5 ms·

Come on, there were lots of cases in Eastern Europe where previous owners wanted compensation for property that was stolen by the communists. (This gets extra w

by berntb 10y ago

Come on, there were lots of cases in Eastern Europe where previous owners wanted compensation for property that was stolen by the communists. (This gets extra weight when demands come from inside the EU when the country wants to join the EU, of course.) Not saying the official Swedish policies aren't disgusting in their shameless double standards, of course. References to that bribe would be interesting for me, to put on FB for my Swedish friends? (I'm Swedish and have been quite a bit in Romania. This is the first time I hear about it. I don't doubt you, news like that don't really show up in Swedish media -- see previous paragraph.) I should add -- if you want to talk compensation, talk about how the whole western Europe left the eastern Europe to rot as slaves for generations. :-( Edit: After the 1980s, the US and Saddam weren't on the best of terms. :-) Edit 2: lostlogin is correct. Forget previous Edit please, I read sloppily. The comment talks about after 2003, not after the 1980s.

lostlogin 10y ago
They weren't on terrible terms either and while the jury is still out on exactly what happened, Saddam thought he was given a green light by the US/Glaspie. Chemical and biological weapons were also sold to Iraq during the 80s.
DominikR 10y ago
> if you want to talk compensation, talk about how the whole western Europe left the eastern Europe to rot as slaves for generations. You've got that wrong, western European countries have no responsibility to do anything for eastern Europeans aside from being respectful partners. It is the eastern Europeans responsibility to improve their own societies if they want to. Astonishing how anyone could even claim victimhood about that.
- berntb 10y ago
  The point is -- Eastern Europe was in practice left under occupation by one of history's worst dictators as part of signing the peace after the 2nd world war. It is shocking, when you read up on the subject and see how many percent of the population ended up in horrible jails in the "less" bad places like Romania. And yeah, you don't risk global nuclear war over other people's liberty. (A good reason why places like Iran and North Korea want to go nuclear.)
  - DominikR 10y ago
    No, no one "left" someone under occupation, it wasn't the decision to make for the West in the first place. The responsibility for the US is primarily for what happens in the US, the same is true for the UK and Romania. Romanians ran the Gestapo like security apparatus called "Securitate", Romanians ran the Romanian army and Romanians ran the Romanian government. Whatever happened in Romania is primarily the fault of Romanians. Don't tell me how I should have fought or even died for your freedom, better ask yourself why your people didn't do it. There are examples of other countries (like Socialist Yugoslavia) that fought for their freedom against the Nazis, and who then stayed independent from the Soviets. (even though Stalin threatened to invade) When the Nazis came the Romanians went along with them and submitted (not only that, but they also supplied hundreds of thousands of soldiers), when the Soviets came the Romanians went along with them and submitted. (again supplied soldiers to fight for their cause) What you are essentially doing by calling them victims is asking for some higher authority that should make things right that you don't want to fight for yourself. Maybe some United Nations Socialist world government? I can tell you with absolute certainty that we are not going to have any of that. Maybe you will though, it is your own choice. But don't blame us when it doesn't work out the way you hoped.
    - berntb 10y ago
      In principle I agree for the 1940s, a pan European brotherhood was probably not so important at the time. [Edit: And when they saw what they had done, it was a MAD world...] But Yugoslavia was a special case, there the new government didn't come in, riding with an occupying tank army that broke the back of the population with hunger, Siberia and torture. Hungary 51, Czechoslovakia 68, the forest brothers of the Balkans... They did try. Hard. (Edit: Note -- when it was clear that Soviet tanks wouldn't roll in over the borders any more, the dictators went out quickly.) Democracies should try to spread the liberty. It is the modern missionary statement. If nothing else, it is good for everyone. Edit: Where I would put the disagreement: History shows that a brutal enough junta can keep a population down for generations. 1984, with history as a foot stomping in a face. (The junta probably needs control over the information for that to work.) So a population have an impossible time freeing itself from a pack of criminals without external help. And it is the moral duty for free societies to aid in this. (I hate idealism. But this is one I can stand for.)
grive 10y ago
"I should add -- if you want to talk compensation, talk about how the whole western Europe left the eastern Europe to rot as slaves for generations. :-(" Astonishing. That's just on a whole other level of insanity.

by berntb 10y ago

lostlogin 10y ago

They weren't on terrible terms either and while the jury is still out on exactly what happened, Saddam thought he was given a green light by the US/Glaspie. Chemical and biological weapons were also sold to Iraq during the 80s.

DominikR 10y ago

> if you want to talk compensation, talk about how the whole western Europe left the eastern Europe to rot as slaves for generations. You've got that wrong, western European countries have no responsibility to do anything for eastern Europeans aside from being respectful partners. It is the eastern Europeans responsibility to improve their own societies if they want to. Astonishing how anyone could even claim victimhood about that.

berntb 10y ago
The point is -- Eastern Europe was in practice left under occupation by one of history's worst dictators as part of signing the peace after the 2nd world war. It is shocking, when you read up on the subject and see how many percent of the population ended up in horrible jails in the "less" bad places like Romania. And yeah, you don't risk global nuclear war over other people's liberty. (A good reason why places like Iran and North Korea want to go nuclear.)
- DominikR 10y ago
  No, no one "left" someone under occupation, it wasn't the decision to make for the West in the first place. The responsibility for the US is primarily for what happens in the US, the same is true for the UK and Romania. Romanians ran the Gestapo like security apparatus called "Securitate", Romanians ran the Romanian army and Romanians ran the Romanian government. Whatever happened in Romania is primarily the fault of Romanians. Don't tell me how I should have fought or even died for your freedom, better ask yourself why your people didn't do it. There are examples of other countries (like Socialist Yugoslavia) that fought for their freedom against the Nazis, and who then stayed independent from the Soviets. (even though Stalin threatened to invade) When the Nazis came the Romanians went along with them and submitted (not only that, but they also supplied hundreds of thousands of soldiers), when the Soviets came the Romanians went along with them and submitted. (again supplied soldiers to fight for their cause) What you are essentially doing by calling them victims is asking for some higher authority that should make things right that you don't want to fight for yourself. Maybe some United Nations Socialist world government? I can tell you with absolute certainty that we are not going to have any of that. Maybe you will though, it is your own choice. But don't blame us when it doesn't work out the way you hoped.
  - berntb 10y ago
    In principle I agree for the 1940s, a pan European brotherhood was probably not so important at the time. [Edit: And when they saw what they had done, it was a MAD world...] But Yugoslavia was a special case, there the new government didn't come in, riding with an occupying tank army that broke the back of the population with hunger, Siberia and torture. Hungary 51, Czechoslovakia 68, the forest brothers of the Balkans... They did try. Hard. (Edit: Note -- when it was clear that Soviet tanks wouldn't roll in over the borders any more, the dictators went out quickly.) Democracies should try to spread the liberty. It is the modern missionary statement. If nothing else, it is good for everyone. Edit: Where I would put the disagreement: History shows that a brutal enough junta can keep a population down for generations. 1984, with history as a foot stomping in a face. (The junta probably needs control over the information for that to work.) So a population have an impossible time freeing itself from a pack of criminals without external help. And it is the moral duty for free societies to aid in this. (I hate idealism. But this is one I can stand for.)

grive 10y ago

"I should add -- if you want to talk compensation, talk about how the whole western Europe left the eastern Europe to rot as slaves for generations. :-(" Astonishing. That's just on a whole other level of insanity.