Hacker News Reader

Comment by berntb | Hacker News Reader

The point is -- Eastern Europe was in practice left under occupation by one of history's worst dictators as part of signing the peace after the 2nd world war.

It is shocking, when you read up on the subject and see how many percent of the population ended up in horrible jails in the "less" bad places like Romania.

And yeah, you don't risk global nuclear war over other people's liberty. (A good reason why places like Iran and North Korea want to go nuclear.)

View on HN

No, no one "left" someone under occupation, it wasn't the decision to make for the West in the first place. The responsibility for the US is primarily for what happens in the US, the same is true for the UK and Romania.

Romanians ran the Gestapo like security apparatus called "Securitate", Romanians ran the Romanian army and Romanians ran the Romanian government. Whatever happened in Romania is primarily the fault of Romanians. Don't tell me how I should have fought or even died for your freedom, better ask yourself why your people didn't do it.

There are examples of other countries (like Socialist Yugoslavia) that fought for their freedom against the Nazis, and who then stayed independent from the Soviets. (even though Stalin threatened to invade)

When the Nazis came the Romanians went along with them and submitted (not only that, but they also supplied hundreds of thousands of soldiers), when the Soviets came the Romanians went along with them and submitted. (again supplied soldiers to fight for their cause)

What you are essentially doing by calling them victims is asking for some higher authority that should make things right that you don't want to fight for yourself. Maybe some United Nations Socialist world government? I can tell you with absolute certainty that we are not going to have any of that. Maybe you will though, it is your own choice. But don't blame us when it doesn't work out the way you hoped.

In principle I agree for the 1940s, a pan European brotherhood was probably not so important at the time. [Edit: And when they saw what they had done, it was a MAD world...]

But Yugoslavia was a special case, there the new government didn't come in, riding with an occupying tank army that broke the back of the population with hunger, Siberia and torture.

Hungary 51, Czechoslovakia 68, the forest brothers of the Balkans... They did try. Hard. (Edit: Note -- when it was clear that Soviet tanks wouldn't roll in over the borders any more, the dictators went out quickly.)

Democracies should try to spread the liberty. It is the modern missionary statement. If nothing else, it is good for everyone.

Edit: Where I would put the disagreement: History shows that a brutal enough junta can keep a population down for generations. 1984, with history as a foot stomping in a face. (The junta probably needs control over the information for that to work.) So a population have an impossible time freeing itself from a pack of criminals without external help. And it is the moral duty for free societies to aid in this. (I hate idealism. But this is one I can stand for.)

I'm not in any brotherhood, I'm not a missionary and I'm not waging some kind of Jihad to spread my ideology in the world.

You seem to not recognise that freedom cannot be obtained without self responsibility as you are constantly seeking to minimize the responsibility that people had for their own bad decisions and the bad outcomes that resulted from it.

Soviet literally sent most of a troublesome population (and large parts of others) to Siberia. After 1945, a few percent in prison with torture was mild. Troublesome countries/populations could be permanently cured.

You really write I "minimize the responsibility that people had for their own bad decisions" -- when I note that the populations knew that if they rocked the boat it would end with mass deportations to Gulag and/or genocide? (In many cases -- again!)

Seriously... Enough.

Edit: A large fraction of Lithuania did try and paid the price. Deportations and political prisoners in Gulags was 15+% of the population of around 2 millions in total then (see Demographics_of_Lithuania on wikipedia). The point was made that Soviet had no problem continuing up to 100%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deportations_from_Lithu...

It is one thing what I personally dislike (for example what happened in Romania) and what I'm vocal against (Communism, Socialism) and what my country is responsible to fight for. (especially if the adversary was the Soviet Union)

You are not going to convince me that the West is responsible for what happened in Romania unless you prove that the West forced you into Communism and actively helped to keep this Gulag system running.

The only case you seem to make is that countries like Romania and Lithuania are no real sovereign nations because they are too weak. Am I right? What's your suggestion to solve this? You submit to someone else who is not the Soviet Union? Or you hope you'll find someone who will risk his safety for you for free?

1. I am not Romanian, be careful with personal details in personal attacks.

2. Most of the world's countries will be weaker than some neighbour.

USA have not gotten enough credit, I'll agree with that, but I'll also dismiss you by hoping that you're a troll.

"The point is -- Eastern Europe was in practice left under occupation"

No one "left" anyone. Eastern Europe had a right to self determination, which was infriged upon by the soviet block. Blame the soviet block. Western Europe coming in and "spreading democracy" would have been a disaster.

It's easy for you to say, now that the west has won the cold war. At the time, Western Europe was simply either with the US or trying to find a third path, neutral and not involved in the cold war.

It is the responsibility of Eastern European to revolt and make a country for themselves, not anyone else's.

I agree in the main lines but this has limits. I like to take an example with a family living nearby: you hear that the father is spanking his kids, ok, that's none of your business. But if you hear that said father is abusing his kids, you call the cops, and if no cops are available you may group with other peoples to get the kids to safety.

I think Eastern Europe countries were in the "spanking" case, but WW2 Germany and possibly today's North Korea are in the "abuse" case.

I thought so too, until I saw things like these about one of the "nicer" occupations. They broke the resistance with brutality -- then the population suffered silently until it was clear no Soviet tanks would roll in if they threw the yoke off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946%E2%80%93...

A few percent of the population was in prison for political errors (like not writing over your farm to the party):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation_in_Communist_Roman...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Hungarians_in_...

Sending most grown ups from Transylvania with German ancestry (they generally moved there during the middle ages) to Siberia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_settlements_in_the_Sovi...

It is hard to draw the line, because you need first to build the concept of a "people" (or nation?) then try to find out what's the collective will. But you can't either dismiss this, as people right of self-determination is a core principle.

If a nation somewhere collectively decide they do not want, say, modern medicine, or access to Internet, I will think it is stupid but cannot come there and tell them that I know better.

How many percent of the population forced out and/or sent to prison camps do you think is a serious limit? Lithuania was at ~ 15% after WWII.

Or does it have to be mass murders of a large fraction of the population?

(And yes, 'grive' do have a point -- at the time, there were other problems. It was just not an alternative to continue WWII. After that, a new war would be nuclear. No way to win those.)

It's not a matter of percent. If a very corrupted country decided to get rid of all mafia at once, it could mean a high percentage of the countrymen tried. However getting rid of an ethnic minority, or of the homosexuals, is not ok. The limit is very hard to draw precisely。

Uh, in which country have the organized criminality ever been over 1%? 3%? :D

Regarding Lithuania we talk about getting rid of 15% not of the "ethnic minority" but of the "ethnic majority", then replacing them with a more "dependable" population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com