>how do you think the US would have reacted in 1956 had there been a communist insurrection in France
Gee, let’s just look at the 1968 revolt.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, zero American troops gunning down French socialists and crushing crowds with tanks. Shocking!
2 years ago
Anonymous
That wasn't an insurrection that was a larp by synthetic left hippies who stood no chance at seizing state power. If say the French Communist Party fairly (American/British intelligence rigged the French elections) won and formed a government there's no way the US/British wouldn't send the tanks in. Same thing with Italy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There are no communist governments that won a fair election, there is quite literally 0 chance for France even at that time to have an elected commie gov
2 years ago
Anonymous
>there is quite literally 0 chance for France even at that time to have an elected commie gov
So your argument is that one fluke election in a war torn nation means that somehow communism can be peacefully applied. Every communist country was created after a violent revolution, the idea of a communist government being elected is absurd since the moment they take power its gonna devolve into a totalitarian one party system, you know the staple of communism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also democracies can't allow an undemocratic fifth column to rise to power. If some demagogue uses rhetoric to convince the population to vote against their own freedom and democratic interests you need a system of checks and balances to prevent that destruction of your democratic institutions
2 years ago
Anonymous
>freedom and democratic interests
So licking and tongue fricking the anus of the banker capitalist elites who run the American Government is in the interest of the French nation?
2 years ago
Anonymous
And how is becoming a Soviet puppet state where you get gulag'd if you speak against dear leader a better alternative. Do you think Romanians, Hungarians or other Warsaw pact nations had a free populace. I remember my grandparents telling me about breadlines, extreme corruption, nepotism and poverty being the norm. I'd rather live in a Nato country than a Warsaw country
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Do you think Romanians, Hungarians or other Warsaw pact nations had a free populace.
Yes
>I remember my grandparents telling me about breadlines, extreme corruption, nepotism and poverty being the norm.
They're probably referring to the mid to late 80s after Gorbachev began to undermine and destroy socialism.
>I'd rather live in a Nato country than a Warsaw country
Have fun being a colony of the IMF, World Bank, and American capitalists. You will never have an independent foreign policy, you will never not have austerity, you will never have national sovereignty and the glowies will infest in your country. George Soros, Karl Scwab, Ursula von Leyden, Bill Browder will control everything.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Sovietards talking about being independent
The only nations the Warsaw Pact ever "defended" itself from was its own members.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They're probably referring to the mid to late 80s after Gorbachev began to undermine and destroy socialism.
Romania was financially independent but suffered from the same bread lines from the late 70's, because Ceausescu was a pompous moron and implemented unreasonable austerity. >Have fun being a colony of the IMF, World Bank, and American capitalists. You will never have an independent foreign policy, you will never not have austerity
If you think this is austerity you can go have a nice day for straight up lying.
"Colonies" of America, IMF and World Bank:
-autonomous foreign policy
-get to keep your army
-independent internal policy, anyone can be in the parliament, no glowie intervention
-no rapes, no murders
-they will help you protect your own free speech
-actual human rights
Colonies of the USSR, such as Romania from 1946 to 1989:
-up to Gorbachev, get invaded if you want to start talks with the wrong crowd
-your former army is memoryholed, all soldiers are spat on daily, or beaten/raped by commisars
-Moscow sets up your ruling party
-murder of all men, rape of all young women that couldn't hide in time
-no free speech, even today in China and Russia you will go to gulag for making jokes about the wrong people
-0 human rights, your entire existence is owned by the state, can be modified at any point without your input
I'd rather "globohomosexual austerity" where I can be free, than backwards eastern authoritarianism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>-they will help you protect your own free speech
a bald face fricking lie
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They're probably referring to the mid to late 80s after Gorbachev began to undermine and destroy socialism.
Romania was financially independent but suffered from the same bread lines from the late 70's, because Ceausescu was a pompous moron and implemented unreasonable austerity. >Have fun being a colony of the IMF, World Bank, and American capitalists. You will never have an independent foreign policy, you will never not have austerity
If you think this is austerity you can go have a nice day for straight up lying.
"Colonies" of America, IMF and World Bank:
-autonomous foreign policy
-get to keep your army
-independent internal policy, anyone can be in the parliament, no glowie intervention
-no rapes, no murders
-they will help you protect your own free speech
-actual human rights
Colonies of the USSR, such as Romania from 1946 to 1989:
-up to Gorbachev, get invaded if you want to start talks with the wrong crowd
-your former army is memoryholed, all soldiers are spat on daily, or beaten/raped by commisars
-Moscow sets up your ruling party
-murder of all men, rape of all young women that couldn't hide in time
-no free speech, even today in China and Russia you will go to gulag for making jokes about the wrong people
-0 human rights, your entire existence is owned by the state, can be modified at any point without your input
I'd rather "globohomosexual austerity" where I can be free, than backwards eastern authoritarianism.
>>Do you think Romanians, Hungarians or other Warsaw pact nations had a free populace. >Yes
T.cuckolds
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>Do you think Romanians, Hungarians or other Warsaw pact nations had a free populace. >Yes
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Have fun being a colony of the IMF, World Bank, and American capitalists.
Just because NATO is currently turning into a dumpster fire doesn't mean that it wasn't superior to Warsaw countries for the entirety of the Cold War.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's honestly a bad example France had nukes no one would have touched them no matter their government.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>De Gaulle disappears into Germany to link up with the French armies stationed there since he doesn’t trust the metropolitan troops to resist the revolutionaries. >the Prime Minister, Pompidou, is walking around with a handgun. >the French government basically ceased to exist and became just Pompidou, whose ordering tanks and gunships be deployed against the communists in Paris. >Nooo this is not a real revolt. Even though it matches all the criteria for a revolt and the violent overthrow of the government.
>If say the French Communist Party fairly won and formed a government there's no way the US/British wouldn't send the tanks in.
There they go again, making up fictitious alternate universes which lets them retroactively justify any stupid idea they had.
It was a revolt. The army was deployed. Many people died. The government collapsed, and the communists were openly saying they needed to seize power by any means necessary. France was lucky the socialists got cold feet when they realized they would get liquidated by the communists and threw their lot in with the Gaullists and the Right. Not once was there ever any talk of sending in British and American or any other NATO soldiers to quell the revolt.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>De Gaulle didn't trust the metropolitan troops
You are just pulling that out of your ass, he went to germany because his old friend was stationned there and he wanted to make an heroic comeback after everyone wandered where he was
Usually during revolts the people tends to arm itself to fight against the governement, nothing of this sort happened. Pompidou deployed troops by caution because he heard rumours this was happening, but it wasn't true.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What the frick are you smoking? By then, General Massu wasn’t his friend or “Compagnon de la Libération”. He was part of the OAS and the coup d’état in 1958. He went to Massu because Massu represented the army elements De Gaulle knew wouldn’t flip to the communists if/when the shooting started.
This “triumphant return” stuff, like a father wanting to scold a child, is lies and propaganda. De Gaulle fled in secret to Baden, not even Pompidou knew where he was. He was giving the family israeliteelry and heirlooms to his son and made arrangements for his wife and family to get evacuated to Baden.
Man, The only reason it didn’t turn into open civil war was the Metropolitan police chiefs were smart, and kept backing down so all people saw were rioters smashing and attacking everything between bouts of crazy demands like legalizing free love (including pedophilia), drugs, state seizure of everything, and so much more.
>Usually during revolts the people tends to arm itself to fight against the governement
We went through decades of ever tightening restrictions on weapon
ownership after several military coups, occupations, anarchist/fascist terrorist attacks, and sensational crime incidents. You want a firearm in 4th/5th Republic France? Good luck with that. Even the UK has fewer restrictions on weapons Usually during revolts the people tends to arm itself to fight against the government to make sure you are not schizo, arbitrary revoking of your license if the cops feel it like it, mandatory registration in a sporting club is just scratching the surface of our gun laws.
I think you are just being purposely obtuse and autistic. “It’s not a revolt because they don’t have guns yet” is about as dumb as it gets when 10 million people out of 50 million are in the streets, fighting the cops, occupying government buildings and the president/ministers fleeing the country.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He was a compagnion of Libération, the two respected each others, even though they had disagreement
2 years ago
Anonymous
The actual reality is that the British and Americans didnt have to capability to invade and occupy France post WWII. Right before demobilization sure, but afterwards? If France decided to openly join Moscow, the only thing London and DC could do about is attempt to block trade and seize shipping and embargo France. But trying to use the forces in Germany to invade France would just end with the French taking back their occupation zone, with the help of the Soviets.
2 years ago
Anonymous
May 68 wasn't a revolution it was a larp protest done by rich kids
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was just as fake as the Bolshevik Revolution - a israeli coup carried by the Rothschilds and Rockafellers
They didn't fully leave NATO. Even then the CIA and American Gov hated DeGaulle. The CIA, BND, and MI6 covertly supported the OAS and the attempted coup in 1958.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The CIA, BND, and MI6 covertly supported the OAS and the attempted coup in 1958.
Proofs?
False equivalence. >leader of Czechoslovakia, whom USSR has had no problem recognizing until this point, says he doesn’t think his policies are working and that he wants to moderate things >same thing as a violent insurrection
>Czechoslovakia grants more rights to citizens >NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU'RE BEING TAKEN OVER BY FASCISTS AND LIBERALS I MUST INVADE YOU NOW
Brezhnevtards are something else.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Cry about it
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Cry about AAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Cry about AAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Wont unshoot the nazis 🙂
Btw everyone has learned the lesson, there will not be another Gorbachev. You have no answer to China.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Wont unshoot the nazis 🙂
Good. >there will not be another Gorbachev.
We'll see, maybe there will be another Ceaușescu.
2 years ago
Anonymous
don't hold your breath or you are going to ack
2 years ago
Anonymous
wtf does that even mean? Ceausescu dragged romania from a backwater to a modern state, along with dej
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Wont unshoot the nazis
But the modern Ukrainian nazis sure are shooting a lot of Russians, huh. Funny, that.
Moscow kept a policy of benign neglect for its aligned states. Romania wasn't at risk of breaking ties and was economically integrated. There was no strategic benefit to control Romania. Of course, any resistance to Soviet policy would be met with swift intervention.
>Romania wasn't at risk of breaking ties and was economically integrated
One of the effects of romanian autonomy in foreign policy was the USSR not shipping them T-72s and other modern military equipment.
Soviet troops withdrew from Romania in 1957 and afterwards Moscow had very little influence on the country. The KGB also had no presence there so they didn't have a lot of info on what was going on. The Soviets generally didn't care that much about the strategically unimportant Balkans as opposed to Poland/Czechoslovakia/East Germany which were directly in the line of fire in the event of a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict.
Extremly so, which is why claims of Warsaw Pact being merely puppet states is revisionist propaganda.
Yet russia did czechoslovakia in 1968 and hungary 1956
how do you think the US would have reacted in 1956 had there been a communist insurrection in France
I'm not american and why do you bring up america when this thread is about romania and russia?
Because America was the de facto leader of NATO ? In the same way the USSR led the Warsaw pact
>how do you think the US would have reacted in 1956 had there been a communist insurrection in France
Gee, let’s just look at the 1968 revolt.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, zero American troops gunning down French socialists and crushing crowds with tanks. Shocking!
That wasn't an insurrection that was a larp by synthetic left hippies who stood no chance at seizing state power. If say the French Communist Party fairly (American/British intelligence rigged the French elections) won and formed a government there's no way the US/British wouldn't send the tanks in. Same thing with Italy.
There are no communist governments that won a fair election, there is quite literally 0 chance for France even at that time to have an elected commie gov
>there is quite literally 0 chance for France even at that time to have an elected commie gov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1946_French_legislative_election
So your argument is that one fluke election in a war torn nation means that somehow communism can be peacefully applied. Every communist country was created after a violent revolution, the idea of a communist government being elected is absurd since the moment they take power its gonna devolve into a totalitarian one party system, you know the staple of communism.
Also democracies can't allow an undemocratic fifth column to rise to power. If some demagogue uses rhetoric to convince the population to vote against their own freedom and democratic interests you need a system of checks and balances to prevent that destruction of your democratic institutions
>freedom and democratic interests
So licking and tongue fricking the anus of the banker capitalist elites who run the American Government is in the interest of the French nation?
And how is becoming a Soviet puppet state where you get gulag'd if you speak against dear leader a better alternative. Do you think Romanians, Hungarians or other Warsaw pact nations had a free populace. I remember my grandparents telling me about breadlines, extreme corruption, nepotism and poverty being the norm. I'd rather live in a Nato country than a Warsaw country
>Do you think Romanians, Hungarians or other Warsaw pact nations had a free populace.
Yes
>I remember my grandparents telling me about breadlines, extreme corruption, nepotism and poverty being the norm.
They're probably referring to the mid to late 80s after Gorbachev began to undermine and destroy socialism.
>I'd rather live in a Nato country than a Warsaw country
Have fun being a colony of the IMF, World Bank, and American capitalists. You will never have an independent foreign policy, you will never not have austerity, you will never have national sovereignty and the glowies will infest in your country. George Soros, Karl Scwab, Ursula von Leyden, Bill Browder will control everything.
>Sovietards talking about being independent
The only nations the Warsaw Pact ever "defended" itself from was its own members.
>They're probably referring to the mid to late 80s after Gorbachev began to undermine and destroy socialism.
Romania was financially independent but suffered from the same bread lines from the late 70's, because Ceausescu was a pompous moron and implemented unreasonable austerity.
>Have fun being a colony of the IMF, World Bank, and American capitalists. You will never have an independent foreign policy, you will never not have austerity
If you think this is austerity you can go have a nice day for straight up lying.
"Colonies" of America, IMF and World Bank:
-autonomous foreign policy
-get to keep your army
-independent internal policy, anyone can be in the parliament, no glowie intervention
-no rapes, no murders
-they will help you protect your own free speech
-actual human rights
Colonies of the USSR, such as Romania from 1946 to 1989:
-up to Gorbachev, get invaded if you want to start talks with the wrong crowd
-your former army is memoryholed, all soldiers are spat on daily, or beaten/raped by commisars
-Moscow sets up your ruling party
-murder of all men, rape of all young women that couldn't hide in time
-no free speech, even today in China and Russia you will go to gulag for making jokes about the wrong people
-0 human rights, your entire existence is owned by the state, can be modified at any point without your input
I'd rather "globohomosexual austerity" where I can be free, than backwards eastern authoritarianism.
>-they will help you protect your own free speech
a bald face fricking lie
T.cuckolds
>>Do you think Romanians, Hungarians or other Warsaw pact nations had a free populace.
>Yes
>Have fun being a colony of the IMF, World Bank, and American capitalists.
Just because NATO is currently turning into a dumpster fire doesn't mean that it wasn't superior to Warsaw countries for the entirety of the Cold War.
That's honestly a bad example France had nukes no one would have touched them no matter their government.
>De Gaulle disappears into Germany to link up with the French armies stationed there since he doesn’t trust the metropolitan troops to resist the revolutionaries.
>the Prime Minister, Pompidou, is walking around with a handgun.
>the French government basically ceased to exist and became just Pompidou, whose ordering tanks and gunships be deployed against the communists in Paris.
>Nooo this is not a real revolt. Even though it matches all the criteria for a revolt and the violent overthrow of the government.
>If say the French Communist Party fairly won and formed a government there's no way the US/British wouldn't send the tanks in.
There they go again, making up fictitious alternate universes which lets them retroactively justify any stupid idea they had.
It was a revolt. The army was deployed. Many people died. The government collapsed, and the communists were openly saying they needed to seize power by any means necessary. France was lucky the socialists got cold feet when they realized they would get liquidated by the communists and threw their lot in with the Gaullists and the Right. Not once was there ever any talk of sending in British and American or any other NATO soldiers to quell the revolt.
>De Gaulle didn't trust the metropolitan troops
You are just pulling that out of your ass, he went to germany because his old friend was stationned there and he wanted to make an heroic comeback after everyone wandered where he was
Usually during revolts the people tends to arm itself to fight against the governement, nothing of this sort happened. Pompidou deployed troops by caution because he heard rumours this was happening, but it wasn't true.
What the frick are you smoking? By then, General Massu wasn’t his friend or “Compagnon de la Libération”. He was part of the OAS and the coup d’état in 1958. He went to Massu because Massu represented the army elements De Gaulle knew wouldn’t flip to the communists if/when the shooting started.
This “triumphant return” stuff, like a father wanting to scold a child, is lies and propaganda. De Gaulle fled in secret to Baden, not even Pompidou knew where he was. He was giving the family israeliteelry and heirlooms to his son and made arrangements for his wife and family to get evacuated to Baden.
Man, The only reason it didn’t turn into open civil war was the Metropolitan police chiefs were smart, and kept backing down so all people saw were rioters smashing and attacking everything between bouts of crazy demands like legalizing free love (including pedophilia), drugs, state seizure of everything, and so much more.
>Usually during revolts the people tends to arm itself to fight against the governement
We went through decades of ever tightening restrictions on weapon
ownership after several military coups, occupations, anarchist/fascist terrorist attacks, and sensational crime incidents. You want a firearm in 4th/5th Republic France? Good luck with that. Even the UK has fewer restrictions on weapons Usually during revolts the people tends to arm itself to fight against the government to make sure you are not schizo, arbitrary revoking of your license if the cops feel it like it, mandatory registration in a sporting club is just scratching the surface of our gun laws.
I think you are just being purposely obtuse and autistic. “It’s not a revolt because they don’t have guns yet” is about as dumb as it gets when 10 million people out of 50 million are in the streets, fighting the cops, occupying government buildings and the president/ministers fleeing the country.
He was a compagnion of Libération, the two respected each others, even though they had disagreement
The actual reality is that the British and Americans didnt have to capability to invade and occupy France post WWII. Right before demobilization sure, but afterwards? If France decided to openly join Moscow, the only thing London and DC could do about is attempt to block trade and seize shipping and embargo France. But trying to use the forces in Germany to invade France would just end with the French taking back their occupation zone, with the help of the Soviets.
May 68 wasn't a revolution it was a larp protest done by rich kids
It was just as fake as the Bolshevik Revolution - a israeli coup carried by the Rothschilds and Rockafellers
>France outright leaves NATO
>nothing happens
They didn't fully leave NATO. Even then the CIA and American Gov hated DeGaulle. The CIA, BND, and MI6 covertly supported the OAS and the attempted coup in 1958.
>The CIA, BND, and MI6 covertly supported the OAS and the attempted coup in 1958.
Proofs?
https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter?id=1224
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/articles/how-charles-de-gaulle-survived-over-thirty-assassination-attempts/
False equivalence.
>leader of Czechoslovakia, whom USSR has had no problem recognizing until this point, says he doesn’t think his policies are working and that he wants to moderate things
>same thing as a violent insurrection
Having an independent course is different from having fascists/liberals take over the country.
>Czechoslovakia grants more rights to citizens
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU'RE BEING TAKEN OVER BY FASCISTS AND LIBERALS I MUST INVADE YOU NOW
Brezhnevtards are something else.
Cry about it
>Cry about AAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Wont unshoot the nazis 🙂
Btw everyone has learned the lesson, there will not be another Gorbachev. You have no answer to China.
>Wont unshoot the nazis 🙂
Good.
>there will not be another Gorbachev.
We'll see, maybe there will be another Ceaușescu.
don't hold your breath or you are going to ack
wtf does that even mean? Ceausescu dragged romania from a backwater to a modern state, along with dej
>Wont unshoot the nazis
But the modern Ukrainian nazis sure are shooting a lot of Russians, huh. Funny, that.
And rifghtfully so. Liberal hippie scum had to be scolded, and since their parents failed to do so, Russia had to step up
Romania wasn't part of the warsaw pact so I don't see the point you're making.
Moscow kept a policy of benign neglect for its aligned states. Romania wasn't at risk of breaking ties and was economically integrated. There was no strategic benefit to control Romania. Of course, any resistance to Soviet policy would be met with swift intervention.
>Romania wasn't at risk of breaking ties and was economically integrated
One of the effects of romanian autonomy in foreign policy was the USSR not shipping them T-72s and other modern military equipment.
Romania wasn't a frontline nation so it wasn't necessary to deploy the best equipment there.
No, the reason was the distancing of policy from Moscow.
Reminder it was members of the communist party that killed the USSE and pillaged its still warn corpse
Soviet troops withdrew from Romania in 1957 and afterwards Moscow had very little influence on the country. The KGB also had no presence there so they didn't have a lot of info on what was going on. The Soviets generally didn't care that much about the strategically unimportant Balkans as opposed to Poland/Czechoslovakia/East Germany which were directly in the line of fire in the event of a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict.
>Rehabilitates the fascist leaders of Romania from WWII
Yeah, I'm thinking Ceausescu was based.
100% free, after ww2, the russian influence in romania was all completely gone