tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post6433740761255410555..comments2024-02-27T14:44:07.868+01:00Comments on Greedy goblin: The reason behind the West hating Putin, Orban and SzydloGevlonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-92080398092559754552017-05-04T20:01:13.798+02:002017-05-04T20:01:13.798+02:00@Gevlon and Antze
On the topic of russian rebellio...@Gevlon and Antze<br />On the topic of russian rebelliousness - we really are not too rebellious. We do not often organise marches like the kind we see against Le Pen now (and when we do, they are not nearly that intense, more like socials hanging out). We also have mostly ignored the noticeable drop in our standrats of living that came with recent western sanctions (a drop in standart of living of a similar magnitude in most places in the West causes people to bring molotovs to streets).<br /><br />That being said, we did end our government twice in XX century (thrice if you count the Provisional Government between February and October 1917), and are unique in that way.<br />We didn't do it out of any particular sort of rebelliousness, mind you, but rather just because the old government reached its limits and it couldn't maintain the country any longer.maximhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576542229498004147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-45224627952636896352017-05-04T17:53:50.420+02:002017-05-04T17:53:50.420+02:00who dude, before you go about speaking about the b...who dude, before you go about speaking about the banks and Obama you better wake up on the fact since you do not live here there are some things you should not speak about.<br /><br />But as to the banks, yes some of them are now more controlled tightly by the Federal Gov, and that now is Trump and his circle jerk. I forget which one, but 1 bank attempted to return the bailout and was denied this ability. It was the same with I believe General Mortors, thing is as a major part of our economy we need GM to stay up and running no matter who runs the show(for now). As to the banks, pfft they can go bottom up and it wold not make a dent in how things work with the Federal Reserve still up and running and calling the shots on how our Banking side of the economy works.<br /><br />Also, us Americans, we are a dysfunctional family most of the time. But if you fuck with us we can unite pretty damn fast, and there is historical evidence of that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-2081678968270991432017-05-04T17:20:26.487+02:002017-05-04T17:20:26.487+02:00@Gevlon
The argument Scalia was making was to gay...@Gevlon<br /><br />The argument Scalia was making was to gay marriage. And the people did have a voice. Many many laws were on the books all over the country. Many conflicting. You could be married in one place, move to another, and suddenly be not married. Congress straight up wouldn't touch it, it was too much of a hot button issue with some religious voting blocks. So it fell to the courts to decide what the legal definition of marriage is because of the amount of chaos it was causing. What they were ruling on were state laws causing problems in the republic. It's considered a constitutional right, for now. Congress could revisit the issue, they won't, but they could. Gay marriage was one of those extraordinary cases I was talking about earlier, and it like most of it's kind built over decades to get to that point. Lots and lots of case law had been built up over it from all those laws on the books, almost all of it conflicting, and SCOTUS had to figure out what to do with them.<br /><br />Scalia's argument is an impassioned plea, but since the national legislature wouldn't touch it, someone had to. It's the same thing with executive orders. Really, the president doesn't have nearly the power executive orders make it seem he does. Executive orders are meant to be a stop gap while actual law is worked out at congress. It's just that year over year congress has passed less and less laws inflating the power of executive orders. If congress actually did their job executive orders would be what they actually are supposed to be. Temporary until the legislature can react to developing situations. That case as well is temporary until congress gets around to it. They won't though, so it'll stand.Halyconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16799009527451064697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-2375072607537334272017-05-04T13:06:01.787+02:002017-05-04T13:06:01.787+02:00@Anon: no. To be corrupt, you need to sell influen...@Anon: no. To be corrupt, you need to sell influence for money. Corrupt cop sells "no arrests" for money. Thieving cop sells nothing, he just steals while doing his job properly.<br /><br />I have not seen evidence that someone walked to Putin, gave him money and it made Putin change a decision. Nor Orbán. What I see in Hungary all the time is Orbán making the right decisions, then let a friendly oligarch implement the decision (build the road, run the newspaper, whatever) for higher than market price and they split the extra profit. It's clearly stealing and I don't approve it. <br /><br />But the right decision is still made. Corrupted politicians make bad decisions for money. For example Obama bailed out the banks in 2008 and now he got his first $400K payment. Orbán didn't do the same when some investment firm (Questor) failed in Hungary, he let the bank go down and bailed out the little guys who had money inside (and the sums didn't add up, so he probably stole from the money). Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-56697065038089652312017-05-04T12:11:18.082+02:002017-05-04T12:11:18.082+02:00Gevlon,
Alright, just random link, just like your...Gevlon,<br /><br />Alright, just random link, just like yours: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/06/russia-journalist-punished-chechnya-reporting<br /><br />This is the evidence for "you speak in Russia, you end up in jail". Though your point still holds, that Russia is more democractic than US?<br /><br />Policemen example:<br />You agree that Putin steals. That's good. Now about corruption using your policeman example - if Putin has friends who steals, he must be corrupt. Don't say that he does not know his fiend is doing that - that would mean he is stupid. Do you need a link about Putin friends owning properties around the world or will you find that "evidence" yourself?<br /><br />Do you agree Putin both steals and is corrupt?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-431690831367383602017-05-04T11:36:18.218+02:002017-05-04T11:36:18.218+02:00OK, that's clear, thanks. I pick the latter op...OK, that's clear, thanks. I pick the latter option, with a minor correction - "SOME Russians are ready to remove the government by violence". But it's not a belief, it's a hypothesis, or maybe even apprehension.<br /><br />So I restate my point as follows: "I am afraid that Russia might be not a democracy in sense of having democratic elections, yet Russia has a system which seems to somehow force the leaders to listen to people". I emphasize yet again that I have no proof and it could still be that Russia is a democracy, and the new different leader will come through elections.Antzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09627061373959554553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-11416225304818276612017-05-04T11:34:26.666+02:002017-05-04T11:34:26.666+02:00@Anon: nope, I'm not an evidence because
- I l...@Anon: nope, I'm not an evidence because<br />- I live in Hungary that I claim to be democracy and not in "the West" which I claim to be not<br />- I am not a big public figure, so I'm not sure that whatever I write here is "speaking up"<br /><br />No, the items owned by Putin proves that he steals, not that he is corrupt. Let me explain:<br />- policeman lets thief run for money: corrupt<br />- policeman arrests thief and steals his money instead of turning it in as evidence: thief<br /><br />While I do not support Putin (and Orbán) stealing, I do not think they are corrupted and controlled by anyone.<br />Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-81671347881138300202017-05-04T11:16:21.985+02:002017-05-04T11:16:21.985+02:00Gevlon,
These links are your evidence? I can pres...Gevlon,<br /><br />These links are your evidence? I can present you the evidence that you can speak and keep your job. That evidence is you. So, we both proved opposite things now. How come?<br /><br />I can also easily find you the link about various properties Putin owns in various western countries, he would never would be able to afford from his legal income. Will that be an evidence that he is corrupt and maybe also "controlled by someone"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-91988225776573724662017-05-04T11:10:18.749+02:002017-05-04T11:10:18.749+02:00@Antze You wrote "Russia is not so "dem...@Antze You wrote "Russia is not so "democratic" in your sense, that it could be changed through elections" ... "the ruling class in Russia somehow depends on the people's wishes, so if they start just doing whatever they like, they will lose power"<br /><br />You can lose power two ways:<br /> - democratic elections<br /> - some form of violence (revolution, coup, assassination)<br /><br />If you say that the ruling class loses power if it goes against the people, you must believe that either <br /> - Russia is a democracy<br /> - Russians are ready to remove the government by violence<br /><br /><br /> Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-11968481735574689622017-05-04T10:30:34.730+02:002017-05-04T10:30:34.730+02:00@Halycon:
‘Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and...@Halycon:<br /><br />‘Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the court’s claimed power to create that the constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.’<br /><br />Antonin Scalia<br /><br />http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/antonin-scalia-defending-democracy-against-judicial-agitation/18037#.WQrj1mnyiHsGevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-15353286791729977072017-05-04T10:29:07.407+02:002017-05-04T10:29:07.407+02:00No idea how these things are needed for my stateme...No idea how these things are needed for my statement to be true. Also no idea how negating them makes my statement invalid (that is, makes peaceful re-election possible). It reads: "if Russian people are not rebellious or Russian leaders are violent, that makes peaceful re-election possible", and it looks quite strange.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with people's temper, actually Western people seems to be more rebellious for me. My point was that (#probably) the Western power holders are in agreement with each other, so to change something it might require extreme levels of rebellion that might be unacceptable for some people. Russian power holders (#probably) compete with each other, so they are dependent on people (if some of them starts ignoring people, another one might use it for his advantage). Hopefully that side will use "peaceful election mechanism" for gaining advantage, but I wouldn't bet on that - last time power holders were disagreeing, Russian way was "people mysteriously disappearing, ending up in jail, suddenly losing influence, freely and willingly leaving the country, tanks roaming the place near parliament office, etc."<br /><br />I used #probably tag because I have no idea about power holders and their relations, it just looks for me that way.Antzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09627061373959554553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-37534971764041186972017-05-04T09:53:23.387+02:002017-05-04T09:53:23.387+02:00@Gevlon
You're making the normal outsiders mi...@Gevlon<br /><br />You're making the normal outsiders mistake in expecting an election to massively change US law or policy. You don't understand the role of the courts in making law.<br /><br />One of the side effects of how the courts come into play is it slows things down so nothing can happen too fast. You see, the legislative creates a law, the executive passes it and enforces it, and the judicial has to decide what it actually means. Which is much harder than it seems because of how precedents work. The courts want consistency of meaning and enforcement, which takes a lot of time.<br /><br />For instance, a new law is made. Boom. Several things can happen with it in the courts, if it goes up the chain of courts and lands in SCOTUS it's usually because something about it is unconstitutional, in which case that part is straight up stricken down. But, the more common thing is new law conflicts with old law. And old law is given precedent unless the new law specifically overwrites the old law. So then the courts have to decide how this new law interacts with the old law. That can take years. Decades sometimes for edge cases to trickle into the courts.<br /><br />That system is a feature. Not a bug. By design the judicial system slows change down so the country has time to adjust from one set of changes to the next. The judicial is setup to provide consistency in law and action, while the other to are setup to disrupt. It's part of the system of checks and balances.<br /><br />From an outsider it looks bad, maybe, because no single election can have too much of an effect on things. From an insider perspective it means no one can screw things up too badly. The courts keep it from happening. The practical effect though is the US is consistent. Everyone can count on whatever was true yesterday being true tomorrow, and only a few particulars will have changed. Over time big changes can happen, but everything is over a long enough time period to make sure the country can acclimate. Only in a few extraordinary circumstances can big change come rapidly, and usually it's because decades were spent leading upto it.Halyconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16799009527451064697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-48570856255665403132017-05-04T06:38:30.880+02:002017-05-04T06:38:30.880+02:00@Anon I missed:
Who are these power holders? How ...@Anon I missed:<br /> Who are these power holders? How about those who gave $19M to Paul Ryan despite not even being in his district https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/district.php?cycle=2016&display=B<br />Speak up and lose your job: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/business/media/bill-oreilly-fox-news-allegations.html<br /><br />@Jean-Mira: since when "do the opposite of what the people want" are high standards in a democratic system? There isn't a single EU15 country where the PEOPLE wanted Syrian/Lybian refugees. <br /><br />@Antze: your statement need two things to be true:<br />- Russian people are more rebellious than the Westerns, so they are ready to revolt any time they are wronged, while Westerns are sheep who accept being fooled again and again<br />- Russian leaders are less violent than the Westerns, so they wouldn't just massacre the revolting people when they rise<br /><br />Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-82403749822744698272017-05-04T00:26:56.653+02:002017-05-04T00:26:56.653+02:00@Gevlon: You forgot Ukrainians. In 2014 16% of Cri...@Gevlon: You forgot Ukrainians. In 2014 16% of Crimean population was Ukrainians (no recent data, sorry, but I don't recall any major migration). Those are generally fine with Russian rule as well, maybe because they have jobs, good salaries, can teach their children in Ukrainian language and are NOT beaten up, jailed, insulted or limited in their rights in any way.<br /><br />Still, I'm afraid Russia is not so "democratic" in your sense, that it could be changed through elections. You seem to get one thing right - looks like the ruling class in Russia somehow depends on the people's wishes, so if they start just doing whatever they like, they will lose power, they know it, they don't want it, so they keep (most of) their promises to people. In the West the system seems to be constructed in a way which is more resistant to "unhappy people", so people in power can do much more of whatever they like.<br /><br />The difference follows. Your point: "in Russia the ruling class has to keep promises to people, possibly because otherwise they will be re-elected". My point: "in Russia the ruling class has to keep (some of the) promises to people, possibly because otherwise they will lose power, likely through some violence". It doesn't require direct violence like in 1917, there are other ways the system can go down, and people in this system don't want it.Antzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09627061373959554553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-48297879040609903182017-05-03T23:24:46.039+02:002017-05-03T23:24:46.039+02:00Curious that nobody mentioned it yet, but *of cour...Curious that nobody mentioned it yet, but *of course* EU countries hold Hungary and Poland to higher standards: After all they are members of the EU!<br /><br />Comparing EU-15 behaviour to other EU states (internal policy) versus other countries (foreign policy) is comparing apples to oranges.Jean-Miranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-70309331633155427862017-05-03T23:20:10.748+02:002017-05-03T23:20:10.748+02:00@Anon: again, oppression isn't a moral stateme...@Anon: again, oppression isn't a moral statement. It simply means that the government is in disagreement with the population and uses force to resolve this. Hitler didn't oppress the SS, since they were devout Nazis. This didn't make them right.<br /><br />There is no oppression in the Crimea, because most people are ethnic Russians who prefer Russia, the Tatars are neither Russians, nor Ukrainens, so have no better options. North Korea is likely less oppressed than Iraq, simply because it's ruled by Kims for decades and everyone who didn't surrender to that decades ago were executed decades ago.<br /><br />On the other Hand Russia is in Crimea shorter time than the USA in Iraq, so Crimea should be the more rebellious and it's not. Ergo, I do say that the people of Crimea like Russia more than the Iraqi people like the US. <br /><br />Also, why are we talking about violent oppression, when the topic was about democracy: changing countries by elections?Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-68634758596821000472017-05-03T23:13:54.785+02:002017-05-03T23:13:54.785+02:00Gevlon:
"puppet in the hands of unelected pow...Gevlon:<br />"puppet in the hands of unelected power holders" - who are they? Show evidence.<br />"but if you speak up, you lose your job" - what do you mean "speak up"? Show evidence. I see you speak. I assume you still have your job?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-4186274822991657402017-05-03T23:11:17.373+02:002017-05-03T23:11:17.373+02:00Gevlon,
You said "There is no major uprisin...Gevlon, <br /><br />You said "There is no major uprising or guerrilla fighting in Crimea but there is in Iraq, so it's obvious that the Crimea people are less oppressed than the Iraq people." Another one "the existence of local resistance fighting is the proof of oppression".<br /><br />So you are stating that uprisings and guerrilla fights have direct correlation with oppression. The more uprisings - the bigger oppression. Right? But when given Norther Korea as an example you go and start inventing new rules and exclusions about prisoners, etc. But, according to your original statement, if dictator is successfully able to shut down any signs of opposition before it gets evolved into something like uprising, = All good - no oppression.<br /><br />You are absolutely social. You can not admit your mistakes and when your nose is pointed into them by various people, - you just keep twisting around and inventing excuses just to defend your own "out-of-the-box/creative" ideas.<br /><br />I was kind of aligning with you when I was reading your stuff about WoT being rigged, EVE conspiracy against you, LOL being P2W, - thinking like "hm, well, maybe this guy has a valid point". Though, after these political posts of yours I just started to realize how biased you are, you don't care about truth, or facts, or just plain logic, - you just invent something "smart" in your mind and then try to twist around with numbers, broken logic, etc. just to prove your point. You need to be right. That's way more social behavior than any other social nonsense that ordinary person does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-43281528563524671272017-05-03T22:51:29.129+02:002017-05-03T22:51:29.129+02:00@Anon: indeed Trump could win. But only a nice roo...@Anon: indeed Trump could win. But only a nice room, not any power. He is just a puppet in the hands of unelected power holders. Putin at least has to care about his ratings. Finally, Putin will die one day or be too old/sick to rule and then there will be a window for change for Russia. There is no such hope for America, the Military-Industrial complex will rule above them "forever".<br /><br />@Nielas: this is kind of the point. That being violently oppressed isn't the only way to be not free. While people weren't hunted in the streets, they were not the masters of their future. I see the same thing in the West now what I saw when I was a child. You can mind your own business, but if you speak up, you lose your job (for "microaggressions" and "harrassment") and your votes don't count.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-69435746414869809402017-05-03T22:41:32.219+02:002017-05-03T22:41:32.219+02:00We seem to have different definitions of what &quo...We seem to have different definitions of what "oppressed" means. I would think that a system where a "goblin" like you would either have to become a "social" or end up in prison, would feel very oppressive. <br /><br />I grew up in communist Poland so maybe things were different in Hungary but I do not imagine by much. Even as a child it felt oppressive to me even though no one in my family was beaten up or thrown in prison. Nielashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685329191772513319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-46666549775441335982017-05-03T21:54:23.678+02:002017-05-03T21:54:23.678+02:00I think you should look up the history of the Yabl...I think you should look up the history of the Yabloko party in Russia, which was systematically destroyed through the elections process at both the regional and national levels. A person is allowed to run on the Russian ballot for the presidential elections if they attain a certain number of signatures, I think the current number is a few million. The government can then deny the validity of a single one of those signatures for any reason (and without satisfactory proof) and require the entire group of signatures to be reacquired. The body that has the power to deny signatures is controlled by Putin.<br /><br />By this means, Putin has enabled himself to create the illusion of a democracy and allows only those people he knows will not win to run against him. Along with his power to choose the governors in each region, he is nothing less than the absolute monarch. The elections in Russia are a stage performance at best. He and his crony Medvedev play ping-pong with the official titles in order to avoid term limits, and so nothing stops him. He is rumored to be worth at least $40 billion by virtue of his stake in Russia Inc., which is comprised mostly of assets sold off in the idiotic over-privatization of Russian steel, oil, etc. in the 1990s.<br /><br />Is this comparable to the US? Somewhat. The FEC has tons of its own corruption issues, and it was made with the intention of providing a 3-3 deadlock vote on important issues between the parties, thus rendering it largely ineffective in maintaining the sanctity of elections. They also effectively block third parties from entering the debates. In essence, the democratic and republican parties have a similar grip over US democracy that Putin has over Russian democracy. But this isn't nearly as large a problem as Putin in Russia is because:<br /><br />a) A majority of people in the US identify with one of the two major parties. The parties are more open to change than they've been. See Bill Clinton's don't ask don't tell as a very simplistic example of this.<br /><br />b) While Donald Trump isn't following his promises, at the very least his election proves that there is room for candidates to come out of left field. Ross Perot had a true chance of winning in the 90s. Teddy Roosevelt won from the Bull-Moose party. Putin doesn't allow even these unlikely events to transpire, whereas the US system does.<br /><br />c) The two parties are parties, not simply one man (as is the case in Russia). There is a group of elites in the US, whereas in Russia there is only one, and about 9 oligarch billionaires. The oligarchs in Russia have a lot of money but nearly zero ability to stand up against Putin (as can be seen by the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky).<br /><br />The phrase "illiberal democracy" was meant specifically to demean the idea that it is a democracy, so your overall point that the west hates these places because they "ARE" a democracy is nonsensical. The US is more democratic than Russia by all possible measures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-11257163633594950632017-05-03T21:47:55.765+02:002017-05-03T21:47:55.765+02:00@Nielas: there was no need for it. Those who rejec...@Nielas: there was no need for it. Those who rejected communism died (20-30K) or went exile (200-300K). The rest were collaborators, believer communists and simple guys who just wanted to make a living with no greater goals than a family. The communists increased rations and entertainment, Hungary was caused "the happiest barrack in the Soviet camp". So yes, after the defeat of the revolution, Hungary was no longer oppressed, it was successfully pacified. In 1968 Hungarian troops took part in the invasion of Chechslovakia when they risen against communism.<br /><br />PS: you are wasting your time if you want to induce cognitive dissonance in me, I'm not a social, I'm not emotionally bond to my countrymen, I do not idolize and repaint our past. I'm fully aware that my family members turned blind eye on the communist dictatorship and just cared about their own lives. Actually a handful of them were even party members. It was their call, not mine, I bear no shame for them.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-67967795716707095462017-05-03T21:27:31.327+02:002017-05-03T21:27:31.327+02:00So after 1956 there was no more oppression in Hung...So after 1956 there was no more oppression in Hungary since the fighting stopped?Nielashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685329191772513319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-4554258391103195962017-05-03T21:13:10.724+02:002017-05-03T21:13:10.724+02:00@Nielas: the existence of local resistance fightin...@Nielas: the existence of local resistance fighting is the proof of oppression. It does NOT signal morality of either side. Ergo, the objective fact is "some Hungarians were unhappy enough with the Soviets to fight till death". You are free to believe that they were Western lunatics rising against the rightful order of communism if you wish.<br /><br />Similarly it's an objective fact that Iraqi people rise against the Americans. You are again free to believe that they are freedom fighters against the Evil Imperialists or that they are brainwashed Islamist headchoppers.<br /><br />On the other hand, it's also an objective fact that no one bothers to fight Russians in the Crimea.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-77769145215044616942017-05-03T20:55:36.787+02:002017-05-03T20:55:36.787+02:00@Gevlon I remember being told the the fighting in...@Gevlon I remember being told the the fighting in Hungary was caused by a small group of Western-sponsored terrorists and that 98% of Hungarians were in favor of Russian soldiers coming in to restore order. The "Hungarian Revolution" was just western anti-Russian propaganda meant to turn Hungarians against their Russian brothers.<br /><br />Who should I trust? Nielashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08685329191772513319noreply@blogger.com