Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Angus on October 28, 2007, 11:34:48 AM
-
I thought this link would be appropriate for a Stalin fan and a Supporter of totalitarianism
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/frett.html?nid=1299509
Note that the victims are Russians. Not fom Poland or Lithania.
And this is just the tip of the Iceberg.
Not sure what Stalin's total "score" was, but some claim him to have topped Hitler by far. Joseph Stinkowitch Stalin :furious
-
Originally posted by Angus
I thought this link would be appropriate for a Stalin fan and a Supporter of totalitarianism
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/frett.html?nid=1299509
Note that the victims are Russians. Not fom Poland or Lithania.
And this is just the tip of the Iceberg.
Not sure what Stalin's total "score" was, but some claim him to have topped Hitler by far. Joseph Stinkowitch Stalin :furious
Less then 2000 Polish troops died being detained in USSR.
Good. Polish military ceremony with a tiny Ukrainian flag. What the aged woman said may be about Jews from Kiev shot by nazis. And she speaks Russian.
All the numbers of victims of Soviet regime are known now, they are not a secret. People saying about tens of millions victims just can't understand that if it's true - then there couldn't be anyone left here.
Number of people executed in USSR was not much different from so-called "civilized" countries at the same time, may be even smaller because we didn't have death penalty for large periods of time, especially in Stalin's time.
Again, in 1999 Russian Federation had more people in prisons and camps then USSR did in worst years of "purges". That's what so-called "democracy" is worth. People go to jail for years for stealing a hen because they didn't have anything to eat, while crooks who steal billions and starve millions of people are respected members of society.
-
Katyn forest reveiled 4000 executed Polish officers. The claim from the Polish side was actually a lot more, like 15-20.000.
The remains were discovered near Smolensk, the number is at 15.000 AFAIK.
Not during detainment...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Katyn forest reveiled 4000 executed Polish officers. The claim from the Polish side was actually a lot more, like 15-20.000.
The remains were discovered near Smolensk, the number is at 15.000 AFAIK.
Not during detainment...
Not about Katyn' again please. Not the best argument. You said you'll post about Russians. You showed Poles and Ukrainians instead. It's exactly what I expected. What I heard in Russian in that clip makes me doubt if it's a funeral for Stalin's victims, looks like Jews killed by nazis. Ever heard of Babiy Yar?
You know, a month ago they demolished an old house here in Moscow and found remnants of about 60 people. Media immediately reported bullet holes there and said they were shot down by NKVD. Everyone heard in national news. A few days later there was a small report that that remnants are at least 300-400 years old. Mass-grave, probably from plague. See how this legends multiply.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Number of people executed in USSR was not much different from so-called "civilized" countries at the same time, may be even smaller because we didn't have death penalty for large periods of time, especially in Stalin's time.
[head scratch]Isn't this quote an oxymoron? We didn't have the death penalty so we executed fewer people?[/head scratch]
-
Popcorn. Check.
Beer. Check.
Carry on.
:D
-
Originally posted by Stang
Popcorn. Check.
Beer. Check.
Carry on.
:D
You forgot a NASA diaper. You don't want to miss a second of this oNe.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You know, a month ago they demolished an old house here in Moscow and found remnants of about 60 people. Media immediately reported bullet holes there and said they were shot down by NKVD. Everyone heard in national news. A few days later there was a small report that that remnants are at least 300-400 years old. Mass-grave, probably from plague. See how this legends multiply.
I don't think those graves in Katyn forest are 300-400 years old plague victims.
And, we'd have to execute the entire state of California and New York to come close to the amount of Soviet citizens Stalin killed.
ack-ack
-
nasa diaper check. thanks for the heads up.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I don't think those graves in Katyn forest are 300-400 years old plague victims.
And, we'd have to execute the entire state of California and New York to come close to the amount of Soviet citizens Stalin killed.
ack-ack
Yeah but Stalin was Georgian, not Russian. Boroda wants Russian examples.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
NWhat I heard in Russian in that clip makes me doubt if it's a funeral for Stalin's victims, looks like Jews killed by nazis. Ever heard of Babiy Yar?
all what i saw , there was no rabin, no jewish flag on coffins. I saw catholic priest and pope. Where this jews come from to you?
As for bodies found in moscow, looks like people assume most common explanation, guess why ;)
So Pavel, have you seen 1612 movie? is any good?
Ack-Ack, US is not without guilt neither .......... ask native Americans ;-)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
all what i saw , there was no rabin, no jewish flag on coffins. I saw catholic priest and pope. Where this jews come from to you?
As for bodies found in moscow, looks like people assume most common explanation, guess why ;)
Sorry, didn't think about priests.
Anyway, too little can be seen in that clip, and I know pretty well how they "edit" materials about exUSSR. It's funny and scary to see History channel films when I hear Russian speech and see the subtitles.
Originally posted by ramzey
So Pavel, have you seen 1612 movie? is any good?
I have heard some reviews, people say that historically it's pure fiction, but it's spectacular and interesting to watch. People say that it's the first Russian film without asking "where the hell did director spend $12M!?" :D
-
I really shouldn't touch this one because my grandfather (born in Poland) never said one nice thing about the Russians. I will try to keep an open mind here.
There are several books on the subject between (I'm not even sure how to word it) the fighting on the Soviet-Polish border. As far as who was more ruthless towards the Poles, I'll leave that for the historians.
http://ww2-aviation.net/polavhist/booksold.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=HtbmGAAACAAJ&dq=303+polish+squadron
I found the second book, A Question of Honor, to be the most interesting. This book was written by two (2) Americans (not Poles).
Obie
-
Dang, me bad, I said Russia and not USSR. OK. USSR. But...Lithuania was also "in" the USSR :D
BTW, estimated number of executions in the chamber of Vilnius is 1.000, exclusively in Stalin's time. Old Nikita changed the rules you see. But you still had the torture chambers.
So was USSR such in Stalin's time that non-Russian USSR citizens could be executed? Oh, not before the war...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army
-
You guys completely miss one simple point.
Russians were the main victim of the regime, not Lithuanians, not Ukrainians, not poor Polish servicemen. OTOH without the sacrifice made by Russian people - the world could be quite different today.
-
LOL, where does that fit to this statement:
"Number of people executed in USSR was not much different from so-called "civilized" countries at the same time, may be even smaller because we didn't have death penalty for large periods of time, especially in Stalin's time."
Ahh, of course. Executions WITHOUT death penalty :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
LOL, where does that fit to this statement:
"Number of people executed in USSR was not much different from so-called "civilized" countries at the same time, may be even smaller because we didn't have death penalty for large periods of time, especially in Stalin's time."
Ahh, of course. Executions WITHOUT death penalty :D
Please read my post carefully. I said that there was no death penalty in some periods of time. Not all the time.
-
So large went to some? As for the documentation, how many were the purge victims?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So large went to some? As for the documentation, how many were the purge victims?
Several years (IIRC) - "large" or "some"? I have to check about death penalty, it was canceled after the War in late-40s, and for some period of time before the War...
"Purge" victims: less then 800,000 death penalty, about 2.6 million - prisons and labor camps from 1921 to 1953. Please notice that this statistics starts in 1921 when Civil War was still going on. Total number of people sentenced for "political" crimes was about 4 millions.
It's hardly Solzhenitsyn's "60 million dead", isn't it?
It was a horrible time, and there were millions of innocent people suffering. But to some extent we can say it was "executing hangmen themselves". Plus include collaborators and traitors in a War here.
-
"Just" 800.000 is a HUGE number, and I am afraid you will have a difficult time finding anything approaching that in a democratic country at the time.
BTW, I always thought that most of the dead were due to famine.
-
Originally posted by Angus
"Just" 800.000 is a HUGE number, and I am afraid you will have a difficult time finding anything approaching that in a democratic country at the time.
"Democratic" countries had a lot of fun genociding other nations, either natives or in colonies.
You asked for real numbers - I provided them. Just pointing that it contradicts popular Western propaganda legends. I am not going to deny the "repressions", my family members suffered at that times.
Originally posted by Angus
BTW, I always thought that most of the dead were due to famine.
Compared to "purges" famine was a real killer. But it's silly to blame bolsheviks for starvation. Mass starvations happened in Russian Empire every 3-5 years, and bolsheviks put an end to it.
-
The kokholzy didn't hit pre-revolution production levels until 1940, so...
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The kokholzy didn't hit pre-revolution production levels until 1940, so...
Pre-1913 level.
Look, in 1913 less then 2% of the population worked in industry, the rest were peasants. By 1940 this proportion changed drastically. Less people fed more.
How else could you "release" necessary work force for industry, when we needed to catch up the 50 years gap in 10 years? What happened in the 1930s here is a pure miracle. In a country where only one out of ten is literate, suddenly, out of nowhere, millions of workers and engineers appear, industrial production grows 1000 times in 10 years, and we come to another World War almost prepared.
-
I remember reading that more Russians were enslaved and murdered by the Stalin regime than were killed in war by Hitlers armies. Although I dont believe that....like Borada sugeets (I think), there would be nobody alive in russia today if that many people had been taken out of the reproductive loop.
You guys also need to understand that Russians are generally very complex and difficult people to relate to, historically....although there are definately some cute russian babes I could learn to relate to quite quickly.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I remember reading that more Russians were enslaved and murdered by the Stalin regime than were killed in war by Hitlers armies. Although I dont believe that....like Borada sugeets (I think), there would be nobody alive in russia today if that many people had been taken out of the reproductive loop.
Exactly what I meant! USSR lost over 10% of it's population in a War, it's over the margin where losses become catastrophic.
It was Solzhenitsyn who said about 60-80 million people murdered by Evil Communist Regime (tm). Later, when he returned to Russia (when his masters stopped feeding him), he had to admit that this numbers are figment of his imagination, he just "had to exaggerate" to show the Evilness of Communism. Anyway, how else could he win a Nobel prize?...
-
one death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic.
Joe Stalin.
-
Originally posted by john9001
one death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic.
Joe Stalin.
Can you tell me exactly where, when, and on what subject did he say it?
I love this "everyone knows!" attitude. When I hear "everyone knows that" I understand that it's probably bull****.
-
Originally posted by john9001
one death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic.
Joe Stalin.
Author is pointed incorrectly.
Erich Maria Remarque, novel "The Black Obelisk", 1957:
"Aber das ist wohl so, weil ein einzelner immer der Tod ist — und zwei Millionen immer nur eine Statistik."
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"Democratic" countries had a lot of fun genociding other nations, either natives or in colonies.
You asked for real numbers - I provided them. Just pointing that it contradicts popular Western propaganda legends. I am not going to deny the "repressions", my family members suffered at that times.
Compared to "purges" famine was a real killer. But it's silly to blame bolsheviks for starvation. Mass starvations happened in Russian Empire every 3-5 years, and bolsheviks put an end to it.
I have some points for you Boroda.
1. You were quick to provide the statements that death sentence was in a limited timeframe. Must have been very effective while at it then. 800.000 in a limited frame....
2. AFAIK the bolsheviks made new heights in the starvation books, and as well USSR agriculture NEVER made any hights, - while sitting on the finest agricultural fields in the world (as well as the biggest) had several times to cut into some field of rationing as well as imports or exploitations of the "buffer" countries. Heck, food for instance was always on the route inwards to the USSR, from "buffer" countries and all the way to the USA.
(Iceland even exported lots of food to the USSR of old and still does to Russia AFAIK. It was troublesome getting paid though)
3. Your "repressions" or rather purgings, occured within the USSR, or as you point out, at the hardest within Russia itself. It has no paralell with colonism at all, or conquest of very different (as well as more primitive in terms of technology) cultures. For that comparison you will have to venture into the SE states of the former USSR to have anything remotely close to i.e. the African colonies of France, or the UK. I am rather afraid the numbers in both cases are blurry to say the least, so I stick to what is manifested and within what was considered the "civilized" or "enlightened" world at the time, - that includes the USSR.
4. Sidenote, - I do not particularly favour how things were going in the old emperor's state of Russia. I think they sucked so bad, that it was bound to boil over. You can look at the French revolution as some kind of a comparison there, and none deny that the aftermath was a bit ugly. Only not for decades, and nowhere close to the numbers or their %.
5. I challenge you to find any close numbers in any western country paralell to Stalin's timeframe that even approaches the number of executions and purgings. I am talking of a Democratic country though. I challenge your opinion of totalitarianism that you mentioned on these boards.
6.I would like to open a discussion of the countries around the WW2 era that were occupied or militarily taken over by the USSR/NAZI/JAP vs the W-Allies, UK-USA. There you have totalitarianism vs Democracy on the job. Well, that is an issue for another thread. Feel free to establish one, - I might do so one day anyway.
-
BTW, I'd still like to be an emperor :D
Maybe,,,,
-
Originally posted by Angus
BTW, I'd still like to be an emperor :D
Maybe,,,,
it's good to be the king. :D
-
Originally posted by Vad
Author is pointed incorrectly.
Erich Maria Remarque, novel "The Black Obelisk", 1957:
"Aber das ist wohl so, weil ein einzelner immer der Tod ist — und zwei Millionen immer nur eine Statistik."
Thank You!
Is Remarque as popular in the West as he was in USSR?
I have read "Eastern Front" and "Coming Back" when I was at school. Stalled reading "Three Comrades" back in 1994 I think, it was so much about what we had here at that time :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Is Remarque as popular in the West as he was in USSR?
yes. in fact the original film version of "all quiet on the western front." was restored by our library of congress.
-
Originally posted by Vad
Author is pointed incorrectly.
John9001 doesn't let little things like inaccuracies stop him.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Angus
1. You were quick to provide the statements that death sentence was in a limited timeframe. Must have been very effective while at it then. 800.000 in a limited frame....
Over 700000 of that happened in 37-38 according to that source.
I have to check with Zemskov, sorry, just looked at a link from "approved source", now I think I exaggerated and mixed-up the numbers :( Hard to imagine that my Great-Grand-Father was one of the 3000 sentenced to death in 39.
I'll probably have to post corrections, this time I just posted the biggest number I found (depends on how to count, you know, some historians exclude ordinary criminals sentenced for political crimes).
Originally posted by Angus
2. AFAIK the bolsheviks made new heights in the starvation books, and as well USSR agriculture NEVER made any hights, - while sitting on the finest agricultural fields in the world (as well as the biggest) had several times to cut into some field of rationing as well as imports or exploitations of the "buffer" countries. Heck, food for instance was always on the route inwards to the USSR, from "buffer" countries and all the way to the USA.
(Iceland even exported lots of food to the USSR of old and still does to Russia AFAIK. It was troublesome getting paid though)
"while sitting on the finest agricultural fields in the world" - a Quote of the week! :D
Russian climate is much worse then in Iceland. 65% of the land is permafrost. In Moscow we have only about 20 days a year with temperature above +20C. (I may be mistaken, may be about 40 days, but this exaggeration is nothing compared to what Solzhenitsyn did). Ukraine has extremely rich soils, but still never had harvest compared to Western Europe, it's below freezing in Winter there. In Kazakhstan it's much, much worse.
Read my post about building walls. Buffer countries like Lithuania were almost starving, and people fled to USSR before 1940 when they were allowed to join the Union. So they do now, even having all the industrial facilities built there on Russian expense - they still flee abroad for jobs.
Originally posted by Angus
3. Your "repressions" or rather purgings, occured within the USSR, or as you point out, at the hardest within Russia itself. It has no paralell with colonism at all, or conquest of very different (as well as more primitive in terms of technology) cultures. For that comparison you will have to venture into the SE states of the former USSR to have anything remotely close to i.e. the African colonies of France, or the UK. I am rather afraid the numbers in both cases are blurry to say the least, so I stick to what is manifested and within what was considered the "civilized" or "enlightened" world at the time, - that includes the USSR.
Too complicated for me to understand after the third Skrewdriver.
Look, in 1870s and 1880s when Russian Empire reached natural border with Afghanistan and Persia - Russians were met with flowers. They established law there, so slavery and murder became history there until 1991.
Originally posted by Angus
4. Sidenote, - I do not particularly favour how things were going in the old emperor's state of Russia. I think they sucked so bad, that it was bound to boil over. You can look at the French revolution as some kind of a comparison there, and none deny that the aftermath was a bit ugly. Only not for decades, and nowhere close to the numbers or their %.
The Romanovs had to go. And they went away in an act of pure treason, Emperor as a first deserter.
Look, I am not a bolshevik fan, but, unfortunately, bolsheviks were the only power who managed to keep the country together in 17-22. Until maybe 27 they followed quite a liberal policy, but later it became obvious that a new war is going to come, and we had to "cover 100 years in 10, or we'll be crushed" as JVS said. And what we achieved was a pure miracle, as I said above.
Originally posted by Angus
5. I challenge you to find any close numbers in any western country paralell to Stalin's timeframe that even approaches the number of executions and purgings. I am talking of a Democratic country though. I challenge your opinion of totalitarianism that you mentioned on these boards.
Totalitarism is more effective, it's a fact. No democratic country could withstand 1941 as USSR did. As for numbers - I leave it to You. For me it's pretty obvious that in XX century "democracies" killed much more then "totaitarian" Communist/Socialist states. A million people in Iraq only in 4 years, it's more then all "purges" here. Umpteen millions in Indochina, Indonesia and that whole region. Africa, India, etc ad nauseum.. Russians never turned to genocide as a solution.
Originally posted by Angus
6.I would like to open a discussion of the countries around the WW2 era that were occupied or militarily taken over by the USSR/NAZI/JAP vs the W-Allies, UK-USA. There you have totalitarianism vs Democracy on the job. Well, that is an issue for another thread. Feel free to establish one, - I might do so one day anyway.
Feel free to open it, but give me a break please. I just bought a new KBD and need to get used to it. At least until this thread is over. ;)
I can only suggest the same comparison with the countries where Blue or Red side have won during the Cold war. Compare modern Vietnam to modern Afghanistan. That's obvious, isn't it?
Damn boiled an egg for tomorrow, got all the water gone while writing this :)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
John9001 doesn't let little things like inaccuracies stop him.
ack-ack
I see teenage mentality. Early-teenage. Gorky wrote "I greet you, the young, unfamiliar breed!". B.G. sang: "Where are that young hooligans that will wipe us off the face of the Earth?"
B.G. = Boris Grebenschikov. He sang it in 1980, following with, how to translate it... "They don't appear, no, no, nooo!".
-
Originally posted by JB88
yes. in fact the original film version of "all quiet on the western front." was restored by our library of congress.
Remarque was mmm maybe more popular then Dostoyevskiy or Tolstoy here. Like Hamingway.
How many Russian/Soviet authors from XX century did you read? Not tying to offend you, just curious. Will help me understand the topic we discuss.
-
Short note Boroda.
Remarque is quite popular in the west, and probably my personal favourite author. Quite clear about totaliaristic regimes as well, which leaves you to me as somewhat enigmatic!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Short note Boroda.
Remarque is quite popular in the west, and probably my personal favourite author. Quite clear about totaliaristic regimes as well, which leaves you to me as somewhat enigmatic!
I didn't read much by Remarque, I explained it above... I prefer Hamingway from the same time.
Angus, you really made me respect You regardless to your opinions. People who read same books (at least some, and don;t discuss it please ;)) will always have something to drink to.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Remarque was mmm maybe more popular then Dostoyevskiy or Tolstoy here. Like Hamingway.
How many Russian/Soviet authors from XX century did you read? Not tying to offend you, just curious. Will help me understand the topic we discuss.
well, besides the two that you mentioned...i've read ayn rand.
oh, that's right. she left.
;)
:p
-
having checked...add pasternek, nobokov and Solzhenitsyn to the list.
real bummer when your government won't let you accept a nobel peace prize btw.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
John9001 doesn't let little things like inaccuracies stop him.
ack-ack
John9001 is the king of oneliners. He misses with deadly precision.
-
Gee Boroda, the Cdn prairies produces more grain than the Ukraine and has similar weather.
It was not that long ago that Cdn grain was exported to the USSR because of shortages in the USSR.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You guys completely miss one simple point.
Russians were the main victim of the regime, not Lithuanians, not Ukrainians, not poor Polish servicemen. OTOH without the sacrifice made by Russian people - the world could be quite different today.
True, true, true.
Which begs a question: why do they glorify Stalin and seem to miss him so much ? It appears so masochistic...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I didn't read much by Remarque, I explained it above... I prefer Hamingway from the same time.
Angus, you really made me respect You regardless to your opinions. People who read same books (at least some, and don;t discuss it please ;)) will always have something to drink to.
Hehe, amen to that. (Actually some books go best with a few shots as well...)
Remarque is really worth picking up, - especially if you want to look closer at totalitarianism through the rise of the Nazis.
I did read some russian literature from the 20th century, just not a lot. The Master and Margarita was one, then some short stories etc, as well as watching USSR films and TV series. And then we had this weekly news paper from our MIR organization, "News from the USSR" which was a new angle on most :D
Anyway, I will bring up some agricultural stuff later on. Milo is right there you know, and I am afraid you underestimate the agricultural potential of the old USSR grossly.
Ukraine has not only some of the best fields in the world, - they're also HUGE. Bottom line is that the old eastern Block sat on a bigger potential than the USA, - way bigger.....it was a system screw-up par excellence that caused the USSR to have to buy grain.
BTW, Icelandic agricultural committees did go to the USSR for gathering info about possible species of trees and other plants that would thrive in our climate. They came back in a state of shock basically.
FYI they did dig up some species in Magadan that were useable, however there was absolutely nothing to be learned from the agriculture.
As for Moscow climate vs i.e. the mis Icelandic south where I live should leave Moscow with the upper hand in production. You havea continental climate with much colder winter, but the winter here is useless anyway (That's changing). We can for example absolutely NOT grow wheat, and it's too windy for Rye. Barley is a so-so, with maybe 2-3 tonnes/ha as a norm.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
True, true, true.
Which begs a question: why do they glorify Stalin and seem to miss him so much ? It appears so masochistic...
Nobody "glorify" Stalin or miss and want him back.
But dispassionate analysis shows that under his rule Russia went a way from one of the poorest , illiterate and underdeveloped country in the world to the second wolrd power. It took just 25 years, 4 of them was the period of the most devastating war in history.
This is the fact, and nobody can argue with that.
In conjunction with specific circumstances and historical experience this fact put Stalin in the list of the most famous and outstanding leaders in Russian history. For ages Russia was attacked by neighbors, we survived Mongol invasion, Polish burned Moscow couple of times, French did it again in 1812, etc. It is already national mentality, we are willing to sacrifice a lot for being prepared to the next invasion.
Stalin did that though we paid a huge price. Finally we won that war. Anything else is not much important.
-
"Russia went a way from one of the poorest , illiterate and underdeveloped country in the world to the second wolrd power."
Isn't this putting it a bit simple? Russia also had a high standard in art and culture, and was industrializing at a full pace. It was behind some of the western powers yes, but it's one big block of materials.
And BTW, in the opening phases of Stalin's "reorganizing" the population development did not go where expected.
You can also say a bit the same to Germany perhaps? Squashed after WW1, bankrupt in the 20's, then Hitler comes around and in just 6 years Germany is the greatest warmachine (on land) in the world as well as in the front with technology.
You see, if you top things over and start from a new angle, with hope and optimism within the population, a lot of things can be done within a few years. But the problem with totalitarianism is simply that it doesn't hold out.
And as for Russia being invaded so often, -so was almost everybody else back through the centuries. There was always war, and in the case of Russia the backland was deep. I tend to see the USSR landgrabbing before, during and after WW2 as nothing else then greed, as well as gun-pushing the policy of global Communism. Spice that with paranoia.
-
The Reveloution of 1917 was bound to happen. There was already plenty of unrest and the lack of success in the war. Lenin was politicing "Land, Jobs, Bread" and the public was very responsive to it.
The Reveloution was in and of it self very Russian.
I think if they had it to do all over again, there were some things Stalin would have done different. Extremely harsh losses of liberties and harsh (if not seemed at times, almost random) punishments in the 1930's and then again in the early 1950's made many Soviet citizens blame "Uncle Joe" personally.
I think most of the "old school" ideals of Stalin/Khrushechev/Breschnev pretty much died with Andropov. Chernyenko wasn't around enough to make much of a mark.
Since then....it seems that each successive leader tried to undo the old mistakes of "Stalin vs The people". It wasn't until Gorbachov that it seemed more obvious that a leader wanted the people to know he cared about the citizens and wanted them to succeed....over what before was "you are just a little cog in the system/everything is for the benefit of the State."
I think Gorbachov really the first to imply (breaking with the Leninist ideal) that while the success of the State is very importaint, citizens, and their success (as....yikes!....an INDIVIDUAL) to have a decent life was ALSO importaint.
In a nutshell, he was implying that "if you want to leave, leave, knock yourself out, but things are changing here for the better, and you just might want to stay and be part of it."
In many ways, I see a lot of improvement in modern-day Russia, but there is still room to grow in respect with how the government treats it's people.
Elimination of gangs/mafia/etc. it not easy. It took 50 years to bust the American Mafia from a strong national threat to what is now an organization that has lost 90% of it's power, and most of it's leaders now serve lengthy prison terms. It might take Russia time to eliminate that dark spectre as well. Where there is money, there will always be a mafia element there to exploit it, unless they are tracked down and prosecuted.
I do not think Russia has much to worry about as far as defence, unless they fear China, or give Iran a nuclear potential. The American people have no interest with a war with Russia on any level.
Personally, I would love to see more Russian firms and American firms working together for a better trade between the two countries. The only Russian products I see on our store shelves is vodka. Can you make a better/less expensive toy? Chainsaw? Clothes? Competition and free trade is a good thing.
I very much remember a day of "Duck & Cover" movies and neighbors building bomb shelters in their back yards. Many times in my lifetime, our governments were on the verge of mutual total nuclear obliteration.
Who wants to go back to that?
68ROX
-
Originally posted by rpm
You forgot a NASA diaper. You don't want to miss a second of this oNe.
LMAO:aok
-
Angus, I don't agree in 100% with you but let imagine that I do. Possibly, there was another way. May be without Stalin Russia achived even more success.
But the fact is: we survived that war and went that way under Stalin's ruling. We cannot change the history, and history doesn't know things like "what if". In my reply to fd ski I just explained why Russians even today see Stalin differently than others.
-
Well. the what-if's are always a challenge.
Since Russia was pretty much fed up with the Romanov's it was time for a change, and there was someone to blame, straight away. I'd put my bucks on that some kind of a democracy/republic, even something close to what the USA has would have worked better then Stalin though.
Hitler is another issue though. He grabs what is basically a democracy, and blames the democracy as well as Germany being a victim to a treason in the Versailles treaties.
Both grab what is there, put blame and purging jobs at work, as well as a "fake" profit, - mobilization which has to be followed by conquest in order to work. The people that were subject to the purging provided some "fuel", as did assets. So there was no magic in the "success", - the "success" was in itself robbery instead of the more democratic way of shunting things around through i.e. taxing.
(Of course that does not work with a fat and settled in emperor position, just like the French revolution proved)
So, if you see that point, my other point is that totaliarianism doesn't work on a big scale, if at all, and all "cures" of such regimes are a fake.
I put Stalin right to the next seat by Hitler.
-
Originally posted by Vad
Nobody "glorify" Stalin or miss and want him back.
But dispassionate analysis shows that under his rule Russia went a way from one of the poorest , illiterate and underdeveloped country in the world to the second wolrd power. It took just 25 years, 4 of them was the period of the most devastating war in history.
This is the fact, and nobody can argue with that.
In conjunction with specific circumstances and historical experience this fact put Stalin in the list of the most famous and outstanding leaders in Russian history. For ages Russia was attacked by neighbors, we survived Mongol invasion, Polish burned Moscow couple of times, French did it again in 1812, etc. It is already national mentality, we are willing to sacrifice a lot for being prepared to the next invasion.
Stalin did that though we paid a huge price. Finally we won that war. Anything else is not much important.
Following World War 2, many nations quickly changed their status, partially thanks to ramped up war production, and partially to the fact that technology had to be implemented quickly - same thing during peace years could take long time.
United states accelerated its growth after WW2, same can be said for france, UK and prabably even germany. I guess we should "thank" Hitler for starting it ?
I'm afraid your logic is somewhat backwards. It speaks to versatility and courage of Russian people that they won World War II DESPITE Stalin.
Your peoples current love affair with Putin is disturbing at best.
As for the "next invasion" - i'm afraid you are simply affirming stereotype of paranoid russian. Who will invade you ? China? Paraguay ? With what ?
United States can't handle Iraq in place, your mighty army can pacify Chechia. Are you really worried about mighty Polish Army with its 100 000 troops burning down Moscow again ?
Do you really believe that your nation is most oppressed of them all ? Invasions by mighty Poland and Mongols ? Care to mention power of Russia in 18th and 19th Centuries ? When it owned Poland ?
Russians aren't any more liable to being invaded then others. Russians happend to invade others, just the same. Hilarious thing is, all those invasions you write about were mostly in the name of squabbling between "blue bloods" rather then nationality or nationhood. Not particularly different from today, is it ? Look at bad horrible "insert country here" and don't look where my government is stealing the money".... applies to all nations.
In summary, Stalin was a salamander. Straight and simple. He was a murderous bastard who should rot in hell. Hopefully right along side with many other "leaders" like himself...
-
Angus, it is endless story... We are going to repeat that old arguments again and again.
You don't like Stalin, I know that and it is perfectly ok. It is not my business, actually, what you like or dislike. My attitude to Stalin is different but in no way I want you to share my views. You prune down Russian and German history, and after such simplification your arguments appear to be correct but in fact they are not. Would you discuss relationships between Romeo and Juliet using 2 pages summary of the book?
You would put your bucks on Republic but in fact Russia became republic. With full attributes of democracy - free elections, one of the most democratic Constitution of that time. But Russia didn't become USA, you know. Elections and democratic label is not enough to become democracy in Western sense. We will see this in Iraq again where US are going to build "democracy".
So, we have to agree that you are wrong in your first statement. February revolution actually was democratic Revolution. Free elections were held, democratic government with Kerensky ruled Russia for almost a year. But after that Civil war happened and millions were killed. You know, it was impossible to win the Civil War in Russia if you would have few supporters. No, majority of people chose Bolsheviks, Stalin, risked and gave their lives for new power instead of democratically elected government. The idea of democracy is that the government should be elected by majority population, so Bolsheviks were more legitimate than Kerensky - they proved that being able to recruit more soldiers.
Ok, it is just analysis of your first statement. I can continue but we should agree or disagree on that first. Otherwise, it has no sense to move forward.
-
"You would put your bucks on Republic but in fact Russia became republic. With full attributes of democracy - free elections, one of the most democratic Constitution of that time."
And it lasted how long untill grabbed by the commies?
Comparing the USA in the 30's to USSR is actually quite interesting.
USA goes a bit left, "New Deal" and all that, and into a boom.
Russia goes into starvation and purging at the same time, after an optimistic launch in the 20's.
After the war, USA sits on top as the most powerful state in the world.
-
Originally posted by Angus
"You would put your bucks on Republic but in fact Russia became republic. With full attributes of democracy - free elections, one of the most democratic Constitution of that time."
And it lasted how long untill grabbed by the commies?
I told your - less than 1 year.
But the question is still here - how it could happen that after less than 1 year after free election democratically elected government was overthrown, and in the following Civil War defeated by uneducated, bad trained and poor armed people? How can you explain that?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well. the what-if's are always a challenge.
Since Russia was pretty much fed up with the Romanov's it was time for a change, and there was someone to blame, straight away. I'd put my bucks on that some kind of a democracy/republic, even something close to what the USA has would have worked better then Stalin though.
Romanovs were just like a signboard to a system that was rotten from the very bottom.
In February 17 Emperor simply deserted.
A gang of crooks that struggled for power since maybe 1912 got the power. They failed to keep power from bolsheviks, small party sponsored by Germans. From March to November they screwed everything up so bad that Army had to retreat again after all the achievements of 1916.
Democracy failed. Then came bolsheviks and saved the country.
Originally posted by Angus
So, if you see that point, my other point is that totaliarianism doesn't work on a big scale, if at all, and all "cures" of such regimes are a fake.
Totalitarism is the ONLY way that works on a big scale, when it comes to "do or die". 1941 evacuation of Soviet industry couldn't be done by a "democratic"regime with "free enterprising".
Originally posted by Angus
I put Stalin right to the next seat by Hitler.
Not a wise statement. I advised you to read "Rebel" by Camus, didn't I?
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Following World War 2, many nations quickly changed their status, partially thanks to ramped up war production, and partially to the fact that technology had to be implemented quickly - same thing during peace years could take long time.
United states accelerated its growth after WW2, same can be said for france, UK and prabably even germany. I guess we should "thank" Hitler for starting it ?
And what? None of that nations could launch the first Sputnik or man into space, none could competed with US in nuclear race. If we take in consideration starting conditions just 25 years back, in 1925, you would see the difference. 90% of population couldn't read, almost all educated people - doctors, engineers, teachers - emigrated. There was nothing, no universities, schools, all infrastructure was ruined.
Originally posted by fd ski
I'm afraid your logic is somewhat backwards. It speaks to versatility and courage of Russian people that they won World War II DESPITE Stalin.
Your peoples current love affair with Putin is disturbing at best.
It is nothing but your opinion. It should be proved.
Originally posted by fd ski
As for the "next invasion" - i'm afraid you are simply affirming stereotype of paranoid russian. Who will invade you ? China? Paraguay ? With what ?
United States can't handle Iraq in place, your mighty army can pacify Chechia. Are you really worried about mighty Polish Army with its 100 000 troops burning down Moscow again ?
Do you really believe that your nation is most oppressed of them all ? Invasions by mighty Poland and Mongols ? Care to mention power of Russia in 18th and 19th Centuries ? When it owned Poland ?
Russians aren't any more liable to being invaded then others. Russians happend to invade others, just the same. Hilarious thing is, all those invasions you write about were mostly in the name of squabbling between "blue bloods" rather then nationality or nationhood. Not particularly different from today, is it ? Look at bad horrible "insert country here" and don't look where my government is stealing the money".... applies to all nations.
It is better to be safe than sorry. Iraq also thought "who would invade us?" but...
Originally posted by fd ski
In summary, Stalin was a salamander. Straight and simple. He was a murderous bastard who should rot in hell. Hopefully right along side with many other "leaders" like himself...
Oh, I don't want even try to argue with that! Millions of Russians still think that Stalin was the great leader, and it is more than enough for me. And, by the way, I am atheist, I don't believe in hell. Person is alive while his good deeds live in the world, in the memory of people. Not many of the Presidents of US could compete with Stalin on this field.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Comparing the USA in the 30's to USSR is actually quite interesting.
USA goes a bit left, "New Deal" and all that, and into a boom.
Russia goes into starvation and purging at the same time, after an optimistic launch in the 20's.
After the war, USA sits on top as the most powerful state in the world.
There is an opinion that Stalin saved the US from Depression. Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with USSR just to be free to sell American technology for Soviet gold.
Last starvation here - 1933, rally bad harvest, next and really the last one came in 1947, and wasn't nearly as bad.
Purging: there was a need to get rid from the hangmen of the Civil War, as well as from incompetent partisan "generals". During a 1938 war with Japan (Hasan lake conflict) a Far East Front commander, Marshall Bluher was only drinking himself dead, riding a tank waving his saber in short periods of soberity. Now he's a well-known victim of bloody repressions while he 100% deserved what he got.
USA took part in WWII mostly as a commercial supplier, trading with both sides, calling overpriced supplies to USSR an "aid". "Aid" payed with pure gold, my ass. If you look more carefully you'll understand that the US was the only winner in WWII. At the same time USSR, that just got out of medieval age, got everything we got before 1941 burnt to ashes, and, nevertheless, got a Bomb in 1949 and reached to Space in 1957, just 12 years after a War.
-
Bartek, nice to see you back here! Do you use ICQ? Mine is 4627619. BTW, Vad, I'll be glad to talk to you too, now we work as a team even without communication ;)
Originally posted by fd ski
Hilarious thing is, all those invasions you write about were mostly in the name of squabbling between "blue bloods" rather then nationality or nationhood. Not particularly different from today, is it ? Look at bad horrible "insert country here" and don't look where my government is stealing the money".... applies to all nations.
Mongol invasion was in no way a war between "elites". As well as nazi invasion on June 22nd 41. It was a fight for the right to live.
Can you call a Polish invasion in 1920 a "squabbling between "blue bloods""? I was surprised to know that many young Poles think it was Soviet Russia who invaded Poland in 1920... :(
Originally posted by fd ski
In summary, Stalin was a salamander. Straight and simple. He was a murderous bastard who should rot in hell. Hopefully right along side with many other "leaders" like himself...
Bartek, that bloody Stalin insisted on re-creating an independent Polish state in 1945 in Potsdam, when "allies" said Poles are just a nuisance.
I think that Berlin had to be divided in two occupation zones, Soviet and Polish. 80,000 Polish troops perished in Berlin operation, and I can't understand why France got a zone in Berlin and Poland didn't. JVS understood that, while "allies" just wanted to grab something they didn't earn.
-
Just some fresh air:
(http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/7/soustov.f/0_5986_3029c704_L.jpg)
;)
-
She's fresh, the picture on the wall is from a mass murderer.
-
Originally posted by Vad
I told your - less than 1 year.
But the question is still here - how it could happen that after less than 1 year after free election democratically elected government was overthrown, and in the following Civil War defeated by uneducated, bad trained and poor armed people? How can you explain that?
A good lesson to look at is S-America,- where this happens (or rather happened) all the time. HOW? Well, sort of comes with some military and secret police strength.
And Boroda, is she a Georgian like uncle Joe? :D