USSR or Third Reich

[Kazarogkai]

The one from which I could more easily escape. The one with weaker management of its borders. I'm saying I'd want to flee from either, but if I had to choose one I'd want to be in the one that was the worst at successfully finding and controlling me.

It depends: Are you Jewish, homosexual, or just plain not Aryan?

Run to Spain.

As I said before Franco was an ass but at least he wasn't a complete genocidal raging antisemitic ass. He was fine with refugees going through his borders to escape Germany, just keep your nose down and don't hurt his precious ego and you would be OK.

[Kazarogkai]

Lousy one. You don't have to be competent to be imperialist.

Except the very idea of imperialism is exploiting colonies and territories for the benefit of the fatherland. This was not the case with the USSR.

The soviet union wasn't exactly imperialist, by normal standards anyways. Their ultimate goal as a revolutionary government was to spread the ideology around and destroy all who may threaten them.

[Gim]

It depends: Are you Jewish, homosexual, or just plain not Aryan?

Run to Spain.

As I said before Franco was an ass but at least he wasn't a complete genocidal raging antisemitic ass. He was fine with refugees going through his borders to escape German, just keep your nose down and don't hurt his precious ego and you would be OK.

Spain is nice, but think about it. You have to go through France in order to get there, and the French would not allow the entry of people from Germany out of security. It would be better to secretly head north to Sweden, which is another neutral nation.

[Kazarogkai]

Run to Spain.

As I said before Franco was an ass but at least he wasn't a complete genocidal raging antisemitic ass. He was fine with refugees going through his borders to escape German, just keep your nose down and don't hurt his precious ego and you would be OK.

Spain is nice, but think about it. You have to go through France in order to get there, and the French would not allow the entry of people from Germany out of security. It would be better to secretly head north to Sweden, which is another neutral nation.

And yet tens of thousands were able to make the journey. Id rather avoid going inside of Germany or even Poland(where most of the camps were) for my escape. At least in France you can get some help from the resistance. Not a great option, but it is an option and something to think about.

[Gim]

Spain is nice, but think about it. You have to go through France in order to get there, and the French would not allow the entry of people from Germany out of security. It would be better to secretly head north to Sweden, which is another neutral nation.

And yet tens of thousands were able to make the journey. Id rather avoid going inside of Germany or even Poland(where most of the camps were) for my escape. At least in France you can get some help from the resistance. Not a great option, but it is an option and something to think about.

Why not Sweden? Spain is still a dictatorship. You are not entirely free there, I suppose?

[Kazarogkai]

And yet tens of thousands were able to make the journey. Id rather avoid going inside of Germany or even Poland(where most of the camps were) for my escape. At least in France you can get some help from the resistance. Not a great option, but it is an option and something to think about.

Why not Sweden? Spain is still a dictatorship. You are not entirely free there, I suppose?

Few of them stayed from what I remember, most of them just used it as a transit point to get to other places.

If you were a french Jew in order to get to Sweden you would have to go through Germany and make your way through Very heavily guarded waters. I presume since Spain was an ally the border would of been nowhere near as heavily watched, atleast on the french side considering the fact that they were fighting a brutal resistance movement and as such had to focus their attention on that. That and possibly some would of been thinking it would be safer to be in Spain since unlike Sweden they are an ally and are very unlikely to be invaded.

[Gim]

Why not Sweden? Spain is still a dictatorship. You are not entirely free there, I suppose?

Few of them stayed from what I remember, most of them just used it as a transit point to get to other places.

If you were a french Jew in order to get to Sweden you would have to go through Germany and make your way through Very heavily guarded waters. I presume since Spain was an ally the border would of been nowhere near as heavily watched, atleast on the french side considering the fact that they were fighting a brutal resistance movement and as such had to focus their attention on that. That and possibly some would of been thinking it would be safer to be in Spain since unlike Sweden they are an ally and are very unlikely to be invaded.

Oh, I see. In the case of a french Jew, that would be the best way to flee from oppression. I was talking in terms of fleeing from Germany. My apologies for being so vague in my statements.

[Imperializt Russia]

East Germany was literally butting up against the West. The Soviets were pretty keen to show the West how running Germany was done.

Now these, on the other hand, are pretty good explanations. Still, the Soviets chose an awfully expensive way of buying political influence.

Is there any other?

The USSR's existence was basically to convert the western world to Socialism, by military force. It spent its life preparing for, and not carrying out, this intention.

No, it did not. The post-Stalin USSR was a status quo power, concerned with maintaining control over its existing sphere of influence and not caring one bit about expanding it in Europe. They only ever attempted to expand their influence into Asia and Africa (and to a much lesser extent Latin America), and even on those continents they adopted a largely opportunistic foreign policy, designed to prop up whatever random governments chose to declare themselves pro-Soviet, not in any way attempting systematic expansion.

The Soviets never had any plan for winning the Cold War, and that was one of the reasons for their downfall. Their approach was basically "let's just take advantage of opportunities to grab an additional country or two when they present themselves". They were far too complacent.

Yes, building twenty squillion tanks and two billion nukes was an admirable goal at cementing its own sphere of influence.

[Pridnestrovie Transnistria]

Hasta la vista, fascistas! NO PASARAN!

[Pandeeria]

Lousy one. You don't have to be competent to be imperialist.

Except the very idea of imperialism is exploiting colonies and territories for the benefit of the fatherland. This was not the case with the USSR.

They were imperialist, but not in the conventional sense.

They were imperialist as they spread their influence across the globe (through a series of puppet states, propping up communist regimes, funding rebellions and insurgents, conducting espionage and economic sabotage on the west, etc.) but the goal wasn't material benefit, it was ideological benefit.

The ruling Party of the USSR and it's various puppet regimes (outside of their own lives) didn't really care so much about their own people's living standards as simply spreading communism and having a large set of allies to further spread the dominance of Communism. It could be argued as material benefit, as simply having more allies is objectively a better thing, from a material point of view (more nations means more resources to defend each other, more money to pool together for projects, more land to grow food and other supplies for your people while being embargoed by the west, etc.)

[Constantinopolis]

They were imperialist as they spread their influence across the globe (through a series of puppet states, propping up communist regimes, funding rebellions and insurgents, conducting espionage and economic sabotage on the west, etc.) but the goal wasn't material benefit, it was ideological benefit.

The ruling Party of the USSR and it's various puppet regimes (outside of their own lives) didn't really care so much about their own people's living standards as simply spreading communism and having a large set of allies to further spread the dominance of Communism. It could be argued as material benefit, as simply having more allies is objectively a better thing, from a material point of view (more nations means more resources to defend each other, more money to pool together for projects, more land to grow food and other supplies for your people while being embargoed by the west, etc.)

This, however, flies in the face of the typical depiction of the Soviet rulers as cynical and corrupt. If your claim that they were doing everything for an ideological goal is correct - and I'm not sure about it - then that would make them the least corrupt and most idealistic ruling class in history.

In any case, the point is: Soviet leaders could have been corrupt, or they could have been doing everything for the greater glory of Communism. But not both at the same time.

[Gim]

(Image)

Hasta la vista, fascistas! NO PASARAN!

That's what happened when Hitler violated the non-aggression pact.

[Pandeeria]

They were imperialist as they spread their influence across the globe (through a series of puppet states, propping up communist regimes, funding rebellions and insurgents, conducting espionage and economic sabotage on the west, etc.) but the goal wasn't material benefit, it was ideological benefit.

The ruling Party of the USSR and it's various puppet regimes (outside of their own lives) didn't really care so much about their own people's living standards as simply spreading communism and having a large set of allies to further spread the dominance of Communism. It could be argued as material benefit, as simply having more allies is objectively a better thing, from a material point of view (more nations means more resources to defend each other, more money to pool together for projects, more land to grow food and other supplies for your people while being embargoed by the west, etc.)

This, however, flies in the face of the typical depiction of the Soviet rulers as cynical and corrupt. If your claim that they were doing everything for an ideological goal is correct - and I'm not sure about it - then that would make them the least corrupt and most idealistic ruling class in history.

In any case, the point is: Soviet leaders could have been corrupt, or they could have been doing everything for the greater glory of Communism. But not both at the same time.

I think you forgot the part where I wrote:

(outside of their own lives)

[Constantinopolis]

I think you forgot the part where I wrote:

(outside of their own lives)

Except that they did sacrifice their own personal comfort for the sake of communist ideals, at least for a time. Remember what happened to Communist Party leaders after the collapse of the USSR in 1991? They became oligarchs and got fabulously wealthy. Their own personal lives greatly improved (even as society and the economy collapsed around them).

So, from a purely self-interested standpoint, the Soviet leadership should have wanted capitalism all along. By opposing capitalism, they were giving up the chance to become billionaires.

Did they simply not realize (until the late 1980s) that they could switch to capitalism and fuck over their country for personal benefit? Maybe.

[Pandeeria]

I think you forgot the part where I wrote:

Except that they did sacrifice their own personal comfort for the sake of communist ideals, at least for a time. Remember what happened to Communist Party leaders after the collapse of the USSR in 1991? They became oligarchs and got fabulously wealthy. Their own personal lives greatly improved (even as society and the economy collapsed around them).

So, from a purely self-interested standpoint, the Soviet leadership should have wanted capitalism all along. By opposing capitalism, they were giving up the chance to become billionaires.

Did they simply not realize (until the late 1980s) that they could switch to capitalism and fuck over their country for personal benefit? Maybe.

They wanted power, not material wealth.

And the wealth is ultimately subjective. They had massively superior living standards compared to the ill-payed, poorly trated, workers that they ruled. They had extreme wealth comapritvely and unlike the capitalists of the west, they had absolute power.

[Constantinopolis]

And the wealth is ultimately subjective. They had massively superior living standards compared to the ill-payed, poorly trated, workers that they ruled. They had extreme wealth comapritvely

No they didn't. The USSR had one of the highest levels of income equality in recorded history.

Not the highest by any means - I've had people nitpick this fact before - but one of the highest. There was greater economic equality in the USSR than in any present-day capitalist countries, except for the Nordic social democracies.

and unlike the capitalists of the west, they had absolute power.

True. However, capitalist dictatorships also exist, elsewhere in the world. It is possible to have both extreme wealth and absolute power.

And ultimately, that's precisely what the Chinese leadership decided to go for.

[Epsilon Aquarii]

Well, if I lived in Nazi Germany then I think there's higher chance of me getting a decent education, job, et cetera. The USSR on the other hand, is a lefty nation, and I'm more of a lefty myself, but the standard of life in the USSR wasn't as good as it was in Germany at the time of WW2.
Everything I just said might be completely wrong, but meh. xD

I'd choose Germany.

[Constantinopolis]

Well, if I lived in Nazi Germany then I think there's higher chance of me getting a decent education, job, et cetera. The USSR on the other hand, is a lefty nation, and I'm more of a lefty myself, but the standard of life in the USSR wasn't as good as it was in Germany at the time of WW2.
Everything I just said might be completely wrong, but meh. xD

I'd choose Germany.

You know... I could point out that you're wrong on those facts, but I'll take a different approach this time.

The USSR had Roza Shanina.

Case closed.

[Vylenograd]

Nazi Germany.
It's a shame we'll never see another society as good as the Third Reich.
The modern world has suffered immensely as a result of their defeat.

Watch this if you want to know the truth about the war.
http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/

https://youtu.be/uUyDcGSMPEQ

[Camelza]

USSR, as much as I hate its totalitarianism, living in an ultra-nationalist genocidal state while not being part of the dominant nationality is nuts.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Surprisingly, despite my anti-communist stance, I would rather live in the USSR. However, not under Stalin, but maybe under Khrushchev.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Nazi Germany.
It's a shame we'll never see another society as good as the Third Reich.
The modern world has suffered immensely as a result of their defeat.

Watch this if you want to know the truth about the war.
http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/

https://youtu.be/uUyDcGSMPEQ

Hahahahaha. You're delusional, mate. Seriously? A society that said killing Jews was cool was a great society? Read a fucking textbook.

[United Terra Prime]

USSR in Hitlers Germany I would be dead or a slave.

[American Imperial Union]

Nazi Germany.
It's a shame we'll never see another society as good as the Third Reich.
The modern world has suffered immensely as a result of their defeat.

Watch this if you want to know the truth about the war.
http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/

https://youtu.be/uUyDcGSMPEQ

Hahahahaha. You're delusional, mate. Seriously? A society that said killing Jews was cool was a great society? Read a fucking textbook.

Not everyone believes that. And some people who do might have a different opinion about that.

[Hollorous]

Hahahahaha. You're delusional, mate. Seriously? A society that said killing Jews was cool was a great society? Read a fucking textbook.

Not everyone believes that. And some people who do might have a different opinion about that.

Yeah, but people who don't believe that are wrong. And people who sincerely think it was OK to herd people into extermination camps and kill them need some serious professional help.