 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
Baltic countries had quite the same recent history, but their older history is totally different. Also, major stats are different. Here's the differences between countries for you all:
Languages:
Lithuania - Baltic language (Lithuanian)
Latvia - Baltic language (Latvian) - sounds not very different from Lithuanian, so people who doesn't knows languages could mix them up
Estonia - Fino-Ugru language (this is not even indo-european so very different from Lithuanian and Latvian)
Religions:
Lithuania - Roman Catholic
Latvia - Lutheran
Estonia - Lutheran
History:
Lithuania was for long a great empire, Lithuanian Great Duchy, which conquered many lands from Baltic to Black seas.
Latvia firstly declared independence after WW1
Estonia firstly declared independence after WW1
Historical ties:
Lithuanian historical ties are primary with Poland (we had an united country, Poland-Lithuania, for some time)
Latvian historical ties are primary with Germany (it was once the base for German orders and was known as Livonia)
Estonian historical ties are more with Scandinavian countries
Percent of native people:
In Lithuania this percent is highest, 82% of people there are Lithuanians. There are also 8% of Russians and 7% of Poles.
In Estonia 65% of people are Estonian. There are also 28% Russians, 3% Ukraineans and 1% Byelorussians.
In Latvia only 56% of people are Latvian. There are also 30% of Russians, 4% Byelorussians, 3% Ukrainean and 3% of Poles.
Cities:
In Lithuania, unlike most of other Soviet countries, there is no major city. Vilnius (capital) has 600'000 people, Kaunas has 400'000 people, Klaipeda has 250'000 people (seaport). There are also two other cities with over 100'000 people. Both Vilnius and Klaipeda receives high amounts of investitions.
In Latvia, Riga is a major city and capital and seaport. It has over 800'000 people and that makes one third of all Latvian people. The only other city with over 100'000 people is Daugavpils, which has 130'000 people.
In Estonia major city is Tallin. It has about 400'000 people and receives 90% of investitions coming to Estonia.
Also...
Lithuania has the most people (3,6 million, compared to Latvian 2,5 million and Estonian 1,7 million) the biggest size (slightly bigger than Latvia and much bigger than Estonia) and biggest number of people per square Kilometer. Latvian and Estonian number is more near Scandinavian nations, while Lithuanian - near other western European nations.
Some landscape notes:
Estonian highest hill is highest in all the Baltic states and Lithuanian is the lowest. However, avarage height of Lithuanian territory is the biggest. Lithuanian and Latvian scenic is more like western Europe (with sandy beaches), while Estonian - like scandinavian one, with many islands near coasts and some cliffs. Latvia and Estonia has big lenght of shores, while Lithuania has only 99 kilometers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
JCG, Mao killed most people on that list. As far as I know if considering deaths in civil war into account he killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined. However, I don't consider Mao worse than Stalin because he at least kept his politics inside China, whithout occupying countries like both Hitler and Stalin did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Evil comes in many forms. I guess I would have to base my decision on a combination of intent and action. Hitler was at least open about his evil. Ronald Reagan, for instance, and other American politicians, lie blatantly about their intentions, motives, and who they really represent. At least Hitler wanted to create a Utopia, and wanted some good. Don't misunderstand me, Hitler was evil. But I think that evil disguised as good is more dangerous than someone like Hitler. I think the politicians today that perpetuate this economic repressive siege called capitalism are just as evil as Hitler.
I'll cast my vote for Hitler, though, because of the large body count. If you wish to flame me, please do it in another thread. I won't respond to thread-jacking in this thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Khan's credo was to kill the men, steal their possesions, and embrace their wives and daughters. Whole civilizations were razed. Evil for evil's sake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
Stalin, of course!
He killed more people than anyone else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carver
Why the hell would Clinton be included but not Reagan. Reagan killed and enslaved millions throughout the world just to put some geopolitical pressure on his chosen enemy, the Soviet Union. Reagan instigated or sustained wars in Nicaraugua, Angola and Afghanistan that have killed millions and turned those countries into wastelands. Reagan helped keep the corrupt, evil, oppressive and poisonous governments of South Africa and Zaire in power.
Ronald Reagan has killed millions and will burn in hell for his crimes. |
Can you really support this rationally? I mean how much responsibility does Reagan get for South Africa? Is it due solely to his actions that Nelson Mandela wasn't freed during Reagan's tenure, and the country turned over to the ANC? Somehow I doubt it. How about Mobutu? Perhaps French military support (in conjunction with the U.S.) kept him in power, but how much better off is Congo now that the people are free to kill each other without restraint? Exactly what percentage of Congo's problems are the fault of Ronald Reagan? Would the Afghans simply have aquiesed to a forcible regime change, or is it possible that that fine state might have had a historical tendency to break down into internicine conflict regardless of who was in the White House?
Angola and Nicaragua (or at least their dictatorial governments) made their own choices as to which side, if any to join. They chose badly and paid the price of having the wrong side supporting those in their countries who disagreed with the governing philosophy or the group in power. Perhaps an attempt at neutrality would have served them much better than lining up for the Soviet bloc, it certainly worked for numerous other regimes around the globe.
As long as you are so blithely assigning blame to a single man amongst the hundreds of millions who were responsible to one extent or another for the shape of the world, perhaps you will be as generous as Reagan's fans at assigning some credit to Reagan for helping to free the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union from state imposed slavery, and the rest of the world from the bipolar conflict that you complain about. Or are you one of those radicals who believes that the U.S. (etc.) are only all-powerful in their capability to create unbelievably complex conspiracies to serve bizarre racist evil murderous agendas, and completely inept at anything else, like say knocking off the Taliban in a few months?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Evil comes in many forms. I guess I would have to base my decision on a combination of intent and action. Hitler was at least open about his evil. Ronald Reagan, for instance, and other American politicians, lie blatantly about their intentions, motives, and who they really represent. At least Hitler wanted to create a Utopia, and wanted some good. Don't misunderstand me, Hitler was evil. But I think that evil disguised as good is more dangerous than someone like Hitler. I think the politicians today that perpetuate this economic repressive siege called capitalism are just as evil as Hitler.
I'll cast my vote for Hitler, though, because of the large body count. If you wish to flame me, please do it in another thread. I won't respond to thread-jacking in this thread. |
You are unbalanced. I invite you to trade in your life as a spoiled American brat for the life of a German of similar age and class in 1933.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
I seriously don't think Hitler was mad. I also dont think any mad person could become a leader of faction, not even talking about leader of state.
He just had his political ideas. He was a patriot, maybe to patriotic after all.
Stalin, Lenin also weren't mad obviously. They all were clever, just their ideas were different than ones of current people. As Hitler said himself...
"Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong"
And he was very right. Because allies won war, now he is considered very bad, while Truman, who dropped a nuke on mainly civilians, good president. Even such killer as Stalin is considered better than Hitler (as this poll shows). We all know that if for example Hitler would have won the war (this is hypothatical so we are assuming this would have happened after all WW2 events, even if it is actually impossible because Hitler was then dead), Stalin would be the worst man (and he is truly is) in everyones mind and history. Truman would be second for dropping a nuke. And no one on this thread (if it would be here at all) would even question the motives of Hitler.
So yes, success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong... These are maybe the best words I heard. Allies killed more Germans in the war, and also dropped a nuke on undefended city, but no one question their motives... Just because nazis were "bad" side...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-08-2002 02:30
|