America-An Evil Country?

[Straha]

No, that was it for DOCUMENTED cases where someone actually wrote down that he was doing it. You can't seriously believe that nobody else ever did that. The use of disease-carrying material as a weapon of war had been carried on for centuries prior to this in the European theatre; don't tell me that nobody but Amherst ever thought of it.

So what you are in essence saying is that because it happened once under extreme circumstances therefore a large number of settlers, in your own words, "actively encouraged" it elsewhere with no other proof than this tenuous connection? If you don't see what's wrong with that logic than I don't quite know what to say.
As for biological warfare being used elsewhere, while it was used it was almost universally used in siege circumstances (as in the Amherst situation was) because biological warfare without modern containment practices is incredibly dangerous (this goes without saying) and no one then was idiotic enough to risk contaminating their own armies, towns, or cities unless they absolutely had to. As such the only time where this routinely happened was when you had the dead infected bodies on hand, couldn't move from the location (either because you were sieging a city or were being besieged) and might as well fling them into the enemy army to get them to. This situation was never encountered by the settlers going west, and the Army had no need to resort to this because they could overpower the Indian armies with their far superior weaponry.

So? There were people in America who disagreed with or even agitated against the Trail of Tears too, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

"People weren't for the spread of smallpox because they would never be able to control the spread and it was just as liable to come back against them as it was to kill Indians."
"So? There were people in America who disagreed with the Trail of Tears too, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen."
Non-sequitur galore. You are supporting your claim that the settlers would participate in something which everyone and their grandmother can see would literally be suicidal and for which you have no other proof on the basis that other actions (of a completely different nature) have been performed despite opposition?

A "very restrained evil"? You must have gotten a degree in DoubleSpeak. The fact is that the Americans, from government on down through to regular people, regarded the Indians as subhumans and treated them accordingly. They did not have rights or considerations, they were treated as a nuisance to be removed.

A gross oversimplification. Native Americans were not regarded as subhumans they were regarded as uncivilized and barbaric, but with the potential to become civilized, in stark contrast to the African slaves. This is why the primary purpose of relocation was to forcefully train Native Americans to become civilized and why slavery was encouraged within the “Five Civilized Tribes” of the South (ironically enough they had a working democratic parliament and a higher literacy rate than the rest of the south) and others. This is also why the United States government went out of their way to make sure that every seizure of land and removal was legal under treaty signed with the Indians. Furthermore the American people had a long love/hate relationship with Native Americans; as long as they were holding land that settlers wanted Americans wanted them gone and made civilized by the Army and BIA in the Indian Territories or, later, reservations, but should the Army or Militia ever actually massacre Indians (like after the Sand Creek Massacre and Marias Massacre) the people would rise up in an uproar and demand for blood from the army. Further, after about 1870 the American people became obsessed with the fact that the Native Americans were a “dying, vanishing” race which had to be preserved and protected. This is in no way to say that relations with Native Americans were all lollipops and sunshine in terms of racism, there were people who viewed the Native American as genetically inferior. However they were the exception, and not the rule, and the view of the average American on the street and the position of the United States Government as a whole was never one of inherent racial inferiority.
As for the “doublespeak”, America's history dealing with Native Americans has been absolutely reprehensible and should be in the definition of evil. However, it is nowhere near as bad as many would have you believe, there was no active genocide (again, with the caveat of what happened with California, which wasn't actively encouraged by the federal government) and the Army showed remarkable restraint compared with what you'd find elsewhere in the world (i.e. Colonial Africa and Asia.) That was the point I was making.

[SVPD]

Yes, it would. And given that the United States has caused more problems in the world than Saddam Hussein did, I have yet to see any rational explanation why it's OK to label Hussein's regime as "evil" without applying the same label to the US.

When you make that comparison, are you including the entire history of the United States, only the time since Hussein's regime took over, since Iraq became a completely independant nation, or something else entirely?

[Enforcer Talen]

Yes, it would. And given that the United States has caused more problems in the world than Saddam Hussein did, I have yet to see any rational explanation why it's OK to label Hussein's regime as "evil" without applying the same label to the US.

When you make that comparison, are you including the entire history of the United States, only the time since Hussein's regime took over, since Iraq became a completely independant nation, or something else entirely?

Even if its just in the last 30 years, we've racked up a good number of kills.

[Quadlok]

You just conceded my point. You say yourself minimize. The fact is that any system as large and complex as a nation will commit acts that could be categorized as evil, although their severity and frequency are subject to change, and the tendency is towards decline, albeit with many major breaks in the path.

Pssst ... I have a secret for you. The black and white fallacy is actually not an acceptable debate technique. Trying to equate different nations on a "pure as the driven snow" vs "evil" false dichotomy is just sophistry at best, stupidity at worst.

How is saying that every nation will at one time or another perpetrate a negative act or policy a false dichotomy? Give me one example of a blameless nation (or where I claimed such existed) and I will concede everything immediately. My point is and I think has always been that nations cannot help but perpetrating a certain amount of evil in the world, just as an elephant cannot help but break a few branches if it walks through a forest. Some nations are simply bigger, blinder, or faster than others and so cause more damage.

[Darth Wong]

So what you are in essence saying is that because it happened once under extreme circumstances therefore a large number of settlers, in your own words, "actively encouraged" it elsewhere with no other proof than this tenuous connection?

Show me the evidence that Amherst was punished or even reviled for his actions and I might think you have a point. Otherwise, we have a situation where despicable genocidal behaviour was clearly condoned by society. And in such a situation, it is not exactly unreasonable to surmise that similar actions must have occurred elsewhere.

If you don't see what's wrong with that logic than I don't quite know what to say.

You're full of shit; people don't do horrible things like that and get away with it unless nobody else gives a fuck, which is obviously the case here. If you can't see that, I can't help you. The whole society was morally depraved at the time.

As for biological warfare being used elsewhere, while it was used it was almost universally used in siege circumstances (as in the Amherst situation was) because biological warfare without modern containment practices is incredibly dangerous (this goes without saying) and no one then was idiotic enough to risk contaminating their own armies, towns, or cities unless they absolutely had to. As such the only time where this routinely happened was when you had the dead infected bodies on hand, couldn't move from the location (either because you were sieging a city or were being besieged) and might as well fling them into the enemy army to get them to. This situation was never encountered by the settlers going west, and the Army had no need to resort to this because they could overpower the Indian armies with their far superior weaponry.

The fact that they could get the job done through other means does not mean that they had a self-prohibition on using smallpox as a weapon.

Non-sequitur galore. You are supporting your claim that the settlers would participate in something which everyone and their grandmother can see would literally be suicidal and for which you have no other proof on the basis that other actions (of a completely different nature) have been performed despite opposition?

No, I am supporting the claim that the society condoned this kind of behaviour, and when a society condones something, it will happen. Duh.

A "very restrained evil"? You must have gotten a degree in DoubleSpeak. The fact is that the Americans, from government on down through to regular people, regarded the Indians as subhumans and treated them accordingly. They did not have rights or considerations, they were treated as a nuisance to be removed.

A gross oversimplification. Native Americans were not regarded as subhumans they were regarded as uncivilized and barbaric, but with the potential to become civilized, in stark contrast to the African slaves.

How do you explain the Trail of Tears, then?

This is why the primary purpose of relocation was to forcefully train Native Americans to become civilized and why slavery was encouraged within the “Five Civilized Tribes” of the South (ironically enough they had a working democratic parliament and a higher literacy rate than the rest of the south) and others. This is also why the United States government went out of their way to make sure that every seizure of land and removal was legal under treaty signed with the Indians.

Oh yeah, sure, the US government honoured all of its treaties with the Indians. I guess every source I've ever seen to the contrary must be wrong, because YOU say so.

As for the “doublespeak”, America's history dealing with Native Americans has been absolutely reprehensible and should be in the definition of evil.

Then what the fuck is your problem with my accusation that this history constitutes "evil" and that it has been whitewashed in American history?

However, it is nowhere near as bad as many would have you believe, there was no active genocide (again, with the caveat of what happened with California, which wasn't actively encouraged by the federal government) and the Army showed remarkable restraint compared with what you'd find elsewhere in the world (i.e. Colonial Africa and Asia.) That was the point I was making.

If something like that was done today, it would be called "genocide". Moreover, the society at the time condoned this behaviour. In fact, the early Americans considered him a Great Man, and all of his personal correspondence indicates that he unapologetically considered the Indians to be subhumans worthy of nothing but extermination.

[Darth Servo]

Straha, being more literate than the south 150-250 years ago isn't saying much. Even today it isn't saying much.

[Big Orange]

I see that you conceeded that their actions were immoral. The fact that they did not contribute significantly to war I don't dispute.

I think Coca-Cola has done more damage by mistreating employees and ruining the enviroment - a company riding on the back of imperialism is pretty neutral. Was the commercial brewery producing Schnapps in the Third Reich any more evil than the collective brewery producing Vodka in the Soviet Union?

Yes, I too think war profiteering is negative. But remember, the US government paid for that out of their own pocked. The corporations were merely contractors. It would've been different if the US then harshly demanded payback from wartorn Britain and USSR, but it didn't demand it back so harshly.

The USSR was a 900 pound gorilla during and after WWII - so you wouldn't cough up any time soon, while Britain was in a much better position (from America's point of view) to cough up.

They could've demanded immediate payback and ruined the economies of Europe. But they didn't demand it immediately and consistently rescheduled payments, and a very large quantity of lend-lease material was simply written off. This was not a super-altruistic action, but nonetheless a good example of help.

America was not aiming at financially ruining Western Europe, but they were aiming at financially ruining Britain - how come British consumer rationing continued well into the first of 1950s and the colonies collapsed as relatively quickly as they did? Although to be fair Britain was for the most part relatively poor in the 1930s (keeping the Empire was extortionate anyway).

Less potential for the rise of tyrants? Please. Many colonies became authoritarian regardless of who set them free, but to say that this means they should not have been set free is ridiculous. Unless one is of the opinion that colonialism would've simply ceased on it's own (from what we saw, it took military action on a World War scale to demolish the colonial system, and then worldwide national liberation movements).

France was far more zealous in attempting to keep it's overseas empire intact than Britain was (who were running out money due to WWII - the final death knell). And why are you condemning European Colonial empires when the Soviet Union was essentially imperial as well?

[Big Orange]

You're full of shit; people don't do horrible things like that and get away with it unless nobody else gives a fuck, which is obviously the case here. If you can't see that, I can't help you. The whole society was morally depraved at the time.

It would've been very likely that the Holocaust would've been relatively obscure if the Third Reich was victorious - in fact many people were indifferent until they had first hand experience of the atrocities themselves (normal people have a very nasty habit of turning a blind eye to abominable abuse; you can have a dominant family member abusing his/her children or spouse for many years, with neighbors deliberately ignoring what's actually happening).

correspondence indicates that he unapologetically considered the Indians to be subhumans worthy of nothing but extermination.

Most European settlers wanted to "civilize" the "savages", not slaughter them (although it does not excuse what happened).

[Patrick Degan]

They could've demanded immediate payback and ruined the economies of Europe. But they didn't demand it immediately and consistently rescheduled payments, and a very large quantity of lend-lease material was simply written off. This was not a super-altruistic action, but nonetheless a good example of help.

America was not aiming at financially ruining Western Europe, but they were aiming at financially ruining Britain - how come British consumer rationing continued well into the first of 1950s and the colonies collapsed as relatively quickly as they did? Although to be fair Britain was for the most part relatively poor in the 1930s (keeping the Empire was extortionate anyway).

Exacty how was America aiming at the financial ruin of Britain? Did we demand immediate payup of their war debt to us? Did they not participate in the Marshall Plan?

And British rationing continued into the 1950s for the simple reason that their economy was still flat after the depredations of both World War I and the Depression as well as the damage from the Hitler War and they were losing their empire at the same time.

[Spoonist]

This reminds me of the "50% of all Americans are below average intelligence" topic. Lots of people angry about nothing.
Is America Evil? Yes, in the sense that it has done evil acts.
Is America Good? Yes, in the sense that it has done good acts.
Then its just a question of which receiving end you ended up in if you consider America Evil or Good... For instance to post WWII western europe would consider America to be good. Cold war south america would consider America to be evil.

So if you take offense at someone calling your nation Evil, you are just being nationalistic and stupid. The intelligent response would be to ask WHY they consider ones nation to be Evil.

Personally I would not call America evil in itself, just narcissistic.

[Elfdart]

Most European settlers wanted to "civilize" the "savages", not slaughter them (although it does not excuse what happened).

Evidence?

Show me a nation that can be called Good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Iceland ever doing anything particularly nasty.

The Roman Republic was not "an Empire" until Ceaser came along either, you can bahave like one without a Emperor as Head of State.

That would come as a big surprise to all those people who were raped, robbed, murdered and enslaved by the Romans before Caesar.


On the subject of "Is America Evil?", I would defer to Paul Craig Roberts' brilliant column. Money quotes:

Many Americans are so unsophisticated that they refuse to believe anything bad about their country. They regard acceptance of unpalatable truths as disloyalty. This failure of American character is why Bush has been able to get away with transgressions that scream out for his impeachment and trial as a war criminal.

The premeditated rape and murders are just the latest in the long line of horrific war crimes from Abu Ghraib to Haditha. Bush supporters are still in denial about each incident.

and

There is no more reason for U.S. troops to be shooting up Iraq than to be shooting up Canada, Scotland, Holland, Spain, Taiwan, Florida, Virginia, or California. We are killing Iraqis for no other reason than that they resist our invasion and occupation of their country.

It is proof of the collapse of American morals and the fallen character of the American people that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress refuse to rein in the Bush regime and hold it responsible for its monstrous crimes.

America has become a land of evil. The rest of the world hates and despises us. And we are going to pay a terrible price for it. Bush's belief that our superpower status makes us immune to the opinion of others goes beyond hubris into insanity.

Wrangling over who killed more people centuries ago is kind of silly. We are here and now and at this time the United States Government, with the consent of the People has condoned the mass slaughter of innocent people and legalized torture. Roberts is right and this has become a Land of Evil. The fact that other countries commit hellish acts is a red herring.

[Big Orange]

Most European settlers wanted to "civilize" the "savages", not slaughter them (although it does not excuse what happened).

Evidence?

We certainly have rock hard evidence that the Europeans invaders had contempt for the Native Americans, due mostly to "Godlessness" and perceived lack of culture. And as arrogant or as cruel as many European invaders were, I doubt every single one of them was a pathological kill bot.

Show me a nation that can be called Good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Iceland ever doing anything particularly nasty.

I heard that Icelandic Scandinavians occasionally badly mistreated the Innuit people as relatively recently as the last mid century.

[Thinkmarble]

We certainly have rock hard evidence that the Europeans invaders had contempt for the Native Americans, due mostly to "Godlessness" and perceived lack of culture. And as arrogant or as cruel as many European invaders were, I doubt every single one of them was a pathological kill bot.

Your idea what an avarage human being is capeable of is optimistically misguided. If history is something to go by it is more difficult to stop someone from comitting genocide and ethnical cleansing then to encourage him.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed. Ordinary Nazi Germans also had "contempt" for the Jews. They just wished "lower races" to be done away with.

Whatever methods their government employed, interested them not, mostly .

Just like European conquerors did not care about the fate of the natives; "contempt" meant for them "let them get rid of them, irrelevant how they do it".

[KrauserKrauser]

America was not aiming at financially ruining Western Europe, but they were aiming at financially ruining Britain - how come British consumer rationing continued well into the first of 1950s and the colonies collapsed as relatively quickly as they did? Although to be fair Britain was for the most part relatively poor in the 1930s (keeping the Empire was extortionate anyway).

Huzzah! An opportunity to apply the stuff I have learned from Postwar, good book you should read it.

You are incorrect on this. Britain's relative stagnation was due to it's choices in both manufacturing and the loss of the empire, something that the US had little impact on.

After getting trounced in the outlying colonies, the confidence of the colonies of British dominance was basically eliminated. British colonies, as well as French, Dutch, Spanish, etc. all began moves toward independence, with British colonial transition being relatively painless when compared to the fuckups that were the French leaving Algeria and the Dutch leaving basically everywhere. There was no way the British were going to be able to hold onto the Empire after WW2, they over extended, but had to to be able to win.

The choices to nationalize industries was going on all over the place in postwar Europe but in other countries that meant nationalization of the industry and consolodation of the labor movements cooincided. This was not the case in Britain with hundreds of workers unions that each had to be dealth with individually, instead of as a group with local representatives ala the UAW in America. Also, the choice in production methods, using cars as an example, was the wrong one for the long term.

After the war, each country was hurting for dollars and trying to get them by both inter-country trade with the US and trade within the country itself. Germany went with quality over quantity and while that limited their return until production could be ramped up, it allowed them to steamroll Britain in teh 50's as by that time Britains choice to "get them out there, no matter what" to secure the dollars with crappy, defective vehicles basically ruined British cars in the eyes of the world for decades.

Add all this to the fact that Britain flat out refused the offer to join in the EEC, the precursor to the EU that lowered trade boundaries and decreased tariffs on certain goods. Not doing this not only ensured French dominance in European politics for the forseeable future, but it basically ensured that British products would have a hard time in the European market.

Now right after the war, with Europe being a big crater, this view makes a bit of sense. They still had basically a monopoly on trade with their colonies and Europe was in much worse shape then Britain manufacturing wise. Their infrastructure was almost 100% safe throughout the war and had raw materials coming in from the colonies. However, when the colonies got independence and could trade with whomever tehy wanted, crappy British products vs. quality German or American products were now a choice they were making more often, with the British obviously losing on that.

By not choosing to participate in the European trade agreements signed by Germany, France and the Benelux countries, Britain retarded both its impact in European politics as well as its own economic growth.

Sorry Britain, we basically funded the recovery of Europe, how you went and spent and the choices you made are on your shoulders, not ours.

[Big Orange]

Thank you for the helpful info, KrauserKrauser - I realise that American war reparations was only a fraction of the economic problems Britain had in the first place and I realise that Britain's automobile industry ruined itself with crappy, crappy cars that were comparable to Soviet vehicles in terms of awfulness.

I mean look:

[K. A. Pital]

Oh that looks _sweet_ Something like a Zaporozhets

By the way, did you know that the USSR restored food supply a lot faster than Britain - we were the first among post-war ravaged countries to get rid of card/talon rationing Certainly it wasn't a part of the Marshall Plan, so I don't think teh British Empire failures can be blamed on lack of aid and whatnot.

[Admiral_Icehawk]

Wow, you should see a piece of a crap we made called the Lightburn Zeta it came in sports and regular versions. The wagon had no door at the back and to put it in reverse you had to turn of the engine and flip the whole gearbox. This was made durin our golden years. LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightburn

America evil, well I don't believe the Iraq war is evil although I do believe that it shouldn't have been neccessary. If Bush senoir had removed Saddam and kept his promise to the Sheites. America would have had a middle eastern ally that would provide an reason they are better than Europe and good supply of cheap unrestricted oil. If I was Bush and found no WMDs I would do like the corrupt cops do when they shoot someone innocent, plant a gun, America could have easily planted a 20 years old WMD that they have in storage.

Most countries bassically evil, look at France, they bombed peaceful protesters and while I hate neo-hippies, it still doesn't mean they are less evil than America

[KrauserKrauser]

Britain still being on the ration plan is more of a move by the country after the war into an extensive welfare state. Tons of new social programs required even more respources that their economy couldn't handle at the time.

With the weakness of the pound sterling in comparison to the dollar, a cash strapped Britain was being pulled in so many directions. From the colonies, the new welfare state, the money drain of British controlled Germany (The French had a section too, but it was much smaller) that they had to support completely from Day 1, the eventual war in Korea, and so forth, they simply had more restrictions on them that lead to the continuation of rationing for so long.

Basically, take post war, say, France. Add in a much larger colony structure, debts to be paid to America, a larger money sink in Germany, a large money sink in Korea, a larger increase in social spending and a refusal to fully integrate in the European economy (Which they had their reasons for, isolationism just didn't work out in the end) and you end up with a country more resource strapped than all the rest after the war.

[KrauserKrauser]

Oh that looks _sweet_ Something like a Zaporozhets

By the way, did you know that the USSR restored food supply a lot faster than Britain - we were the first among post-war ravaged countries to get rid of card/talon rationing Certainly it wasn't a part of the Marshall Plan, so I don't think teh British Empire failures can be blamed on lack of aid and whatnot.

Would that be because, I don't know, post war Russia was looting the new "colonies" of their natural resources and exporting Communism? Sounds about right to me

[K. A. Pital]

Would that be because, I don't know, post war Russia was looting the new "colonies" of their natural resources and exporting Communism?

Uh, pardon me KK, but I doubt the Eastern EUrope harbored any natural resources worth looting. Europe is a land poor on natural resource since the industrial revolution. The USSR did this by exploiting it's own Oil reserves, SIberian oil discovered and explotied during the late Stalin era.

Of course we did some inadequate trade with the Warsaw Pact countries in the 70's and 80's (and that, I'm shameful for), but that I think doesn't even come close to what was done to the colonies by the British Empire.

Still colonial behaviour bears no excuse, the Stalinist USSR embrace of Colonialism as a doctrine was evil.

[KrauserKrauser]

Oddly enough, simply by looking at the GNP of Eastern and Western Europe pre-war and comparing what happened in the subsequent years, Eastern Europe was not that bad off. Hungary and Czhechloslovakia were relatively affluent countries not too far of from their Western counterparts.

Pre-war world trade figures (Couldn't find a good source for domestic GDP) for 1938 (in millions of US gold dollars):

Germany (1296.4/1250.2)
Austria (143.5/86.3)
France (783.1/516.9)
Greece (78.1/53.2)
Norway (170.5/112.0)
Poland (145.9/132.9)
Romania (80.1/93.1)
Czech (171.9/209.9)
Yugoslavia (67.1/68.6)

Courtesy of this site

Looking at those numbers shows that the economies of Eastern Europe, while definitely not up to Germany or France were easily comparable to Greece, Austria and Norway before the war.

While it is true that Eastern Europe suffered considerably more infrastructure damage through the war, especially Poland, other areas such as Romania, Czhechloslovakia and Yugoslavia fared much better.

These numbers show that in equal circumstances, these countries should have been able to recover and prosper in the same fashion as their Western counterparts. They did not by any stretch of the imagination.

Due to Communist uniformity of economic policy, not allowing for specialization and enforcing the same economy in each country, ignoring the stupidity of that idea and the extra turmoil of throwing out the existing post war governments via in some cases military force, Eastern Europeans were fucked economically by Russia. Over and over again for almost 4 decades.

Post war Russia treated them effectively as colonies, enforcing an identical form of government and directing industrial, social and military policy with little to no consideration of local conditions.

The inadequate trade of the USSR did not just happen in the 70's and 80's, it was rampant as soon as the Soviets arrived in the area, and only increased as they took control of the local economies, sorry, as soon as they threw the local economies into a hopeless downward spiral of backwardness and incompetence.

[K. A. Pital]

Oddly enough, simply by looking at the GNP of Eastern and Western Europe pre-war and comparing what happened in the subsequent years, Eastern Europe was not that bad off.

Pre-war? The shitloads of money poured in the Marshall Plan were for West Europe only, the Eastern Europe had to deal with the ravage on it's own (with possible USSR help), but nothing more. How can you even claim that they are "the same"?

While it is true that Eastern Europe suffered considerably more infrastructure damage through the war, especially Poland, other areas such as Romania, Czhechloslovakia and Yugoslavia fared much better.

Oh don't fucking mitigate it, Eastern Europe was ravaged. Besides, Yugoslavia had a different and a quite successful socialist economy, NOT uniform with the USSR, and which did NOT involve the total nationalization of all assets, which alone disproves your claims that the situation in East Europe was forced on by the USSR.

These numbers show that in equal circumstances, these countries should have been able to recover and prosper in the same fashion as their Western counterparts.

Yeah. Like giving them:
a) shitloads of money, via public works like M.Plan.
b) a place in the world trage
Yes, if they were a part of the Marhshall Plan and intergrated into the NATO, they could've had a better deal. So what? How does this prove that the USSR was "looting" those countries to rebuild it's own economy? It fucking doesn't; the USSR cancelled even reparations from Germany, it's utmost foe, in 1954 IIRC.

Post war Russia treated them effectively as colonies, enforcing an identical form of government and directing industrial, social and military policy with little to no consideration of local conditions.

I agree that the treatment was like that of colonies (though NOT in the case of Yugoslavia, which you invoked, not a fucking long way). However, where is the proof that the USSR looted them, i.e. expropriated some natural resource to rebuild it's own economy? Nada. Prove one or conceed.

The inadequate trade of the USSR did not just happen in the 70's and 80's, it was rampant as soon as the Soviets arrived in the area, and only increased as they took control of the local economies

And where is the data? I must ask you for it, because I have to see the evidence that "looting" the Eastern Europe was helping the USSR to re-build it's economy, as opposed to the USSR, investing in, however flawed, East European economies as a major investor.

[KrauserKrauser]

Pre-war? The shitloads of money poured in the Marshall Plan were for West Europe only, the Eastern Europe had to deal with the ravage on it's own (with possible USSR help), but nothing more. How can you even claim that they are "the same"?

Meant bad off in the context of pre-war conditions when compared to equivalent western economies. The economies were relatively equal in levels of production before the war. What happened after the war to the economies of Eastern Europe can only be blamed on USSR economic incompetence. Sorry if there was any confusion.

My point is that the USSR utterly fucked Eastern Europe starting right after the war and continuing on until their eventual independence. This can be seen in the comparison between the US approach to recovering western european economies and the USSR's approach. The results speak for themselves.

Oh don't fucking mitigate it, Eastern Europe was ravaged. Besides, Yugoslavia had a different and a quite successful socialist economy, NOT uniform with the USSR, and which did NOT involve the total nationalization of all assets, which alone disproves your claims that the situation in East Europe was forced on by the USSR.

True, Yugoslavia did differentiate itself from the USSR with Tito's reformist attitudes that outpaced the USSR. That is until the USSR bitch slapped Tito out of power and made sure that they got in pace with their desired approach to Communism. Stalin made sure that Titoism was as reviled throughout the USSR as much as he made sure he was revered.

Titoism, and the distrust of Yugoslavia that it bread within the USSR, made sure that Yugoslavia was never fully integrated into the USSR communist system that was the downfall of basically every other Eastern European country, so sure, Yugoslavia is an example of a country under USSR jurisdiction but not complete control, mea culpa. But, I don't know how by saying "Yugoslavia acted independently", you can magically disprovesthe fact that the USSR in the countries that it had direct control over, destroyed the local economies.

Yeah. Like giving them:
a) shitloads of money, via public works like M.Plan.
b) a place in the world trage
Yes, if they were a part of the Marhshall Plan and intergrated into the NATO, they could've had a better deal. So what? How does this prove that the USSR was "looting" those countries to rebuild it's own economy? It fucking doesn't; the USSR cancelled even reparations from Germany, it's utmost foe, in 1954 IIRC.

Try checking your facts. The Marshall Plan was extended to ALL of the European countries. INCLUDING the USSR. Stalin was an idiot for not taking the money. He was a further idiot for not letting any of the Eastern European countries that he now had dominion over take it and just siphon the money back to Russia. They could have been part of the Marshall Plan if Stalin wasn't such a paranoid bastard, and would have benefitted greatly from it.

I agree that the treatment was like that of colonies (though NOT in the case of Yugoslavia, which you invoked, not a fucking long way). However, where is the proof that the USSR looted them, i.e. expropriated some natural resource to rebuild it's own economy? Nada. Prove one or conceed.

I overstated my case by saying they looted the other countries. My intention was that the USSR was responsible for the economic ruin of Eastern Europe through its enforcement of standardization and forced isolation from the global economy.

[K. A. Pital]

Meant bad off in the context of pre-war conditions when compared to equivalent western economies.

Pre-war conditions mean what? All is decided by the post-war.

True, Yugoslavia did differentiate itself from the USSR with Tito's reformist attitudes that outpaced the USSR.

Tito merely applied the concept of worker ownership honestly, giving workers control over profits and, later, assets of enterprises. And no, this did not end in Yugoslavia.

That is until the USSR bitch slapped Tito out of power and made sure that they got in pace with their desired approach to Communism.

They - who? Yugoslavia - one of the key countries in the non-aligned movement? Bitchslapped Tito out of power? What is this, a joke?

Stalin made sure that Titoism was as reviled throughout the USSR as much as he made sure he was revered.

So? Yugoslavia defied the USSR and carried on with Titoism. What are you arguing here exactly?

Yugoslavia is an example of a country under USSR jurisdiction but not complete control, mea culpa

Yugoslavia was not under USSR "jurisdiction", it openly defied the USSR even under threat of war.

But, I don't know how by saying "Yugoslavia acted independently", you can magically disprove the fact that the USSR in the countries that it had direct control over, destroyed the local economies.

Don't substitute your claims. You claimed that the USSR expropriated "resources" of Easter Europe to rebuild it's own economy - so either defend the claim you originally made, or conceed. I'm not going to argue that Stalin forced a flawed economic policy on all loyalist to the USSR East European states and had his lapdogs in these countries take the wrong course.

Try checking your facts. The Marshall Plan was extended to ALL of the European countries.

So what? I repeat - either defend your claim that the USSR "looted" East European countries or decline. I never argued against the fact that Stalin's rejection of the Marshall plan was a totally assholish action.

They could have been part of the Marshall Plan if Stalin wasn't such a paranoid bastard, and would have benefitted greatly from it.

Yes. The paranoid bastard didn't let USSR and East Europe join the Marshall plan and was an idiot to do so. But I repeat my question - did the USSR loot East Europe to rebuild itself? No, it fucking didn't.

My intention was that the USSR was responsible for the economic ruin of Eastern Europe through its enforcement of standardization and forced isolation from the global economy.

I agree. USSR's brute approach to economic integration and the "iron curtain" greatly hindered economic development - even it's own development. But I must again note, we did not loot other countries to re-build our own country, post-War. In fact, we invested in other countries to re-build their economies, even as Stalin's economic strategy for the COMECON was wrong.