This topic is locked from further discussion.
The forcable suppression of eastern europe? U.S.S.R. for sure. USA, although it did support some dictators and bad regimes to counter communism's advance, more helped the world than hurt it. Obviously, people forget that, and still criticize it. Lol at France. So hypocritical: they criticize the US for being violent, yet they have had some of the most numerous and heinous uprisings and wars in history of mankind. (Starting from 1789 ONLY: French Revolution, 100 days, Revolution of 1830, Revolution of 1848, the attack on Haiti back in 1802, the Crimean war [although most of Europe did partake in that anyway], Franco-Prussian war of 1869-1870 and the susequent stuggle for power in Paris, imperialism all over Africa & Indochina, then WWI, then WII w/ Vichy France, then further imperialist wars w/ Algeria and Vietnam in the 1950s; need I go on?)
of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwardnotconspiracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwarddooly420http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Those weren't labor camps. (Not a good thing, mind you, I'm just saying. . .)
[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwarddooly420http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment Ah-hem. Labor camps. And he said present day US, not WWII US. >__>
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwardjaydoughhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment Ah-hem. Labor camps. And he said present day US, not WWII US. >__> if we're talking present day, then why even bring up the ussr? it hasn't been around for almost two decades. a lot of users on this site weren't even born when it disbanded.
[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwarddooly420http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment Ah-hem. Labor camps. And he said present day US, not WWII US. >__> if we're talking present day, then why even bring up the ussr? it hasn't been around for almost two decades. a lot of users on this site weren't even born when it disbanded. I dunno. :|
[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwarddooly420http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment Ah-hem. Labor camps. And he said present day US, not WWII US. >__> if we're talking present day, then why even bring up the ussr? it hasn't been around for almost two decades. a lot of users on this site weren't even born when it disbanded.
I'm talking about Current day for Just the U.S obviously, the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, or at-least not publicly. What I'm saying is, what power was the bigger imperialist. Was it when the Soviet Union turned into a super power after ww2 spreading communism up until the 90's, or was the U.S after ww2 with national security up to current days.
What would exactly be defined as an imperialist nation?helium_flash
In the strictest sense, a nation that controls satellite nations or colonies.
[QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwardAndrewStar101http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment Ah-hem. Labor camps. And he said present day US, not WWII US. >__> if we're talking present day, then why even bring up the ussr? it hasn't been around for almost two decades. a lot of users on this site weren't even born when it disbanded.I'm talking about Current day for Just the U.S obviously, the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, or at-least not publicly. What I'm saying is, what power was the bigger imperialist. Was it when the Soviet Union turned into a super power after ww2 spreading communism up until the 90's, or was the U.S after ww2 with national security up to current days. ... So of all the imperialist countries, you pick America? I'm really dissappointed. >__>
[QUOTE="helium_flash"]What would exactly be defined as an imperialist nation?Frattracide
In the strictest sense, a nation that controls satellite nations or colonies.
Going by that definition the US is obviously not an Imperialist nation.[QUOTE="helium_flash"]What would exactly be defined as an imperialist nation?Frattracide
In the strictest sense, a nation that controls satellite nations or colonies.
And.. What does USA own? Just Puerto Rico, and that's about it. :|Stalin killed more people than Hitler and your trying to compare him the the United States:| What the hell is wrong with you?Film-GuyAnd he killed them just for believing in god, and because he was afraid of planes, he killed almost all people who worked on designing planes. :|
[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]What would exactly be defined as an imperialist nation?helium_flash
In the strictest sense, a nation that controls satellite nations or colonies.
Going by that definition the US is obviously not an Imperialist nation.Well, you could make the "manifest destiny" argument because all that territory was at one point controlled, but not incorporated into the US.
Lately, the definition has been 'laxed to mean "a country with interests abroad." Since we are willing to use force to protect our interests, the term is applied derogatorily to us. Even though almost every other country does the same thing.
[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]What would exactly be defined as an imperialist nation?jaydough
In the strictest sense, a nation that controls satellite nations or colonies.
And.. What does USA own? Just Puerto Rico, and that's about it. :|And Guam apparently, they're on the list of Democrats primaries.
lol the US has never really been imperialistic. We got Hawaii and Peutro Rico and thats about all I can think about
Russia took all of Eastern Europe and heavily influenced China and many other asian countries in addition to Cuba.
But in history, I'd say England or France are the worst imperalistic countries.
[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwarddooly420http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment Internment camps were nothing like concentration camps
We got Hawaii and Peutro Rico and thats about all I can think aboutmrbojangles25Hawaii's a state. :|
give me a break. why is the US on that list?ItalStallion777The worst we've done is slavery. And that was 200 friggin years ago.
Hawaii's a state. :|[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"] We got Hawaii and Peutro Rico and thats about all I can think aboutfidosim
Yes but we aquired it during what many call our "imperialistic" period. It was an independent monarchy and then we annexed it.
than kyou thats exactly what i meant
Hawaii's a state. :|[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"] We got Hawaii and Peutro Rico and thats about all I can think aboutfidosim
Yes but we aquired it during what many call our "imperialistic" period. It was an independent monarchy and then we annexed it.
Well it was more then just one day independent the next day annexed. Americans had a lot of power on the island before the Queen tryed to take it back.
[QUOTE="camreeno360"]I smell seven Anti-Americans in those poll results. Film-Guy
Either that or people trying to be funny and failing, there is no way somebody here actually thinks that the U.S is wore than the Soviet Union was. Nobody is that stupid.
Yeah I disagree with a lot of what the US does (A LOT!) but the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state that killed millions of people.
[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="dooly420"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]of the two soviet russia. we didn't exactly send people to labor camps, but there were other European colonial powers *cough* France *cough* that were much worse than the two you put forwarddooly420http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment Ah-hem. Labor camps. And he said present day US, not WWII US. >__> if we're talking present day, then why even bring up the ussr? it hasn't been around for almost two decades. a lot of users on this site weren't even born when it disbanded.
well i dont know, ITS THE THREAD! live with it
research is your friend:
Early researchers attempting to tally the number of people killed under Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence. Their estimates ranged from a low of 3 million to as high as 60 million.[68][69] When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 however, evidence from the Soviet archives finally became available. The archives record that about 800,000 prisoners were executed (for either political or criminal offences) under Stalin, while about 1.7 million died in the GULAG and some 389,000 perished during kulak forced resettlement - a total of about 3 million victims.
Debate continues, however,[70] since some historians believe the archival figures to be unreliable.[71][72] For example, some argue that the many suspects tortured to death while in "investigative custody" were likely not counted amongst the executed.[73][74] Also, there are certain categories of victim which it is generally agreed were carelessly recorded by the Soviets - such as the victims of ethnic deportations, or of German population transfer in the aftermath of WWII.
Thus while some archival researchers have estimated the number of victims of Stalin's repressions to be no more than about 4 million in total,[75][76][77] others believe the number to be considerably higher, with a "middle estimate" of 40 million.[78] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman,[79] for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million (out of 7.5 million deported); and POWs and German civilians, 1 million - a total of about 9 million victims of repression.
Some historians have also included the 6 to 8 million victims of the 1932-1933 famine as victims of repression.[80][81][82] This categorization is controversial however, as historians differ as to whether the famine was a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization. (See also: Droughts and famines in Russia and the USSR).
Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a likely total of around 20 million.[83][84][85][86][87] Adding 6-8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a total of between 15 and 17 million victims. Pioneering researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[88] Others, however, continue to maintain that their earlier much higher estimates are correct.[89]
Hmmmmmm.....yeah I wonder which was worse....
definition of imperialism: 1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. 2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government. this is not a discussion of which state killed the most people, the answer to that being pretty damn obvious. Your research, while thourough and pretty damning, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The soviet atrocities under stalin mostly affected it's own populace.paragraph..
aschuhart
[QUOTE="aschuhart"]definition of imperialism: 1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. 2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government. this is not a discussion of which state killed the most people, the answer to that being pretty damn obvious. Your research, while thourough and pretty damning, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.paragraph..
shivaskunk9mm
Actually the question asks which of the two imperialistic countries is the worst. That is very subjective and the amount of people killed could very well answer that.The TC never asked which country was more imperialistic.
[QUOTE="shivaskunk9mm"][QUOTE="aschuhart"]definition of imperialism: 1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. 2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government. this is not a discussion of which state killed the most people, the answer to that being pretty damn obvious. Your research, while thourough and pretty damning, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.paragraph..
gobo212
Actually the question asks which of the two imperialistic countries is the worst. That is very subjective and the amount of people killed could very well answer that.The TC never asked which country was more imperialistic.
actually what he said was "worst imperialist superpower". Granted the definition of his post is vague, but using the word 'imperialist' if you don't intend to debate imperialism is rather redundant. Then again he also wanted to compare todays U.S with the long defunct soviet union, so i wasn't paying to much attention to the tc's post to be honest. having a debate over who killed the most of the two is obvious and entirely pointless.[QUOTE="gobo212"][QUOTE="shivaskunk9mm"][QUOTE="aschuhart"]definition of imperialism: 1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. 2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government. this is not a discussion of which state killed the most people, the answer to that being pretty damn obvious. Your research, while thourough and pretty damning, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.paragraph..
shivaskunk9mm
Actually the question asks which of the two imperialistic countries is the worst. That is very subjective and the amount of people killed could very well answer that.The TC never asked which country was more imperialistic.
actually what he said was "worst imperialist superpower". Granted the definition of his post is vague, but using the word 'imperialist' if you don't intend to debate imperialism is rather redundant. Then again he also wanted to compare todays U.S with the long defunct soviet union, so i wasn't paying to much attention to the tc's post to be honest.Yeah i would rather not argue with you because the TC's post is badly worded and you seem rather intelligent.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment