07-24-2007, 02:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+May 9 2006, 07:59 PM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ May 9 2006, 07:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 9 2006, 05:54 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 9 2006, 05:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In ww2, it was necessary to support british since they were a lesser evil and also to dilute the muslim % in the army
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but the order in which they (ie, india's problems - poms, muslims etc) COULD be dealt with was poms first and than the rest. besides germans werent harming us one bit by waging the ww2, but we wwere helping the poms by fighting against the axis forces.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 9 2006, 05:54 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 9 2006, 05:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Netaji was simply a more brave version of Nehru - muslim appeaser and leftist
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
only a lunatic can compare a netaji to a nehru. sorry, you seem to have lost it.
netaji wasnt a muslim appeaser one bit - but he knew how to put people - be they muslim or german or japanese or hindus or sikhs, to use in the cause of getting india a bloody freedom.
netaji was a socialist yes, like nehru. and like many others. socialism ISNT communist else all scandinavian countries are commie.
whenever a society or nation has to start from scratch the centre has to lead the way of progress and development. what ussr had achieved (by way of village electrification, basic infrastructure starting from scratch etc) in the early days of its formation was indeed admirable. the totalitarian ussr came post ww2, or even slightly before that, ie ever since stalin. if india didnt start off in a socialistic kind of way then we wouldnt have the hydro electric projects, dams, national institutes, and our middle class and the ex-maharajas would again be ruling the roost.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 9 2006, 05:54 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 9 2006, 05:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->BTW, the Russian economy under the Tsar was booming
The bolsheviks set back the Russian economy by 20 years
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and the russian people were dying meanwhile.
the bolsheviks ressurected the russian population and put food on their tables.
[right][snapback]50876[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the bolsheviks did feed SOME of the russians. remember, there was a very large white russian movement, lots of fighting still, far into the 1920's. russia was extremely unstable,....so much so, that they completely dropped out of wwi, which they were a fairly large participant in.
once the communists took over,......they starved and killed many "other" russians. they had several military officer "purges",.........(polite word for "executions"), and many many white russians, ukrainians, belarus russians were starved and killed.
stalin killed many more russians in peace time, then the nazi's killed during the war.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but the order in which they (ie, india's problems - poms, muslims etc) COULD be dealt with was poms first and than the rest. besides germans werent harming us one bit by waging the ww2, but we wwere helping the poms by fighting against the axis forces.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 9 2006, 05:54 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 9 2006, 05:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Netaji was simply a more brave version of Nehru - muslim appeaser and leftist
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
only a lunatic can compare a netaji to a nehru. sorry, you seem to have lost it.
netaji wasnt a muslim appeaser one bit - but he knew how to put people - be they muslim or german or japanese or hindus or sikhs, to use in the cause of getting india a bloody freedom.
netaji was a socialist yes, like nehru. and like many others. socialism ISNT communist else all scandinavian countries are commie.
whenever a society or nation has to start from scratch the centre has to lead the way of progress and development. what ussr had achieved (by way of village electrification, basic infrastructure starting from scratch etc) in the early days of its formation was indeed admirable. the totalitarian ussr came post ww2, or even slightly before that, ie ever since stalin. if india didnt start off in a socialistic kind of way then we wouldnt have the hydro electric projects, dams, national institutes, and our middle class and the ex-maharajas would again be ruling the roost.
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+May 9 2006, 05:54 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ May 9 2006, 05:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->BTW, the Russian economy under the Tsar was booming
The bolsheviks set back the Russian economy by 20 years
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and the russian people were dying meanwhile.
the bolsheviks ressurected the russian population and put food on their tables.
[right][snapback]50876[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the bolsheviks did feed SOME of the russians. remember, there was a very large white russian movement, lots of fighting still, far into the 1920's. russia was extremely unstable,....so much so, that they completely dropped out of wwi, which they were a fairly large participant in.
once the communists took over,......they starved and killed many "other" russians. they had several military officer "purges",.........(polite word for "executions"), and many many white russians, ukrainians, belarus russians were starved and killed.
stalin killed many more russians in peace time, then the nazi's killed during the war.