6 ms·

> Unlike the current Autocratic regimes, like Putin's Russia, or Xi's China, the "Western Worlds" - whatever that means - don't hide or rewrite their History.

> Unlike the current Autocratic regimes, like Putin's Russia, or Xi's China, the "Western Worlds" - whatever that means - don't hide or rewrite their History. Sure we do. All the time. > WW2 started in 1939, not in 1941 as Russia claims. Or it started in 1931 according to the chinese. > So that whole "imperialist thinking" propaganda logic seems very flawed, and more like an excuse the new autocratic regimes are using to expand their borders by force, and be themselves imperialistic. Because the west hasn't expanded by force? > The world moved on in the meantime, you know, since the founding of the UN and such. And that's why the western world hasn't invaded dozens of countries since. Right? > and the forced expansionism of autocracies as a "multipolar world". So you are defending the unipolar world? The same unipolar world maintained by force? It's hard to take you seriously when your points defending 'the west' actuals exposes all the evil the west has done.

libertine 2y ago
> Sure we do. All the time. I gave you a few examples, please do share instances of rewriting the History of the "Western Worlds" - again, whatever that means. But I have a feeling you're soon going to find yourself in a pickle. > Or it started in 1931 according to the chinese. Rightfully so, the difference was that the Chinese weren't allies of Japan invading other countries... Like the USSR allied with Nazi Germany, and be an active part on the hostilities and genocide, right? It's like the same thing Germany denied WW2 ever happened. > Because the west hasn't expanded by force? When? Where? Who? Tell me a "Western Country" that expanded by Force since the founding of the UN - because, you know, that was kind of the point of it. > And that's why the western world hasn't invaded dozens of countries since. Right? Of course it has, or do you think just because of the founding of the UN countries got a green card to commit genocide and invade neighbors? Like Serbia, or Saddam's Iraq? > So you are defending the unipolar world? The same unipolar world maintained by force? Where did I say I defend a unipolar world? I'm saying the world is already multipolar - it's like all of a sudden the last 30+ years of global trade, alliances and investments never happened. It's especially funny coming from China, or from Russia who thrived with this multipolar world.
- linearrust 2y ago
  [flagged]
- slaw 2y ago
  > Like the USSR allied with Nazi Germany Was there another Germany at that time so you have to specify which Germany do you mean? I understand saying South Korea, because there are two.
  - libertine 2y ago
    This is very interesting: why are you bothered by me using the Historical name for Nazi Germany[0]? Would you prefer that I used "German Reich" instead of "Nazi Germany", to be more accurate? [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany)
    - slaw 2y ago
      Just Germany is fine, like every other country. Historical Germany name is Germany or Reich not Nazi Germany. Germany had German soldiers speaking German language, not Nazi soldiers speaking Nazi language.
      - libertine 2y ago
        Ah yes, let's omit the defining factor of Nazi Germany which wasn't the same before WWI - and in case you didn't know - was not the same after WW2. > Historical Germany name is Germany Right, there was no such thing Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, just "Germany"? Right? Literally, two different countries, which were different from Nazi Germany, which was different from the German Empire. Yet to you, this is all the same. I'm struggling with where you're trying to get to with this one. Is it a new propaganda spin? The "Let's ignore History, and how things are called" because you're bothered by Historically referring to Nazi Germany as Nazi Germany? Like the Russian propaganda addressing British People as "Anglo-Saxons"? I'm assuming your goal is to bring clarity to History, and not confusion right wink wink? Well unlike you, I agree with the Historical designations, and it's important to bring clarity, so I see no problem in saying: the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany.
helpfulContrib 2y ago
[dead]

libertine 2y ago

> Sure we do. All the time. I gave you a few examples, please do share instances of rewriting the History of the "Western Worlds" - again, whatever that means. But I have a feeling you're soon going to find yourself in a pickle. > Or it started in 1931 according to the chinese. Rightfully so, the difference was that the Chinese weren't allies of Japan invading other countries... Like the USSR allied with Nazi Germany, and be an active part on the hostilities and genocide, right? It's like the same thing Germany denied WW2 ever happened. > Because the west hasn't expanded by force? When? Where? Who? Tell me a "Western Country" that expanded by Force since the founding of the UN - because, you know, that was kind of the point of it. > And that's why the western world hasn't invaded dozens of countries since. Right? Of course it has, or do you think just because of the founding of the UN countries got a green card to commit genocide and invade neighbors? Like Serbia, or Saddam's Iraq? > So you are defending the unipolar world? The same unipolar world maintained by force? Where did I say I defend a unipolar world? I'm saying the world is already multipolar - it's like all of a sudden the last 30+ years of global trade, alliances and investments never happened. It's especially funny coming from China, or from Russia who thrived with this multipolar world.

linearrust 2y ago
[flagged]
slaw 2y ago
> Like the USSR allied with Nazi Germany Was there another Germany at that time so you have to specify which Germany do you mean? I understand saying South Korea, because there are two.
- libertine 2y ago
  This is very interesting: why are you bothered by me using the Historical name for Nazi Germany[0]? Would you prefer that I used "German Reich" instead of "Nazi Germany", to be more accurate? [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany)
  - slaw 2y ago
    Just Germany is fine, like every other country. Historical Germany name is Germany or Reich not Nazi Germany. Germany had German soldiers speaking German language, not Nazi soldiers speaking Nazi language.
    - libertine 2y ago
      Ah yes, let's omit the defining factor of Nazi Germany which wasn't the same before WWI - and in case you didn't know - was not the same after WW2. > Historical Germany name is Germany Right, there was no such thing Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, just "Germany"? Right? Literally, two different countries, which were different from Nazi Germany, which was different from the German Empire. Yet to you, this is all the same. I'm struggling with where you're trying to get to with this one. Is it a new propaganda spin? The "Let's ignore History, and how things are called" because you're bothered by Historically referring to Nazi Germany as Nazi Germany? Like the Russian propaganda addressing British People as "Anglo-Saxons"? I'm assuming your goal is to bring clarity to History, and not confusion right wink wink? Well unlike you, I agree with the Historical designations, and it's important to bring clarity, so I see no problem in saying: the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany.

helpfulContrib 2y ago

[dead]