Vladmir Putin

A clarification for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with Yugoslavia (and thus more susceptible to buy into donperkan's delusions): the gas shortage was a repeat occurrence in Yugoslavia, and had nothing to do with the global oil crisis on the early 1970s. The even-odd system was introduced in the '80s, and there was even power rationing at the time, albeit briefly. Also note that there were shortages of commodities like coffee and cigarettes, which donperkan presumably attributes to the global coffee-and-cigarette crisis of the early 1970s.

Secondly, contrary to what donperkan claims in his inane ramblings, low standard of living was a reality for the overwhelming majority of Yugoslavian citizens, not just those who "head-butted" with the system. As proof, I offer that my family was quite the opposite of pariahs that donperkan portrays them to be - on the contrary, my mother's father was a high-ranking Party official. As such, he had access to considerable luxuries that were unavailable to the populace at large, though unlike a good number of his colleagues, he never abused his power for material gain, either for himself or for his relations. That is also the reason why my mother and father's family was in the same boat as everyone else - living modestly and far below the standard of western democracies.

Finally, note that it was neither common, nor even remotely possible for Yugoslavian citizens to own collections of Alfa Romeos. For one, the state didn't allow import and sales of foreign cars. The only ones who were allowed to import a foreign car were those who worked abroad for a sufficient number of years. Incidentally, they were also the only ones wealthy enough to afford one.
 
Oh Vladimir, who putin you there?

s_p33_RTR26G8D.jpg
 
Yugoslavia's economic crisis was perhaps caused by the old guard's unwillingness to adapt, though I understand there was some reform during Tito's time.

I think Tito's real successes in governing was preventing a Soviet backed Serbian coup and in obtaining Marshall aid. He was remarkable in the more shady sides of politics.
 
Sena please stop, you dont know what you are talking about. Driving on even odd days was introduced in the 70s (oil crysis) the gas stamps where introduced in the 80s (also oil crysis). I dont know why there was a shortage of coffy but tobacco was never the issue (Drina, Drava, Morava brands were domestic) I don't know why your parents had difficulties maybe you should ask them i have a feeling there is something they are keeping from you. And lastly you don't know what are you talking about. Import was not prohibited the system only made it difficult because they where favouring domestic products such as Yugos and Zastavas. Also do you remember the term peglica or pegla (fiat 126) my father owned 4 of them to.
 
Funny how that oil crisis never had that kind of impact outside of Yugoslavia in, y'know, democracies.
 
El Pagano Loco said:
Sander said:
Funny how that oil crisis never had that kind of impact outside of Yugoslavia in, y'know, democracies.

Are you for real?
what he means is that there was one huge oil crisis in the west but a constant one in Yugoslavia which had no inpact on the rest of the world.

Yugoslavian economy had to deal with many shortcomings as it was natural for many socialistic regimes. Western democratic economys usualy had a more stable system and thus it was easier to deal with such a crysis.

donperkan said:
ol you only repeat what you where told and the truth is far from that. The gas shortage lasted only a couple of years in the 70s it affected the whole world even Senas precious america had to ration it.

You obviously never smoked Drava. .
#
So I am just seeing things when I remember my parents buying gasoline/cigarets on the street during the late 80s early 90s while I wa a kid (born 1984).

I agree with Sena totally. you're either a troll or brainwashed.

donperkan said:
That's the point a socialist system that didn't have the same flaws as it's counterparts
.
Because the people didn't starved like in lets say ethiopia does not mean they would have been living with average standards or something. Again. Not having any money at all isn't nice either. You know how some had to pay doctors? With food. Yeah. Go figure. People have been growing their own stuff because they had no choice. There was no fucking way to buy something. When ever my parents came down to visit their family since we moved to Germany at some point they had a ton of products with them. From clothes, to electronics, candy. And nothing of it was left. And people have been very happy about it. Yeah. I am sure no one needed it. It was a socialist dream state where everyone had enough.

donperkan said:
Tito didn't lay the tracks for war Milošević did. Why are you putting Milošević and Tito in the same contrast. Tito pacified five nations and three religons he ended their bickering
.
It was Tito and his people which decided that the Croats are "untermenschen" which helped the Nazis and the "Serbs" the glorious liberators of Yugoslavia. Or do you dissagree with the Yugo hitsory that "Serbia saved the day"?. Thats exactly how it was teached for the last 60 years (and what many serbians still believe). While I know about Tito and his 1 million army of partizans which keept the Germans bussy. But the whole sentiment by Serbia for their neighbours after WW2 was not really great. Which was one of the many reasons for the later conflicts. Many in serbia dont even know about it and many fail to understand it that this hegemony together with the centraliced system that moved out of Beograd administrating all the money was something which added fuel to the fire. Hands down Tito was not Stalin nor Hitler. But he was not a saint either. And they made him a war hero totally ignoring the resitance of the others giving everyone the picture Serbia would have been the only one to suffer from the Nazis.

34thcell said:
Yugoslavia's economic crisis was perhaps caused by the old guard's unwillingness to adapt, though I understand there was some reform during Tito's time.

I think Tito's real successes in governing was preventing a Soviet backed Serbian coup and in obtaining Marshall aid. He was remarkable in the more shady sides of politics.
Yes. That is something which I have to give them credit for. Thankefully. Things could have been way worse if we would have been inside that "iron curtain".

donperkan said:
It did, you only think it didn't because it met a bloody end.
.
Strange enough that pretty much all of those socialistic societies end the same though. Isnt it.

Here. Take a ticket and ride in one of the last refugees of a socialistic dreamland.

http://www.northkoreanrefugees.com/refugee-pix.html

You know how for many of us that "socialist dream land" ended? Like Tschernobyle. In a huge explosion. And just like back then. We pay the consequences. The common people. Not the dogs and pigs on the top. I am not sure why I am even arguing. Maybe to make my self feel better no clue.
 
Crni, you and Senna got many thing on spot but the problem here is, you're trying to paint it black. When it wasn't. It was average, it was not perfect, nor terrible, but just average, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but mostly good. And a thing that strikes me as especially numb is when you compare Yugoslavia to something like North Korea, wich is the same as trying to compare Finland to Burkina Faso on the grounds that they are both democracies :). You got some valid points but your efforts of trying to make it look downright bad are simply laughable to anyone who actually lived through it.
 
Sander said:
Funny how that oil crisis never had that kind of impact outside of Yugoslavia in, y'know, democracies.

It had a tremendous impact on the whole world. I just googled it and it seems that Netherlands prohibited traffic on sundays. America tried to battle it by expanding production of it's own oil fields it was effective for a short period of time before those fields dried out. Russia begun expanding it's production as well and discovered that it was sitting on some of the worlds largest fields.


@crni

Black market formed because some required more and some less gas during the stamp system.

Healthcare was free FOR ALL you are talking about mentality wich is still present, people are still gifting doctors and offcials.

You think youre family wouldnt survive without your charity. What's wrong with you.

Tito was Croat he was born in Kumrovec. You are wrong, milošević started rerouting the money. He disturbed our unity by rerouting the power to Serbia.

Titos only resistance in the war was Ante Pavalić look it up. Serbs didn't win the war WE ALL DID IT TOGETHER.

You are missing some very important pieces of history, and sena has the same problem. Thats why you are dismissing my arguments. In Yugoslavia there where 10 proud nationalities and 3 religions war is bound to happen in those comditions. Tito suppresed that urge to fight i dont know how but he did. People after him brought that urge back to surface.
 
To talk about something different than the Balkans (I mean really, Yugoslavia? What is this, 1999?); I always wondered what still drives this whole West vs Russia dichotomy.

Russians seem to claim that 'Russia has regained its pride'. And what is that 'pride' constituted on, exactly? On them playing a role in world affairs? Because if that is was Russia has to constitute its 'pride' on, it's a pretty damn sad thing to be proud about. Just take Russia's current role in the Syrian conflict for example: I don't see how, as a Russian, you could be anything other than ashamed about the stance your government is taking.

And what's the use of it, anyway? What does Russia have to gain by regularly causing friction with what they see as 'the west'? What benefit have they gained from their conflict with the former Ukrainian government, for example? Some etherial form of 'influence'? Even if that is the case, to what end? There is no longer an ideological reason to 'oppose' the 'West', so what are they gaining their 'influence' for? It's not like there's any even remotely possible reason to assume war with the USA or Europe for any reason whatsoever.
Basically, it just makes Russia come off as an asshole. Granted, coming off as an asshole seems to have been the only motivation for Russia's foreign policy over the last century, but, once again, WHY? What the hell do they have to gain by that? I mean really, WHAT? It's something I find myself pondering about any time I see the Russian envoy to the UN irritate everyone there. Is it simply force of habit? Are the Russians convinced that all the rest of the world wants is to invade and colonize their federation? Do their assume that somehow choosing the path of an einzelganger will lead to some kind of prosperity for the regime or the Russian people? In what way, exactly? And what kind of prosperity?

I really can't get my head around it.

Same goes for China, for that matter.
 
donperkan said:
It had a tremendous impact on the whole world. I just googled it and it seems that Netherlands prohibited traffic on sundays.
For a short time. Not, y'know, throughout the '80s.
 
Jebus said:
To talk about something different than the Balkans (I mean really, Yugoslavia? What is this, 1999?); I always wondered what still drives this whole West vs Russia dichotomy.

Russians seem to claim that 'Russia has regained its pride'. And what is that 'pride' constituted on, exactly? On them playing a role in world affairs? Because if that is was Russia has to constitute its 'pride' on, it's a pretty damn sad thing to be proud about. Just take Russia's current role in the Syrian conflict for example: I don't see how, as a Russian, you could be anything other than ashamed about the stance your government is taking.

And what's the use of it, anyway? What does Russia have to gain by regularly causing friction with what they see as 'the west'? What benefit have they gained from their conflict with the former Ukrainian government, for example? Some etherial form of 'influence'? Even if that is the case, to what end? There is no longer an ideological reason to 'oppose' the 'West', so what are they gaining their 'influence' for? It's not like there's any even remotely possible reason to assume war with the USA or Europe for any reason whatsoever.
Basically, it just makes Russia come off as an asshole. Granted, coming off as an asshole seems to have been the only motivation for Russia's foreign policy over the last century, but, once again, WHY? What the hell do they have to gain by that? I mean really, WHAT? It's something I find myself pondering about any time I see the Russian envoy to the UN irritate everyone there. Is it simply force of habit? Are the Russians convinced that all the rest of the world wants is to invade and colonize their federation? Do their assume that somehow choosing the path of an einzelganger will lead to some kind of prosperity for the regime or the Russian people? In what way, exactly? And what kind of prosperity?

I really can't get my head around it.

Same goes for China, for that matter.

Throughout the good portion of the last century and for the better part of this one Russia has lost most of it's world shaking power, it has lost the bulk of it's influence, it has lost the patronage over many formerly soviet republics and soon it could face with the loss of Syberia. Russia desperately needs that pride and feeling of self-grandeur because quite simply, they've been in the shitter for quite some time now and they better pick up the pace again.
 
El Pagano Loco said:
Throughout the good portion of the last century and for the better part of this one Russia has lost most of it's world shaking power, it have lost the bulk of it's influence, it has lost the patronage over many formerly soviet republics and soon they could face with the loss of Syberia. Russia desperately needs that pride and feeling of self-grandeur because quite simply, they've been in the shitter for quite some time now and they better pick up the pace again.

Yeah but why? What did the 'shaking power' ever do for them? Did it lead to a better life for Soviet citizens? Hell no, the desperate desire of the Soviet government to make the Soviet Union appear like a not-failed country only lead to a life of misery and oppression for its citizens. Likewise, did the 'patronage' - as you call it (I'm sure the citizens of those countries have different words for it)- of all those other nations ever lead to something 'good' for Soviet citizens, or - more directly - the citizens of those nations? What, the vague sensation of 'pride' that your country is considered an asshole and a bully by the rest of the world?
Would it not be better if Russia was a welcome part of the international community, that Russia's represenatives were welcomed with open arms everywhere and that everybody would love doing business with Russian entities?
I mean, why do you think life is on average so much better in Western Europe than it is in Russia? Why do you think that, for instance, the German economy is so damn vibrant even when the country has been destroyed even worse than Russia was in the second world war? Because Germans are a welcome part of the international community, their represenatives are welcomed everywhere - everywhere - with open arms, and absolutely nobody considers them asshole bullies (well, except for the Greeks maybe, but the reasons for that are based on economics and Greek political popularism and not political assholery).

The real world isn't a game of Civilization, you know, where you can accrue 'points' by some kind of measure of how much 'influence' you have. When other countries strive for 'influence', they do it for other reasons than Russia does: they do it for economic possiblities, genuine affection of the people in question (even though they are sometimes misguided) and -sometimes- an (also often misguided) desire to make the entire world a better place. But when Russia (or, to some extent, China and often the USA) seeks its 'influence', it's always like it's still playing some kind of retarded last-century version of a Great Game, where it's somehow setting up pieces for some kind of vague world conflict. I mean, it's stupid, childish, paranoid, not in the least bit subtle and, frankly, the entire goddamn world would benefit if they would stop engaging in their petty intrigues. It's unbecoming. It reminds me of high-school dramatics.
 
Jebus said:
The real world isn't a game of Civilization

It's actually much closer then you think.

EDIT: Except in real life you can stack more then a single fuckin unit in a single fuckin tile. FUCK YOU CIV VI YOU FUCKIN ABOMINATION. FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!1111
 
El Pagano Loco said:
Jebus said:
The real world isn't a game of Civilization

It's actually much closer then you think.

EDIT: Except in real life you can stack more then a single fuckin unit in a single fuckin tile. FUCK YOU CIV VI YOU FUCKIN ABOMINATION. FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!1111

Yeah I love Civ VI. The graphics are so 2013 though. :roll:

I assume you are talking about Civ 5 though. Mods can fix that stacking problem BTW. Comparing the real world to Civ is a bit silly though. That's like saying Call of Duty is close to real combat.
 
El Pagano Loco said:
Crni, you and Senna got many thing on spot but the problem here is, you're trying to paint it black. When it wasn't. It was average, it was not perfect, nor terrible, but just average, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but mostly good. And a thing that strikes me as especially numb is when you compare Yugoslavia to something like North Korea, wich is the same as trying to compare Finland to Burkina Faso on the grounds that they are both democracies :). You got some valid points but your efforts of trying to make it look downright bad are simply laughable to anyone who actually lived through it.

I said a few times that Yugoslavia was a bette place then the Soviet Union. That people have been usually not starving. Most of the things I know are either informations from my parents, my relatives and the few things I remember from my child hood. You are right. It was not Burkina Fasso.

The part about North Korea was because it is today one of the few remaining socialistic states and it is not in a really good shape. So if people have somehow a deep feeling for either communism or socialism they should consider to move to NK. Thats all I am saying.

And thank you for your compliment :)

But enough of this off topic yugo talk. Jebus is right.
 
Crni Vuk said:
That people have been usually not starving.

Or like, never except maybe right after the WWII just like every other european coutry. Like France, Italy, Spain, Germany,....

Most of the things I know are either informations from my parents, my relatives and the few things I remember from my child hood.

That is a big part of the problem.

So if people have somehow a deep feeling for socialism they should consider to move to NK.

Or any of the most left liberal countries with the highest and most advanced socio-economical and living standards in the world.

EDIT: About the compliment part, i've read my previous post and i don't think i've posted anything offensive, sorry if i did, it wasn't on purpose.
 
Jebus said:
Are the Russians convinced that all the rest of the world wants is to invade and colonize their federation?

Oh, I'll be honest, it seems more like the other way around.

And really, you're bringing up a good point. It's all part of Putin's play and his government. They go around and play toy soldiers, and they don't know how to rule the country.

But it all comes down to making Russians, especially the old pals, believe that Putin is actually doing something to improve our country, or a play to get more money for the officials. Undoubtedly, there are sane decisions out there, but the majority shadows them.
 
Back
Top