You need to identify what you are comparing with, e.g. if they improved economically, what were the downsides that were relatively less consequential?

Your argument seems to be limited to the agricultural effects on the economy. What about the industrial aspects?

You have an interesting point but i'm not sure how Cultural Connection leads to Political Connection / Action. Could you elaborate?

While I agree with you that Singapore is vulnerable to military conflicts, the risk of an A-bomb is low. Given our land size, anyone using an A-bomb will not just destroy our country, but neighbouring countries and the fishing industry as well!

that is a very good point. With stable relations, we can forge deeper trade relations and promote more trade collaborations between the citizens.

interesting argument Taufiq. But is it always fair in a war? Winners dictate History

You made a relevant argument with regards to the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk. Can you provide evidence of what Germany did to Russia?

Excellent analysis. You correctly pointed out that USA supported KMT, which meant that an independent China would be closely allied to the US. Alternatively, USSR supported CCP. So if China fell to communism, it would bring USSR right to Japan's doorstep!

Technically, Japan was not spreading it's ideology. It was imposing its ideology! She believed in her superiority & natural role as the leader of Asia. Spreading of ideology would be akin to what USA & USSR does during the Cold War, getting their allies to adopt political, economic & social structures that mirrors their own. Japan did no such thing for the countries they invaded.

So that means you believe it was justifiable for Stalin to sacrifice more than 20 million people to achieve what he did?

The question is: should they be expected to give up their land, properties and entire livelihood for the sake of the country? These were probably the only properties in their name!

Well supported perspective! & arguably, these changes led to USSR's survival during WWII, with the twin policies of Industrialization & Collectivization helping ensure they had enough resources to support the Red Army

Well supported perspective! & arguably, these changes led to USSR's survival during WWII, with the twin policies of Industrialization & Collectivization helping ensure they had enough resources to support the Red Army

Excellent point on the fact that Stalin had to resort on terror and fear (purges, NKVD) to rule his people. A leader should never rely on mass extermination to achieve their aims.

People had more money to lead better ...lives.

Is this proven statistically that the people had a better standard of living compared to the Tsarist period?