victors, for obvious reasons, pretty much always get off scot-free, like the Soviet Union did. Because really, what was anyone going to do about them? They were virtually unstoppable. EDIT: Mao was also an evil motherfucker. If we're going to be naming terrible leaders that list would be way too long. Here's just a small handful from the 20th century Hitler Stalin Mao Franco Mussolini Hirohito Kim Il Sung Ho Chi Min Roosevelt (social security, Japanese internment camps) Churchill (look up his views on India and Ghandi; he wasn't just in favour of Britain keeping India but he also thought that using violence on nonviolent protestors was the way to go) Castro Nixon Lenin That's just off the top of my head Ivan the Terrible Vlad the Impaler Kim Jong Un Kim Jong Il George Washington was kind of an asshole Abraham Lincoln was pretty good- still was slightly racist though, but that was mostly because he was a product of the time GEORGE W BUSH - The king of stupidity, and arguably more stupid than Hitler Donald Trump- Self explanatory Hillary Clinton- Also self explanatory David Cameron Teresa May Every Politician in Northern Ireland Hirohito King Henry the Eight is a good example of English stupidity That one African President who declared himself king and spent half of his country's budget on his coronation Honestly, if you gave me enough time I could go on an on |
|
|
|
Post by Baise-moi on Jun 7, 2017 5:02:57 GMT -4
If we're going to be naming terrible leaders that list would be way too long. Here's just a small handful from the 20th century Hitler Stalin Mao Franco Mussolini Hirohito Kim Il Sung Ho Chi Min Roosevelt (social security, Japanese internment camps) Churchill (look up his views on India and Ghandi; he wasn't just in favour of Britain keeping India but he also thought that using violence on nonviolent protestors was the way to go) Castro Nixon Lenin That's just off the top of my head Ivan the Terrible Vlad the Impaler Kim Jong Un Kim Jong Il George Washington was kind of an asshole Abraham Lincoln was pretty good- still was slightly racist though, but that was mostly because he was a product of the time GEORGE W BUSH - The king of stupidity, and arguably more stupid than Hitler Donald Trump- Self explanatory Hillary Clinton- Also self explanatory James Cameron Teresa May Every Politician in Northern Ireland Hirohito King Henry the Eight is a good example of English stupidity That one African President who declared himself king and spent half of his country's budget on his coronation Honestly, if you gave me enough time I could go on an on James Cameron? Like, the director? |
|
