Utopia Talk / Politics / The case for apartheid...

habebe Member	Fri Sep 12 23:44:24 Well, I know many would hate me for saying this, so I will South Africa during apartheid was a decent country (in the white areas) it's gone down hill ever since
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 12 23:45:51 Correct. South Africa is a prime example of how superior the white man is in ruling a country, compared to fullturds.
Y2A Member	Fri Sep 12 23:50:55 let me guess. you're not voting for obama lol
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 12 23:52:26 New Orleans and Detroit are perfect examples of what happens when you put a nigger in the executive chair.
Y2A Member	Fri Sep 12 23:55:34 yes all black people are the same like all white people are the same. i mean FDR and Ronald Reagan were both white and they were identical politically lol
habebe Member	Fri Sep 12 23:56:07 y2a, No, but not because he is mulatto But lets just look at quality of life, crime, and economics prior to being colonised, during and up to the the end of Apartheid, and then after the fall of apartheid, can any reasonable person say that the Europeans ran a much more civilized and prosperous state then the natives?
habebe Member	Fri Sep 12 23:57:42 y2a, I'm not saying all blacks are incompetent, just that they as a group have yet to run a decent country, and that Apartheid while sounding cruel, was there for a very good reason
werewolf dictator Member	Sat Sep 13 01:18:05 "just that they as a group have yet to run a decent country" st. kitts and nevis barbados bahamas antigua and barbuda trinidad and tobago all mostly black from slave ancestry all are nice places compared to most of world all except barbados have current black heads of state except for antigua&barbuda, they r bigger than american cities like anchorage, buffalo, new orleans, norfolk, etc. [trinidad is bigger than detroit.]
habebe Member	Sun Sep 14 00:51:17 werewolf, Ok, cool, we now have some reasonable nations from them, I'll concede that point (I really don't feel like looking into it anyway) My point for Apartheid in SA still stands
habebe Member	Sun Sep 14 01:15:17 "[trinidad is bigger than detroit.] " To be fait these are just cities, not even the size of a state though
habebe Member	Sun Sep 14 01:20:18 And it should also be noted that some of these countries such as Barbados were built from the ground up from Britain before being handed over about 40 years ago, still though, they set a good example for others to possibly emulate
Y2A Member	Sun Sep 14 02:30:35 what about botswana?
Rugian Member	Sun Sep 14 02:32:11 Botswana, like any other "stable" African country, is only one machete killing spree away from anarchy.
roland Member	Sun Sep 14 02:40:26 In fairness, majority of the African countries hasn't been around for all that long, and they are created with haste by the colonial powers who are leaving in a hurry. There were no organisation or any sense of national identify in many of these countries, and very often the same country contained rivaling tribes and factions who are hostile with each other for ages.
SS Nordland Member	Sun Sep 14 02:41:58 werewolf dictator underlines habebe's point; Only former slave colonies where the nigger was beaten into submission and hard work, has proven liveable. The negro in his natural state (ie. in africa) is crude and lazy and incabable of advancing a civilisation.
werewolf dictator Member	Sun Sep 14 03:18:17 if it was beating and forcing hard work haiti would be nice but its fucked like africa. englishmen eventually try to be nice and teach blacks modern europe learning. i think.
habebe Member	Sun Sep 14 04:46:33 I'm not out to say the black race is inept, I never said that I'm mainly concerning myself with one nation, SA, and merley pointing out that I have sympathy for the cause, and understood WHY they did what they did I do not hate blacks, I used to fuck a half black half jew girl (best head I've ever got, nice girl) But with that said I do have prejudices about race, with that said I do not see Caucasians as the super race or anything like that, we just tend to have predepositions toward certain things IMHO, how many White or Asian basketball players do you see? or how many black physicists do you see? is this the case for all? no, merley again it's my opinion that in general races tend to have predepositions that are politically incorrect to mention for some reason
Paramount Member	Sun Sep 14 05:12:09 "South Africa during apartheid was a decent country (in the white areas)" Like Nazi Germany was a decent country for the Nazis?
roland Member	Sun Sep 14 07:03:20 habebe, that's a really incoherent argument, you are all over the place. what is it you want to say?
habebe Member	Sun Sep 14 07:09:42 I'm talking about SA, the rest isn't important for thise debate
roland Member	Sun Sep 14 07:16:48 What about it?
habebe Member	Sun Sep 14 07:53:03 Well, read and find out
Daemon Member	Sun Sep 14 08:19:24 Economic growth was about 5,1% in 2007 in SA. That's no reason to complain. habebe, how would you like it if the black minority in the USA would take power and install an apartheid system for everybody else? Would you call the USA then a decent country?
habebe Member	Sun Sep 14 08:21:43 No thats not a reason to complain, but the DRASTIC surge in violent crime and crime in general post-apartheid is That depends, but it's a totally different situation
roland Member	Sun Sep 14 10:50:44 "Well, read and find out " What? The girl? or the they are not inept, but they are? "No thats not a reason to complain, but the DRASTIC surge in violent crime and crime in general post-apartheid is" Is it something happens post-apartheid, or they just cover it up before.
madc0w Member	Sun Sep 14 10:52:29 Yeah, South Africa wa sbetter under Apartheid? But does that JUSTIFY apartheid? No.
madc0w Member	Sun Sep 14 10:52:45 Apartheid.* should be a period
Y2A Member	Sun Sep 14 10:59:56 so black people were better off under jim crow?
roland Member	Sun Sep 14 11:00:58 "Yeah, South Africa was better under Apartheid?" Who were better though? Was the majority of the country well off and benefited from the system?
madc0w Member	Sun Sep 14 11:05:02 The country as a whole, mainly from an economic point of view. But my point was that even if most of the country was better off at that time, it was not right.
Daemon Member	Sun Sep 14 11:29:42 "but the DRASTIC surge in violent crime and crime in general post-apartheid is" The government violence against blacks wasn't counted as offical crimes, so the statistics are not really comparable.
werewolf dictator Member	Sun Sep 14 11:33:04 south africa average 3.4% gdp growth 1994 to 2007.... should easily outpace population for per capita. but un hdi goes from .745 to .674 1995 to 2005. [1995 value as measured by 2005 norms. so its dropping absolutely not just compared to other places.] gini is astronomical 57.8. i think state is small and little income redistributing. literacy drop a bit may be but still 82.4%. [i read whites like 30% or 40% optimism polls. this is still good versus usa with bush. i find it hard to find that much from white point of view and not entire nation point of view.] its life expectancy killing hdi i think, 52 years female 50 male. is this falling fast? and only by mostly black hiv aids? i have 20% infection for population.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 02:13:39 "The government violence against blacks wasn't counted as offical crimes, so the statistics are not really comparable. " Well, yes they are, maybe it would be better if you were to look at the old SA as two nations, rather then one SA1 and SAS 2 SA1 is a rather decent place to live SA2 is a shithole now both are shitholes, does this justify Apartheid? well, that is up for the individual to decide, I'm simply saying that if I were a preveious resident of SA1, I could understand why they would have wanted to keep it that way, why allow a currently decent place to become a shithole like their neighbor, ending apartheid didn't make both place great, it made them both equally shitty
patom Member	Mon Sep 15 09:42:48 The problem with SAs transition from aparthied to black rule was that the previous (white) government was run by mostly bigoted people who had NO intentions of ever allowing blacks to ever run that country. Therefore they didn't educate the blacks in the art of running a country. I, to this day, am still ammazed that there was no huge blood bath in the transition.
Dukhat Member	Mon Sep 15 09:56:49 To tell things from the side of the Danish-descended whites who lived there, they considered all the generated wealth theirs with Africans having very little to do with it. To them, the africans were like illegal immigrants in America, free-riders. Now, the country really isn't that much better off with "equality."
swordtail Member	Mon Sep 15 10:42:24 there is NO case for apartheid. who ever rationalizes apartheid,like tard habebe,well they're tards,like habebe.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 11:16:32 Patom, Well, to be fair, why should that chore be put on them? they took over a land that had really nothing going for it, made it into something, and once raw materials were found later made even more of it, and now they should be expected to give it back to the people who did nothing with the land and teach them on top of that how to properly care for it? although I do understand that they have no real knowledge of how to run a westernized nation, and it is a valid excuse, I'm just saying it's not the Danes fault Swordtail, Great arguement.....
redblooded Member	Mon Sep 15 11:25:22 Why did we allow the Arabs to keep the oil? It was the westernw orld who developped uses for the oil, who found the oil, who developped the oil extraction and transfer. Who had real use for the oil.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 11:30:33 RB, Well, look at SaudiArabia, they keep the oil they found, on their aquired land
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 11:34:51 Now much of the world would consider Saudis as Arab, but ask any Saudi, and they will tell you different Either way, the west had conquered the ME, and ran the nations there, I'm sure the west would have kept the oil
swordtail Member	Mon Sep 15 11:41:33 habebe,thanks. and btw it's not the danes,but the dutch, but hey when spouting racial supremacy,it's all good cause they're both white.
Rugian Member	Mon Sep 15 11:48:34 "habebe, how would you like it if the black minority in the USA would take power and install an apartheid system for everybody else?" The answer is no, since black people are incapable of governing a country.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 11:53:19 ST, Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I never mentioned racial superiority, if you had read, I specifically said that, but of course you didn't read, you skimmed a few words from a post and assumed the rest
swordtail Member	Mon Sep 15 11:57:43 habebe,np. you didn't have to mention racial superiority. it's all there in your posts. you are still the same bigot you've always been these last few years.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 12:01:11 Do you have any real arguements?
roland Member	Mon Sep 15 12:08:33 "Well, yes they are, maybe it would be better if you were to look at the old SA as two nations, rather then one now both are shitholes, does this justify Apartheid? " The problem is SA1 had been taking all the wealth and resources to make SA1 better than SA2.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 12:10:50 Roland, Well, those resources have been there for thousands of years, when the Euros came, they did something them, the natives did not
roland Member	Mon Sep 15 12:38:24 "Roland, Well, those resources have been there for thousands of years, when the Euros came, they did something them, the natives did not " That have nothing to do with it, stop changing the subject. SA2 do not get the authority to govern, they were under the thumb of SA1, and SA1 uses the resource without putting back to SA2.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 12:41:21 I'm not changing the subject, you seem to be implying that the inhabitants of SA2 would have done something with those resources
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 12:48:24 I mean your arguement seems to be that the invaders who made a nice place to live for themselves did not make it as a nice a place for everyone
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 12:55:10 Look at Germany for example, West Germany thrived while east did not, that reunification came about the same time as the end of apartheid, and now eastern Germany is thriving almost as much as the western part, the problem in SA is that the crime wave has so negativley impacted the nation that it's nearly impossible to build it up
roland Member	Mon Sep 15 12:59:03 "I'm not changing the subject," Yes, you are, the subject is not colonisation is justify, rather, it is apartheid is justified. It is your word. Whether the had been developing the resource themselves when the colonists came is irrelevant. The subject is rather do they have that authority to use this resource and better themselves this during apartheid. "you seem to be implying that the inhabitants of SA2 would have done something with those resources " Of course they could. Even if they don't develop the resources themselves, they could sold the right to others and use the money to better themselves. That's apparent what the Middle easters are doing, and happening in much of the developing world.
roland Member	Mon Sep 15 13:02:57 "Look at Germany for example, West Germany thrived while east did not, that reunification came about the same time as the end of apartheid...." You are that f#cking dumb to even compare Germany, third or fourth most developed country at the time to South Africa?
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 13:19:25 "Whether the had been developing the resource themselves when the colonists came is irrelevant. The subject is rather do they have that authority to use this resource and better themselves this during apartheid. " No, I don't see that as the arguement at all, I agree they lacked the authority to really better themselves under apartheid "Of course they could. Even if they don't develop the resources themselves, they could sold the right to others and use the money to better themselves. That's apparent what the Middle easters are doing, and happening in much of the developing world. " How when they never had a nation of their own, merley a grouping of tribes, I suppose a select few tribes IF they would have discovered the resources could have got some wealth out of it, but even then they would have to have legal ownership of the land Well, yes Germany (west) was very developed, but what was SA during apartheid?
roland Member	Mon Sep 15 13:37:46 "No, I don't see that as the arguement at all, I agree they lacked the authority to really better themselves under apartheid " Why would that not be argument? you are putting them down by looking at the state of the living during the apartheid era and compare them to the group of people who took their resource and wealth from them without giving them back. Can you be any more incoherent? "How when they never had a nation of their own, merley a grouping of tribes" That's interesting subject and there are lots of reasons for that. But again, that has nothing to do with justifying apartheid. Apartheid is not about giving the blacks their own country, they have their own political structure and access to resource and wealth, while the whites have their own. It is about taking the wealth and resource from them and subjugate them to an unfair access to the benefit brought by those wealth and resource. "Well, yes Germany (west) was very developed, but what was SA during apartheid? " You are joking, right?
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 14:09:43 "Why would that not be argument? you are putting them down by looking at the state of the living during the apartheid era and compare them to the group of people who took their resource and wealth from them without giving them back. Can you be any more incoherent? " Before the Europeans came they had hardly any "wealth" at all " Apartheid is not about giving the blacks their own country, they have their own political structure and access to resource and wealth, while the whites have their own. It is about taking the wealth and resource from them and subjugate them to an unfair access to the benefit brought by those wealth and resource. " They took the land and kept the resources found later because Chaka lost the war ""Well, yes Germany (west) was very developed, but what was SA during apartheid? " You are joking, right? " No, SA was what like the 17th most industriazid nation, maybe the 20th?
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 14:11:35 Also with Germany, don't forget that in 1930 or so it was considered the poorest nation on earth, even poorer than any African nation, that said they did have the infrastructure to build up the nation again
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 14:24:26 In post-apartheid South Africa, millions of South Africans, mostly black, continued to live in poverty, though poverty among whites, previously rare, has increased greatly. While some have partly this attributed to the legacy of the apartheid system, increasingly many attribute it to the failure of the current government to tackle social issues, coupled with the monetary and fiscal discipline of the current government to ensure both redistribution of wealth and economic growth. Since the ANC-led government took power, the United Nations Human Development Index of South Africa has fallen, while it was steadily rising until the mid-1990s.[12] Much of this could be attributed to the AIDS pandemic and the failure of the government to take steps to address it.[13] As a mitigating factor, the social housing policy of the current government has produced an improvement in living conditions. From wikipedia (just type in South Africa) In other words, before the European inhabitants were rich and the black were poor, now they are all poor....great idea
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 15 15:01:37 There is no justification for Apartheid. End of story.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:11:23 I'd also like to point out that blacks and other races could obtain "white status" if they were shown to be non-savages "Chinese South Africans who were descendants of migrant workers who came to work in the gold mines around Johannesburg in the late 19th century, were classified as "Other Asian" and hence "non-white", whereas immigrants from Republic of China (Taiwan), South Korea and Japan, with which South Africa maintained diplomatic relations, were considered "honorary whites", thus granted the same privileges as normal whites. It should be noted that "Non-Whites" were sometimes granted an 'honorary white' status as well, based on the government's belief that they were "civilised" and possessed Western values. This was frequently the case with many black South Africans and Afro-Americans."
licker Sports Mod	Mon Sep 15 15:13:34 It may not have been justified, but it worked. Fuck the PC crowd.
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 15 15:15:06 I bet slavery wouldn't work half bad for our economy if implemented again, but...no.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:16:03 So really while it was prejudice and partly racist, it was moreso culurist (if thats a word) Prior to the end of Apartheid atlest some people lived civilised fist world lives, now almost all are poverty stricken 3rd worlders Possibly a better solution than they had taken to end apartheid, would be to form seperate nations so to speak
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:16:03 So really while it was prejudice and partly racist, it was moreso culurist (if thats a word) Prior to the end of Apartheid atlest some people lived civilised fist world lives, now almost all are poverty stricken 3rd worlders Possibly a better solution than they had taken to end apartheid, would be to form seperate nations so to speak
licker Sports Mod	Mon Sep 15 15:18:39 Slavery probably wouldn't work for the same reasons apartheid wouldn't work anymore. But slavery is a bit different anyway. Anyway, there is clearly apartheid in the US, only its not drawn on racial lines, but most people are too stupid, or merely content to give a fuck.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:20:01 "It may not have been justified, but it worked. Fuck the PC crowd. " BINGO madcow, But ending slavery did not impoverish us and lead to an unprecedented crime wave nationwide, really apartheid has alot of similiarities to the "containment" policies aimed at communism, they contained the natives that would not convert to western ways
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:23:52 "Slavery probably wouldn't work for the same reasons apartheid wouldn't work anymore. " I agree that in todays world Apartheid wouldn't work, but apparently the post-apartheid government doesn't seem to work effectivley either
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 15 15:24:16 Ok habebe, if you were one of those blacks in South Africa, do you suppose you'd have been willing to accept being treated inferior to the white citizens, knowing what would happen if the Apartheid state had been abolished?
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:25:56 madcow, Well, I'd try to become civilised and obtain "honorary white" status, wouldn't you?
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:28:46 Actually I'd bet many of thos "HW's" prefered Apartheid to what SA currently is
licker Sports Mod	Mon Sep 15 15:29:59 YEah, but they are sell outs without any street cred... losers being losers because they are fucking losers FTL...
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:32:15 No more sell outs really then the Japanese, they seen that the western way of life was better, and emulated it with their own twists Rome did this with Greece as well
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 15 15:33:27 No, I'd be extremely insulted by the term "honorary white". My point is, the fact that blacks were oppressed under apartheid alone made it a terrible system. Who cares if something *works* when it is completely morally wrong? South Africa may very well be worse off now, but does that mean ending Apartheid was the wrong thing to do? It certainly does not.
licker Sports Mod	Mon Sep 15 15:35:42 I dunno... You have to allow other cultures their own moralilties don't you? I'm not for apartheid, but clearly letting savages pretend to be politicians isn't exactly working out so well for the 'people' in most african countries now is it? And 'most' may be unfair, but you get the point. There is a parallel to democracy in Iraq if you care to investigate it.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:39:21 Madcow, Well thats a difference of opinion, was it morally wrong? I could concede to that, my point is that there was logical reasons why it was in effect, self preservation and advancement is a trait that in general ALL humans have, I can understand why the oppresed blacks wanted to end Apartheid, but what I'm saying is that I can also understand why many of the Europeans and HW's would not Then you must also ask yourself this question, is it more morally wrong to have state lead racism or to impoverish an entire nation and force them to all live in fear rather than some
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 15:42:23 I'm also not for the reinstatment of Apartheid, possibly a better solution would have been to split the nation into two, and equally split the natural resources
patom Member	Mon Sep 15 16:46:04 habebe, apartheid came about after the boers had taken all the good farm land and staked it out. With the discovery of diamonds and other minerals that were also taken over by the whites. Laws were enacted that made it virtually impossible for blacks to get their foot in the door to raise their status in life. They were kept in designated areas to live with NO opportunity to move elsewhere. These rigid laws were enacted only AFTER wealth was discovered in SA. Now you have a country that is being run by blacks who grew up under an unfair system of apartheid and you complain that they aren't running their country fairly. Speaking of East and West Germany. If you took one person from either side and put them into a room together how could you tell them apart? Same language, color, were only seperated for 50 some years, same history, amazing that they were able to assimilate with such ease.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 16:50:54 "They were kept in designated areas to live with NO opportunity to move elsewhere. " Untrue "There was a deliberate policy in "white South Africa" of making services for black people inferior to those of whites, to try to "encourage" black people to move into the black homelands." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_Era Although I will admit these were probably shitty areas as well with few resources, like I said, it would And I also never said they were being "unfair" I said they were ineffective, a big difference
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 16:52:10 Also, as for the Germany bit, East Germans lived almost their entire lives (many did live their entire lives) under a oppressive racist regime that targeted ethnic Germans and left E. Germany as a shithole
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 16:57:45 "like I said, it would " Scrathc that, I forget what where I was going with that
patom Member	Mon Sep 15 17:01:35 They were kept in designated areas to live with NO opportunity to move elsewhere. by elsewhere I meant to better housing in higher class neighborhoods with better schools equal to what any white child could expect. We had that here in the US. Jim Crow sound familiar? Seperate but equal?
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 17:10:25 Patom, The difference being that the US blacks were forcibly imported, these people could move into other local countries nearby and have roughly equal quality of life as they would if the imperialists had never come
patom Member	Mon Sep 15 17:15:26 The difference to me seems to be that the blacks in SA were treated as slaves but with out the responsibility of ownership. The blacks in this country have been able to gain education for some time. They have been able to make strides to improve their lot in life. Not always without struggle but what in life is not a struggle when you are pulling yourself up. In SA under apartheid they wrote laws to make this almost impossible.
swordtail Member	Mon Sep 15 17:22:29 shh...patom, habebe will have to come up with even better bullshit to justify his bullshit.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 17:25:29 But, their odds of success were no different then if they had never come and conquered them, so I don't see why it would be the "white SA's" responsibility to improve the lives of the others Or what would be wrong with dividing the nation in two and equally sharing the resources, IMHO that would be quite generous of the dutch inhabitants
patom Member	Mon Sep 15 17:48:52 habebe, the nation was divided into two. One for the whites and one for anyone else.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 17:50:28 Well, with the others having complete sovereignty over their nation
roland Member	Mon Sep 15 23:52:48 "Also, as for the Germany bit, East Germans lived almost their entire lives (many did live their entire lives) under a oppressive racist regime that targeted ethnic Germans and left E. Germany as a shithole " Lol, how is East Germany a racist regime against its majority ethnic group, are you stupid? East Germany has somewhat developed infrastructure, industries, jobs for the people, school to educate people, doctors to cure illness and so on and so on. The township in South Africa are entirely different. "...By 1976 Soweto had only two cinemas and two hotels, and only 83% of houses had electricity. And up to 93% of residents had no running water. Using fire for cooking and heating, resulting in respiratory problems that contributed to high infant mortality rates (54 per 1,000 compared to 18 for whites, 1976 figures..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto#Economy "Before the Europeans came they had hardly any "wealth" at all" "They took the land and kept the resources found later because Chaka lost the war " GET IT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT APARTHEID HERE, AN OFFICAL GOVERNMENT POLICY OF THE SOUTH AFRICA, NOT COLONISATION, STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT AT WILL. "...Also with Germany, don't forget that in 1930 or so it was considered the poorest nation on earth, even poorer than any African nation, that said they did have the infrastructure to build up the nation again..." Now what has 1930 Germany has to do with South Africa under apartheid??? "In other words, before the European inhabitants were rich and the black were poor, now they are all poor....great idea " When you open up the labour market to all and not just the selected class, real wages get push down. Sorta like the Mexicans, except of course the blacks in South Africa don't have their own nation state. Shouldn't people like you be anti labour union? "But, their odds of success were no different then if they had never come and conquered them, so I don't see why it would be the "white SA's" responsibility to improve the lives of the others" It is not, and there are no white SA anymore, at least in term of political entity. If they don't like it, they can bugger off.
habebe Member	Tue Sep 16 10:57:10 "Lol, how is East Germany a racist regime against its majority ethnic group, are you stupid? East Germany has somewhat developed infrastructure, industries, jobs for the people, school to educate people, doctors to cure illness and so on and so on. " The Soviets trated Ethnic Germans horribly as "punishment" for the war
redblooded Member	Tue Sep 16 11:42:14 Actually the Soviets treated the Germans, Poles, Georgians and others better than they treated the Russian population. Since those countries were accustomed to a higher standard of living than Russia and the Soviets didn't want them to get too dissatisfied by the drop and they were supposed to showcase the generosity of the Soviets. Ofcourse it failed, but fact is that Russia and the Russians paid and laboured to subsidise and sponsor other countries to have a higher standard of living than Russia itself.
habebe Member	Tue Sep 16 20:10:57 RB, Evidence? no disrespect, but that is pure BS, I can go dig up my sources/cites if need be, but I'm going to half to ask for yours here, my branch of the family came over in 36 (My great grandfather Stephen was in the SS, but was retiring anyway, he was also in the WWI if memory serves, my Aunt Hanolori has all that family history stuff down)
habebe Member	Tue Sep 16 20:19:32 "Also in the Caucasus region, such as the North Caucasus, Georgia, and Azerbaijan existed a German minority of about 100,000 people. In 1941 Stalin ordered inhabitants with a German father to be deported, mostly to Siberia or Kazakhstan." http://en....in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union "in 1941, the Volga German ASSR was abolished, and Russia's German population was almost entirely banished to Kazakhstan, Altai Krai and other remote areas. In 1942 nearly all of the able-bodied German population was conscripted into Soviet labor armies." This was actually during the war, but the point still stands "On November 26, 1948, Stalin made the banishment permanent, declaring that Russia's Germans were permanently forbidden from returning to Europe" I can get more NP
roland Member	Tue Sep 16 20:48:10 habebe, history of Germans in Russia has nothing to do with the Apartheid, it is stupid enough to compare the Germans under the Russian rule than to the Germans under East Germany rules, especially you are talking about the period during the WWII as well, we didn't treat the Japanese and tyhe Germans very well here too. Again, that's off topic, that just prove the pointlessness of your argument. You keep drifting off topic.
habebe Member	Tue Sep 16 21:07:16 roland, I was anwsering a *specific* post... pay attention
habebe Member	Tue Sep 16 21:08:18 And US treatment of Germans/Japanese during the war is in no way similar to that of soviet treatment
roland Member	Tue Sep 16 21:26:08 "roland, I was answering a *specific* post... pay attention " Yea, it seems you have lost the plot and out of idea. "And US treatment of Germans/Japanese during the war is in no way similar to that of soviet treatment " I said they weren't treated very well even by our standard. Why would you expect more from the Russian?
habebe Member	Tue Sep 16 21:36:06 "Yea, it seems you have lost the plot and out of idea. " Well, to be honest, there are no more arguements that I havn't proposed my rebutal for on the subject currently, unless I missed one No, I wouldn't expect anything more from the Ruskies, especially their ex-Georgian leader (stalin by FAR was the predominant player in the persacution of Ethnic Germans)
roland Member	Tue Sep 16 21:39:16 "Well, to be honest, there are no more arguements that I havn't proposed my rebutal for on the subject currently, unless I missed one " You have arguments? lol.
habebe Member	Tue Sep 16 21:41:52 Never mind, it's over your head
roland Member	Tue Sep 16 22:00:04 Nah, it was not an argument. Because while you wanted to talk about the topic, but it didn't take very long for you to go off topic, and talk about irrelevance stuff, that's why it is hard to digest. All in all, it was an incoherent rant.
roland Member	Tue Sep 16 22:00:16 * the end *
	show deleted posts