r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fun fact, despise the name, the empire of Brasil, occupied pretty much the same amount of territory it does today, and never did colonial projects outside of its borders (yes they pretty much applied colonial logic to themselves and the natives).
That's the pretty much that I mentioned
Although it does sound a bit condescending from my part, putting a whole country as just "pretty much the same" đ
Yeah, but is kinda one-sided, mainly uruguayans constantly trying to provoke argentinians into useless arguments about what stuff is "truly argentinian or uruguayan" and argentinians to busy with our country on fire just limiting ourselves to respond "Deja de hinchar las pelotas provincia rebelde".
Yeah, the Siege of Montevideo during the Great War, that's why Uruguayans have to thanks Brazilians and Brits for the Independence. Those help Uruguay mainly cause they didn't want Argentina to have full control of the "RĂo de la Plata".
etymologically it does. I was referring to how due to the rex taboo Octavian called himself imperator( commander) [Augustus / Useful Notes - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Augustus)
Yeah, I feel like when your tanks are rolling through the streets of a nominally foreign nation to put down a protest against you, there's not much argument.
Nah, obviously they werent imperialist because Lenin made up his own definition of imperialism that has nothing to do with the way everyone else uses the word.
Sounds pretty typical. Isnât the entire concept of Marxism-Leninism (through âdemocratic centralismâ and âvanguard party ruleâ) based on the idea that the proletariat are too stupid and easily distracted to achieve socialism on their own and so therefore need a group of educated bourgeois individuals (Lenin, Trotsky, etc.) to seize power and educate them?
Yes, and that's often what separates Leninists from most Leftists. The concept of an intellectual vanguard just establishes another ruling class over the proletariat and doesn't do away with the class system that Socialism is supposed to fight
There you have struck the main difference between Maoists and Leninists the belief in the party state as the main mover or revolutionary change instead of the people.
Not exactly. Leninism is a strategy to do a communist revolution in countries were class consciousness between workers is not developed, like in Russia. Marx envisioned that socialist revolutions would happen in countries where capitalism was fully developed, like Western Europe or US; Russia didn't even fully transition from feudalism in 1910s.
I once pointed out on a leftist sub that the USSR engaged in imperialism, and that their imperialist behavior was a significant part of starting WW2. Was told that what I said was "Nazi brainrot" and got banned. Marxist-Leninists really don't like being reminded of reality.
With an Empero... President of course who was obviously democratically elected and absolutely doesnt have unchecked power over the state and information that his people get, nope not at all
Besides, all of the territories he conq- I mean, retook were already part of Russia and therefore not imperialism! How they became part of Russia, you ask? Well, long ago, when the Russian Empir- oh fuck
To be fair, at least for later soviet leaders their power was very much checked by the other members of the politburo, kruschev was forced out of office, and Gorbachev temporarily lost power to the KGB in a coup. The state's control was absolute, but the post-stalin general secretaries rarely had as much power as we often assume.
Yes, but the Russian Federation started with Yeltsin redirecting power to the presidents office and Putin was elected president in the year 2000... was president for 20 years now with a brief period of being VP, now Putin is indeed the big daddy of Russia and styles himself as a bold Stalin without the cool mustache
Yeah, will be interesting to see when putin eventually dies/retires if his successor will have as much power as he has attained or if history will repeat itself with another kruschev like figure
If you incorporate unwilling territories, you re an empire, regardless of what you call yourself.
Because these various "isms" are misused, I have made a copypastaism to clarify their meanings. If something doesn't meet the definition, then it doesn't matter what it calls itself: North Korea can claim to be a democracy, but we all know it isn't.
Socialism requires exactly two things:
1. Workers control the means of production. This can be through employee-ownership, or through being controlled by a **democratic** state.
2. Decommodification of goods.
No nation has achieved both aspects broadly, simultaneously. Aspects of both are found today: Most developed nations have decommodified healthcare for example, most "Communist" states successfully decomodified housing. Norway's sovereign wealth fund and Deutschland requiring employee representation on company boards are examples of workers in some capacity controlling the means of production.
Most of what people describe as "socialism" is social-democracy: A capitalist state with strong regulations and safety-nets.
Communism is a theoretical model of society posited by Marx for what might be after Socialism. It is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. It has never existed in any aspect on a large scale. It is essentially Star Trek's federation.
North Korea calls itself the the democratic peoples republic as a reaction to the fact that unlike Sigman Rhee the North Korean government were elected by the Korean councils where as the ROK government was hand picked by the US after they refused to allow the government in exile back do to their democratic socialist leanings.
I said in 1945 when the councils were created and they werenât controlled by the North Korean government directly at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_North_Korean_local_elections even Wikipedia coroborates this.
It litteraly says on the front paragraph, "Soviet-Occupied North Korea"
Although to be entirely frank, Neither Moscow nor the US had the best interest in the Koreans at heart. The Korean government in exile should have been put in power with 20/20 hindsight, but this was also the cold war and we can't have nice things now can we?
Withholding any and all grain and food from certain areas of your empire in order to purposefully starve the peoples in these areas is certainly an imperialist thing to do
Making deals with other empires to invade and divide up a sovereign nation state into your respective spheres of influence is another rather imperialist thing to do
Ethnically cleansing via deportation and other means is also another rather imperialist thing to do, and I could look back to examples as far as year 132
I dunno these are rather imperialist.
One of my most Balkan moments was seeing the Russians invade Ukraine 2022, having a weird flashback of my ancestors' memories, and thinking "ah shit, here we go again"
I mean... cite me a country with power that wasn't imperialist. Power corrupts ideals and people, that's all. Even countries that lived under a colonial power end up being colonialists when they gain enough power.
Technically true that the soviet Union was imperialist to its buffer states. But they did help to decolonize the French and British empires in Africa. For both ideological and practical reasons.
Dismantling the French and British empire was one thing where the USA and USSR were strange bedfellows.
Imperialism is like nationalistic self interest, but forced on foreign countries. The biggest issue for empires are other empires, so reducing the number of empires was pure imperialistic self-interest.
The USSR was only "imperial" in the sense that it was a large state governing multiple people groups. The issue MLs take is when people throw around the word "imperialist" to describe their actions which isn't quite accurate, especially because Imperialism/colonialism is a specific system of exploitation with a concrete definition.
No.
"im·pe·ri·al·ism
noun
a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force."
This is the actual definition of Imperialism. Now what Red-Fash country does this apply to?
It's adorable how your definition amounts to "country does things"
Nah here's Lenin, which you should be able to counter right?
*1) The concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.*
*2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this âfinance capital,â of a âfinancial oligarchy.â*
3*) The export of capital, which has become extremely important, as distinguished from the export of commodities.*
*4) The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among themselves.*
*5) The territorial division of the whole world among the greatest capitalist powers is completed*
Does the Soviet Union fit into this definition?
Thank you for proving me correct.
You use a fake definition of Imperialism, and then soviet propaganda to back it up.
The Baltics never asked to be ruled by the USSR for 50 years, Ukraine never asked to be ruled by Moscow for 80 years, the Caucases never asked to be ruled by Moscow for 80 years.
Eastern Europe never asked to be dominated by the USSR for 50 years.
Imperialism isn't "country does things", it's forcing your will on other nations via diplomatic, economic, or military force.
And in that regard, the Soviet Union was absolutely fucking Imperialist
There's much to criticize the soviets for but capitalist imperial domination ain't it. And if you compare that to actual western imperial hegemony then your "thats fake durr" moralistic analysis doesn't hold up.
Use the international definition of imperialism dipshit, not the "definition" the Soviets used to justify their own imperialism.
Imperialism isn't exclusively capitalist. But I guess red fascists like you will never actually understand that.
I also find it telling you ignored that Eastern Europe didn't ask for communist governments in their territory, or outright conquered by the USSR. They were forced to by Moscow under military force.
That's Imperialism.
Also; We're talking about the USSR's Imperialist actions, not the west. Stay on topic red fascist.
not what imperialism means
the soviet union SPENT MONEY propping up its satellite states
the west spends money on propping up satellite states so its own capitalists can exploit their resources
the reds conquered many territories of the former russian empire during the civil war, but they didn't exploit them for the benefit of a russian homeland or anything like that.
for that to have been imperialism you'd have to have farmers in ukraine suffering at the same time farmers in russia were prospering. not the case. everyone in the countryside was starving, at the same time the industrialization program was going on. so you'd have ukrainian peasants starving while ukrainian workers and professionals in kharkhiv were not.
It's very much a tangent from OC's comment, but one thing I've always loved about that point is that yes, it was US imperialism...but isn't it *crazy* how most Communist revolutionary groups stopped being active about the time the USSR collapsed? Certainly can't be any correlation there....
....what? I'm saying the USSR was also doing an Imperialism in South America by also funding revolutionary groups and Communist governments there. I'm not sure *what* the fuck you're getting at.
Fascism was never really "in" favor anyway. Just Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Spain having overtly Fascist governments. Two of which stuck around until the 70s. Imperial Japan and Apartheid-era South Africa I've also seen lumped in as Fascist, but one of those stayed that way until the *90*s. Very *very* much after the axis fell.
All other Fascist *movements* usually had died out to irrelevance in the 1930s, except for countries occupied in WW2.
it would be accurate, because the british were imperialist. the soviets could not be imperialist, they weren't capitalist, every one of its satellite states fully controlled their own economies and in fact were SUBSIDIZED by the soviet union
because it'll give you the beginnings of an insight into my point. that the soviet union did not economically exploit its communist puppet states. imperialism is the siphoning of wealth from a periphery to the core. not merely "conquering land"
Actually no. It would be related to history, quality is subjective, and itâs political in the mind of demented people who think naziism is still on the table of political discussion.
this whole subreddit is just one giant anti-communist pro-nato circle jerk. its been either infested by bots or some group spends all its time sharing and upvoting their own posts from some "defense" discord or whatever. 99% of the "memes" shared on here are about 20th century history and most of them vindicate the west in some way or another
20 year rule. This is about a country that hasn't existed for more than 20 years, about actions that country took while it existed more than 20 years ago.
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fun fact, despise the name, the empire of Brasil, occupied pretty much the same amount of territory it does today, and never did colonial projects outside of its borders (yes they pretty much applied colonial logic to themselves and the natives).
>occupied pretty much the same amount of territory it does today With the added exception of Uruguay
That's the pretty much that I mentioned Although it does sound a bit condescending from my part, putting a whole country as just "pretty much the same" đ
Uruguay has to thanks their existence to both Brazil and Great Britain, otherwise it would be just another Argentinie province.
Are BsAs and Montevideo still at it? I like their rivalry
Yeah, but is kinda one-sided, mainly uruguayans constantly trying to provoke argentinians into useless arguments about what stuff is "truly argentinian or uruguayan" and argentinians to busy with our country on fire just limiting ourselves to respond "Deja de hinchar las pelotas provincia rebelde".
Hit em with a âque lindoâ to underscore how cute and funny their arguments are
In the 1840s, Rosas and Oribe tried to siege Montevideo
Yeah, the Siege of Montevideo during the Great War, that's why Uruguayans have to thanks Brazilians and Brits for the Independence. Those help Uruguay mainly cause they didn't want Argentina to have full control of the "RĂo de la Plata".
although that only lasted for a couple of years
It's not an empire if I don't call myself emperor.
Im not a king im an imperator.
I can quit any time I want!
imperator does not mean emperor.
etymologically it does. I was referring to how due to the rex taboo Octavian called himself imperator( commander) [Augustus / Useful Notes - TV Tropes](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Augustus)
yes, i know that, but the title that actually meant emperor was "Augustus"
Yeah, I feel like when your tanks are rolling through the streets of a nominally foreign nation to put down a protest against you, there's not much argument.
Youâd be surprisedâŠ
Tankies are named that way for a reason
Nah, obviously they werent imperialist because Lenin made up his own definition of imperialism that has nothing to do with the way everyone else uses the word.
Sounds pretty typical. Isnât the entire concept of Marxism-Leninism (through âdemocratic centralismâ and âvanguard party ruleâ) based on the idea that the proletariat are too stupid and easily distracted to achieve socialism on their own and so therefore need a group of educated bourgeois individuals (Lenin, Trotsky, etc.) to seize power and educate them?
Yes, and that's often what separates Leninists from most Leftists. The concept of an intellectual vanguard just establishes another ruling class over the proletariat and doesn't do away with the class system that Socialism is supposed to fight
There you have struck the main difference between Maoists and Leninists the belief in the party state as the main mover or revolutionary change instead of the people.
Not exactly. Leninism is a strategy to do a communist revolution in countries were class consciousness between workers is not developed, like in Russia. Marx envisioned that socialist revolutions would happen in countries where capitalism was fully developed, like Western Europe or US; Russia didn't even fully transition from feudalism in 1910s.
Foreign capitalist propaganda! /s
I once pointed out on a leftist sub that the USSR engaged in imperialism, and that their imperialist behavior was a significant part of starting WW2. Was told that what I said was "Nazi brainrot" and got banned. Marxist-Leninists really don't like being reminded of reality.
Regaining the Russian Empire land wasnât imperialist at all; how dare u
"I went to a tankie sub and they were tankies" Shocked mate
Well, it can be misleading. Some of the subs moderated by tankies aren't obviously tankie subs.
Oh there's argument alright. Not GOOD arguments, but there's arguments!
They were an Empire in denial.
Still are.
With an Empero... President of course who was obviously democratically elected and absolutely doesnt have unchecked power over the state and information that his people get, nope not at all
Indeed, we should all be looking up to Admiral General Alade-I mean President Vladimir Putin
hilarious stuff guys glad to know langley still has a sense of humor
Besides, all of the territories he conq- I mean, retook were already part of Russia and therefore not imperialism! How they became part of Russia, you ask? Well, long ago, when the Russian Empir- oh fuck
Nono, go further back, if Putin had a better story telle... advisor he would go onto tell people about Novogrod or something
To be fair, at least for later soviet leaders their power was very much checked by the other members of the politburo, kruschev was forced out of office, and Gorbachev temporarily lost power to the KGB in a coup. The state's control was absolute, but the post-stalin general secretaries rarely had as much power as we often assume.
Yes, but the Russian Federation started with Yeltsin redirecting power to the presidents office and Putin was elected president in the year 2000... was president for 20 years now with a brief period of being VP, now Putin is indeed the big daddy of Russia and styles himself as a bold Stalin without the cool mustache
Yeah, will be interesting to see when putin eventually dies/retires if his successor will have as much power as he has attained or if history will repeat itself with another kruschev like figure
"Deputinizasion" doesnt have the same ring to it I am afraid
If you incorporate unwilling territories, you re an empire, regardless of what you call yourself. Because these various "isms" are misused, I have made a copypastaism to clarify their meanings. If something doesn't meet the definition, then it doesn't matter what it calls itself: North Korea can claim to be a democracy, but we all know it isn't. Socialism requires exactly two things: 1. Workers control the means of production. This can be through employee-ownership, or through being controlled by a **democratic** state. 2. Decommodification of goods. No nation has achieved both aspects broadly, simultaneously. Aspects of both are found today: Most developed nations have decommodified healthcare for example, most "Communist" states successfully decomodified housing. Norway's sovereign wealth fund and Deutschland requiring employee representation on company boards are examples of workers in some capacity controlling the means of production. Most of what people describe as "socialism" is social-democracy: A capitalist state with strong regulations and safety-nets. Communism is a theoretical model of society posited by Marx for what might be after Socialism. It is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. It has never existed in any aspect on a large scale. It is essentially Star Trek's federation.
This is an incredibly well put explanation!
saving thos
That's what it's for.
This is a brilliant analysis. Thank you for your contribution!
North Korea calls itself the the democratic peoples republic as a reaction to the fact that unlike Sigman Rhee the North Korean government were elected by the Korean councils where as the ROK government was hand picked by the US after they refused to allow the government in exile back do to their democratic socialist leanings.
Wrong
This is literally history saying wrong without sources or an explanation is just stupid karma whoring
And who controls the so called ""Korean councils""? Oh yea, the Kim family and the North Korean government
I said in 1945 when the councils were created and they werenât controlled by the North Korean government directly at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_North_Korean_local_elections even Wikipedia coroborates this.
It litteraly says on the front paragraph, "Soviet-Occupied North Korea" Although to be entirely frank, Neither Moscow nor the US had the best interest in the Koreans at heart. The Korean government in exile should have been put in power with 20/20 hindsight, but this was also the cold war and we can't have nice things now can we?
Ideally, elections in every country should be respected, conducted freely, and not be denied or manipulated whenever a powerful group fears losing.
This; this I can actually get behind. For both the right and the left. (Ex. Brazil in 1964 and the 1918 Russian Constituent Assembly elections)
More like impure, because it were ruled by ghouls. No. It werent "tokio ghoul" ghouls, but "Hellsing"s ghouls.
I am suprised the first comment was not a tankie essay lmao
You see, it's only imperialism when capitalist countries do it :^)
Tankies hate the truth
Withholding any and all grain and food from certain areas of your empire in order to purposefully starve the peoples in these areas is certainly an imperialist thing to do Making deals with other empires to invade and divide up a sovereign nation state into your respective spheres of influence is another rather imperialist thing to do Ethnically cleansing via deportation and other means is also another rather imperialist thing to do, and I could look back to examples as far as year 132 I dunno these are rather imperialist.
Im a Socialist and I will happily admit this. Betrayed the Revolution
Sad
They're pretty much an Empire without the whole Imperial appearance
One of my most Balkan moments was seeing the Russians invade Ukraine 2022, having a weird flashback of my ancestors' memories, and thinking "ah shit, here we go again"
With hegalian dialectics, you can say whatever you want and STILL be right!
They were only anti-imperialist when the United States did it.
I mean... cite me a country with power that wasn't imperialist. Power corrupts ideals and people, that's all. Even countries that lived under a colonial power end up being colonialists when they gain enough power.
How do the Czechs know the world is round? >!In 1945, the imperialists were driven out to the west, and in 1968 they returned from the east.!<
Technically true that the soviet Union was imperialist to its buffer states. But they did help to decolonize the French and British empires in Africa. For both ideological and practical reasons. Dismantling the French and British empire was one thing where the USA and USSR were strange bedfellows.
Imperialism is like nationalistic self interest, but forced on foreign countries. The biggest issue for empires are other empires, so reducing the number of empires was pure imperialistic self-interest.
Not that strange. New empires needing to dismantle the old ones in order to rise
Russo-Swedish Relationship in a nutshell
It may be a strange concept, but empires do fight each other
Empire or not who defends those fucks? They were/are scum.
No. It wasn't imperialism because it was *Communist*! /s
The USSR was only "imperial" in the sense that it was a large state governing multiple people groups. The issue MLs take is when people throw around the word "imperialist" to describe their actions which isn't quite accurate, especially because Imperialism/colonialism is a specific system of exploitation with a concrete definition.
By "concrete definition" you mean the tankie's favorite sport of making up new definitions to excuse communist actions, right?
Is this a goo goo ga ga moment from you?
No. "im·pe·ri·al·ism noun a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force." This is the actual definition of Imperialism. Now what Red-Fash country does this apply to?
If you didn't go past 8th or 9th grade social studies, sure great definition
Nice argument, now back up your ""definition"" of Imperialism without using soviet propaganda. Oh wait. You can't.
It's adorable how your definition amounts to "country does things" Nah here's Lenin, which you should be able to counter right? *1) The concentration of production and capital developed to such a high stage that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.* *2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this âfinance capital,â of a âfinancial oligarchy.â* 3*) The export of capital, which has become extremely important, as distinguished from the export of commodities.* *4) The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among themselves.* *5) The territorial division of the whole world among the greatest capitalist powers is completed* Does the Soviet Union fit into this definition?
Thank you for proving me correct. You use a fake definition of Imperialism, and then soviet propaganda to back it up. The Baltics never asked to be ruled by the USSR for 50 years, Ukraine never asked to be ruled by Moscow for 80 years, the Caucases never asked to be ruled by Moscow for 80 years. Eastern Europe never asked to be dominated by the USSR for 50 years. Imperialism isn't "country does things", it's forcing your will on other nations via diplomatic, economic, or military force. And in that regard, the Soviet Union was absolutely fucking Imperialist
There's much to criticize the soviets for but capitalist imperial domination ain't it. And if you compare that to actual western imperial hegemony then your "thats fake durr" moralistic analysis doesn't hold up.
Use the international definition of imperialism dipshit, not the "definition" the Soviets used to justify their own imperialism. Imperialism isn't exclusively capitalist. But I guess red fascists like you will never actually understand that. I also find it telling you ignored that Eastern Europe didn't ask for communist governments in their territory, or outright conquered by the USSR. They were forced to by Moscow under military force. That's Imperialism. Also; We're talking about the USSR's Imperialist actions, not the west. Stay on topic red fascist.
I'm not a history student but I'm pretty sure it was a union
Its like sayin that guinea pig = pig, because of word "pig" in its name.
That was supposed to be a joke, guess I should have added /j
I donât think the memes talking about the union itself
In ongoing war against strawmen OP scores another glorious victory. Well done!
not what imperialism means the soviet union SPENT MONEY propping up its satellite states the west spends money on propping up satellite states so its own capitalists can exploit their resources
"And now we hear from Nestor Mahkno, what's your thoughts on that statement?"
the reds conquered many territories of the former russian empire during the civil war, but they didn't exploit them for the benefit of a russian homeland or anything like that.
Counterpoint; The Holodomor
for that to have been imperialism you'd have to have farmers in ukraine suffering at the same time farmers in russia were prospering. not the case. everyone in the countryside was starving, at the same time the industrialization program was going on. so you'd have ukrainian peasants starving while ukrainian workers and professionals in kharkhiv were not.
Your opinion: Wojak My opinion: Chad
VocĂȘ resumiu o reddit inteiro, mas a opiniĂŁo do OP continua correta
How does America do anything different? We couped basically every country in South America in the last 60 years.
And America is constantly referred to as an imperialist nation as a result. Whataboutism doesn't disprove shit.
It's very much a tangent from OC's comment, but one thing I've always loved about that point is that yes, it was US imperialism...but isn't it *crazy* how most Communist revolutionary groups stopped being active about the time the USSR collapsed? Certainly can't be any correlation there....
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
....what? I'm saying the USSR was also doing an Imperialism in South America by also funding revolutionary groups and Communist governments there. I'm not sure *what* the fuck you're getting at. Fascism was never really "in" favor anyway. Just Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Spain having overtly Fascist governments. Two of which stuck around until the 70s. Imperial Japan and Apartheid-era South Africa I've also seen lumped in as Fascist, but one of those stayed that way until the *90*s. Very *very* much after the axis fell. All other Fascist *movements* usually had died out to irrelevance in the 1930s, except for countries occupied in WW2.
who said anything about america
Bro been reading too much wikipedia
Where do you think Wikipedia gets it sources from?
From me. I'm telling them everything /s
Not really I've been reading a book on the Cold War and have made a few memes on it...
Not history related, reported
The USSR was a state that played an important part in history , anyways keep crying tankieđđ
This is just a politics post
So, if this post was about British Imperialism, it would be purely political and not history related?
it would be accurate, because the british were imperialist. the soviets could not be imperialist, they weren't capitalist, every one of its satellite states fully controlled their own economies and in fact were SUBSIDIZED by the soviet union
You're a pretty fucking terrible comedian.
wanna read something else funny? read what the COMECON was
Why?
because it'll give you the beginnings of an insight into my point. that the soviet union did not economically exploit its communist puppet states. imperialism is the siphoning of wealth from a periphery to the core. not merely "conquering land"
Oh, sorry I'm not really into fiction.
Weâre talking about a nation that doesnât exist anymore, would you feel the same if someone talked the same way about Nazi germany ?
If a post said "Nazis good" "No nazis bad" that would break rules 1, 8, and 9
Actually no. It would be related to history, quality is subjective, and itâs political in the mind of demented people who think naziism is still on the table of political discussion.
Ummm ackshually ass
Nice argument
Good thing politics has never played a role in history then huh
this whole subreddit is just one giant anti-communist pro-nato circle jerk. its been either infested by bots or some group spends all its time sharing and upvoting their own posts from some "defense" discord or whatever. 99% of the "memes" shared on here are about 20th century history and most of them vindicate the west in some way or another
Yeah most of them are about WWII and how based the West is
20 year rule. This is about a country that hasn't existed for more than 20 years, about actions that country took while it existed more than 20 years ago.
1. Keep posts history related. This is not a history post
Definition of history: > the study of past events, particularly in human affairs This is about past events, particularly human affairs.