Communism vs Capitalism who killed more?

RomanDmowski said:
An lone assassination doesn't start a war without aggressive imperialists.
Click to expand...

Then you are completely ignorant of history and what caused WW 1. The brief version. Radical Leftists and radical officers in the Serbian military wanted to free themselves from the Austro-Hungarian empire as members of the (variously) Black Hand, and Young Serbian movements. Assassins (not the plural) from these groups plotted to kill Archduke Ferdinand while on a visit to Sarajevo. One of the six got lucky and encountered the Archduke's motorcade after it had changed its route through the city. He killed the Archduke and set off a war with Serbia.
Russia then declared war on Austro-Hungary due to a mutual defense treaty with Serbia. The Germans had a mutual defense treaty with Austro-Hungary and declared war on Russia. The French had such a treaty with Russia and declared war on Germany. The Germans, knowing this, had a plan in place to deal with the French. They invaded Belgium to get outflank the French. This caused the British to enter the war as they had a mutual defense treaty with Belgium.
So, a lone anarchist in a small group of radical anarchists started WW 1.

Germany a Capitalist country in WW1 also sent the Bolsheviks to Russis.
Click to expand...

In order to destabilize Russia and take them out of the war. That's a time honored way to attack your enemy. Let nationals from that country who hate your enemy's current regime loose in that country to stir shit up and maybe overthrow the current regime. It worked great for the US in Afghanistan. That's what the US did rather than stage a large military invasion, as but another example of that in use.

Vietnam was killed off by French Cspitslist interests.
Click to expand...

No, French Indochina (aka Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) were French colonial possessions and treated as such. That poor treatment caused a revolutionary movement to overthrow the French colonial government and toss them out. The French objected. The Useless Nattering class (aka UN) did what it did in Korea. Divide the country in half with the Communists controlling half and a non-Communist government controlling the other half. The Communists then invaded the second half, as they did in Korea. The initial US response was to send aid and advisors to help S. Vietnam defend itself. Only the stupidity of LBJ (a Democrat) and a faked incident (the Gulf of Tonkin incident) got the US into a full-blown war there.
It did have the advantage that it soaked up all of various Communist efforts and supplies to allow similar Communist revolutions in Malaya, Indonesia, and Thailand to be crushed thoroughly.

With famine due to French thievery during WW2.
Click to expand...

Huh? If you are talking about French Indochina, the Japanese controlled it during WW 2.

Then France tried to colonize Vietnam with USA support.
Click to expand...

Wrong. French Indochina was first colonized by that nation in 1887 and the US had ZERO to do with that. Nada, zip-point-shit, nothing. Post WW 2, the French tried to regain control of the colony, unsuccessfully and eventually, like with many other such areas / nations, the UN reached a negotiated settlement that simply didn't last because Communist factions decided afterwards they wanted the whole pie rather than a slice.

Then the Vietnam War happened.
Click to expand...

US involvement in Vietnam was a continuation of a war that started in 1940 with the Japanese occupation of French Indochina.

So. Actually Capitalists instigated Vietnam wars & genocides.
Click to expand...

So, not only are you completely wrong, you have just demonstrated you know nothing about history. What, did you go to a public high school where the teachers were Progressives and Leftists? It sure seems that way because what you keep spouting is the sort of ill-informed, conspiracy theory, non-fact based rubbish the Left regularly trots out on history.
 
RomanDmowski said:
The USA / Anglo-Saxon killed civilians in Dresden & Japan.
Click to expand...

So? Ever hear of the "Rape of Nanking?" How about the German bombing of Warsaw in 1939 or the bombing of Rotterdam in 1940 as but two examples of the same thing done first by the Axis powers. Dresden pales compared to Hamburg as a target by the way. Hamburg was also the first city to suffer a firestorm.
With Japan, "strategic" bombing was left with little choice but to flatten whole cities. This was because much of Japan's industrial capacity was in small shops dispersed throughout them, often in residential areas. Maybe you should read the USSBS sometime. I have, more than once.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a421958.pdf

That's an issue.
Click to expand...

No, it's not an issue.

Never said Germany of Japan were better, in WWe but worse.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were much worse.

Now obviously the exact opposite holds true.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't and you have yet to offer even a scintilla of proof otherwise.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then you are completely ignorant of history and what caused WW 1. The brief version. Radical Leftists and radical officers in the Serbian military wanted to free themselves from the Austro-Hungarian empire as members of the (variously) Black Hand, and Young Serbian movements. Assassins (not the plural) from these groups plotted to kill Archduke Ferdinand while on a visit to Sarajevo. One of the six got lucky and encountered the Archduke's motorcade after it had changed its route through the city. He killed the Archduke and set off a war with Serbia.
Russia then declared war on Austro-Hungary due to a mutual defense treaty with Serbia. The Germans had a mutual defense treaty with Austro-Hungary and declared war on Russia. The French had such a treaty with Russia and declared war on Germany. The Germans, knowing this, had a plan in place to deal with the French. They invaded Belgium to get outflank the French. This caused the British to enter the war as they had a mutual defense treaty with Belgium.
So, a lone anarchist in a small group of radical anarchists started WW 1.



In order to destabilize Russia and take them out of the war. That's a time honored way to attack your enemy. Let nationals from that country who hate your enemy's current regime loose in that country to stir shit up and maybe overthrow the current regime. It worked great for the US in Afghanistan. That's what the US did rather than stage a large military invasion, as but another example of that in use.



No, French Indochina (aka Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) were French colonial possessions and treated as such. That poor treatment caused a revolutionary movement to overthrow the French colonial government and toss them out. The French objected. The Useless Nattering class (aka UN) did what it did in Korea. Divide the country in half with the Communists controlling half and a non-Communist government controlling the other half. The Communists then invaded the second half, as they did in Korea. The initial US response was to send aid and advisors to help S. Vietnam defend itself. Only the stupidity of LBJ (a Democrat) and a faked incident (the Gulf of Tonkin incident) got the US into a full-blown war there.
It did have the advantage that it soaked up all of various Communist efforts and supplies to allow similar Communist revolutions in Malaya, Indonesia, and Thailand to be crushed thoroughly.



Huh? If you are talking about French Indochina, the Japanese controlled it during WW 2.



Wrong. French Indochina was first colonized by that nation in 1887 and the US had ZERO to do with that. Nada, zip-point-shit, nothing. Post WW 2, the French tried to regain control of the colony, unsuccessfully and eventually, like with many other such areas / nations, the UN reached a negotiated settlement that simply didn't last because Communist factions decided afterwards they wanted the whole pie rather than a slice.



US involvement in Vietnam was a continuation of a war that started in 1940 with the Japanese occupation of French Indochina.



So, not only are you completely wrong, you have just demonstrated you know nothing about history. What, did you go to a public high school where the teachers were Progressives and Leftists? It sure seems that way because what you keep spouting is the sort of ill-informed, conspiracy theory, non-fact based rubbish the Left regularly trots out on history.
Click to expand...

You are unreal.

You justify Germany sending Bolsheviks to Russia.

But then say an assassin anarchist leftie started WW1.

Wow, you must be a bit retarded.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So? Ever hear of the "Rape of Nanking?" How about the German bombing of Warsaw in 1939 or the bombing of Rotterdam in 1940 as but two examples of the same thing done first by the Axis powers. Dresden pales compared to Hamburg as a target by the way. Hamburg was also the first city to suffer a firestorm.
With Japan, "strategic" bombing was left with little choice but to flatten whole cities. This was because much of Japan's industrial capacity was in small shops dispersed throughout them, often in residential areas. Maybe you should read the USSBS sometime. I have, more than once.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a421958.pdf



No, it's not an issue.



Yes, they were much worse.



No, it doesn't and you have yet to offer even a scintilla of proof otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of those, and yet the USA did similar.

Of course the USA is more mass murderous today than modern Germany or Japan.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then you are completely ignorant of history and what caused WW 1. The brief version. Radical Leftists and radical officers in the Serbian military wanted to free themselves from the Austro-Hungarian empire as members of the (variously) Black Hand, and Young Serbian movements. Assassins (not the plural) from these groups plotted to kill Archduke Ferdinand while on a visit to Sarajevo. One of the six got lucky and encountered the Archduke's motorcade after it had changed its route through the city. He killed the Archduke and set off a war with Serbia.
Russia then declared war on Austro-Hungary due to a mutual defense treaty with Serbia. The Germans had a mutual defense treaty with Austro-Hungary and declared war on Russia. The French had such a treaty with Russia and declared war on Germany. The Germans, knowing this, had a plan in place to deal with the French. They invaded Belgium to get outflank the French. This caused the British to enter the war as they had a mutual defense treaty with Belgium.
So, a lone anarchist in a small group of radical anarchists started WW 1.



In order to destabilize Russia and take them out of the war. That's a time honored way to attack your enemy. Let nationals from that country who hate your enemy's current regime loose in that country to stir shit up and maybe overthrow the current regime. It worked great for the US in Afghanistan. That's what the US did rather than stage a large military invasion, as but another example of that in use.



No, French Indochina (aka Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) were French colonial possessions and treated as such. That poor treatment caused a revolutionary movement to overthrow the French colonial government and toss them out. The French objected. The Useless Nattering class (aka UN) did what it did in Korea. Divide the country in half with the Communists controlling half and a non-Communist government controlling the other half. The Communists then invaded the second half, as they did in Korea. The initial US response was to send aid and advisors to help S. Vietnam defend itself. Only the stupidity of LBJ (a Democrat) and a faked incident (the Gulf of Tonkin incident) got the US into a full-blown war there.
It did have the advantage that it soaked up all of various Communist efforts and supplies to allow similar Communist revolutions in Malaya, Indonesia, and Thailand to be crushed thoroughly.



Huh? If you are talking about French Indochina, the Japanese controlled it during WW 2.



Wrong. French Indochina was first colonized by that nation in 1887 and the US had ZERO to do with that. Nada, zip-point-shit, nothing. Post WW 2, the French tried to regain control of the colony, unsuccessfully and eventually, like with many other such areas / nations, the UN reached a negotiated settlement that simply didn't last because Communist factions decided afterwards they wanted the whole pie rather than a slice.



US involvement in Vietnam was a continuation of a war that started in 1940 with the Japanese occupation of French Indochina.



So, not only are you completely wrong, you have just demonstrated you know nothing about history. What, did you go to a public high school where the teachers were Progressives and Leftists? It sure seems that way because what you keep spouting is the sort of ill-informed, conspiracy theory, non-fact based rubbish the Left regularly trots out on history.
Click to expand...

Of course Capitalist France instigated genocide in Vietnam.

How can anybody say otherwise?
 
RomanDmowski said:
You are unreal.

You justify Germany sending Bolsheviks to Russia.
Click to expand...

They were at war with Russia and wanted to win. Destabilizing Russia was one way to do that. Seems a perfectly viable tactic to me. The Imperial government in Russia should have shot them all immediately if they wanted to avoid that happening...

But then say an assassin anarchist leftie started WW1.
Click to expand...

Because he did. Facts are on my side, what are you using?

Wow, you must be a bit retarded.
Click to expand...

Than you for that gratuitous ad hominem. You do know what ad hominem is don't you?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They were at war with Russia and wanted to win. Destabilizing Russia was one way to do that. Seems a perfectly viable tactic to me. The Imperial government in Russia should have shot them all immediately if they wanted to avoid that happening...



Because he did. Facts are on my side, what are you using?



Than you for that gratuitous ad hominem. You do know what ad hominem is don't you?
Click to expand...

Lol, everyone with knowledge knows an Anarchist assassination doesn't start a war.

Maybe to ignorant West Euro filth it does.

It was a pretext to war.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They were at war with Russia and wanted to win. Destabilizing Russia was one way to do that. Seems a perfectly viable tactic to me. The Imperial government in Russia should have shot them all immediately if they wanted to avoid that happening...



Because he did. Facts are on my side, what are you using?



Than you for that gratuitous ad hominem. You do know what ad hominem is don't you?
Click to expand...

If it is okay to unleash A Communist Revolution over war.

It is okay for an anarchist to attack the nation who stole their land.
 
RomanDmowski said:
Of course Capitalist France instigated genocide in Vietnam.

How can anybody say otherwise?
Click to expand...

Lots of people who know the facts do.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

Oh, by the way the Communist Vietnamese carried out far more political and geocidal murders than France ever did there starting with the Montagnard.

The Imperial Japanese were also better at it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_French_Indochina
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

So, everybody that actually studies history says otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top