3 ms·
> My point is more that in Poland, communism was always something of a foreign imposition by the Soviet Union I think communism or not is besides the point. Po
by f6v 3y ago
> My point is more that in Poland, communism was always something of a foreign imposition by the Soviet Union
I think communism or not is besides the point. Poland has a strong imperial tradition where the state spanned from Baltic almost to the Black Sea. They’ve been occupying and ruling for much longer than they’ve been in a socialist camp, and that had a much bigger impact on their national identity. And, as some others noted, being close to Germany gives Poland a big advantage.
On the point of “communism”, take Romania as an example. I took a tour of the Presidential palace when I was in Bucharest. The guide was extremely negative about the communist era(when the palace itself was built), as many Romanians are. She went on and on how the dictator forced the palace construction and how terrible it was. Ironically, the palace is one of the few attraction in Bucharest. Walk just 200m away and it’s going to be rubble and desolation. In summary, I don’t think being anti-communist helps them all that much.
> Bulgaria, on the other hand, was a close ally of the Soviet Union and more historically, of Russia
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bulgaria never was an economic powerhouse or major European power, unlike Poland. Between the Ottomans and other empires, they probably don’t have a history of building a strong economy. Being between rock and a hard place, not having resources, etc. probably contributed much more than what you say.
- NewsyHacker 3y agoIf you think Bucharest has few attractions besides Casa Poporului, you must have not had a good guidebook and really missed out. The city is full of interesting sites. Yes, the socialist era and the big earthquake damaged the city, but there are still great museums, churches, parks, and sites connected with the artists and men of letters of the 19th century and prewar era.
- keiferski 3y agoPoland was occupied / colonized almost continuously from the late 1700s to the 1990s. The idea that their imperial history before that had more of an effect on the modern person’s psyche is nonsense.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago> Ironically, the palace is one of the few attraction in Bucharest. Walk just 200m away and it’s going to be rubble and desolation. In summary, I don’t think being anti-communist helps them all that much. You got it wrong here. 1)Bucharest doesn't have many eye-catching tourist attractions like a quaint historical old town because of the 1977 earthquake that destroyed a large part of the old historical buildings, and Ceausescu in his infinite wisdom, decided "fuck it, we'll just build concrete commie blocks instead for the communist party members", a highly unpopular decision even back then in those days, that even the lead architect in charge fled the country for speaking up against this idea because he didn't want to desecrate history to build commie blocks. The only somewhat silver lining of this today, is that due to the over construction of commie blocks back then, Bucharest housing remains somewhat affordable for the average person today despite gentrification, when you look at housing affordability in other EU capitals. 2) People in Romania are rightfully anti-communist due to the atrocities of the regime, and a giant building as a big tourist attraction doesn't change that. Being anti communist does actually help with the imense progress the country made becoming business friendly and attracting foreign investors.