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

Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

militera.lib.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#71

Post by leaveyou »

blumbo wrote: post #58
brc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time . At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.

i'd like to hear more about this, exactly how horribly miserable would you end up if you have trillions and you would be forced to give up 99% of your wealth?

you need to be careful at the terms because "socialism" in communists countries and USA means "communism" and socialism in nord & western europe means higher taxes and a bigger public sector & public services (with afferent bureaucracy). Communism didn't fare well for obvious reasons while europe with all its problems, endures.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#72

Post by contulluipeste »

notastartup wrote: post #19

As someone very interested in Soviet Union, it's system, this is a great resource. I'd love it if this was available on kindle or a paperback. Even Russians will say Soviet Union is shit or people will react like, 'why are you learning russian and so obsessed with Soviet Union', I think it's because I think it could've been a great system, it's a noble ideology that men and women of all races are integrated and all r…

That ideology was just a tool to prop up a system of occupation. What really happened behind all that was an ongoing russification all over the Soviet Union, effects of which make themselves visible in an outstanding manner today in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Latvia, and other countries. Yeah, it was pretty that red color from outside, but living under it was a nightmare (unless you were reaaally stupid, in which case the system took care of you).

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#73

Post by valtih1978 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #29
Perdition wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why it is happening. NATO was set-up to counter the Soviets (dominated by Russia) and it is a slap in the face for Russia to allow NATO right on their border when they are trying to become a real world power again. NATO might have gotten away with limited defence/economic pacts with former Soviet satellites, but full NATO and EU membership was bound to provoke a reaction from Russia. Apparently the US State D…

> Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed. Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea Gotcha. Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?

Just to inform your ingonrance. The Eastern and South Ukraine is a Russia. It was attached to the Ukraine be the bloody communist criminals. Look at the map http://13571113.blogspot.com/2014/03/republic-of-novorossiya...

New government of Ukraine is neonazi, installed by the US during this winter. This is done second time. First time it happened in 2004, why american citizen Uschenko has imposed antisoviet propaganda in the school program, the WWII nazi criminal, Stepan Bandera, was made a national hero. It was indoctrinated a neonazi idea that russians are inborn slaves and biogarbage, russian language was banned. Antisoviet/antirussian brainwashing was absolutely successful but economic programme has failed. Therefore Uschenko has lost the office. But, in 2013, US has re-installed its puppet government in the Ukraine again, by force. How do you react?

The new government was much more neonazi (look for "svoboda" party and "far right groups patrolling Kiev"). The first law was to ban the russian language again. They have declared that they will remove the russian fleet (which is located in crimea forever, since Crimea is another Russian land, attached to Ukraine by mistake by Soviet Authority, when ). Now, how do you prove that Russian people (the total population of the Crimea, Doneck, Odessa) should welcome the US-installed russophobic mankurts in Kiev, who chant "slotter the russians" (https://www.google.ee/search?q=москалей+на+ножи) in their fascist marches? You do not bother to prove that. Your propaganda has already put all shit in your head.

1. Russian people in the Ukraine (almost the half of the pouplation) have all the right to run away from your neonazi puppets. 2. They have full right to live with other russians. 3. Russia has all the right to meet the aspirations of frightented people in Ukraine and defend its national interests, which are the Black Sea fleet, russian population united with the rest of the Russia and no NATO in the Ukraine.

You dehumiliate the russian hostages in Ukraine because you want the whole Ukraine to go under Western domination. You want it to separate from the Russia because (as Bzhesinzki puts that) Russia will loose its ability to stand against US Empire only if it looses the Ukraine. You is an imperialist, brainwahsed by the Western propaganda. Crimea has came back home. The "Independent Ukraine" is American, anti-Russia project. The population is russian and feels bad there. It must be ukrainized, turned into ukranians (anti-russians). All russian regions must return back to Russian home, immediately. Start respecting territorial integrity of Sovient Union, not Ukraine.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#74

Post by PeterisP »

Perdition wrote: post #30
ceejayoz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed. Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea Gotcha. Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?

>Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West Ukraine should have been quietly told that joining NATO or the EU was not possible. >Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea Strawman: This. What Russia did is absolutely wrong IMO, but it is expected (just like the US doesn't like anyone else messing with South America or the Caribbean). >Also, since when is the US State Department…

The concept of "should have been quietly told that joining .. was not possible" is immoral.

Nations have a right of self-determination. Russia and USA can argue for their interests, but if USA and Russia agree "oh, country X will be in your sphere of influence" without giving country X a voice and a veto-vote there - that is evil and insulting to people living in those nations, just as Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement before WW2.

Such divisions should be unacceptable to the global community.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#75

Post by roel_v »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #64
brc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time . At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.

That's not true, look at Sweden, France, Germany, UK ... all practising socialism. It's helped their people with free health care, education. There are many good things about socialism. The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not.

"The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not."

Ah yes, the True Scotsman defense for socialism.

Not that it matters, because pointing to the UK of all places (or any place else on your list, for that matter) as an example of socialism is, to put it mildly, 'confused' about socialism, those countries, or both.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#76

Post by guard-of-terra »

PeterisP wrote: post #70
guard-of-terra wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would USSR invade Romania? The only scenario I can think of is reinstating Communist government. Seriously, USSR didn't have plans to occupy and assimilate random foreign countries. Not as far as I know. And don't forget USSR depended heavily on Romanian furniture :)

Keeping/reinstating Communist governments through military force was a cornerstone of USSR foreign policy for many decades at that point - e.g. Prague Spring.

Well, Romania was keeping Communist government so they didn't have to worry.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#79

Post by ceejayoz »

democracy wrote: post #38
ceejayoz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed. Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea Gotcha. Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?

Not directly in charge, but close... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bolivia-angered-by...

The UK's GCHQ is just as interested in nabbing Snowden as the NSA.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#80

Post by thescrewdriver »

spingsprong wrote: post #28

"It is, in fact, impossible to reach the speeds of which the MIG-25 is capable using titanium: yet the Soviet designers had managed to build this, the fastest combat aircraft in the world, from ordinary steel. " Right... MiG-25, Mach-2.8. All steel. SR-71, Mach-3.5. Uses titanium for 85% of its structure.

Perhaps a typo/misquote. The point being made is that the high speeds were achieved using steel (rather than more exotic materials). As others have pointed out the SR71 wasn't a combat aircraft.
Post reply on HN