• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it Racist for White Countries to Remain White?

Is it Racist for White Countries to Remain White?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 38.3%
  • No

    Votes: 37 61.7%

  • Total voters
    60
If Stalin had killed 20 million people between 1926 and 1941, then the population of the USSR at the end of the Second World War would've been 149 million (another 27 million killed during the war). By 1957 it was 200 million. So in the span of 12 years the Soviet population would've had to increase by over 50 million people, or 1/4th the entire population in less than a quarter of a century. All this on a birth rate that never exceeded 3.2. Try again.

As several of your posts keep making broad numeric and qualitive claims mostly without a single (and never relevant) citation or quote, don't you think its long overdue you practice what you have been preaching? Cause I agree with this fellow:

And again; you have no sources to back that up. Simply stating numbers doesn't make it so.
 
As several of your posts keep making broad numeric and qualitive claims mostly without a single (and never relevant) citation or quote, don't you think its long overdue you practice what you have been preaching? Cause I agree with this fellow:

Gladly.

The population of the Soviet Union in 1941 was 196 million Andreev, E.M., et al., Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.

The Soviet census established the population of the Soviet Union in 1959 as 200 million. https://news.google.com/newspapers?...7345,6323498&dq=soviet+union+population&hl=en

The Soviet birth rate between 1945 and 1957: http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/russia-tfr-1946-2016.png
 
Gladly.

The population of the Soviet Union in 1941 was 196 million Andreev, E.M., et al., Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.

The Soviet census established the population of the Soviet Union in 1959 as 200 million. https://news.google.com/newspapers?...7345,6323498&dq=soviet+union+population&hl=en

The Soviet birth rate between 1945 and 1957: http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/russia-tfr-1946-2016.png

Even a back of the matchbook that is simplistic needn't be simple-minded, let alone incoherent. Let's review:

You objected to your strawman that "Stalin had killed 20 million people between 1926 and 1941", which is not the position normally advanced (the period of up to 20 million extends to at least Stalin's death). In any event, you then cite population figures AFTER the period of your straw man in 1941 to 1959, and opine about that periods birth rate - an odd case of amnesia over what time period you were arguing.

Of course, it would be generous to call you non-sequitur cites "reasoning" given that you also forgot to note the distorting effects of uncertain population increases from annexation of the Baltic States and Eastern Poland in the 1941 census.

DK pointed out that the beginning population in 1941 and the ending population at 1/1/1946 are rough estimates since figures for the territories annexed in 1939–1940 and emigration from the USSR during the war are based on fragmentary information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

The fact is that one cannot begin to seriously discuss the excess deaths from Stalin without far more complex demographic analysis, empirical analysis of the census of ethnic groups, confessions and numbers in the Soviet archives (and in memoirs), discovered mass graves, the newly discovered famine of the late 40s, and converging lines of evidence. So to that end, I will (in the future) post more serious analysis by experts not named "JRedbaron96".

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this nugget: you do know the 1937 Soviet census was repressed (and its director shot) because the numbers were so low as to suggest truth to the mass deaths, right?
 
Last edited:
You objected to your strawman that "Stalin had killed 20 million people between 1926 and 1941", which is not the position normally advanced (the period of up to 20 million extends to at least Stalin's death).

If you're suggesting that Stalin continued to order the deaths of millions up until his deathbed than you truly don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about.

Of course, it would be generous to call you non-sequitur cites "reasoning" given that you also forgot to note the distorting effects of uncertain population increases from annexation of the Baltic States and Eastern Poland in the 1941 census.

If you had even an ounce of critical thinking you would be able to realize that the nearly 34 million increase in the Soviet population between 1937 (162 million) and 1941 (196 million) includes the annexation of the Baltic and Eastern Poland. Unless you're suggesting the Soviets were so rabbit-like they managed to push out that many new people within a 4 year time span.


The fact is that one cannot begin to seriously discuss the excess deaths from Stalin without far more complex demographic analysis, empirical analysis of the census of ethnic groups, confessions and numbers in the Soviet archives (and in memoirs), discovered mass graves, the newly discovered famine of the late 40s, and converging lines of evidence. So to that end, I will (in the future) post more serious analysis by experts not named "JRedbaron96".

And I'll take comfort in the fact that I can ingore anything written by maxparish as garbage not worth my time.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this nugget: you do know the 1937 Soviet census was repressed (and its director shot) because the numbers were so low as to suggest truth to the mass deaths, right?

Are you under some kind of impression that I don't believe Stalin killed anyone? That he was really just a swell guy we demonized for the sake of it, and he never hurt anyone?

I never at any point denied that Stalin killed millions. I don't doubt the idea that Stalin had Mezhlauk killed for his work on the census. It just seems that I in favor the old but tried method of actually "looking" at the data instead of just following the suit of whomever pundit or author's narrative suits my political beliefs just fine.
 
Can you give me an example of a nation-state that adopted increasingly nationalistic policies and actually ended up better off for it?

Germany in the 19th century, Francoist Spain. Nazi Germany was also doing quite well until WWII (showing that nationalism builds up, while empire destroys).
 
To much political correctness in some of this group of posters! If a person wants his grandchildren to resemble looks wise
his grandparents that certainly is not racists, that's going way to far.

Yet that's exactly what modern liberals believe.
 
Germany in the 19th century.

Imperial Germany that ended up losing WWI and lost it's entire Empire. Right.

Francoist Spain

The first 30 years of Fascist rule in Spain resulted in concentration camps, isolationism, autarky and general misery. It wasn't until the fascists lost power that Spain saw meaningful improvement, at least in it's economy.

Nazi Germany was also doing quite well until WWII

No it wasn't. The Germany economy was literally on the verge of collapse when war broke out.
 
Imperial Germany that ended up losing WWI and lost it's entire Empire. Right.

Did the nation improve before the war?

The first 30 years of Fascist rule in Spain resulted in concentration camps, isolationism, autarky and general misery. It wasn't until the fascists lost power that Spain saw meaningful improvement, at least in it's economy.

No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle

No it wasn't. The Germany economy was literally on the verge of collapse when war broke out.

By what objective measure?

GD-chart_1.gif
 
Did the nation improve before the war?

That improvement was due to the same reasons that Germany ended up on the losing side of two world wars. Nationalism was a temporary boon that ended up destroying the entire German Empire.




Didn't occur until 1960, which again was when the Fascists lost power in exchange to the Technocrats.



By what objective measure?

GD-chart_1.gif

That is a very misleading statistic.

The Nazis solved Germany's massive unemployment problem with massive public works projects and military armaments programs. This dropped unemployment down to virtually 0%, but this was only because practically every military aged man had been conscripted into either the Wehrmacht or the factories. But alongside unemployment, the effective standard of living, real wages, and the availability of consumer goods all dropped as well. Germany had an industrial base but didn't produce any of the natural resources for it, so steel, oil, and food all had to be imported, which meant Germany was running a huge trade deficit, on top of the fact that it's expenditures were 101 billion marks whereas actual revenue amounted to just 62 billion.

By 1938 the Nazis had to force banks to buy government bonds and the government took money from saving accounts and insurance companies due to the government literally not having enough cash. The only reason Germany avoided complete economy collapse was by invading and taking the resources of other countries; case in point when war broke out Germany defaulted on all it's debts, and spent the next four years stealing everything they could out of France and Poland.
 
Last edited:
That improvement was due to the same reasons that Germany ended up on the losing side of two world wars. Nationalism was a temporary boon that ended up destroying the entire German Empire.

You're equating being dominated by a foreign power with economic failure. That's not at all obvious. Besides, the boom of the German empire lasted for quite a few decades.

Didn't occur until 1960, which again was when the Fascists lost power in exchange to the Technocrats.

If anything it proved that autarky couldn't work in Spain. It didn't have enough resources to be self-sufficient. And on top of that, Franco remained in power. It was still quite nationalist.

That is a very misleading statistic.

The Nazis solved Germany's massive unemployment problem with massive public works projects and military armaments programs. This dropped unemployment down to virtually 0%, but this was only because practically every military aged man had been conscripted into either the Wehrmacht or the factories. But alongside unemployment, the effective standard of living, real wages, and the availability of consumer goods all dropped as well. Germany had an industrial base but didn't produce any of the natural resources for it, so steel, oil, and food all had to be imported, which meant Germany was running a huge trade deficit, on top of the fact that it's expenditures were 101 billion marks whereas actual revenue amounted to just 62 billion.

By 1938 the Nazis had to force banks to buy government bonds and the government took money from saving accounts and insurance companies due to the government literally not having enough cash. The only reason Germany avoided complete economy collapse was by invading and taking the resources of other countries; case in point when war broke out Germany defaulted on all it's debts, and spent the next four years stealing everything they could out of France and Poland.

A lot of this sounds quite similar to what happened in all the western countries, except that the German economy was doing much better. Whether it was sustainable is quite another question, of course, but it certainly boomed while everyone else flailed.

But if you have a source with detailed economic information comparing Germany to other countries, I'd love to see it. These statistics aren't easily accessible online.
 
You're equating being dominated by a foreign power with economic failure. That's not at all obvious. Besides, the boom of the German empire lasted for quite a few decades.

You can't cherry pick aspects of an ideology to demonstrate the value of it in it's entierety. Yes, nationalism brought Germany to unification and for a while it led the world in Nobel prize awardees. Doesn't change the fact that it was the same nationalist sentiment that embolden the Prussian aristocracy, which led directly to the manifestation of international aggression that was directly responsible for isolating Germany and leaving it surrounded by enemies when the war broke out.

It's like saying Communism is great because when the USSR was formed the quality of life for the average Russian peasant improved. It may be true, but that can't be separated from the rest of the ideological ramifications.


If anything it proved that autarky couldn't work in Spain. It didn't have enough resources to be self-sufficient. And on top of that, Franco remained in power. It was still quite nationalist.

It was even more nationalist when the Fascists were in power. Spain didn't improve until after they were removed. And even so, Spain remained behind most of Western Europe even after the power of the Fascists was reduced and the technocrats took over.


A lot of this sounds quite similar to what happened in all the western countries, except that the German economy was doing much better. Whether it was sustainable is quite another question, of course, but it certainly boomed while everyone else flailed.

Saying the Nazis improved the German economy is like saying we eliminated homelessness by killing all the homeless. You can manipulate the data to say so, but it doesn't invalidate the truth.

Germany's growth was wildly unstable because the means of doing so were unsustainable. You can't force millions into factories that are all geared towards armaments without taking away labor from other industries and businesses. The problem was that Hitler always prioritized military affairs over economic matters, and in fact cared and knew little of financial issues, so much so that he would espouse socialism on one day and then court industrialists and private bankers the next.

But if you have a source with detailed economic information comparing Germany to other countries, I'd love to see it. These statistics aren't easily accessible online.

The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze is the single more definite resources on the German economy both before and during the war. I have it on Kindle and can quote specific chapters later when I have the chance.
 
Just remaining white? No. 83% of Norwegians are white. There's nothing sinister about it. It's just a fact of geography.

Promoting whiteness as the template for model citizens is a whole other story. Especially if the law is used to promote being white to the detriment of non-whites. The law needs to treat everybody the same.
 
I asked this question in another thread and got what I found to be a very interesting answer.
So what do you think? Is it racist for a white country to remain white?

Depends.
If the "racialness" is an incidental outcome to immigration policies, it's not racist. If it it's intentional, it's racist.
 
Back
Top Bottom