Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should The U. S. Have Aided 1956 Hungary Revolt  
User currently offlineYanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1404 posts, RR: 12
Posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Greetings everyone. This past week, I learned about the Hungarian Revolution that took place in 1956 in my Honors History Class. What started off as a peaceful protest was soon turned into a bloody revolt after the communist government tried to put down the protest. Those who were protesting were able to overthrow the communist government and for 5 days enjoy freedom. However, on November 4, Soviet troops and tanks entered the country and soon put down the revolt and returned the communist government to power. I believe around 30,000 people were killed during this revolt. During the revolt, Hungarians asked for help from the United States, but President Eisenhower refused to enter the conflict. So I ask the question, should President Eisenhower have sent aid and possibly troops to make sure the communist did not control the country again? Please conduct this in a orderly manner.

signed,
Matthew


2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

No, because more than likely, this would have turned the Cold War into a Hot War very quickly. The main reason why US forces remained in Europe for so many years was because of the Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. Had the US send aid to the Hungarians, the Soviets probably would have sent tanks into West German, and in the scheme of things, both sides would have ended up nuking each other, and we all would not be here to discuss this topic.

User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

It was way too late in 1956. The line was drawn in Yalta where Hungary along with the rest of Central and Eastern Europe was handed over to Stalin on a silverplate.
One can only wonder how Churchill and especially Rossevelt could be so stupid to believe "Uncle Joe" anything besides good morning. Short memory perhaps? Total lack of intelligence on what's been going on in the Evil Empire since 1917? Or was it just they did not care? Sort of pre-WW2 Chamberlains' "country we know nothing about"

Only in the context of actions of thugs like Stalin (1940 Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithania), Khrushev (1953 East Germany, 1960 Cuba, 1956 Hungary), Brezhnev (1968 Czechoslovakia, 1978 Afghanistan, 1980 almost Poland) you truly appreciate what remarkably sane politican Gorbatschev was.
He could easily issue one order back in 1989 and drown it all in blood, with well over quarter of a million Red Army soldiers stationed in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and East Germany specifically for that purpose. What would follow? A little bit of bad press, maybe some ridiculous (vetoed) UNSC emergency session a few diplomats kicked out but otherwise no one would do anything again.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Actually while Churchill liked Stalin on a human base (similar type of humoour etc.), he was deeply distrusting him politically. I think the biggest problem was Roosevelt playing Churchill against Stalin to break British influence especially in Eastern Asia. While Churchill himself by this time realised that the colonial period was over (even before WW1 he was e.g. supporting Irish home rule, self administration), he still wanted to keep British influence there. Also while British and American forces cooperated reasonably well in Europe, Easter Asia and the Pacific War was, especially by General McArthur considered a purely American affair in which British and Commonwealth forces were sidelined.

I think it was a mix of political naivity by Roosevellt towards Stalin as well as a will to break up the British Empire to take over (which by the time was already breaking up by itself, whatever happened, I think Churchill was realist enough to have seen that he couldn´t keep it together by force. And compared e.g. to the French wars in Algeria and Indochina, the Dutch wars in Indonesia, the British retreat went relatively unbloody and uncomplicated). Roosevelt´s idea was that the Americans should be seen as the sole saviours from Japanese rule. It even went so far as that British offers to send troops to areas east of Burma were rejected.

Jan


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13033 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

While the USA didn't involve it's military in the 1956 Hungary Revolt, the USA government did protest via the UN and in other diplomatic ways. I am quite sure the CIA and other intellegnce agencies had enough info to determine the possible result of military involvement. Hungary was deep in the Soviet controlled Eastern Europe, so a physical deployment of troops would have been impossible without going through East Germany or other countries. Air bombing may have been impossible due to the Soviet air defenses and questions as to what to target.
One way the USA did help the people of Hungary after the revolt was to allow many thousands of Hungarians to emmigrate to the USA. Most of them settled in the the NY City/northern NJ area in communites and neighborhoods with earlier Hungarian immigrants. I have known a number of people whom came in those post-revolt immigrations, mainly as children.


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 3):
I think the biggest problem was Roosevelt playing Churchill against Stalin to break British influence especially in Eastern Asia.

Jan, I guess you meant playing Stalin against Churchill, right? In other words despite typically American big words about friendship screwing their British allies behind their back to prop their own agenda.
Roosevelt saw what appeasement resulted in back in 1938 and he did exactly the same thing six years later.


User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1937 posts, RR: 32
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 2):

Only in the context of actions of thugs like Stalin (1940 Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithania), Khrushev (1953 East Germany, 1960 Cuba, 1956 Hungary), Brezhnev (1968 Czechoslovakia, 1978 Afghanistan, 1980 almost Poland) you truly appreciate what remarkably sane politican Gorbatschev was.

That's why I admire Gorbachev as one of the most underrated political heroes of recent history. He definitely made many mistakes, but he was in uncharted territory; and it is not often that a politiician who is handed a lot of power on a silver platter, along with inheriting a political philosophy based on "might makes right," deliberately begins to chip away at his/her own power, and then presides over the disintegration of his/her influence altogether, because is the right thing to do. And all things relative, the breakup of the Soviet Union may have run away from him, but it and the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc were relatively non-violent and smooth.



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

During their final meeting at the 40th anniversary of the German Democratic Repuublic in fall 1989 Gorbatchev told Honecker that in case of the East German government using military to break up the daily protests, the Western Group of the Soviet Army would be siding with the demonstrators AGAINST the East German government. I think Honecker and Co. believed this threat.

Jan


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1747 times:

As pointed out, helping militarily was very dubious, with likely unimaginable consequences, (USSR had both A and H bombs in '56, though only a limited ability to hit the US with bombers then, not so 'limited' if your the one near the odd ground zero however!)
Europe would have been destroyed however.

And as stated, it would be effectively breaking WW2 agreements, something NATO often berated for USSR for doing.

There was however another reason, the US was focused elsewhere at this exact time.
The Mid East (sound familiar?)

The same time the Hungarian were being crushed, Israel attacked Egypt, quickly followed by the UK and France.
Since 1952, Arab nationalist Abdel Nasser, (a secular socialist), had deposed the Royal family who had strong, imperial era links, to the UK.
In 1956, he nationalized the Suez Canal, from the Franco-British organization that had run it since construction.
As this waterway was seen as still being vital to Western interests, in secret talks with Israel, the UK and France planned to topple Nasser, he was also fermenting anti UK and French feeling throughout the region, (all this sound familiar to more recent events?)

So Israel attacked in the East, then UK and French forces landed to 'protect the international trade route of Suez'.
It was a shabby affair, pushed by a paranoid and ill British PM, Anthony Eden, with massive anti war demos and a political firestorm (still sound familiar?).

But Eden had not told the US, had even denied any military plans existed Ike was livid (we now also know, and Eden probably knew at the time, that the US was cosying up to Nasser since he staged his coup, despite his anti Western reputation and Egypt rapidly becoming a Soviet client state, oil I suppose was the reason, still ironic considering all the McCarthy madness going on in the US around this time).

So a furious Ike was not so focused on Hungary, but he caused a run on UK gold reserves, threatened us with more severe sanctions, led the condemnation in the UN.
This forced the UK and France to pull out, though Israel had already succeeded with their co-conspirators, in weakening Nasser's military power for a time, giving Israel a breathing space.
But Nasser's stature in the Arab world was massively enhanced by his 'humiliation' of 'Imperialists', something the US soon regretted.

Eden, who had lied to Parliament during the whole affair, was soon out of office though the government as a whole survived.

This is why some of the better informed critics of the Iraq adventure, cite Blair as being another 'Eden', though this time the US is on side and driving the whole affair of course, reason enough some think, for the UK to have left GWB to it.
Though you could argue that refusing to send UK troops to Vietnam a decade later. was partly a result of being screwed over at Suez, incredibly the bad feeling this refusal caused in the US was never balanced by consideration of the US role in the Suez affair.

Sorry to go so far away from Hungary, but the Suez affair was a factor in the US response to the USSR's crushing of the uprising.


User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1737 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
Sorry to go so far away from Hungary, but the Suez affair was a factor in the US response to the USSR's crushing of the uprising.

I don't think so. Suez didn't alter anything in Hungary. The Americans were outnumbered in Europe in 1956. An advance would have been possible only with deployment of nuclear weapons. Starting a war in a bad initial position to win the freedom of a nation for which you haven't cared 11 years before (Yalta) doesn't make any sense to me. And I'm quite sure Eisenhower thought not very different.

pelican


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1724 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 3):
I think it was a mix of political naivity by Roosevellt towards Stalin

Quite likely. Towards the end of the war Churchill became deeply depressed at Roosevelt's apparent inability to see Stalin (and the soviet Union itself) for what he really was. Most of all, Churchill was appalled at the way Eastern Europe was to be effectively handed over to the Soviets. In particular, it was Poland that most exercised him. Britain had gone to war in the first place over Poland (the extremely shabby betrayal of Czechoslovakia quietly forgotten), and Churchill was horrified that after six years of war, Poland would be saved from one tyranny merely to be handed over to another.

Realistically, it is highly arguable whether Roosevelt really had a choice. The United States definitely didn't want to get into a further war with the Soviets, and given that, a Soviet sphere of influence was inevitable. It could perhaps have been pushed a little further back, but Roosevelt (and Truman following) both regarded Britain more as a rival than the bankrupt, devastated country it truly was by then, and thus Churchill's entreaties were not considered in the light of the perspicacity that history now affords us.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

Then I also think that Attlee was a bit naive concerning Stalin.

Jan


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1700 times:

Given that WW2 was only 11 years previous and war wounds were still fresh, another European war (over such a small, relatively unimportant country) would not have been wise.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 12):
Given that WW2 was only 11 years previous and war wounds were still fresh, another European war (over such a small, relatively unimportant country) would not have been wise.

Yyz717,
are you reincarnation of Chamberlain by any chance? You damn sound like one.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1690 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 13):
Yyz717,
are you reincarnation of Chamberlain by any chance? You damn sound like one.

No, just realistic. Enough British lives were lost saving the European continent from 1939-45. 1956 would too soon to do it all over again. Perhaps if the Hungarians (and your people, the Czechs) were willing to fight harder on your own, you could have remained free of Soviet influence and not have to rely on anglo-saxon countries to solve your own problems.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 14):
Perhaps if the Hungarians (and your people, the Czechs) were willing to fight harder on your own

Bullshit. The will was there in 1938, when things could be solved at much lesser cost, but we were saving "peace for our time", remember??? Do some history reading first please.

Did the Poles not give it all they could? From the RAF squadrons to fighting for their fmr. invaders and Gulag-jailors on the Eastern front (only to end up not being helped during Warsaw uprising), to Tobruk, to Monte Cassino? Was it any good for them? They were handed over to Stallin anyway.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1678 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 15):
Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 14):
Perhaps if the Hungarians (and your people, the Czechs) were willing to fight harder on your own

Bullshit. The will was there in 1938, when things could be solved at much lesser cost, but we were saving "peace for our time", remember??? Do some history reading first please.

If the Czechs mobilized harder in 1938 (and 1968 for that matter), your people COULD have been free decades earlier. It depends to a degree on a people's true tenacity to be free. True tenacity to fight for freedom will always win. The Czechs never possessed this.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 16):
If the Czechs mobilized harder in 1938

Care to elaborate? Or you just googled it 5 minutes ago?

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 16):
The Czechs never possessed this.

Seeing your earlier posts in different threads you really are big into superficial judgments, aren't you?


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Turbolet, clearly you're proud of being Czech (which is nice), but you need to look at your own country's recent history with an honest and critical eye. When Germany wasn't beating up on you, the Soviets were. You are only free as a nation now due to the vacuum left by a collapsing USSR, not through your own desires for freedom. The Czechs were weak militarily (and perhaps, had only a weak desire for freedom).

The Czechs had the oppty to be free in 1938 and again in 1968, and chose instead not to fight for it.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1937 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

And Banco wins the award for the first use of the word "perspicacity" on A.net!!!  biggrin . Nice post though, seriously. I'm always amazed by how much simpler hindsight makes major decisions.

The cold war obviously acted as a lens through which so many decisions were made (similarly to the "threat of terrorism" now). I think we deceive ourselves when we pretend that any decisions about wars and interventions then or now were simple, in terms of predicting consequences...

As several people have mentioned, the threat of nuclear war must have seemed very real in 1956 (with Hiroshima and Nagasaki only a decade earlier). Indeed, the Cuban Missile Crisis a few years later showed how delicate the world balance of power was.


Yyz717,

Having read your consistent onslaught of "might makes right" and "poor and oppressed peoples deserve their lots" posts in various threads, I'm just curious: Do you really mean what you type (25%, 50%, 75%?), or do you just like to provoke people with extremist views?



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1648 times:

Quoting N229NW (Reply 19):
Having read your consistent onslaught of "might makes right" and "poor and oppressed peoples deserve their lots" posts in various threads, I'm just curious: Do you really mean what you type (25%, 50%, 75%?), or do you just like to provoke people

Well, might does make right, at least in the hands of a democratic power. As for "poor and oppressed peoples deserve their lots" -- yes, I generally support this. The west did not become wealthy on handouts from richer others (there were none). We became wealthy through our own innovation and civilized traits such as rule of law, democracy etc.

So do I mean what I say? Yes.

Do I like to provoke people? Well, not deliberately. Why?

Don't take anet so seriously.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

Yyz717,
you certainly don't have to lecture me on my own history. Were we supposed to fight the Germans in 1938? Sure! Would we lose? Most likely, since we'd be left all alone by our great alllies France and the UK! But sometimes I guess it's necessary to fight lost battles just for the sake of self-respect. 1938 is a long lasting trauma up until today.
Unfortunately Benes was a pathetic politician, maybe a fine diplomat but definitely a poor leader. The real tragedy was he was allowed to fail twice in one decade, again in 1948.
1968? Just as hypothetical as Hungary or East Germany. That was just hard-core communists going after the liberal ones. I guess they wanted to pull out of the Warsaw Pact and declare neutrality, but the problem with neutrality is that it has to be widely acknowledged otherwise you can be neutral all you want and it's useless anyway (just ask the Dutch or Belgians how neutrality ended up was in 1940). The whole invasion was declared as "internal matter within the Soviet bloc" and no one wanted to mess with the Russians. Case closed. Again the nation chose a wrong guy (Dubcek), who clearly wasn't capable of living up to the expectations.


Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 18):
When Germany wasn't beating up on you, the Soviets were.

Well that's what happens when you're a nation of 10 million stuck in between these two.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 18):
You are only free as a nation now due to the vacuum left by a collapsing USSR, not through your own desires for freedom.

I won't argue with your rather simplistic views of the world - you're die hard Bush worshipper after all. As a self-proclaimed "affluent man of leisure"  Yeah sure you are more than welcome to make superficial jingoistic judgments on my nations desire for freedom, however your black and white perspective from the other side of the ocean is sure entertaining yet the reality of "Mitteleuropa" has always been more complex and far from black and white.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1639 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 21):
But sometimes I guess it's necessary to fight lost battles just for the sake of self-respect.

If the defense of Czechoslovakia had been ferocious enough, the Germans in 1940 and the Soviets in 1968 might have backed off.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 21):
The whole invasion was declared as "internal matter within the Soviet bloc" and no one wanted to mess with the Russians. Case closed.

True, NATO would not have wanted to use the Prague spring as a pretext for invading and starting WW3. However, if the Czechs fought the Soviets and refused to be cowered, they could have escaped the Soviet orbit. We'll never know.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 21):
you're die hard Bush worshipper after all. As a self-proclaimed "affluent man of leisure" you are more than welcome to make superficial jingoistic judgments on my nations desire for freedom, however your black and white perspective from the other side of the ocean is sure entertaining

Cut the personal attacks. I'm raising reasonable issues.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 21):
yet the reality of "Mitteleuropa" has always been more complex and far from black and white.

Exactly, and part of that complexity was a national weakness within the Czech people to fight for their own freedom. This was definitely a contributing (but not sole) factor in your people being rolled by the Germans and Soviets in rapid succession ensuring decades of communism.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1627 times:

I don't think Attlee was naive about the USSR, after all, his foreign secretary, Bevin, was a leading light in the formation of NATO, when the US broke WW2 agreements concerning atomic technology (many UK scientists worked on the Manhattan Project), Attlee authorized a secret, UK weapons programme, despite the state of the nation in 1945.
This was before NATO was even considered, but in any case, this UK bomb was only for deterring one country, Uncle Joe's USSR.
(When NATO was forming up, much agonizing over the inclusion of Turkey, the UK's position was decided by Attlee, "I fought the Turks in WW1, damn good fighters, better to have them on our side").

As for the unfortunate Czechs in 1938, well my understanding was the country was very hard to defend, once the European Powers had let Hitler off annexing border areas to "unite German speaking peoples".
Hitler was after the modern, highly regarded Czech arms industry, (the UK's BREN gun was basically a Czech design, as in BRuno ENfield), many Czech tanks were used in 1940/41, in fact the Czech tanks were a German mainstay in the early years of war.
So more fool the UK and France for allowing the invasion of the Czechs to happen.


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Well as someone who has studied the cold war period in Eurpe extensively, I can say that the hungarians fought damn hard against the soviets, and the numbers of lives lost shows this, but they didn't stand a chance. They appealed to the west for help and it was ignored - in part because Suez was a greater preoccupation at the time - and the soviets knew this too.

YYZ717 your posts are ridiculous, and you clearly don't know what is like to have lived under such a military regime as people in eastern europe had to endure.

I have met little old grannies in hungary who it turns out were busy throwing molotov cocktails at Russian forces on the streets of budapest.

But much of the reason the west didn't help was simply that they didn't believe it was worth the threat of nuclear war - as was previously mentioned, the spheres of influence were drawn at the end of the second world war, and the west was content to leave it that way.

As a result of 1956 and later 1968 in Czechoslovakia was that the hungarians learnt to change and reform bydoing things quietly and unnoticed - so that they wouldn't cause problems with Russia - they created a limited free market and their people could travel to the west prior to the changes of 1989.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
25 Yyz717 : You don't know what it's like either. So I guess we're both ridiculous then. Then I guess you failed to study how the Afghans and the Chechnyans have
26 MD11Engineer : Cornish, if you look at a map showuing Germany´s conquests in 1938-1940, you´ll see that each conquest forms the arms of a pincer movement to take t
27 Yyz717 : Much of Chechnyan fighting is in the relatively flat terrain around Grosny. Anyway, I argue that the relatively wealther Czechs and Hungarians were b
28 Jaysit : Then I guess you failed to study how the Afghans and the Chechnyans have been able to beat off the Soviet/Russian might through ferocious fighting. An
29 Post contains images Cornish : No I've not lived in it but I've lived in both East Berlin (after the fall of the wall, but when the Russian military was still there) and I lived in
30 Post contains images L410Turbolet : Although Kádár was brought to power by crushing the 1956 uprising, for some reason after he finished with the rebels he later did not behave like t
31 Cornish : Well they couldn't travel freely, but part families could go - for example father and daughter could go but mother and so stayed at home. The other p
32 Pelican : This statement raise the question whether European history isn't taught in Canada. At least it proves your absence during history lessons. How should
33 Post contains images N229NW : Yyz: and both those places (Afghanistan and Chechnya) turned out great holiday resorts, where the people ever since live comfortable, free lives. You
34 Yyz717 : Yes, we learn European history. The pinnacle event of the last 100 years was the holocaust in which millions of Germans participated or acquiesed in
35 N229NW : Nice try. By asking you how you can have it "both ways," I'm asking how you can collectively condemn the citizens of countries when they don't fight
36 Yyz717 : It was a rhetorical question in response to his question about whether history is taught in Canada. Either don't be so literal, or stop digging for n
37 Post contains images Pelican : Yyz717 If we combine the following two statements made by you, we will get a really sick result. pelican
38 Yyz717 : Pelican, my first quote above was a rhetorical question in response to your sarcastic comment to me in #32 about whether Canadians learn any history.
39 Pelican : Nothing wrong with that. Although I prefer to say more freedom less socialism instead of less taxation and less socialism. But being born in a totali
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should The U.S. Have A Black History Month posted Sat Mar 1 2003 04:50:58 by Alpha 1
Why Should The Rich Have A Higher Tax %? posted Tue Aug 10 2004 20:53:34 by TriJetFan1
Told Parents We Should Have Stayed In Hungary posted Thu Apr 1 2004 19:26:01 by North County
Should Minors Have The Same Rights As Adults? posted Fri Feb 15 2002 21:00:31 by Matt D
Should The Veil-wearing Teacher Be Sacked? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 18:05:17 by ThePRGuy
Should The UK Better Utilise The Channel Tunnel? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 00:22:51 by RJ111
Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 05:10:59 by KC135TopBoom
Should The U.S. Withdraw From The Uncat? posted Sun May 21 2006 06:19:55 by AerospaceFan
Should The US Follow Mexico's Lead? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 16:29:42 by Slider
A.net Vote: How Should The Rhaat Kill 1.5 Hours posted Thu Nov 10 2005 01:26:32 by Runway23