Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Lost My Past (2017)

glineq.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 193 posts

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#91

Post by sofixa »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #76
sofixa wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Distribution of people, industry, resources, agriculture is very uneven in Russia, so i don't see many potential subdivisions working well. Furthermore: * self-determination of the people - i didn't hear any part of Russia wanted to be separate * Russians in other countries (there since before the fall of the Soviet Union) are often destabilising and problematic - see Transnistria and Ukraine for good examples * as w…

> A ballkanised Russia Means the total loss of Russian Army, in the most literal sense. In 1990s there were anecdotes how you could buy a tank from a corrupted Russian Army personnel. With balkanised Russia that would be a hard reality.

> Means the total loss of Russian Army, in the most literal sense

Not really, every part would retain the troops and armaments located there, like how Ukraine inherited all long range strategic missile bombers ( Tu-160) of the Soviet Union, and how Transnistria inherited an army which was one of the main factors of them claiming independence and thus blocking Moldova's potential future as a part of Romania

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#92

Post by PixyMisa »

vidarh wrote: post #68
anovikov wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Who are "they"? Russia existed. It had nukes. Nobody were in a position to tell Russia it wasn't allowed to exist, and attempting to force it to split would have been a gross violation of international law.

Nobody cares much about international law, but it was in no-ones interest to have a dozen smaller, likely unstable, post-Russian states all armed with nuclear missiles.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#93

Post by ivan_gammel »

Findeton wrote: post #34

Well the Soviet Union was imperialism, wasn't it?

Does it really matter, given that it did not behave much differently from USA at that time, sending a lot of money as a foreign aid and intervening if local politics started leaning towards the rival powers?

EDIT: to clarify, this foreign policy was not considered "imperialism" at that time.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#94

Post by refurb »

sofixa wrote: post #77
refurb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

South Vietnam was certainly not “fake”. Not any more “fake” than any other country. It wasn’t a democracy but neither was the north. And the North also violated numerous treaties including the one where the US pulled out all troops and North agreed to stop further infiltration. The communists certainly had strong support in the North (they had secured power and purged any opposing elements, including within their par…

> South Vietnam was certainly not “fake”. Not any more “fake” than any other country It kind of was though. It was created temporarily until elections are held by a treaty over fears the communists will have control over all of Vietnam ( they would have), and existed solely due to direct and heavy American support. It wasn't a country based on self-determination or anything of the like.

We’re probably splitting hairs at this point, but there was significant support for an anti-communist government among the Vietnamese. 1M of them migrated South when the French turned the North over to the Communists. Yes I know about the campaign to encourage it, but the land reform purges of the 1950’s certainly helped show who was going to do well in the North and who wouldn’t.

And I suppose you could say the same about the American Rebellion. It never would have succeeded without support from the French. Does that mean the fledgling Continental Congress wasn’t a real country?

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#95

Post by kolinko »

trasz wrote: post #72
gigel82 wrote: post #60

I have friends that immigrated from Romania, and I was surprised by their very different stories of living as a teenager in the 80s under communism. One was enjoying vacations abroad, imported goods and generally mostly living a western lifestyle while the other was struggling to survive. Later learned that the former's father was an informant for Ceausescu's secret police (Securitate) - a butcher by profession but a…

Quoted post unavailable.

It’s not even in the same scale.

Many people could become „wealthy” then, but their conscience prevented them from doing things that would be required from them in exchange.

If you want to draw a comparison - imagine that every single worker in US gets a personal „eject” button that gives them $1M to their bank account, but it requires them to do things that will be unethical and oppressive towards their friends, family and the population in general.

Kind of like joining a mob, but without the dangers that go with it.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#96

Post by trasz »

kolinko wrote: post #95
trasz wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

It’s not even in the same scale. Many people could become „wealthy” then, but their conscience prevented them from doing things that would be required from them in exchange. If you want to draw a comparison - imagine that every single worker in US gets a personal „eject” button that gives them $1M to their bank account, but it requires them to do things that will be unethical and oppressive towards their friends, fam…

No post body was provided.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#97

Post by refurb »

sofixa wrote: post #82
refurb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the story that is told, but one can’t avoid the similarity between the South’s alliance with the US, AUS, NZ, Korea and the North’s with the USSR and China (which had many soldier stationed there). Without material support the USSR and China provided, the North never could have won the war. There was no “rightful” liberation. It was a civil war in its essence with two opposing groups of Vietnamese fighting fo…

> This is the story that is told, but one can’t avoid the similarity between the South’s alliance with the US, AUS, NZ, Korea and the North’s with the USSR and China (which had many soldier stationed there). Without material support the USSR and China provided, the North never could have won the war The difference is that with no outside meddling and support, South Vietnam wouldn't have existed or would have existed…

I’d have to disagree on the popular vote. By the time of the proposed election, the Communists had complete control of the Northern population. There was no “free” vote for unification - any more than there would be a free vote in Vietnam today.

And the US didn’t get significantly involved (beyond material support for the French) in Vietnam until the early 1960’s with the help of military advisors. The build up didn’t start until around ‘65 when it was apparent the South would collapse (through a combination of communist subversion but also a lot of in fighting) The South existed as an independent state for a few years - barely, I would agree. But it existed.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#98

Post by trasz »

refurb wrote: post #73
trasz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pure whataboutism.

Are my facts incorrect? If so, please call them out. OP said the North was “right” because the South was X,Y,Z. I countered with “the North also did X,Y,Z.”, thus countering their claims that the North was somehow “more pure or righteous”. Maybe it is whataboutism, but that seems appropriate when someone is trying to claim superiority to another?

I didn’t say your facts are incorrect, I said it’s whataboutism - trying to redirect the discussion away from facts inconvenient to you.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#99

Post by qayxc »

cblconfederate wrote: post #62

Maybe democracy is a luxury belief of rich countries, or at least of states that have gone through all the steps of state-building and there is substantial rule of law. One of the most stupid things in the history of this century was the belief that arbitrarily "imposing" democracy in countries that have never finished their state-building was possible (e.g. arab and middle east countries). And after 30 years of post…

That's due to factors unrelated to the political system, though.

Some recent examples (Iran, Afghanistan) are completely self-made catastrophes, i.e. countries that were democratic, modern, and free and lost that due to foreign (or, let's face it: US-)intervention in the first place.

Same with post-communism. The factors at play here cannot be reduced to "imposing democracy" onto countries. Do you have any idea what 40 years of communism and being an artificial puppet state to a country and its economy? And it's not as if this was after two devastating wars either.

If you take a closer look at Europe you'll soon find out that it's a tad more complex than just the political system. From ethnic tensions to border disputes to geographic complexities there's so much more to it than just whether people are free to vote or not.

Re: I Lost My Past (2017)

#100

Post by timeon »

When there was mention how things went in 90s Russia because of 'Neoliberalism'. Well there is truth in it. But things went bad also because USSR lost its colonies. And you can imagine that this part triggered me as I was born in one of those colonies.

But it is hard for me to talk about personal experiences of someone. Like my grandfather was talking about regime during WWII that collaborated with Nazi Germany. How things were suddenly better for them even if they were not actively participating. While father, mother and sister of my other grandfather were killed by the same regime.

Post reply on HN