The Soviet system was setup to plunder Eastern Europe in the sense of directing its economic output to serve its ends - including so called Warsaw Pact and so called Soviet republics which were just colonies of Russia. We can see that Russia was plundering Poland etc by the collapse in Russian living standards when these countries became independent, and Poland etc prospered. Russian living standards were inflated by plundering the economic output of Poland et al.(Living Standards) Yes they were.
I have never heard anyone say this before, what are you basing it on.
I never said there was nothing noble about Poles wanting their freedom from that system.
What I said was that I would not give my children's lives for freedom from that system.
In the Polish election the Social Democrat candidate and former communist Alexander Kwasniewski was chosen by 52% of the electorate over Walensa. That would suggest that many people who lived under the Soviet system didn't see it as tyranny. Indeed they didn't move to overthrow the system because of its tyranny but because it was failing to deliver prosperity. Now I am in danger of changing the topic, my basic point is that nothing is worth having your children's lives lost in the mud of some battlefield.
Ok, you are right Walensa beat Kwasniewski in the 1995 presidential election, and Russian living standards were inflated by plundering the economic output of Poland et al. Meanwhile back in the real world.So your claims about the Polish election are highly dubious and without foundation.
I agree with James Connelly when he said that Pearse was a blithering idiot. I've no time for him or his weird version of what Ireland should have become.I put up Pearse's poem the fool previously, a man prepared to fight for his ideals, his version of 'Fundamental freedoms worth fighting for, but not I think yours.
Poland, or specifically the Second Polish Republic which was established at the end of the First World War, was invaded by Lenin's Red Army in 1920 in his first attempt to obliterate Poland from the map. The Polish fought them off bravely.And in relation to the USSR etc it means if your child does grow up to see it as tyranny... their lives lost to the Gulag. It was a tyrannical, totalitarian society.
And this was one of the ways the Russians \ communists went about securing their tyranny over Poland... and no doubt Russia has similar plans for Ukraine if it falls. And others if it gets to them.Poland, or specifically the Second Polish Republic which was established at the end of the First World War, was invaded by Lenin's Red Army in 1920 in his first attempt to obliterate Poland from the map. The Polish fought them off bravely.
During the period up to the Second World War its per capita GDP grew by more than 60%. That all changed in 1939 when it was invaded by Germany, their ally Slovakia, and the USSR. That ushered in a period of unparalleled destruction followed by the atrophy and oppression of communism.
If my children were facing that future in 1939 I'd have fought to try to stop it.
Yep, not forgetting what was called the second Katyn massacre in 1945.And this was one of the ways the Russians \ communists went about securing their tyranny over Poland... and no doubt Russia has similar plans for Ukraine if it falls. And others if it gets to them.
Russia had attacked Poland in 1920 and again in 1939. In 1945 they were an army of occupation, not liberation.The Second Katyn was the mass murder of over a thousand such prisoners in 1945 (the first Katyn massacre was the mass murder of almost 22,000 Polish officers by the Russians in 1940).
Colonies are always run for the economic benefit of the colonising power and make no mistake, Russia was the colonising power in Poland. It was the Russian Empire by another name. What Russia is doing now in Ukraine is the same thing.Ok, you are right Walensa beat Kwasniewski in the 1995 presidential election, and Russian living standards were inflated by plundering the economic output of Poland et al. Meanwhile back in the real world.
Leo Varadkar warned against "excessive caution".
"The majority of officials advisory bodies and academics will recommend caution - playing and safe conservative with a small 'c'."
But he said that this is "not always the best advice".
In his speech, he warned that the EU needs to prepare for an attack.
"We have to be prepared for the consequences of an attack on an EU country, and how we would respond to that."
"Our geography and neutrality do not protect us as in the past."
That's a welcome dose of reality.Harris 'ready for the challenge' following election
Fine Gael Leader Simon Harris has been elected Taoiseach in the Dáil.www.rte.ie
That's a welcome dose of reality.
“That is not to say – and this is distorted time and time again at home – in any manner of means a move away from military neutrality, which Ireland is intends to absolutely keep,” he said.
I'm delighted that we are taking the veto over our decision to deploy our military away from Putin and Jinping. I think of it as restoring our sovereignty.Harris confirms Government plan to abandon ‘triple lock’ restriction on troops
‘Absurd that Russia would effectively have veto’ on Irish peacekeeping deployments, Taoiseach sayswww.irishtimes.com
Which is absolutely true, in fairness.
Saying 'it was awful' and 'we did nothing' is one thing, and so far no one would disagree.It's 30 years this week since the start of the Rwandan Genocide.
Nearly a million Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus were murdered in 100 days in a country slightly larger than Leinster. It took three months for the Rwandan Patriotic Front to beat the French backed genocidal forces. The outside world did nothing to help, despite the clear knowledge that a real genocide was taking place. A truly shameful failure which showed the racism of the West and the utter powerlessness, deep corruption and total ineptitude of the UN.
That genocide led directly to what is referrer to as the Congolese Civil War but was in fact a war fought in Congo (Zaire at the time) between up to 14 countries over the next 2 decades. It was the deadliest war since the Second World War, resulting in the deaths of around 5 million people and the displacement of 2 million more.
We, or course, were neutral.
Anyway, the protagonists weren't white or Jewish so nobody here cared.
Our stance means we have no credibility when we speak on these matters. We are essentially lecturing others about their duty to do something while we make it clear that no matter the circumstance we will do nothing ourselves.Saying 'it was awful' and 'we did nothing' is one thing, and so far no one would disagree.
Yet what could we have done about it, even if we had a military at the ready to intervene.
Although I am deeply cynical about military intervention, its a genuine question.
I would accept that we have no enforcement credibility on a civil war/massacre in Rwanda, nor should we have.Our stance means we have no credibility when we speak on these matters. We are essentially lecturing others about their duty to do something while we make it clear that no matter the circumstance we will do nothing ourselves.
We've no credibility in any context. Neutrality is a position of cowardice and amorality. We've opted out of the game so we don't get to tell others how to play.I would accept that we have no enforcement credibility on a civil war/massacre in Rwanda, nor should we have.
How so? It took the Americans to get the Peace Process in Northern Ireland moving. The Brits had been talking to the IRA since they flew Gerry and Martin to London in 1972 and they'd all been talking to each other at various stages and in various guises for decades.We have some credibility on long term conflict resolution, if others wish to learn from that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?