Why does everyone hate the English ? :

[Samnium]

What do you think about the French government's laws to restrict foreign-language (principally English-language, of course) music and television?

Do you have a link ? I haven't seen it.

It's part of the so-called "exception culturelle".

[Tooting Carmen]

Do you have a link ? I haven't seen it.

It's part of the so-called "exception culturelle".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubon_Law
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-ballads.html

[Hithaeglir]

Fish and chips, bean, brick houses,barfights,beer, The queen, The pals the mates the blokes the gals, fun, rain, the cheeky bastard shouting in the window. I like england foo

You forgot tea

[KirillMazur]

This was all quite new and interesting to me until this:

That's where it breaks down for me, but it's a clever train of thought anyway.

These people made many mistakes, but they were pioneers, showing an alternative way of building society, without an alliance of bourgeois and clerics over the people. Before the USSR, no one did such a thing, but even this first experience was successful, since it was able to exist for 70 years surrounded by enemies and under an economic blockade, successfully developing and even advancing. And now this fire burns in the heart of a good third of the world's population, and the second attempt will definitely take place.
And one more thing - why is the West still constantly spending huge amounts of money on the ideological struggle with the USSR, which has not existed for 29 years, and especially on denigrating Stalin, who has been dead for 67 years?

When a russian communist is talking about historical crimes... I love TA

The first attempt to build communism in history (not communism itself) existed for only 70 years, and you attribute all the world's sins to it. This is what I call propaganda. In fact, the communists were right with their "propaganda" and even were too soft: capitalism is a bastard system that for 400 years systematically kept on slavery, colonialism and genocide - until the Bolsheviks forced the bourgeoisie to carry out social democratic reforms. It is by no means a coincidence that only in the last 100 years has capitalism been more or less humane towards humans (and even then inconsistently).
The current departure from the welfare state shows everyone that the Soviet Union was the only deterrent to capitalism. Now it is gone, and all the glaring contradictions of capitalism have come out.
Of course, the USSR is so far the best thing that happened to mankind, and therefore in any case it left a good memory of itself.
Bastard capitalism has been killing hundreds of millions of people since the 16th century. The Indians alone killed between 70 and 100 million.
In India, 2 million died from systematic famines every three years, from the beginning of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. Not to mention the victims of colonialism and fascism. The bourgeois revolution in the 17-18th century cost England 1/4 of the population, and Germany it cost 1/3 of the population. WW1 and WW2 were started by capitalists too, of course, who were afraid of young socialist state, gaining power. How could bankers allow almost 1/5 of the world's land mass to exist without bank interest?
The socialist revolution did not cost Russia the life of even one-tenth of the population.
Everything is learned in comparison, so there is no need to justify the crimes of capitalist regimes by the few "victims of socialism". From the point of view of humanism, the bourgeoisie have no moral right to even stutter about the inhumanity of the USSR, hiding behind false human rights and democracy.
At the same time, if you look at the documents, 600 thousand were shot for the entire time, 3-4 million served in the gulag, and if you look at the personal files, it turns out that they were sitting deservedly, despite the fact that the country's population was constantly growing, up to 200 million. And the standard of living was growing. Here is the paradox.
I still do not fully understand your position, but I am almost sure that you perfectly understand what the real cause of Europe's problems is.

The Russians conveniently forget their own extremely shitty reputation..

Everything is simple here, the more competences and ambitions a country has, the worse its reputation. The best reputation is in the village where FS lives.

Why does everyone hate the English ? ---> Forum Regional The Apricity Regional Deutschland Deutschland - English Entries

and all those Soviets came here

I agree that I was inattentive and did not notice who this thread was intended for. On the other hand, there are no private rooms on this site yet.

[JerryS.]

the English? like them. the British? that's another story.

[Blondie]

Of course, the USSR is so far the best thing that happened to mankind

These childs have different opinion:

[Incal]

I like English women.

[KirillMazur]

These childs have different opinion:

Well, of course, the Great Depression and the Defarming under the wise leadership of Roosevelt and the capitalist class are different.
Trying to look at the official US demographic statistics is staggering from the start - the statistics for 1932 have been destroyed - or very well hidden. They just don't exist. Without explanation. Yes, they appear later, in more recent statistics, in the form of retrospective tables. The study of these tables also leaves the attentive researcher somewhat amazed.
Firstly, according to American statistics, over the decade from 1931 to 1940, according to the dynamics of population growth, the United States lost no less than 8 million 553 thousand people, and the population growth rates change immediately, simultaneously, in two (!) times exactly at the turn 1930/31, fall and freeze at this level for exactly ten years. And just as unexpectedly, after a decade, they return to their previous values. There is no explanation for this in the vast, hundreds of pages, text of the US Department of commerce report "Statistical Abstract of the United States", although it is filled with explanations on other issues that are not even worth mentioning in comparison with the above.

The question was simply ignored. There is no such question.

Any responsible demographer will tell you that a one-time double change in population dynamics in a huge country of one hundred million is possible only as a result of mass loss of life. By the way, almost 100 thousand American specialists at that time came to live and work in the USSR, to help carry out industrialization in a developing country.
This is only the United States, but if we turn to the topic of hunger in Europe, in the same period?


Another good example is the Great Famine in Ireland of 1845-1849. It was a real famine and genocide of the population (the first concentration camps appeared there), according to the most conservative estimates, 3 million people died there. People were ready to flee the country even in leaky boats. Moreover, this is a country with a mild climate, there should be no problems with food. Who is to blame - of course, the capitalist class (English landlords), which took possession of Irish land and demanded huge rent from the indigenous population, refusing to reduce it even in conditions of famine. In "wild" Russia in a similar situation, the state has always thrown all possible efforts to fight hunger, but where is Russia, and where are the English sirs and peers.

Maybe it's time to stop throwing shits?

I didnt realise here was so much anglophobia still in Russia, suprised the largest country in the world can be still so triggered by an island 8 times bigger than Kalingrad!

Compared to schizophrenic Russophobia in the West, this is nothing.

[The Lawspeaker]

In the Netherlands: