20 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI wasn't personally suggesting that the incorporation of Eastern Europe into the Soviet bloc ranks as one of the greatest disasters, only that it was legitimate as a response in terms of the chronological limitations of the OP!
I fail to see how the incorporation of Eastern Europe into the Soviet Bloc rates as such a great disaster. Most of Eastern Europe was comprised of brutal fascist states anyway (with the exception of Czechoslovakia) and while Eastern European countries under communism were rather deary and repressive there wasn't widespread killing such as there was in other disasters mentioned.
However, I think your comment about most of Eastern Europe being composed of brutal fascist states prior to their becoming Communist ones is, while true enough, not strictly relevant, since the judgement of whether or not Eastern European Communism was a disaster has less to do with what forms of government were operating in those countries before and during the war than with what the likely alternative was after the war. The choice facing Europe in 1946 was not between Communism and fascism but between Communism and liberal democracy - between East and West Germany, not between East Germany and Nazi Germany.
In other words, one could regard both prewar fascism and postwar Communism as being disasters. Still, I agree with you that there were greater disasters in postwar history.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeThat wasn't the only choice in Europe; both Spain and Portugal had fascist dictatorships before and after the war. The idea that "liberal democracy" would have taken root in a place like Rumania or Bulgaria immediately after WWII seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely than would have returned to monarchies (real ones not show ones) or military dictatorships such as existed in Poland before the war.
I wasn't personally suggesting that the incorporation of Eastern Europe into the Soviet bloc ranks as one of the greatest disasters, only that it was legitimate as a response in terms of the chronological limitations of the OP!
However, I think your comment about most of Eastern Europe being composed of brutal fascist states prior to their becoming Comm ...[text shortened]... being disasters. Still, I agree with you that there were greater disasters in postwar history.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeNo, I disagree, as you're assuming the great 'war losses' prior to '45 had any bearing upon my comment, they did not. Whether Stalin was in power before or after WWII, the fact remains that after '45, his 'ilk' were responsible for the imprisonment \ slaughter on a basis probably never before witnessed in History...
Stalin was, however, in power before 1945, so may technically be excluded from the terms of this thread (although the incorporation of the rest of Eastern Europe into the Soviet bloc would be a legitimate candidate).
One candidate no-one's mentioned yet might be the victory of Mao in the Chinese Civil War - at least if one assumes (a big assumption) tha ...[text shortened]... untold cultural damage. It is hard to see how Chiang's rule might have been remotely as awful.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by RevRSleekerAfter 1945? When exactly?
No, I disagree, as you're assuming the great 'war losses' prior to '45 had any bearing upon my comment, they did not. Whether Stalin was in power before or after WWII, the fact remains that after '45, his 'ilk' were responsible for the imprisonment \ slaughter on a basis probably never before witnessed in History...
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe USSR under Stalin alone killed 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine). The Iron curtain and its influence over the entire planet certainly makes it a strong candidate for what the OP specifys
Most people are likely to agree that the rise of Hitler and the consequent Second World War were the worst things that happened during the twentieth century (and possibly in all history). But what was the greatest disaster that happened in world history since the end of World War II? By "greatest disaster", I mean the event or set of events that had the most negative consequences overall for human life, welfare and happiness.
20 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonWasn't the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s? Wasn't the peak of the purges in the mid to late 1930's?
The USSR under Stalin alone killed 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine). The Iron curtain and its influence over the entire planet certainly makes it a strong candidate for what the OP specifys
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by RevRSleekerSorry, I don't personally own the CIA. You'll have to actually answer the question and specifically describe who was of Stalin's "ilk" and what events post-1945 caused the most slaughter in the history of the world.
I wish you'd read the comments before rushing in, not only from Stalin's 'clear outs' post WWII ...'ilk' sir, ilk..now who could we include in that ? Your own cia.gov gives 'adequate' sources...
Or you could admit to hyperbole and exaggeration.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFI stand corrected. I forgot about the date. The gulags were after 45' I believe though. I have read some estimates that as many as 10,000,000 soviets "disappeared".
Wasn't the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s? Wasn't the peak of the purges in the mid to late 1930's?
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by no1marauderAh, a comedy act as well as such worldly knowledge, 'hyperbole and exaggeration,' I've witnessed so often from a 'certain poster', about these pages, I lose count and rarely \ wisely do I engage..cia.gov is a site, believe it or not YOU can access it for 'reliable' sources, I do wonder what sites \ resources you'd sponsor if you could..I'm 'dead' here, I'll leave it to others to intimate the slaughter and actions of other leaders over vast swathes of Asia, apart from Eastern Europe and 'aspects' of S.America, were a direct consequence of what 'amounted to' Joe Stalin..the ilk of..
Sorry, I don't personally own the CIA. You'll have to actually answer the question and specifically describe who was of Stalin's "ilk" and what events post-1945 caused the most slaughter in the history of the world.
Or you could admit to hyperbole and exaggeration.
20 Nov 11
1 edit
I guess this is not "since" the end of WWI, but I'd nominate the splitting of the atom. I don't blame the US (or the USSR for that matter) for doing it, since it is possible and the other guy could do it, but perhaps mankind would have been better off if there were some law of nature that preventing the splitting of the atom that caused nuclear annihilation to be, now and forever, the bête noire of civilization.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76I was thinking of suggesting this myself. Certainly the resulting cold war led to a military buildup of massive proportions which, it could be argued, has led to the endless wars of the 20th century.
I guess this is not "since" the end of WWI, but I'd nominate the splitting of the atom. I don't blame the US (or the USSR for that matter) for doing it, since it is possible and the other guy could do it, but perhaps mankind would have been better off if there were some law of nature that preventing the splitting of the atom that caused nuclear annihilation to be, now and forever, the bête noire of civilization.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76That's an odd choice, considering nuclear weapons led "only" to 100,000 or so deaths, and nuclear weapons have effectively prevented war among those who have them. Not to mention that nuclear power is a clean, efficient way of producing power.
I guess this is not "since" the end of WWI, but I'd nominate the splitting of the atom. I don't blame the US (or the USSR for that matter) for doing it, since it is possible and the other guy could do it, but perhaps mankind would have been better off if there were some law of nature that preventing the splitting of the atom that caused nuclear annihilation to be, now and forever, the bête noire of civilization.
20 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe deaths caused until now are hardly the point.
That's an odd choice, considering nuclear weapons led "only" to 100,000 or so deaths, and nuclear weapons have effectively prevented war among those who have them. Not to mention that nuclear power is a clean, efficient way of producing power.