Was communism really that bad??

Short answer: No, very unlikely at this time.

President Bush is President the United States, and Commander in Chief of our military forces. That position has always, and intentionally, carried great weight about where, when and against whom our military forces operate. When the President orders our forces into action it is not to satisfy any personal feelings, but rather to secure and defend the interests of the United States. Hence, any military action ordered by President Bush is no more a "Bush" war, than 1812 was "Madison's War", the Spanish-American War was "McKinely's War", or WW!! was "Roosevelt's War".

The Korean War, begun in 1950 when the DPRK invaded ROK, is still going on. A truce is in place and hostilities have been greatly reduced, but the war goes on. U.S. and ROK forces have spent the last 50 years preparing the battlefield and drawing up contingency plans if open hostilities resume. Over the last 50 years the situation has approached open combat a number of times, once within the last decade.

The DPRK is one of the last nations dedicated to a Stalinist style dictatorship, and his headed by Kim Jong-Il. Kim is a short little eccentric who is absolute master of the DPRK who has two overriding priorities: Dynastic survival of the present system, and reunification of the Korean Peninsula under the Kim's brand of Communism. Kim is a lot of things, but he isn't crazy. The DPRK is, and has been on the economic ropes for a long time. The Party and the Military are well fed, while famine stalks the populace.

The DPRK has one of the world's largest military establishments, and the bulk of their first line troops are concentrated just north of the DMZ within artillery range of the ROK capital. The DPRK has the world's largest contingent of special forces troops, but virtually no air force. What little muscle the navy has is vested in a small number of conventional submarines purchased from the old Soviet Union.

The DPRK is a proper concern of the world, and the United States, for three reasons: the security of ROK, transfer of weapons to others, and the DPRK's nuclear capability.

ROK is endangered if the DPRK should launch a new invasion into the south. Kim is constrained by the presence U.S. forces in ROK, the U.S. Navy, and other American forces either in theater, or within reach. The DPRK continues it's efforts to get U.S. troops out, but has not been totally successful. Recently, the U.S. announced troop reductions in ROK of about one third. This should still be sufficient to forestall a renewed attack, but the danger level is increased somewhat. The question is can the U.S. forces and ROK hold the DPRK until Marines arrive from Okinawa, and other forces gather to destroy the North. If the U.S. can bring even a relatively small part of its forces to bear, the DPRK is doomed, doomed, doomed. That isn't a risk that Kim is likely to take lightly, especially after the demonstration in Iraq.

The DPRK is economy is dependant upon very inefficient and ineffective small agriculture. Famine is almost always stalking the land. Most industrial capacity is devoted to the support of the military. Its transportation system is weak, with most good roads devoted to the movement and supply of the army. Electricity service is minimal, especially away from the capital, or facilities deemed important to the military. The country must import a whole lot, and it has very poor currency exchange. Kim fills the gap by selling military arms and stores to just about anyone who has the cash. Terrorists and dictators are Kim's best market, and that constitutes a continuing danger to world peace and security. On the upside, export of arms from DPRK without western intelligence knowledge is pretty hard to do. However, DPRK resources useful to the development of atomic weapons has shown up in Iran, along with early versions of long range (but untested) missiles.

Would the DPRK sell a nuclear device to terrorists, if the price were right? Many believe so, but it might be easier for the "wrong" people to acquire a weapon from among those old Soviet stocks that have gone missing. If the DPRK attempted to sell a device, might indeed bring us close to open war, and that constrains Kim from selling any of his small store of nuclear weapons. The DPRK might employ a nuclear device as part of a campaign to consolidate Korea under its rule. Targets might reasonably include US/ROK forces on the ground in Korea, ROK political targets like Seoul, targets within the Japanese islands, the Marines on Okinawa, and/or the U.S. fleet if it comes within range. Any of the above would trigger such an overwhelming counter attack that it would be a very bad idea on the part of Jong-Il. It is possible, but not probable that the DPRK would initiate an atomic attack within theater, and it currently does not have the capability of targeting anything outside theater.

My belief is that no open warfare is likely, given current conditions, in Korea for at least two years. Of course, I prejudiced by my concern for family within range of a DPRK artillery and missiles.

i think it's a little late in the election process for bush to be concerned about north-korea. i think the administration had been warned to deal with the north-korean problem rather than get fixated on iraq. but ... hbg

FOX NEWS: Fair and Balanced
Anyone here live in a Communist country and able to comment on first-hand experiences?

So far it sounds like we have been reading pages out of the C.I.A. Handbook.

//BW

BlackWatch.

As a former card-carrying member of a Marxist party, I feel personally insulted.
Only freaking Stalinists confuse, on purpose, Social-democrats with enemies of the people (to later sign treaties with the Nazis).

I never actually lived in Cuba, but I came and went often enough.

And of course, Dagmaraka and My Own Username don't count in your opinion (or you can't read: Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia, former Czecholosvakia; Hrvastska is Croatia, former Yugoslavia).

And you don't know Steissd, another A2Ker, veteran of the Soviet Red Army. He is very conservative, but less than the other right wing Russian in the forum.

Dagmaraka lived and she wrote some experiences.
I lived as well, although my story is not so accurate because, as it was already mentioned, I lived in by far the most free and the most developed communistic country of all times. But, still communistic.

First of all, there was absolutely no political freedom, all parties were banned except Communist Party.
Second, independent media is something you can only dream of, although Tito was much much wiser then other communistic leaders and he was very efficient in creating atmosphere where people believed that they actually are free - in media, for example, journalists were allowed to criticize politicians on lower levels, and later even on almost all levels except few politicians on top.

Also, Tito was wise enough to give people freedom to leave if they don't like it. In most European communistic countries it was extremely hard to get passport, and even if they got it, most people were not allowed to travel to West.
Yugoslavian citizens were allowed to go where ever they want. And to stay there.
Of course, all that has a lot to do with fact that Yugoslavia cut all ties with Soviet Union back in 1948th, and was later leader of Non-Allignment bloc (almost all African and Asian countries, some South and Middle American countries, Yugoslavia, Malta and Cyprus - plus Spain that was not member but participated in all conferences).

Religion was not banned, but was silently opressed. Nobody would get in trouble for going to Church or for practicing any religion, however, only in "free time". There was no chance that you could miss work on Christmas or Easter - I mean, to miss it because it's Christmas or Easter, people of course had their ways, like, calling that they're sick, etc...
But this apply only to average citizens. It was absolutely impossible that any official of Communistic Party attends Church or celebrates religious holidays.

Yugoslavia had a lot of political prisoners, however, Tito was mild in comparison to other communistic leaders, so 99% of them were "only" jailed, there wasn't much killing, or, actually, there was no killing at all (except in first few years after WW2).

Personal freedoms were on higher level then in any other communistic country, but on lower leven then in any western country. E.g. adults were not forced to be members of Communistic Party, but kids were - when we were 7, we were becoming Tito's pioneers, and in High School majority of students were becoming members of Communistic Youth - it wasn't possible to refuse it, but some were not allowed to join. However, as a member of C.Y. you had no duties actually, it was just paper.

In most communistic countries in Europe (actually, probably in all except Yugoslavia) people were very poor - I know that very well, because for most of them Yugoslavia was only country outside of Soviet bloc they were allowed to visit - I've seen plenty of kids of my age that never saw chocolate in their life, or "exotic" fruits like pineapple, kiwi or sometimes even oranges.
Yugoslavians lived pretty decently considering wealth. Unemployment rate was very low, people were able to easily afford cars, vacations and color TV, but nothing luxury.

But, as I said, that's not what life in average communistic country was.

Set (or any of the Canadians) - from what I remember about browsing around that Canadian election data last month, I think Saskatchewan is now, if anything, one of the most conservative regions of Canada, is that right?

Is there any kind of left-over political culture or tradition from CCF times still to be discerned - or has two generations of prosperity all but wiped it out?

Thanks MOU, by the way, for posting your experiences too. Yugoslavia and stories like yours force both communist apologetics and strident anti-communists to reconsider their perspectives ...

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Tito was one of those people that live 120 years (and not a single one of them is vegetarian, anti-alcoholic and often even non-smoker, by the way)

They can talk whatever they want now, but they LOVED him. Nobody forced them to cry, and they all cried. They were paralized, and I was in perfect age to see all of that - I was kid and, actually, kids see everything. They see if someone is faking. They were not.

And then again, maybe they cried because they knew what will follow his death.

The outpouring of grief and tears by North Koreans at the death of Kim Il-Sung was immense, and apparently quite genuine. That didn't keep Kim from being a brutal, ruthless dictator directly responsible for the deaths of many North Koreans. The tears do not wash away the blood from multiple murders ordered by any dictator. Kim, with the backing and approval of the USSR and PRC, invaded ROK, and there his troops murdered lined up and executed (murdered) tens of thousands of captured South Koreans. Tito was no saint, he held together a patchwork nation by ruthless suppression of dissent.

Yep, Asherman, that is also true. Its odd how complicated life is, to see that what you write and all the things MOU noted earlier are both true ...

No, of course Tito was no saint. He was just much wiser then other communistic leaders. He was still dictator.

You are right about North Koreans, and it certainly is kind of phenomena. But, part of answer can be in total brain-washing and isolation that really wasn't case in ex Yugoslavia. Borders were opened on both sides, we were able to watch Italian and Austrian TV stations and there's probably not a single "Yugoslavian" that haven't visited Trieste in Italy at least few times (main shopping zone) - and on the other hand, western tourists were coming in large numbers every summer; Italians, Germans, Scandinavians...you were able to buy foreign newspapers, etc...

In a way - and dont take this the wrong way, MOU - Tito can perhaps be compared to Franco?

Franco was a fascist dictator, but no Hitler - just like Tito was a communist dictator but no Stalin ...

Both Franco and Tito came to power through bloody civil war (though thats also where the main difference pops up, seeing how Tito's main adversaries in the civil war were Hitler-sponsored fascists who furthered the Holocaust, whereas Franco started his civil war originally against a democratically elected government).

Immediately after the end of the civil war, there was a ruthless period of mass persecution both by the Titoists (late 40s, early 50s) and the Francoists (late 30s, 40s) ...

Whereas in later decades both leaders, while keeping a close, uncontested grip on political leadership and tolerating no open systemic dissent, did open up their countries to outside influences, which brought both news and wealth along with the inflow of tourists from democratic Western Europe, and greatly modernized the country ...

Of course, what happened after their deaths was much different for the two countries ...

My father would blanch at me making the comparison between Tito and Franco <nods>. But a parallel could be made, I believe ... ?

MOU, How was the educational system when you were a child? What subjects were you able to study, and which subjects were restricted, if any? How was the level of education advantageous to income? How many high school graduates were allowed to continue with college education? Has the percentages allowed to attend college changed?
I'm curious, because when I visited China 1992, only ten percent of high school graduates were able to attend college. When I visited China in 2000, thirty percent were able to attend college with less restrictions on what they could study, and the profession they wanted to choose.

MOU,

Even though I'm sure that there are many problems today, would you like to go back to the way things were during Tito's lifetime?

Asherman - I already said that in this thread, of course not, I think you missunderstood my post

nimh - possibly. Although I think it was much more blood during Franco's regime. There was certainly blood in Tito's regime as well, but actually just in first year or two after WW2 and it was more connected with partisans eliminating Croatian and Serbian nazi supporters then with communism (of course, innocent people were victims too, but I doubt that proportions are much bigger then those of some things Allies did as well with Germans - after all, biggest atrocity by partisans/communists was near Bleiburg, Austria, where tens of thousands of Croatian Ustashe, Serbian Chetniks, but also innocent civilians were killed, with possible assistance but definitely "closed eyes" of British troops).

C.I. - educational system was tough Kids always had a lot of subjects (and still do). There was no restrictions, because everybody had same program, it was not like in USA where you choose some subjects - nope, you had full schedule
And everybody was allowed to continue with college, only difference was that elementary and high school were obligatory for all and totally free, while on college you had (and you still have) limits of those that go for free - for example, if you want to go to Philosophy College, everybody can apply. But, then they calculate grades from your High School (from certain subjects, different for every college), and then everybody writes exam. Then, points are again calculated and then, let's say, for first 150 government pays, and 150 more can go if they want, but they are paying themselves.

Asherman - actually, there aren't many problems today except lack of money

Hmm, I think we disagreed about that before ... from what I've read, Tito's first years in power (at least up to 1948) were among the harshest and bloodiest, in terms of state clampdown and political persecution, of all of Central + Eastern Europe's then-Stalinist regimes ...

no, we haven't disagreed about that before, but we can do it now

Harsh maybe, but not very bloody. I mean, Tito was dictator and I am not very comfortable with "defending" him, but from what I know partisan brutal killings were during 1945/46 and later political persecutions were harsh but not bloody. During 1947 people were sent to Goli Otok (an island) for saying anything against Stalin or Soviets, and during 1948 for saying anything in their favour. But, Goli Otok was not actually like Siberia or something, vast majority of the people actually came back - again, it was still brutal dictatorship, I just think that it was not that bloody.

Of course, you can probably find "sources" that claim differently, but in Balkans people are usually tend to pump number of victims - for nazi concentration camp Jasenovac in Croatia you can find numbers from some old retarded Croats that will say 10,000 to some brilliant example of Serbian mythology that will say 2 million (I say brilliant example because it's more then number of Serbs in Croatia at that time), and most of sources use number 700,000 that Yugoslavian researchers later admited as a fake (not just for Jasenovac, but for all victims they added number of children people younger of 25 would have if they weren't killed) - I think closest to truth is Jewish researcher Slavko Goldstein that says around 100,000.
So, as well those numbers were pumped (not that this change anything in classification), it's quite probably that Croatian and Serbian post-WW2 emigration pumped numbers of victims of communists.

Some interesting info in the following link. http://www.sdlusa.com/medialies/sunic01.htm

hm, it won't open I mean, link is probably okay, it just won't open...
can you quote something?