Wow, the opening ceremony was something.. Yeah, definitely stolen from somewhere else..
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - ganjalf (02/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #121 to #2 - Dember ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
I want a button to perform entirely casual tasks for me too. Like one to open and close the toilet lid.
#107 to #86 - irishpunker (02/08/2014) [-]
******* Lenin statues, man!
#11 - anon (02/07/2014) [-]
Not so fast.
Not so fast.
#12 to #11 - Kanoah (02/08/2014) [-]
#20 to #12 - newdevyx ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
#26 to #20 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
You were saying?
#28 to #26 - dropkickherpes (02/08/2014) [-]
'ooo im russia, i can throw away as many guys as i want so i always win, and strong russian peasant women just pump more out' nothin cool about that
#31 to #28 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
Did you read about continuation war? or even better about Japan / Soviet war in east during ww2?
Did you read about continuation war? or even better about Japan / Soviet war in east during ww2?
#32 to #31 - dropkickherpes (02/08/2014) [-]
they won the continuation war the same way

and the "war" against Japan hardly deserves that label
User avatar #35 to #32 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
They did much better in continuation war.
In eastern front both nations deployed more then 1.000.000 soldiers each. If that is not war then I dont know what is. Also lets not ignore fact that one of major reasons that Japan surrender was that same ass kicking that Soviets delivered. Russians started invading islands and Japs govermant was terrified of idea of Communist invasion of main island
``Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945``
#70 to #35 - dropkickherpes (02/08/2014) [-]
thats actually pretty neat and scholarly, youve taught me a valuable lesson: the more difficult i am, the more interesting people become, thank you
User avatar #40 to #35 - reduxalicious (02/08/2014) [-]
The Russian invasion of Manchuria was just the icing on the cake. Even though the Japanese forces in Manchuria were some of Japan's best and most experienced, they were effectively cut off from the homeland due to the immense losses in Japanese shipping. Their fuel shortages also rendered them basically a static force. When the Soviets attacked, the Japanese could neither manuever, nor withdraw. They were sitting ducks. Had the Russians wanted to invade Hokkaido, they would have found very little opposition, but there's the question of just how exactly they would transport an amphibious force. The Russians did not have a large navy at this point, nor any formations that were suited to this purpose.
#36 to #32 - stgfilitov (02/08/2014) [-]
Um the Japanese army in Manchuria absolutely got steam rolled in 1945 when the USSR declared war on japan. with 10,00 soviet losses and 80,000 japanese killed and 640,276 captured.
#37 to #36 - dropkickherpes (02/08/2014) [-]
am i supposed to be impressed that they could kill so many japs 3 weeks before the war was over? of course not! theyd already been routed, both bombs had been dropped, it was mopping up!
#16 to #14 - anon (02/08/2014) [-]
You are pardoned.
User avatar #21 to #16 - reaperspizza (02/08/2014) [-]
thank you
#18 to #14 - Kanoah (02/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#85 - pulluspardus (02/08/2014) [-]
Red september by terry devine king

Time to reinstall Red Alert and destroy Captalist pigs again
User avatar #103 to #85 - ravhasin (02/08/2014) [-]
For the Emperor!
#88 to #85 - vicanimus (02/08/2014) [-]
Don't forget to make a ******** of zeppelins
#91 to #88 - liru (02/08/2014) [-]
Glorious Brotherhood of NOD master race!
User avatar #104 to #91 - andovaredoras (02/08/2014) [-]
Time for me to reinstall my C&C3 Tiberium Wars.
User avatar #126 to #104 - bossguycumsplash ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
Why stop there?
User avatar #105 to #104 - DemonX (02/08/2014) [-]
Tiberium Sun Master Race!
#101 to #88 - solarknight (02/08/2014) [-]
i don't understand. please explain
User avatar #172 to #101 - vicanimus (02/08/2014) [-]
In the game Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, the Russians have the ability to build zeppelins. These zeppelins are slow moving, but are capable of dealing massing damage by dropping bombs. I often construct a large number to ensure that some will make it to my opponents base and wreak havoc. It's hilariously destructive when all or most of them make it.
User avatar #158 to #101 - pulluspardus (02/08/2014) [-]
Red Alert 3, its a game.
User avatar #106 to #101 - tarekmig (02/08/2014) [-]
User avatar #100 to #50 - tehlulzbringer (02/08/2014) [-]
"the practice of sport is a human right"
#8 - include (02/07/2014) [-]
User avatar #159 to #119 - pulluspardus (02/08/2014) [-]
Why is the background The Rising Sun? that's Japan.
#5 - fareastbrainseer (02/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #82 - heatmon (02/08/2014) [-]
Russia was chosen to host the Winter Olympics and they were just like "Ahh motherland"
User avatar #149 - lotengo ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
what anime is this from?
User avatar #157 to #149 - dawnartemis ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
Pocahontas, can't you tell?
User avatar #161 to #149 - wakazooie ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
Simpsonu Kazoku
#111 - felixjarl ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
#42 - unholyurges (02/08/2014) [-]
Raining Blood is on and I'm watching the .Gif... Nice combination. 10/10
#15 - sequel (02/08/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#6 - quietearp (02/07/2014) [-]
Which episode was that from?
#27 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
I think that capitalism (in mix with weak govermants that serve big companies) is greatest threat to our survival. If I am correct (which i hope i am not) that (kind of) means that both nazis and comunist were ultimatly good guys fighting to save humanity from destruction
#62 to #27 - durkadurka ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
Centralized planning can never effectively run a country. I't simply not possible for a small group of people to have enough knowledge to consistently make the correct decisions. This is why letting everyone make their own decisions about their own lives is ALWAYS far more effective.

Capitalism is one of the greatest things that's ever happened though far from perfect; think Churchill's "Better than the rest" comment . It's what's made everything we currently enjoy: It's the reason you're able to spout such nonsense on the internet from your desktop, laptop, smart phone, dildo, what have you. \

Central planning brings you attrocities like the yugo. (not to mention the deaths of millions of people.
#67 to #62 - TheFixer (02/08/2014) [-]
hes kinda right though capitalism mixed with weak government that serves big companies is a viable threat to our personal liberties.
User avatar #74 to #67 - durkadurka ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
He does have a point about crony capitalism. It's not very capitalistic to have a government picking and choosing winners and losers based on who lines their pockets. In fact, that's really the root cause of our system's current failings.
User avatar #177 to #74 - TheFixer (02/09/2014) [-]
User avatar #142 to #62 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
Yes. Capitalism is way more effective then communism. It is way better for your economy but I think that consumerism that comes with it is dangerous. Capitalism serves only capital, money is everything. In sistems like communism companies are means for workers to get their livelihood. In capitalism people are means for creating the proffit
``This is why letting everyone make their own decisions about their own lives is ALWAYS far more effective. `` and ``Central planning brings you attrocities like the yugo``. Yugo comes from yugoslavia you had ``participating communism``. That means that all workers had part in running of factories and companies and descision making. And you know what? Top Yugoslavian companies did really good. Only problem was that in Yugoslavia all profits from all companies went to central buget and were then redistributed. That way top companies kept those that sucked alive but it slowly brought them down. When war came and sanctions were placed whole thing came down like jenga tower
User avatar #165 to #142 - durkadurka ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
You basically demonstrated my point: The government simply didn't know how to best distribute resources. Capitalism would have the failing companies shut down rather than continue to exist.

Money is simply a medium of exchange, nothing more. It simply allows us to exchange what we produce for what we want, without complicated bartering. There's nothing inherently wrong about trying to make more money. You can lose yourself to greed, but swapping economic systems does not fix that.

I will pick the system that lets me make my own decisions any day of the week.

I keep bringing up the yugo to point out an awful product.
User avatar #167 to #165 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
Answer is ``What is general motors?`` and about dozen banks that were bailed out?

I have nothing against money per se. Check out some of other comments i wrote. I cant write same stuff again and again.

Also you took worst product and used it as example. Zastava factory (made yugos) had affiliate company Zastava oruzije ``zastava weapons``. That company is still alive, still function same as before and they make bloody good weapons. There are better manufacturers but compering price and quality they are really good. Their whole production line is booked for 2 years and descant procent of their products are exported to USA
User avatar #169 to #167 - durkadurka ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
I'm not going to pretend like things aren't good and ****** up here. Because they are.

But it's good that you bring up those examples: It's a good demonstration of crony capitalism. We have a real problem in the US with the government becoming too involved with corporations and the economy. The corporations give money to a politician, and in return laws are written in that company's favor. The government is in bed with businesses, and they should not be: They have the power to unfairly pick winners and losers. This is not capitalistic at all. In a truly capitalistic society, those banks and auto companies would have been left to fail and **** off. It might have been worse in the short term, but it would have allowed better companies to grow and take their places.

That's one of the cool things about how the system is supposed to work. The people at the top don't stay up there for long. But the huge problem is that politicians are helping them stay there.
User avatar #87 to #62 - valeriya (02/08/2014) [-]
Just to clarify something capitalism isn't the reason we have computer technology, most computing technology is derived from the military and our need to kill, coordinate and communicate in more effective, capitalism itself does not innovate and neither does socialism.
User avatar #166 to #87 - durkadurka ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
Capitalism isn't wasn't necessarily the nascent of those technologies, but it's what took those technologies and turned them into the incredible things they are today. If the technology never reached the private sector, we wouldn't have personal computers, smartphones, or the internet.

Capitalism does innovate because it provides incentive; by creating a better or new product, you have the opportunity to make a lot of money. In a command economy, that incentive is gone.

Though I will say that warfare has always been one of our best drivers of innovation. Unfortunately it only drives certain types of innovation, but it's powerful.
User avatar #170 to #166 - valeriya (02/08/2014) [-]
You missed the point there a bit, the point is capitalism and socialism as entities do not innovate, they're best though of as environments in which innovation takes place, following now. War is the ideal environment for innovation since it's literally innovate or face eradication.
#78 to #62 - intrepidy (02/08/2014) [-]
Really you need both, a strong central government with strong devolved regions. Failed states never have any level of central government.
User avatar #168 to #78 - durkadurka ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
I don't think the government (at least when it comes to a federal government) needs to be strong at all. It simply needs to be impartial and able to set and enforce fair rules which guard our freedoms. It also needs to perform the few specific functions the people outline in a country's governing documents. The goal here should be to get the job done with as little as possible.
The national government's job can be roughly summed up as such: oversight and protection of citizen's rights.

The state/local governments should have more control over their respective regions: it's their job to run things such as police and fire services. You wouldn't have the federal government bailing out failing companies, that sort of possibility would be left up to the states (but it's still an awful idea).
User avatar #52 to #27 - jakecrafted (02/08/2014) [-]
You really don't seem to have an understanding of world history.
User avatar #71 to #27 - tombombadil (02/08/2014) [-]
What it boils down to is that there is an ideal balance of capitalist and socialist policies for each country. The size of the country and its social norms will determine what that balance is. Now, the social norms don't necessarily indicate what is healthy for the country's well being/economy, however they will determine to what degree the people will be willing to let things go in either direction.
User avatar #141 to #71 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
I was talking in global scale. You are right on nation scale
#38 to #27 - theiceknight (02/08/2014) [-]
post your best xenomorph image
#51 to #38 - baitman (02/08/2014) [-]
We're gonna have to kill ourselves if that ever happens
User avatar #49 to #27 - Sethorein (02/08/2014) [-]
the greatest threat to our survival is just how many of us there are on the planet and how much influence we have over the survival of our species...
User avatar #97 to #27 - Mahazama (02/08/2014) [-]
You're a complete ******* retard.
#139 to #97 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
I have my opinion. It might not be the best one but its mine and there is certan logic behind it.   
Dont agree? fine with me
I have my opinion. It might not be the best one but its mine and there is certan logic behind it.
Dont agree? fine with me
#117 to #27 - PlagueDoctor (02/08/2014) [-]
Their ideology is very nice, problem is, it relies on humans being perfect.
That's why it will never work.
#138 to #117 - WatIsATroll (02/08/2014) [-]
That's not true. All communism relies on is that people will be happy with the society that they live in enough to not want to ruin it, which is completely possible.
User avatar #137 to #117 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
I didnt say that communism is right solution. Just that they fought against capitalism (that I and some others think serious threat to humanity)
User avatar #146 to #137 - xxbandwagonxx (02/08/2014) [-]
Capitalism is not only humanity but nature itself applied to the modern world. Fighting capitalism is like not having sex.
Yeah you can do it and you can jerk off and inseminate with needles, but why.

Take for example an economic experiment involving monkeys, ( i forget the kind but they were smaller like Capuchin). An economist gave the monkey fruit everyday, sometimes different fruit. He eventually switch the fruit with metal disk and led them to discover the disk could get them more fruit. (holy **** monkeys have coinage). Now he starts giving them more of some fruit and less of other fruits making values change.

So everything goes well until one monkey walks into the exchange cage ( a small attachment to the main), he grabs the tray of disk and throws them into the main cage (wtf are you doing monkey?). Boom! **** hits the fan monkeys are chasing disk every which way, and in the corner he sees one monkey (male) give another monkey (female) a disk, The economist thinks " I have witnessed the first unconditional gift of a species, amazing", then the monkey go off a **** . And he realizes he just witnessed the first use of prostitution.

The government soon shut the experiment down.
TL: DR capitalism happens, be it allowed or not (black market)
User avatar #152 to #146 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
Indeed. Capitalism is in sinc with our nature and nature in general. Still i think that it is threat. You can read true my other comments for more on this
I know about that experiment. Fascinating really. Moment money is invented prostitution apears. It is really olders of trades.
User avatar #171 to #152 - xxbandwagonxx (02/08/2014) [-]
Well prostitution exist in nature but by our definition of being paid money for sex yes this is the first time outside of our species.
In the rest of the ape community its used for bartering.
As for capitalism being a threat well that depends on opinion alone.
#90 to #27 - soundofwinter (02/08/2014) [-]
I'm really conflicted upon answering you. I think capitalism is good but...I'm Mussolini
User avatar #140 to #90 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
Mix of capitalism and democracy is what makes it so dangerous. Maybe with fascism it would work better?
User avatar #174 to #140 - soundofwinter (02/08/2014) [-]
Fascism would work perfectly, if everyone had the same culture, language, religion, and skin color. The ideology isn't compatible with multiculturalism. I believe in a minarchist (very small) government that has no controls over the market and relies upon a very low tax rate to keep basic things such as a military alive.
User avatar #175 to #174 - serotonin (02/09/2014) [-]
First thing first....I am kind of drunk so please exuse my gramar and spelling..and sentance construction. the point
well fascism doesnt really care about skin colour and religion and such. As long as you are part of the state and you recognise its authority (and superiority( they are fine with you (unlike nazis). Italians protected civilans in ocupied lands from brutalities. Hell there was even skirmish beatween Italian forces and Croatian nazis in Italian ocupied theritories. Croats tried to bucher local Serbian population and Italian army stoped them by force.
That kind of ideology minarchism could work but only on very small scale. Following example is not mine. Imagine that you have a lake and several companies making ``fish farms`` or how ever you call them in english. Now on market comes new type of food that makes fish bigger and tastier but it is bad for lake ecosistem but in smaler scale it isnt so bad. All companies are aware of that and they all know that if they all use this new food lake will be ruined. They can all place nice and do not use this new food but they dont know will all others stick to it. Anyone who doesnt agree to follow this ``no new food policy`` would get major advantage over competition and would in time run them out of buisiness. So what can they do? They can play nice and hope that others will do the same. they can all go for new food and destroy the lake. Or they can create some kind of control body that will inforce descision that no one can use new food. It is kind of ``prisinors dilema`` only with companies and much more at stake

User avatar #176 to #175 - soundofwinter (02/09/2014) [-]
First off, the Italians were nice when it came to fascists but they still were mean ************* . They protected people who accepted their rule, had similar cultures, and the same skin color. Slavs, Jews, and Italians all look white. Though, Italy did create a genocide against the Ethiopian people who's culture was probably just as close to Italy as the Slavic culture was at the time. The Ethiopians were exterminated due to a belief that they were an inferior race despite Ethiopia at the time being a very modern country and people. So, yes, race/culture is important to the fascist doctrine. Though, you could always attempt a neo-fascism that would make a workaround of this but I digress.

Also, with the company example, a free market would work best to fix this solution. If each company owns their own lake then they will obviously not ruin the ecosystem because it's unsustainable and they'll eventually drive themselves out of business. Not to mention that governments are much worse when it comes to destroying the environment. My example comes from America in the 1800s back when the railroad companies were building. The American Government (illegally) let the railroad companies build straight though private farms and ruin the ecosystem of the local areas of the farmers who protected the ecosystem as it was their livelihood but alas the railroads cared little for that and butchered the local farms and plants. The farmers then naturally sued due to their land rights being abused and the government courts decided that in the name of progress the railroad companies should be able to do these illegal activities. Our system would be healthier for the environment with more freedoms which is why I still consider myself to be an environmentalist but so anti regulation.
User avatar #33 to #27 - blenz (02/08/2014) [-]
Destroying something bad and replacing with something even worse does not make things better.
User avatar #34 to #33 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
so....extinction is prefered to word under communists or nazis? (I dont argue against the fact that some 4th option would be much better)
User avatar #39 to #34 - blenz (02/08/2014) [-]
I don't see how you arrived at the conclusion of extinction being preferable to a world under communist or Nazi rule.

If you mean to say that capitalism will cause our extinction, I think that is a very unfounded assumption, and I'm actually quite curious as to what leads you to believe it will.

Or you are saying (based on the statement I made) that extinction is preferable to communist or Nazi rule because it would be better to not exist rather than to live that way? That distinction is difficult and probably varies person to person.

I think it is pretty indisputable, however, that capitalism as it exists today is preferable to communism as it has been practiced (not in Utopian theory) and especially so in comparison to Nazism.
User avatar #44 to #39 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
I am too tired to elaborate on this. I will try to remenber it at write something tommorow.
Dr. Jhon Raven had some similar theories
You need to login to view this link
You need to login to view this link
you can check it out in the meantime
User avatar #76 to #44 - blenz (02/08/2014) [-]
From what I gathered on my first quick read through John Raven's home page, I think he gives some excellent insight on how society interacts with itself and its environment. He makes very valid points about the inefficiencies of our current socio-economic system, the fact that it creates work for the purpose of work, that it produces unnecessary waste, that it has issues of sustainability, etc. He points these out and is challenging society to understand these issues and to try to remedy them.

However, nothing that I read there (though it was a fast read and certainly not exhaustive of everything he has written) suggests that John Raven believes communism or Nazism would have provided a better system for achieving a more symbiotic society. In fact, I would wager that if you asked him he would say these systems, as they have been practiced historically, are in fact much, much worse in that regard.

John Raven asserts that society benefits from being less hierarchical, from being less power-centralized. Nazism is as hierarchical and power-centralized a society as any in history. Communism in theory is just the opposite, but in practice has proven to be power-centered and highly corruptible.

I do not think John Raven is saying that capitalism is the bane of society and he certainly is not saying it will bring us to extinction. Rather, he is saying that our current implementation of capitalism has a lot of room for improvement, and I agree. A capitalist society can have a balanced hierarchy and balanced distribution of power among the people, the government, and businesses. He is challenging society to find this balance and make our system work better for everyone's benefit.
User avatar #150 to #76 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
well actually he does say that it will bring us extinction. I had opportunity to meet him in person in Hungary and atend his lecture. After lecture I had wonderfull oportunity to have one on one discusion with him (I presented theory that other sistem are posible and that they did happen but societies are governed by same evolutionary laws as biological creatures and that modern capitalism outcompeted all others and made them ``extinct`)`. You are compleatly righ about him not supporting Nazism or communism (stalinism at least). But I dont think of them as better sistems (It seams that a lot of people got that idea). I just said if capitalism brings us ruin that in that case sistems that fought against it (unintentionaly) tried to save the world from destruction.

I never said that communism or Nazism are more efficient.

Now why i think that capitalism might get us all killed. I said in previous comments and will expand on it: Capitalism serves only capital, money is everything. In sistems like communism (in theory) companies are means for workers to get their livelihood. In capitalism people are means for creating the proffit. People became means, and profit became goal. Also with weak democratic govermants things get uglier. Govermants serve only them selfs. They are rearly willing to make big but unpopular descisions. Their interest is to stay in power and win next elections and will act on it. Such govermants are unable to control big companies are more and more fate of the world is moving in to hands of private sector. I reallyyyy dont like idea of companies obsesed with shortterm profits desciding longterm fate of our race.
User avatar #41 to #34 - thefates ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
Our system is a leaking boat. Their system wasn't leaking it was just full of rabid wolves with time bombs strapped to their chest whilst the entire boat was falling into a volcano. Really though, it was an impossible system because they still had to use money. They could not find a way to get rid of currency so true communism was never achieved. This is why true communism does not exist and all communist countries are currently in the process of reverting back to capitalism. China for example is basically only communist in name and North Korea has only maintained their communism by preventing outside contact for their people and brainwashing them into thinking they were doing the best out there. Communism is an unattainable dream. Our only hope is to better improve capitalism in order to better eliminate the lower class and at least institute a general middle class.
User avatar #43 to #41 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
Soviet union was cought in stupid arms race that depleted its economy. They were doing rather good before that. They transformed Russia from agral land to industrial super power in just a decade. In competiotion with capitalism communism will fail every time. But if the world revolution succeded maaaaaybe things would work out.
User avatar #45 to #43 - Greevon (02/08/2014) [-]
Rapid industrialization the way it occurred in Russia was devastating to it in both the short and long term.
Their entire economy was focused on Capital goods, there was nothing for people to buy, no luxuries, no nice new clothes, most of the time you'd be a lucky ****** if you got to buy a piece of actual produce in a store. Now that the rapid expansion is over, the landscape is dotted with empty factories and buildings bursting with old outdated machinery that was never used.
Now, I'm not saying it wasn't impressive, but uncontrolled growth is worse than mild recession and arguably it's worse than depression as it inevitably leads to it.
User avatar #46 to #45 - thefates ONLINE (02/08/2014) [-]
I can't agree more, the problem with communism is that they use money faster than they can bring in more. That's why modern communist countries are reverting back to capitalism. In the words of a song or person I can't remember: "Money makes the world go 'round." Russia tried to look as powerful as possible for as long as possible but they just didn't have the money to keep it up. The flaw in communism is, once again, the fact that no one can abolish a general need for currency in today's global economy.
User avatar #144 to #45 - serotonin (02/08/2014) [-]
They made feudal state in to `` modern state``. It certanly had it downs. Same happened in China and you got whole that starvation thing that happened (which probably really sucked for them).
#123 to #45 - anon (02/08/2014) [-]
Plus, you know, the tens of millions of deaths sucked too.
#131 - sylaz (02/08/2014) [-]
loooool that was weird, for some reason this song decided to play the moment i got to this gif..
loooool that was weird, for some reason this song decided to play the moment i got to this gif..
User avatar #178 to #131 - theorangefox ONLINE (04/02/2014) [-]
#1 - anon (02/07/2014) [-]
Implying the DDR wasn't the best thing to happen to Germany.
User avatar #134 to #1 - sovietsamurai (02/08/2014) [-]
That picture is wrong

Socialism is not the same as Communism
#3 to #1 - niggernazi (02/07/2014) [-]
< this was the best thing that ever happened to germany
User avatar #4 to #3 - flybager ONLINE (02/07/2014) [-]
I think Bismarck was pretty swell.

But hitler as ruler didn't seem that bad, to a certain moment. (The war, really)
#77 to #3 - yuukoku (02/08/2014) [-]
To be fair, he did pull Germany out of one of the greatest economic depressions in history.
User avatar #92 to #77 - lunargreenhouse (02/08/2014) [-]
by printing money to afford it.
#145 to #92 - wheredahoodat (02/08/2014) [-]
That was part of it, but the economy was thriving as well.

All those tanks and guns had to come from somewhere.
#114 to #3 - wadawada (02/08/2014) [-]
I got your point, but the idea of communist socialism was actualy pretty cool, not like the idea of national socialism.
#30 to #3 - dropkickherpes (02/08/2014) [-]
too bad your mom didnt have an abortion, would have been the best thing to ever happen to her, other than gettin raped by your hobo father in the first place
User avatar #95 to #30 - niggernazi (02/08/2014) [-]
#47 to #1 - demd (02/08/2014) [-]
I agree
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)