4 ms·

You are lucky that your country have not endured Soviet occupation like other states in Eastern Europe. Event today the economical and social signs are clearly

by liviu 11y ago

You are lucky that your country have not endured Soviet occupation like other states in Eastern Europe. Event today the economical and social signs are clearly visible on those states. This was magnitude worse that British/American influence.

rogeryu 11y ago
Well you could dispute that for young people living in Greece right now, without any future, with a huge debt that will last for generations. Former Eastern European states now part of the EU may have a future that is a lot brighter. Even if people there are poorer than the average Greek right now, they are on the rise, and the Greek are falling down. Given a basic level of wellfare, I know what I would prefer, knowing where you came from.
- johnnyoughut 11y ago
  Who's fault is that debt in the first place?
- gadders 11y ago
  That is self-inflicted.
  - peterfirefly 11y ago
    Or rather, inflicted by the older generation upon the younger.
dmichulke 11y ago
Well, these "lucky" Greeks you mention still had their share of dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%9374 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E... In any case, justifying the application of violence with the possibility of preventing more violence some 20 years later is kind of outrageous.
asgard1024 11y ago
I disagree. There are examples and counterexamples on both sides. It's really hard to decide where the blame should go. I am from Czech Republic, a former communist country. And it was nowhere as bad as Chile or El Salvador. Or, if you want just to compare Russian atrocities, occupation in 1968 was nowhere as bad as mass rapes in Germany after the end of world war, or Ukrainian famine, or Stalin's purges. It's not just it's not black and white, it's not even one-dimensional. You can have regime without freedom of speech that puts couple tens people per year into jail (like Czech Republic in the 70s and 80s), or you can have a regime with freedom of speech that commits torture and war abroad, killing hundreds of people. To ask/answer which one is worse is meaningless. And to compare it from economic perspective is just outright disgusting. Even if killing some people would indeed cause higher economic growth, no human should agree to such a trade.
- bad_user 11y ago
  I'm from Romania, another former communist country from the Eastern block. First of all you are comparing third world countries like Chile or El Salvador with European countries that were doing well before WWII. At least Romania was. This makes your comparison flawed, because when a country is somewhat rich, with a working middle class, with somewhat working institutions, it does have the resources to spare and it will still be doing OK. Because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact between Hitler and Stalin, we've lost territories like Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union, by force of course. And I must say that this was happening in 1940, with a Romania that hadn't entered the war yet. Russians later blamed us for giving support to the Germans on their invasion, but that's why they say you reap what you sow. Bessarabia is now the republic of Moldova. We still think of them as being Bessarabia, as Moldova is also the name of the adjacent region in Romania. After the war, the soviet induced famine has hit us as well, but it hit Moldavians much harder. Hundreds of thousands of people have died of hunger and the official numbers are actually lower than what happened (my grandfather lived to tell me the story). But furthermore, we had to pay war reparations. And during their invasion on our territory, they've established what are called Sovroms, which were enterprises meant to deplete the resources of our country, with the effect that we've paid much, much more than the war reparations that were demanded. The soviets also mined us, for example we've shipped thousands of tons of uranium ore which ended up being used in their atomic bomb project. In Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina the soviets did what Russians do best when invading a territory. They arrested, executed or deported to labour camps in Siberia hundreds of thousands of people and they also planted Russians on those territories, with the purpose of completely destroying their national identity. And this strategy of theirs does wonders. In the eyes of many Moldavians, the Russians are their "brothers" and Romania has had a "colonial policy" that has to be terminated. In return we've started granting them dual citizenship that has been their gate to the EU. We wouldn't have any economic benefit in an eventual unification of course, the difference between Romania and the Republic of Moldova being the difference between western and eastern Germany in the eighties. This is why Ukraine is so divided btw, as this is their usual modus operandi and anybody that says Russia's actions there are justified is either an ignorant or full of shit. But back to the soviets, in Romania the result was poverty of course. But as a fun fact, even our former communist government was anti-Russian. For example at some point under Ceaușescu we declined to place our military forces under the Warsaw Pact's joint command and we also refused to increase our military expenditures. We also refused to side with Russia on several political conflicts. And Romania was actually isolated from the rest of the Eastern block. We were the pariah of the Warsaw Pact. Our neighbors had it easier. But by far the biggest damage that the soviets did to us is the mentality, which is the cause for the corrupted system we've inherited after the communist block fell. We've been recovering quite well, but it's far from over, being much like cancer extirpation. And while our brethren from around our country are sometimes giving signs of missing the USSR, we don't. In fact that's the reason I'm proud of my country - we've always been at the intersection of empires, we're still here, we're still speaking a romance language and we hate everybody :-)
cmdkeen 11y ago
It needs to be made clear that the decision making process also did not know about the "good" Czechoslovakia of the 1980s, it knew about the brutality of the Spanish Civil War and Soviet Purges, mass starvation of Ukraine. Stalin had more blood on his hands than Hitler at that time when these decisions were being made. Plus, because it seems to have slipped further down the list that the GP the Guardian ran a correction pointing out the article has no historical basis and the damage these incorrect allegations have done to Greece in plainly visible in the writing of the GP. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/28/readers-editor-on-athens-44-british-army http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/28/readers-editor-...
- caf 11y ago
  The correction does not point that "the article has no historical basis", it points out that the specific allegation that British soliders were among those to fire upon the demonstrators in the December confrontation is based only upon the recollection of those there at the time, and is not generally considered to be true.
  - twoodfin 11y ago
    That blows a pretty significant hole in the narrative of the article! How seriously can I take the rest of the "eye witness" reporting that makes up much of this piece if that "specific" allegation was likely simply a convenient legend? For example, how sanguine should I be about the claimed non-violent, non-Stalinist goals of the revolutionary forces?
    - andreasvc 11y ago
      We can nitpick over who pulled the trigger or who gave the direct order, but the larger issue is that Churchill was waging a dirty civil war. We can discuss how violent and Stalinist the goals of the revolutionary forces may have been, but meanwhile we know about torture and concentration camps that actually happened, which seems more pertinent.
      - 11y ago
lentil_soup 11y ago
It's not a competition on which one is worse. If both were terrible, both should be called out and condemned.
odiroot 11y ago
Exactly, my country (Poland) was traded away for Greece to the Soviets -- in Yalta or Tehran as far as I remember.
- liviu 11y ago
  Many eastern countries was traded away for Greece at Yalta :) "Greece was to be portioned 90/10 to the West, while Romania was to be divided 90/10 in favour of the USSR" See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/blog/books-blog/taylor-downing/yalta-1945 http://www.historytoday.com/blog/books-blog/taylor-downing/y...

by liviu 11y ago

rogeryu 11y ago

Well you could dispute that for young people living in Greece right now, without any future, with a huge debt that will last for generations. Former Eastern European states now part of the EU may have a future that is a lot brighter. Even if people there are poorer than the average Greek right now, they are on the rise, and the Greek are falling down. Given a basic level of wellfare, I know what I would prefer, knowing where you came from.

johnnyoughut 11y ago
Who's fault is that debt in the first place?
gadders 11y ago
That is self-inflicted.
- peterfirefly 11y ago
  Or rather, inflicted by the older generation upon the younger.

dmichulke 11y ago

Well, these "lucky" Greeks you mention still had their share of dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E2%80%9374 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967%E... In any case, justifying the application of violence with the possibility of preventing more violence some 20 years later is kind of outrageous.

asgard1024 11y ago

I disagree. There are examples and counterexamples on both sides. It's really hard to decide where the blame should go. I am from Czech Republic, a former communist country. And it was nowhere as bad as Chile or El Salvador. Or, if you want just to compare Russian atrocities, occupation in 1968 was nowhere as bad as mass rapes in Germany after the end of world war, or Ukrainian famine, or Stalin's purges. It's not just it's not black and white, it's not even one-dimensional. You can have regime without freedom of speech that puts couple tens people per year into jail (like Czech Republic in the 70s and 80s), or you can have a regime with freedom of speech that commits torture and war abroad, killing hundreds of people. To ask/answer which one is worse is meaningless. And to compare it from economic perspective is just outright disgusting. Even if killing some people would indeed cause higher economic growth, no human should agree to such a trade.

bad_user 11y ago
I'm from Romania, another former communist country from the Eastern block. First of all you are comparing third world countries like Chile or El Salvador with European countries that were doing well before WWII. At least Romania was. This makes your comparison flawed, because when a country is somewhat rich, with a working middle class, with somewhat working institutions, it does have the resources to spare and it will still be doing OK. Because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact between Hitler and Stalin, we've lost territories like Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union, by force of course. And I must say that this was happening in 1940, with a Romania that hadn't entered the war yet. Russians later blamed us for giving support to the Germans on their invasion, but that's why they say you reap what you sow. Bessarabia is now the republic of Moldova. We still think of them as being Bessarabia, as Moldova is also the name of the adjacent region in Romania. After the war, the soviet induced famine has hit us as well, but it hit Moldavians much harder. Hundreds of thousands of people have died of hunger and the official numbers are actually lower than what happened (my grandfather lived to tell me the story). But furthermore, we had to pay war reparations. And during their invasion on our territory, they've established what are called Sovroms, which were enterprises meant to deplete the resources of our country, with the effect that we've paid much, much more than the war reparations that were demanded. The soviets also mined us, for example we've shipped thousands of tons of uranium ore which ended up being used in their atomic bomb project. In Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina the soviets did what Russians do best when invading a territory. They arrested, executed or deported to labour camps in Siberia hundreds of thousands of people and they also planted Russians on those territories, with the purpose of completely destroying their national identity. And this strategy of theirs does wonders. In the eyes of many Moldavians, the Russians are their "brothers" and Romania has had a "colonial policy" that has to be terminated. In return we've started granting them dual citizenship that has been their gate to the EU. We wouldn't have any economic benefit in an eventual unification of course, the difference between Romania and the Republic of Moldova being the difference between western and eastern Germany in the eighties. This is why Ukraine is so divided btw, as this is their usual modus operandi and anybody that says Russia's actions there are justified is either an ignorant or full of shit. But back to the soviets, in Romania the result was poverty of course. But as a fun fact, even our former communist government was anti-Russian. For example at some point under Ceaușescu we declined to place our military forces under the Warsaw Pact's joint command and we also refused to increase our military expenditures. We also refused to side with Russia on several political conflicts. And Romania was actually isolated from the rest of the Eastern block. We were the pariah of the Warsaw Pact. Our neighbors had it easier. But by far the biggest damage that the soviets did to us is the mentality, which is the cause for the corrupted system we've inherited after the communist block fell. We've been recovering quite well, but it's far from over, being much like cancer extirpation. And while our brethren from around our country are sometimes giving signs of missing the USSR, we don't. In fact that's the reason I'm proud of my country - we've always been at the intersection of empires, we're still here, we're still speaking a romance language and we hate everybody :-)

cmdkeen 11y ago

It needs to be made clear that the decision making process also did not know about the "good" Czechoslovakia of the 1980s, it knew about the brutality of the Spanish Civil War and Soviet Purges, mass starvation of Ukraine. Stalin had more blood on his hands than Hitler at that time when these decisions were being made. Plus, because it seems to have slipped further down the list that the GP the Guardian ran a correction pointing out the article has no historical basis and the damage these incorrect allegations have done to Greece in plainly visible in the writing of the GP. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/28/readers-editor-on-athens-44-british-army http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/28/readers-editor-...

caf 11y ago
The correction does not point that "the article has no historical basis", it points out that the specific allegation that British soliders were among those to fire upon the demonstrators in the December confrontation is based only upon the recollection of those there at the time, and is not generally considered to be true.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  That blows a pretty significant hole in the narrative of the article! How seriously can I take the rest of the "eye witness" reporting that makes up much of this piece if that "specific" allegation was likely simply a convenient legend? For example, how sanguine should I be about the claimed non-violent, non-Stalinist goals of the revolutionary forces?
  - andreasvc 11y ago
    We can nitpick over who pulled the trigger or who gave the direct order, but the larger issue is that Churchill was waging a dirty civil war. We can discuss how violent and Stalinist the goals of the revolutionary forces may have been, but meanwhile we know about torture and concentration camps that actually happened, which seems more pertinent.
    - 11y ago

lentil_soup 11y ago

It's not a competition on which one is worse. If both were terrible, both should be called out and condemned.

odiroot 11y ago

Exactly, my country (Poland) was traded away for Greece to the Soviets -- in Yalta or Tehran as far as I remember.

liviu 11y ago
Many eastern countries was traded away for Greece at Yalta :) "Greece was to be portioned 90/10 to the West, while Romania was to be divided 90/10 in favour of the USSR" See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/blog/books-blog/taylor-downing/yalta-1945 http://www.historytoday.com/blog/books-blog/taylor-downing/y...