Miscellaneous News

[james smith esq]

Much of Eastern Europe definitely did suffer greatly under Germany as well, but it's subjective whether or not the Russians or Germans were worse. The exact degree of oppression Eastern Europeans suffered under each power varied depending on the time period and location. Baltics and Eastern Poland suffered more from the Russians, Western Poland suffered more from the Germans. And Ukrainians had the unfortunate history of suffering under the Poles, Germans (Prussians and Austrians), and Russians for centuries. Also, Russian oppression is a lot more recent, as a much larger portion of the population remembers Soviet times than WW2 and pre-WW2 times. Hypothetically, if Russia had collapsed and Germany remained a fully independent power with a strong military, then the countries of Eastern Europe today would most likely be seeking outside alliances against Germany. But that is not the situation, Russia is still an independent major regional power and Germany is just an EU/NATO member state.


It doesn't sound irrational to me at all. Mistrust and animosity builds up over time, a short period of intense conflict can be viewed as an abnormality. Also, the Russian state has perpetrated intense periods of violence towards Eastern Europeans as well. Another factor towards perception I think is recency - Soviet domination only ended 3 decades ago, while WW2 ended 8 decades ago.

We must also recognize that, as smaller/weaker nations must often negotiate within contexts and circumstances not of their own creation and beyond their immediate control, they will often base their immediate “alliances” upon perceptions of immediate threat and gain. Vietnam, for example, must now decide between the giant threat next door, with which it has ongoing territorial disputes, or the giant far away, with which its territorial disputes have been settled. They might, also, believe, or might have been led to believe, that they may stand to benefit from the future de-coupling?

edit: If you look at it demo/geographically, Vietnam would be an ideal context in which the west could set-up a ‘counter/anti-China’, in east-Asia; ‘cause it’s obvious that India just ain’t gon’na cut it!

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

So, what has your study if history taught you as to why long periods of moderate violence sew hatred in some populations, while instilling an imperialized mindset in others?

I mean the Mongol campaign of violence in Europe was quite attenuated, however the Europeans’ hatred of the, no-longer extant, Mongols persists 1700 years later.

Imperialism was not fueled by hate. It was fueled by pure greed and hunger for power and control.

We must also recognize that, as smaller/weaker nations must often negotiate within contexts and circumstances not of their own creation and beyond their immediate control, they will often base their immediate “alliances” upon perceptions of immediate threat and gain.

Yes, which is partially why today small Eastern European nations tend to be more wary of Russian than Germany.

Vietnam, for example, must now decide between the giant threat next door, with which it has ongoing territorial disputes, or the giant far away, with which its territorial disputes have been settled. They might, also, believe, or might have been led to believe, that they may stand to benefit from the future de-coupling?

Vietnam follows Warring States Period China playbook of playing a distance power against a neighboring power. It will seek to gain maximal benefits from both sides while avoiding antagonizing either side too much.

 

[james smith esq]

Imperialism was not fueled by hate. It was fueled by pure greed and hunger for power and control.

The question we’re addressing is the subjugated populations’ responses towards the campaigns of violence, not the motivations of the perpetrators!

However, Colonialism, of the two, was the one more fueled by greed!

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The question we’re addressing is the subjugated populations’ responses towards the campaigns of violence, not the motivations of the perpetrators!

However, Colonialism, of the two, was the one more fueled by greed!

Wouldn't nationalism be more accurate than imperialism? When has a subjugated nation ever grown to be a major imperialist power?

 

[james smith esq]

Wouldn't nationalism be more accurate than imperialism? When has a subjugated nation ever grown to be a major imperialist power?

I think we’re getting way off track, here.
My question was in response to Boltzman’s assertion regarding long-term vs short-term violence/oppression, i. e., an extended period of Imperial or Colonial domination vs. a protracted period of intense conflict. Your response, completely, disregarded this context. So, at this point, I’m not sure what the conversation between you and I is actually about???

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I think we’re getting way off track, here.
My question was in response to Boltzman’s assertion regarding long-term vs short-term violence/oppression, i. e. g., an extended period of Imperial or Colonial domination vs. a protracted period of intense conflict. Your response, completely, disregarded this context. So, at this point, I’m not sure what the conversation between you and I is actually about???

Reread and understand your point now. You were referring to being victims of imperialism. I had misinterpreted your statement as inferring that subjugated people developing imperialist ideologies of their own. Yes, I agree with your assertion.

 

[james smith esq]

Reread and understand your point now. You were referring to being victims of imperialism. I had misinterpreted your statement as inferring that subjugated people developing imperialist ideologies of their own. Yes, I agree with your assertion.

Okay, thanks!
I thought I‘d gotten lost, somewhere!
But, I was asking about Boltzman’s interpretations of the differential responses between some populations and others to similar historical conditions.
I think the answer lies in the degree to which the strength of a separate and cohesive ‘tribal/political’ identity could be maintained throughout the extended period of domination.
Thus, I’m one that believes that pure Colonialism was less destructive, culturally, than was Imperialism, as it’s primary motivation was the extraction of commodities. However, finding historical examples in which the two aren’t inextricably linked is difficult; it’s just a matter of degrees!
All this, notwithstanding, it seems that Boltzman is not interested in my question.

 

[KYli]

A short term violent oppression is more effective in suppressing dissents and opposition. As we have witnessed Mongols brutal campaign that subjugated various and numerous of empires and ethnics. For those who dared to fight them, Mongols killed and genocides all of them. When all the males were killed and females enslaved, there were no opposition except a pile of bones.

For a long term imperialism and colonialism, such occupation would only be effective if integration and forceful assimilation are adopted. Either the rulers adopted the local custom and married the local and integrated into the local or the local subjected to integration by forcing them to adopt the religion, culture, and language of invaders. But either ways, the integration and interracial marriage need to happen. Otherwise, we would have the Western imperialism and colonialism that treated the subjects as slaves or subjects of exploitation which no matter how long and sophisticated would breed resentment and hatred that would be remembered for a long time.

Western imperialism only successes in America as natives were mostly killed, genocide, put into the reserves which is pretty a internment camp or died due to diseases and hunger. Exception is those more populated central American natives that got assimilated through brutal suppression. Canada and the US both have had boarding schools that dragged native children out of reserves and forced them to assimilate or brutally killed for any native kids that didn't behave.

 

[james smith esq]

A short term violent oppression is more effective in suppressing dissents and opposition. As we have witnessed Mongols brutal campaign that subjugated various and numerous of empires and ethnics. For those who dared to fight them, Mongols killed and genocides all of them. When all the males were killed and females enslaved, there were no opposition except a pile of bones.

For a long term imperialism and colonialism, such occupation would only be effective if integration and forceful assimilation are adopted. Either the rulers adopted the local custom and married the local and integrated into the local or the local subjected to integration by forcing them to adopt the religion, culture, and language of invaders. But either ways, the integration and interracial marriage need to happen. Otherwise, we would have the Western imperialism and colonialism that treated the subjects as slaves or subjects of exploitation which no matter how long and sophisticated would breed resentment and hatred that would be remembered for a long time.

Western imperialism only successes in America as natives were mostly killed, genocide, put into the reserves which is pretty a internment camp or died due to diseases and hunger. Exception is those more populated central American natives that got assimilated through brutal suppression. Canada and the US both have had boarding schools that dragged native children out of reserves and forced them to assimilate or brutally killed for any native kids that didn't behave.

The example of Blacks in the U. S. (and, probably the African experience) contradicts part of your assessment. Inter-marriage between Blacks and Whites was prohibited, by law, in the U. S. (and not widely practiced in Europe), well into the 20th century. So, it was solely by means of being [...] subjected to integration by forcing them to adopt the religion, culture, and language of [...] the oppressor which obtained in this instance. And ‘American’ Blacks (like Indians to the Anglo-sphere) are some of the most loyal ‘American Christians’ there are!

 

[supercat]

*shocked* How could China stockpiled 18 months-worth of food??!! That means China must be getting prepared for war with the US!!!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1687904327304642560

Seriously, all those blobs in DC should read some books about China's 5000 year-worth of history. Truly laughable exhibit of outright idiocy and ignorance on a country that they want to go to war with.

Therefore, ensuring food security = preparing for war

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1688018364176764928

The United States is not a real nation per se, in fact none of the countries within the five eyes except for the UK can be considered real nation states, but rather, real estate controlled by private equity.

Hit pieces like this are the reason I have stopped following NYT and other Western MSM since the outbreak of COVID-19.

Some strong words from "a former chip engineer and Samsung executive who chaired a ruling party committee on South Korea’s semiconductor competitiveness until early this year":

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1688210622939537408

Meanwhile, TSMC in the US may be delayed to 2025

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1688254460672270337

No one here should be surprised by this. The saving grace is that UK is not a very important auto market for China.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1688165665574981633