Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.

Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2007
Posts
5,581
Location
London
Building pocket battleships and tanks, etc. in secret... well other than it was fairly well known by the British LOL.

I found this interesting on reading it recently

I have no idea how this is a reply to my post or what you are even saying?

If you simply google breaking the treaty of Versailles, you can read in depth how they continuously built up.

From moving weapons companies out of Germany to bypass sanctions, and classifying soldiers as HR.

I know it was well known, they did it blatantly, all of the time, it was in the times like 1923 or something how Germany has 800,000 troops, with massive stockpiles of munitions and food etc.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,171
I have no idea how this is a reply to my post or what you are even saying?

If you simply google breaking the treaty of Versailles, you can read in depth how they continuously built up.

From moving weapons companies out of Germany to bypass sanctions, and classifying soldiers as HR.

I know it was well known, they did it blatantly, all of the time, it was in the times like 1923 or something how Germany has 800,000 troops, with massive stockpiles of munitions and food etc.

It was more about the general point - I can't remember specifically what I was posting about now other than a bit of frustration how often action isn't taken about some obviously bad situation until things come to a head and the world can't wash its hands of the problem any more.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,618
More a case of..

Allying ourselves with Communism to defeat Fascism left the world a rather (Considerably even) worse place than it would have been had we allied ourselves with Fascism to defeat Communism.

Helping the Soviet Union defeat Germany was probabally the most catastrophic disaster for humanity of the entire 20th century! Nothing else even comes close!


That is a completely warped interpretation.

Not least we never allied with Communism. Did the Americans actively support Communism?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
That is a completely warped interpretation.

Not least we never allied with Communism. Did the Americans actively support Communism?

Of course they did, even before they officially joined they were funding them, then directly after the war when Churchill realised how naughty the Soviets were and wanted the US to declare war on them, they declined.

Then we spend almost 50 years say oops.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
That is certainly a point of view - I suspect that few people will share it and I certainly don't

Allowing the Soviet Union to defeat Germany resulted in the economic prospects of whole continents being compromised. Billions of people had their lives blighted and countless numbers, 100 million or more (Possibly a lot more), unnecessary deaths.

The consequences of the soviet unions victory over Germany 70 years ago reverberate to this day and will continue far into the future (The chaos that is Venezuela is just an example of it)

In many ways, WW2 led seamlessly to WW3, but WW3 was fought mostly in the third world, via proxies, so nobody noticed the devastation that it wrought

At the same time, through the period 45-80 (The worst of the cold war had died down by 1980 even though the Soviet Union struggled on for another 10 years) the whole world teetered on the edge of total destruction. It was a far closer run thing than most people think. People look back at the early days of Windscale and criticize the seemingly reckless manner in which nuclear materials were handled and processed. But they forget that this wasn't just about doing some interesting physics and possibly creating a new source of electricity.

It was about national survival. The threat of war with the soviet union was very real and, the US having knifed us, (British scientists were key to the US Atomic Bomb program but after it was all over, the US Government confiscated all our work and refused to share theirs) it was considered that developing our own Bomb was a matter of national emergency, since for all their bluster, there was no guarantee that the US would defend Europe on their own should the Soviets kick off.

(Historically the US has been one of our less reliable allies, the special relationship thing is a myth!)

As far as alternative histories go. I can certainly envisage a world where a neutral Britain (And France) might have resulted in Barbarossa taking place a year earlier, with a stronger Germany, a weaker Soviet Union and it really being all over by Christmas (Which it very nearly was in 1941. Germany lost Babraossa by a squeak, they really did. Had Germany defeated the Soviet Union, there would have been no prospect of ever launching a second front in the west)

I can certainly envisage the possibility that the result of this being a world that was a far more pleasant and prosperous one than the one I was born into and grew up in...

That is a completely warped interpretation.

Not least we never allied with Communism. Did the Americans actively support Communism?

Acts speak louder than words.

We may not have supported the Soviet Union ideologically.

But we supported them with resources, fuel, and all the trappings that go with it.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
Latin America has had a fair share of right wing dictators, riding exactly the same base as Chavez and Maduro. Russia is a case in point in Europe: bigger; repressed; exactly the same source of wealth and very similar problems; yet diametrically ideologically opposed.

Which ideology authoritarians use to paint their rear for the public is largely immaterial. It can shift as quickly as it arises. They are the purest pragmatists known to man - whatever works to survive will do. Geopolitically rent-a-riot is also common. It's cheaper than outright military intervention.

The fundamental cause is so common, in fact, petrostate is both in the dictionary and textbooks!

I saw a very insightful comment on the split in the American Right:
right-divide.png


It's not dissimilar to a split here in the UK, though far less obvious in our case. Increasingly when "Right-Wing" is discussed, critics are focused on the left column, proponents on the right. Just as critics of the Left focus on Antifa, Dianne Abbot, et al. rather than say more reasonable Left members.

President Trump shouldn't only build a wall along the border, he should build one around the entire country to keep themselves in.

:D

I've been following the political situation in Venezuela for a long while (political geek and it interests me) - my Spanish isn't up to scratch so translations and English Language websites have been my sources.

While I'm no fan of socialism, its more of a failed petro-state with hyper partisan politics, an unbelievably stupid government and an opposition that couldn't plan their way out of a paper bag. They have price controls and done a bit of expropriation, but they're nowhere near places like Cuba. They've tried the one party state thing but even on the left there are many factions - while the PSUV (the governing party) have pulled tricks (an example from a Chavez supporting website https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13882) they don't have single domination even on the left, with the Communists and various communes winning elections against the PSUV (that is when the results are not stolen away from them).

Probably the most egregious anti-democratic things to happen in recent years was the National Constituent Assembly taking over day to day running of things from the Congress thanks to a dodgy supreme court decision (packed with Chavista loyalists) and a bizarre interpretation of the constitution; and the government distributing food parcels via their local party infrastructure (called CLAPs) rather than via the state. Want to eat and you're living in a poor barrio? Best not be known as an opposition supporter!

The opposition are a complete bunch of jokers. They've refused to participate in recent elections (national constituent assembly elections, then municipalities, then governorships, then the presenidential elections in May last year). They had the PSUV on the run in 2013, with the loss of congress then the guarimbas (huge street protests), they fell about arguing and eventually decided on mostly withdrawing from the political scene, allowing the PSUV with win election after election even though citizens were pretty hacked off with the government. My guess is that lots of venezuelans can't stand either side, stuck between an incompetent government and an opposition likely to be just as useless if they get in power.

All in all, I can't see a good solution available.

Interesting. Thanks for posting all that.

But yeh socialism is stupid, I'm not saying capitalism works long term either but it's a significantly better based on all current evidence.

No system doesn't have its ups and downs. If you can pick the start and end points of any measure you can prove anything fails. Capitalism is like democracy (and not really separable, imo). It's the worst system there is, except for all the others.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
. . . how often action isn't taken about some obviously bad situation until things come to a head and the world can't wash its hands of the problem any more.
I'm not entirely convinced that the situation in Venezuela is a result of "inaction" by the Americans. Many American Administrations (and certainly ALL the Republican Administrations) have gone to considerable lengths to ensure the failure of any Socialist experiment.

The Get Rich Quick Americans are still devoted to the concepts of "Might is Right - ALWAYS!", "Greed is Good" and "Just deal with today; ridicule and ignore anyone who worries about tomorrow".

As a country that purports to believe in Christianity they have clearly never read ANY scripture at all.
 

NVP

NVP

Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
12,649
xgrVAF2.jpg

During a Monday White House press briefing national security adviser John Bolton was photographed carrying a notepad — presumably as he was fresh out of a national security meeting — and one of the things which appears to be handwritten on the pad is "5,000 troops to Colombia".

The contents of the notepad were spotted almost immediately by multiple journalists online after an NBC news release featuring the AP photo was published. More precisely the full contents appear to read:


"Afghanistan -> Welcome the Talks. 5,000 troops to Colombia."

Stupid security "breach" leaking the fact they're getting ready for a move in, or just a false "leak" to flex the muscles?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
xgrVAF2.jpg



Stupid security "breach" leaking the fact they're getting ready for a move in, or just a false "leak" to flex the muscles?

It's a public orchestrated leak by a confirmed war hawk ********, what do you think he means by it? He want's Russia and China to know ( i mean technically if their intelligence is good enough, 5000 movement would be easily confirmed, but he want's it public as well for added pizzazz) so that they make moves.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
So socialism = bad

But we shouldn't have fought facism?

Hmmmm

In an ideal world it would have been nice to fight both tbh... Hitler was the immediate threat that needed to be dealt with though.

Both National Socialism and International Socialism ought to be opposed IMO, both have lead to millions of needless deaths.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
In an ideal world it would have been nice to fight both tbh... Hitler was the immediate threat that needed to be dealt with though.

Both National Socialism and International Socialism ought to be opposed IMO, both have lead to millions of needless deaths.

Except that that wasnt true.

The Soviet Union was always a far greater threat than Nazi Germany ever was.

While fascist style movements were popular during the 1920/30's, I dont think there is any suggestion that individual countries nationalist movements were under any sort of direct control from Berlin as part of some sort of plan for global domination. By contrast international Communist organizations were under direct control from Moscow and the specific intent was to sow the seeds of revolution across western Europe, around the rest of the world, and even in north America.

Hitlers rise to power, regardless of the consequences, was actually very likely to have been a good thing. The alternatives would have been very much worse for the world.

In 1920's Germany it really was a toss up between the Communists and the Nazis. This of course is why The Nazi party gained the support of the middle classes and industrialists, and even the army (Which otherwise they would never have got) and why, as soon as he came to power, pretty much the first thing Hitler did was round up all the communists and their sympathizers and put them in concentration camps. They really were too much of a threat to his position to leave free to cause trouble.

A communist revolution in Germany, in 1930, would have been a catastrophe.

I am amazed that so many people seem to forget just how WW2 actually started.

In the immortal words of Basil Fawlty "You started it, You invaded Poland!"

Yes the Germans did invade Poland. But the Soviet Union did too! They were allies to begin with.

And the Soviets were every bit as savage as conquerors as the Germans were. Probably rather more so in fact, at least in the early years of the war. (Katyn Massacre anybody?)

Indeed they carried on being allies until well after the Battle of Britain had been won (Just) and the Blitz era was over. And yet, for some unfathomable reason. while we declared War on Germany, we never declared War on the Soviet Union.

Had the Communists come to power in Germany in 1930, there would probabally still have been an alliance with the Soviet union, there would probabally still have been an invasion of Poland, and the combined forces of Germany and the Soviet Union would have swept across western Europe in a wave of destruction that would have resulted in the deaths of probabally around 1/3 of the population (Historically a typical figure for Communist revolutions. From 1920's Russia to 1970's Cambodia).

It is alleged that at the end of WW2, Churchill was heard to say, "We Killed the wrong Pig". I do not believe that there is any proof in this, but the sentiment is there.

In some ways we should be grateful for Hitler and the Nazis. Even if they had won WW2, the consequences would have been far less severe than if they had never existed in the first place.

Had Hitler stayed in art collage, the world today is likley to have been a far darker placed!
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
Except that that wasnt true.

The Soviet Union was always a far greater threat than Nazi Germany ever was.

While fascist style movements were popular during the 1920/30's, I dont think there is any suggestion that individual countries nationalist movements were under any sort of direct control from Berlin as part of some sort of plan for global domination. By contrast international Communist organizations were under direct control from Moscow and the specific intent was to sow the seeds of revolution across western Europe, around the rest of the world, and even in north America.

Hitlers rise to power, regardless of the consequences, was actually very likely to have been a good thing. The alternatives would have been very much worse for the world.

In 1920's Germany it really was a toss up between the Communists and the Nazis. This of course is why The Nazi party gained the support of the middle classes and industrialists, and even the army (Which otherwise they would never have got) and why, as soon as he came to power, pretty much the first thing Hitler did was round up all the communists and their sympathizers and put them in concentration camps. They really were too much of a threat to his position to leave free to cause trouble.

A communist revolution in Germany, in 1930, would have been a catastrophe.

I am amazed that so many people seem to forget just how WW2 actually started.

In the immortal words of Basil Fawlty "You started it, You invaded Poland!"

Yes the Germans did invade Poland. But the Soviet Union did too! They were allies to begin with.

And the Soviets were every bit as savage as conquerors as the Germans were. Probably rather more so in fact, at least in the early years of the war. (Katyn Massacre anybody?)

Indeed they carried on being allies until well after the Battle of Britain had been won (Just) and the Blitz era was over. And yet, for some unfathomable reason. while we declared War on Germany, we never declared War on the Soviet Union.

Had the Communists come to power in Germany in 1930, there would probabally still have been an alliance with the Soviet union, there would probabally still have been an invasion of Poland, and the combined forces of Germany and the Soviet Union would have swept across western Europe in a wave of destruction that would have resulted in the deaths of probabally around 1/3 of the population (Historically a typical figure for Communist revolutions. From 1920's Russia to 1970's Cambodia).

It is alleged that at the end of WW2, Churchill was heard to say, "We Killed the wrong Pig". I do not believe that there is any proof in this, but the sentiment is there.

In some ways we should be grateful for Hitler and the Nazis. Even if they had won WW2, the consequences would have been far less severe than if they had never existed in the first place.

Had Hitler stayed in art collage, the world today is likley to have been a far darker placed!

I'm not quite sure what to make of this post. But it's fascinating.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Posts
5,996
Location
Essex
Yes the Germans did invade Poland. But the Soviet Union did too! They were allies to begin with.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a non-aggression pact, not an alliance or mutual defense pact. Yes it also defined the respective spheres of influence and the partitioning of Eastern Europe, but to describe it them as allies is going too far I think.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a non-aggression pact, not an alliance or mutual defense pact. Yes it also defined the respective spheres of influence and the partitioning of Eastern Europe, but to describe it them as allies is going too far I think.

Well except that a (THE even) key part of that was an agreement for a combined and cooperative assault on Poland. (CW mass slaughter of Polish POW's by the Soviets, Not even the Germans were into that at the start!)

As I have said elsewhere, Actions speak louder than words!

Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland within days (Hours??). Why not the USSR, at all, ever?

Really, I would love to see the historical documents that might explain this bizarre difference in treatment.
 
Back
Top Bottom