Soviet Union: Good thing or Bad thing? [Archive]

Pangur Bán

May 26, 2002, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Noble_Sniper
People are getting "hyper-sensitive" because you are putting down the United States and right now there is a huge amount of national pride around here in the United States so if you don't want people to get "hyper-sensitive" than don't put down the United States. That is all.

I'm really not trying to put down the USA, note the comment on the first post "maybe this is a good thing". I was rather trying to put forward the argument that the Soviet Union provided balance. (Of course the rivalry nearly ended civlization). This is an argument that many people buy (not necessarily including myself).

Originally posted by Xiahou-Dun
Well this part didn't bother me. I was just wondering why the US didn't for 4 YEARS go on a Nuke spree (While no other country had any). Kind of blows the "And the Soviet Union managed to keep America in check for decades, preventing it from nuking every country it felt like."

To say that this "kind of blows it out of the water" is an absurdity in the extreme, even if sprig is wrong. It's equivalent to saying that a 25 year old man will never have any children because he hasn't had any. Passion really seems to reduce the quality of arguments. The reality is that America (or any power) probably would have used nukes at some point had they been able to get away with it. I think I remember hearing that only the Chinese prevented them using them in Vietnam (I COULD BE WRONG). The main reason is that America is not a monarchy, it frequently changes ruler and it is surely likely that one of these might have been tempted to use them again. But argument should not be interpreted too harshly.

originally posted by noble_sniper
People are getting "hyper-sensitive" because you are putting down the United States and right now there is a huge amount of national pride around here in the United States so if you don't want people to get "hyper-sensitive" than don't put down the United States. That is all.

It's nothing to do with the American people. A frequent source of misunderstanding derives from the fact that Europeans do not equate peoples with governments as much as Americans tend to. When W. Europeans attack American foreign policy, they take it for granted that it is the government and not the people that will be understood as being attacked. This might not be the case with Arabs or others though. The comment about the nukes was not meant as a put down of the American people.

In Europe, what is often resented is America's position as a champion of rich capitalist organizations (I do not resent this BTW), not the stars and stripes or America's love of freedom. America has the same image for people who do hate immoral corporations and ultra-capitalist economics as Austria and Russia had for early-19th century German liberals. If some people hate the Americans as a people, it is for different reasons. I think Europeans are guilty, though, of forgetting their debt to America. Without America, all of Europe would be run either by fascist regimes or by communist dictators. Stalin or Hiler and their successors!

The first post was designed to open a debate, not attack the American people. I admire American achievements and many of their values; most people do. But most of the world is not American, and America's success in exporting its culture and economic philosophy make it resented. The Americans who say that the USA gets harsh press are probably right, but this is because America is so powerful, not because it is American.

Noble_Sniper

May 26, 2002, 10:56 PM

thank you for clearing that up calgacus, but I think I will back out of this argument, you are clearly a better arguer than myself.

Xiahou-Dun

May 26, 2002, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by calgacus
To say that this "kind of blows it out of the water" is an absurdity in the extreme, even if sprig is wrong. It's equivalent to saying that a 25 year old man will never have any children because he hasn't had any. Passion really seems to reduce the quality of arguments. The reality is that America (or any power) probably would have used nukes at some point had they been able to get away with it. I think I remember hearing that only the Chinese prevented them using them in Vietnam (I COULD BE WRONG). The main reason is that America is not a monarchy, it frequently changes ruler and it is surely likely that one of these might have been tempted to use them again. But argument shouldn't not be interpreted too harshly. I will aswer point by point.

1. What is equivatent to a "spree" (preventing it from nuking every country it felt like)
2.Opinions without backing will reduce the quality of arguements as well.
3. The US president prevented the US from using nukes in Vietnam.
4. A US president cannot just hit a button and send off a nuke without a valid reason. Only in a time of War/National Emergency does he have the power. Tempting or not it doesn't work that way. And on top of that most of the US wouldn't have it. The only way most Americans would even think of using one was if the US was attacked by a nuke. Did you see a nuke dropped on Afganistan? If there has every been a time (in modern times) that the US would had ever drop another one that would had been it. Strange the "War Mongering Americans" didn't.

dannyevilcat

May 27, 2002, 01:35 AM

I see it this way: no USSR= no Stalin= no traumatic industrialization= Nazi victory in Europe. Third Reich... Soviet Union... which one was worse? That's subjective. Trade one "evil empire" for another.

Was the USSR a good thing or a bad thing? It was a real thing, and real things are flawed (meaning both.)

Regarding the U.S. plans to invade USSR? I can't imagine that being anything more than one of a zillion contingency plans, which although drawn up would never in a million years get the greenlight from any president.
There was even a contingency plan drawn up to invade Canada! Making plans makes good sense. It allows for immediate implementation of strategy.

tomberry

May 27, 2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Xiahou-Dun
I will aswer point by point.

1. What is equivatent to a "spree" (preventing it from nuking every country it felt like)
2.Opinions without backing will reduce the quality of arguements as well.
3. The US president prevented the US from using nukes in Vietnam.
4. A US president cannot just hit a button and send off a nuke without a valid reason. Only in a time of War/National Emergency does he have the power. Tempting or not it doesn't work that way. And on top of that most of the US wouldn't have it. The only way most Americans would even think of using one was if the US was attacked by a nuke. Did you see a nuke dropped on Afganistan? If there has every been a time (in modern times) that the US would had ever drop another one that would had been it. Strange the "War Mongering Americans" didn't.

Here my answers to your question:

1. A spree not always mean 10, 20 or 100. 5 elephants running in
a city will be treated as a swarm but 5 bees won't. If America would hae be the only one to possess nuclear bombs they would have used in Korea, Vietnam and Cuba (ok maybe not this one because it's so close). Thats a spree for me.

2. What do you mean by that? Do you expect him to have proofs? Where on a internet forum so I don't think any of us can provide valid proofs.

3. Could be. But he also permit the most inhumans wepons to be uses (napalm, toxic chemicals, gases, etc) and you tell me that that he would not have use nuclear weapons ensuring a quick winning and ending all the protestations in the whole world against the USA?

4. Your argument on Afghanistan not valid. How many american soldiers have die in the past 6 months? Not many. Is american people protest about that war? Certainly not. I agree that america will use a nukes only in a war where they loses many troops.

Xiahou-Dun

May 27, 2002, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by tomberry
Your argument on Afghanistan not valid. How many american soldiers have die in the past 6 months? Not many. Is american people protest about that war? Certainly not. I agree that america will use a nukes only in a war where they loses many troops.

So for the US to bring out the Nukes it will have to lose troops first? 3000 people dead doesn't count? I find your arguement on Afghanistan invalid. And that's my opinion.

tomberry

May 27, 2002, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Xiahou-Dun

So for the US to bring out the Nukes it will have to lose troops first? 3000 people dead doesn't count? I find your arguement on Afghanistan invalid. And that's my opinion.

Well yes. If not, what the use of an army? Or, at least, it has have a serious treat. The conflict in Afghanistan is hardly a war. The american do not fear to lose it and they are searching for Ben Laden so throwing a nuke would be a bad idea. As I said, no country will use a nuke lightly. The examples I said were majors conflics not skirmish agains poor equippeds troops.

Stefan Haertel

May 28, 2002, 07:43 AM

To get back to the original question, I think the USSR, as was the CSSR, the GDR, etc. etc. were bad things.
I am a sympathizer to the communistic/marxistic ideology. But I must confirm that this is an ideology, much like a philosophy (perhaps even something close to a religion), but not a valid form of governing a state.
Trying to carry through a communistic state as the USSR or the PRC automatically leads to the loss of freedom, and to oppression. Opponents of this system would become dangerous and will be jailed or even murdered.
The only proper way of governing a state is the way the people want it. And in most cases, that's a democratic government. Much like Winston Churchill, I hate democracy, I think it is a horrible government form, and yet, it's the best one ever tried, and I have no idea of how we could do it better.

Again, I sympathize with the communistic ideas, especially the attempt to eliminate social injustice and capitalism, but on the other hand, that is not purely communistic.

Now to several issues of this thread.

I personally doubt that the United States of America, at any time, sympathized with any "nuke spree".
I am a strickt opponent of the current presidents foreign policy, I am a strickt opponent to the presidents policy in general (which is not to be misunderstood as a strickt opponent of the U.S., I am a great admirer of the American people), and I would have been a very strickt opponent to former presidents as well, especially such as Reagan, or Bush I.
But I doubt, with all my heart, that George W. Bush, as disgusting as I think he is, would actually consider of using nuclear weapons, in his "War Against Terror", or in any other war.

Furthermore, I think everyone agrees with me that a state killing its own people somewhere went the wrong way.
Every state killing (or executing) its own people by law or not should be found guilty of human rights abuse. That presently (presently!) includes Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, the United States of America, Burma, Pakistan, Iraq, Russia, any other, you name it. Counting those states who legally, illegaly, or in any way kill, no matter of what cause, is unfortunately impossible.
Just for the record, I include Germany as well. There is no death penalty in Germany (fortunately), but the governments agreement to join the war on terror is enough. Fighting a war includes killing people, and this killing is approved by the government.
Yes this is pacifist.

Serutan

May 28, 2002, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by calgacus
The reason I'm opening this thread is because the Soviet Union seems to have become

fashionable in Europe, loads of young people wearing T-shirts with "CCCP" or the "USSR"

printed on the front.

The beginning of the Soviet Union promised a world communist state and every poor

person in the world was filled with hope. After a while, it began to lose track of it's

original revolutionary aims and they ended up with Stalin as leader, with all the nasty

things that this man was responsible for. But he did manage to defeat the Nazis, which

was possibly a greater evil to the world.
And the Soviet Union managed to keep America in check for decades, preventing it from

nuking every country it felt like. And it provided opposition to America's form of

capitalism in the 3rd world. Now that it has gone, America is free to do what it wants.

But maybe this is a good thing.

My short answer to the question is: The SU was probably good for world
peace, but very, very bad for those who had live in it, or its satellite
states.

First, the good: The existence of the SU, and its hostile attitude
towards the West did several things.

1) It kept the US from reverting to isolationism after WWII.
Hence the "kept US in check" is nonsense. As evidence, I
cite the demilitarization of the US from 1945-48,
reversed only after the combination of the coup in
Czechoslovakia and the Berlin blockade.

2) It (IMO) spurred Western Europe towards cooperation
and semi-unification (EEC, European Union). I am of
course assuming that most Europeans consider these
good things.

3) "Brushfire" wars were a lot less of a problem, because niether
superpower wanted them to get out of hand. After all a general war
was not at all in anyone's interest since it was *way* too likely
to go nuclear (tactical if not strategic).

The bad:

The Soviet regime used Communism as a window dressing, but never
attempted to establish anything like what Marx and Engels
envisioned. It was a police state, run for the exclusive benefit
of the rulers, pure and simple. There's a book called "Lenin's Tomb"
that totally (and convincingly) debunks the myth that Lenin was any
better than Stalin (Molotov said that "compared to Lenin, Stalin
was a lamb"), and lays out the horrors of the Soviet period better
than I could. Also, it is amusing to note the foriegn policy
of the commissars bore a striking resemblance to that of the tsars...

BTW, I agree that Stalin, bad as he was, was a lesser evil than
Hitler. Eastern Europeans might take issue, though...

Misc:

I am not real happy with the near unrestricted capitalism here,
because it has the same flaw that Marx's Communism had: It ignores
human nature. Marx failed to see that people need incentives to
be productive (i.e. work for the common good), and provides none
in his system. Capitalism assumes the system will be self-correcting,
ignoring the fact that once someone gets successful, they could use
their position to crush the competition, and eliminate the corrective
element that competition is supposed to bring (i.e. J.D. Rockefeller, Sr.
and Bill Gates).

Where do you get "America is free to do as it wants"? It simply
isn't true. If it were, our forces would already be in Iraq (Can you
say "tar baby"?). Both Bush Sr. and Clinton worked with Europe.
Even Bush, Jr. is finding he can't always have it his own way.
In fact, some commentators here claim we give Europe far too much
say. I suspect if one split the difference between the quoted
perception and the American commentators, something like the real
situation might emerge.

I suspect that one thing that Europeans don't like about US
foriegn policy is its lack of consistency. It has whipsawed about
over the last 30 years (Nixon/Ford -> Carter -> Reagan/Bush Sr. ->
Clinton -> Bush Jr.), while a change in government in Western Europe
seems to have a much less dramatic effect (with the possible exception
of Mrs. Thatcher). It would complicate one's life if you can't
be sure of the long term plans of your biggest ally...

For What It's Worth.

Wilkey

Charles XII

Jun 03, 2002, 02:08 PM

The Soviets were better than the Tsars, because, despite being a dictatoral their propaganda forced them to provid some level of Welfare, and Health Care to their poor.
The truth id that when a socialist goverment becomes dictatoral they are transformed into extreme rightests.

amadeus

Jun 04, 2002, 07:16 AM

Anyone that would vote for the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union saying that previous leaders did a "good thing" -- you've obviously then cannot see totalitarian powers for what they are.

Beam

Jun 04, 2002, 08:10 AM

Voted equally good as bad, but that is just because IMHO there are some good points and a lot of bad points.

First of all, in the days of the Tsars Russia was a backward country with a totalitarian and oppressing regime. The 1917 revolution was a successfull attempt to overthrow that regime and start something new and promising.

The implementation of the idea however was very bad and the likelyhood of succes very low anyway. This because Communism was developed with the situation in the Western industrializing countries in mind. Laborers at that time were exploited by capitalist regimes. In Russia / SU industrialization only really started after the revolution and communist ideology was used to sell forced industrialization to the equally exploited labor force.

The second thing that went really wrong here was the aftermath of WWI were many foreign countries attempted to turn back the revolution and reinstall a tsarist regime and these attempts were almost successfull. Also the call to power from Stalin did not do a lot of good to communist ideas.

IMHO all of this resulted in enormous paranoia in the SU and a fear of everything being communist in Western Europe.

Would nazism have been victorious if the SU had not existed? Without the SU nazism might not have existed itself IMHO.

What about the development in nuclear weapons? After WWII Russia / SU had been almost destroyed three times within 30 years, add to this paranoia thinking and bingo. The whole of the Cold War is about fear for the other party preparing a surprise.

The process of change in Russia going on now is still a difficult one and it is hard to embrace the now available liberty if so little of its advantages are at hand for the population.

amadeus

Jun 04, 2002, 08:23 AM

Of course Russia advanced after the Communists took over, but does that mean that they are any more powerful now than they would have been if they had a republican form of government?

I won't say Czar Nicholas was any treasure, but when you compare it to Stalin's purges, I think a fair republic would be better.

Hurricane

Jun 04, 2002, 08:35 AM

If Russia was good or bad depends of course on where you are looking from. For Eastern Europe, it was a catastrophe.

As Beammeuppy says, I don´t think nazism would have made a very big influence on the world without communism (maybe something like Franco´s regime in Spain), so Soviet was bad for Western Europe, too.

For USA, on the other hand, it was a good thing. They might well have stayed isolationist, meaning inefficient production and thus a worse competitive position than Europe or Japan. American and Soviet influence in third-world countries (with both sides financing guerilla wars) meant they effectively hindered these countries from developing (again, making USA even more competitive).

amadeus

Jun 04, 2002, 08:45 AM

The United States was attacked by Imperial Japan, though. How can you say that the USSR was a good thing? The only good thing, theorhetically, is the technological advancement we made during the Cold War.

Beam

Jun 04, 2002, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Of course Russia advanced after the Communists took over, but does that mean that they are any more powerful now than they would have been if they had a republican form of government?

I won't say Czar Nicholas was any treasure, but when you compare it to Stalin's purges, I think a fair republic would be better.

In general terms I agree, yet a republican form probably would not have had a good change of success either. Compare the Weimar republic in Germany in the 20'ies which did not survive. Of course there are reasons for that as well, what I am trying to say is that adoption of a great idea not neccesarely will result in real life success. The Democratization process in Western Europe has taken 1,5 century (1848 - now) and I am not sure if we can be happy with all of its results, as the US systems does have its flaws.

The Poetin regime isn't very democratic but it seems to get things done. It however is a leader based regime and therefore highly dependant on the mood of individuals. I hope for the Russians that it will evolve in a more democratic form eventually where they can enjoy the real benefits.

Czar Nicholas vs. Comrad Joseph: on a badness scale from 1 to 10 my vote is 9 for the Czar and a perfect 10 for our Comrad.

Monarchy vs. Republic. The constitutional Monarchy as Holland and many other Western European countries have is as democratic as republican forms as in Germany. Our Queen has no significant power at all and mostly makes the press for ceremonial and family affairs. Hm, I could start a thread on that as well.

Vrylakas

Jun 04, 2002, 11:33 AM

Beammeuppy wrote:

Compare the Weimar republic in Germany in the 20'ies which did not survive.

While it didn't survive, the Weimar Republic actually did manage to do a lot of good for Germans. It was the victim of bad press, and the nationalists blamed it for the defeat of 1918 (when in fact the Reichswehr was really defeated in the field by the Allies, a fact the nationalists willfully ignored). Stresemann for instance stabilized the war-battered economy, convinced the French to withdraw from the Ruhr in 1923 and was eventually able throughout the 1920s to negate most of the punitive aspects of the Versailles Treaty, effectively nullifying the reparations through the Dawes Plan. One of the few articles Stresemann couldn't overturn from the Versailles Treaty was articles 231-247, laying out exclusive blame for the whole war and all its consequences on Germany alone. This was political ammunition for the nationalists, and Stresemann's death only forestalled the inevitable rightward turn in German elections as Germany entered the 1930s.

The image of Weimar Germany being impotent and ineffective is a myth, one created and fostered by German nationalists of the interbellum years in their bids to gain power. When Gallieni stopped and drove back the German assault on Paris in the first months of the war in 1914, von Moltke is supposed to have said that Germany had lost its one chance to win the war, and all it could hope for now was a negotiated settlement. His successor, Falkenhayn, eventually reached similar conclusions. Only Hindenburg and Ludendorf held on to the belief that a complete German victory was possible until September 1918. The German people were never told of these doubts, however, getting a steady stream of optimistic news reports about great victories throughout the war, until very suddenly being told in September that things weren't going very well. They associated Weimar with that defeat, and the nationalists played that political card well.

This is relevant to this thread because we will never know what Russia may have been like under another Tsar or under a Kerensky government. It is true that the Soviet people did see progress under the USSR in the 20th century, but I would counter with the questions 1. at what cost? (i.e., millions dead in the gulags and massive pollution) and 2. would Russians have gotten farther under a non-communist government?

Beam

Jun 05, 2002, 01:59 AM

History represents the way we look and interpret events in the past and hopefully learn something for the future.

What I am trying to say is that government forms in itself can be promising / good but that they can also be very vulnerable to external circumstances if in an unstable environment, and that is what I am reading as well from your post on the Weimar republic! btw did you write it yourself, if so become a history writer!

On Russia in 1917 and afterwards, the combination of a non-fitting ideology and a selfish dictator were the worst that could happen. Could an "ideal" leader have implemented at once the "ideal" government form for the real benefit of all? I doubt because it might be to big a gap from where they were coming from. I know this does not sound very idealistic, well it is real life.

klazlo

Jun 07, 2002, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by calgacus

The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear weapon in 1949. Thus, the Americans had 4 years. The Korean War started in 1950, so the 1st opportunity after ww2 came too late.

The US did go on a nuke "spree" when it had the "opportunity" - in Japan.

MacArthur was fired after he wanted to nuke China in the Korean war, right?

As for the Soviet Union it had good and bad layers as well, maybe a bit more bad than good. It was an experiment for a new political and economic structure with a certain ideology that never existed before. It failed, though, but I think the world could learn a lot from it. Too bad for those people who lived in the communist countries at that time (and now!) but too bad for the free world also because they have to find other enemies! ;) So it is really a multiple question (good for whom, good in what exact period etc.)

Well, talking about the free world, we can say that Dubya is an experiment also. I hope it won't take as long as the Soviet Union...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Homie

Jun 07, 2002, 12:33 PM

People seem to be saying 'good for whom' and 'depends on how you look at it'. I think it is obvious that what calgacus means is if the SU was good In your opinion. Quite simple, DO YOU think it was a good thing.

And would the people writing in yellow please STOP IT! It is difficult to read.

akinkhoo

Jun 08, 2002, 04:04 AM

I believe people miss the point.
the soviet union create great focus....

a focus which give birth to NATO
a focus that unified western europe
a focus that begun the space exploration
a focus which saw man on moon, and modular space station
a focus for non european power to bargain on

India, pakistan, china, korea, middle east all modernisation their power due to soivet incident. It ended european imperialism together with WWII.

they didn't do good for themselve,
but without them, we would become lazy (like now)
I would perfer soviet than terrorist keeping us alert!

Homie

Jun 08, 2002, 08:40 AM

I don't believe the SU ended European Imperialism, It was ended partly because of ww2 and mostly because of the democratic, equality and freedom for all type of thinking.

starlifter

Jun 08, 2002, 08:57 AM

The SU was the Evil Empire... a blight on humanity and mankind. Historical revisionists can't change that.

The major Red Menace today is the evil Red Chinese, who kill their own citizens by the hundreds of thousands. Further, their evil leader have publically stated and subsequently confirmed that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons and any force necessary to regain the phyisical land of Tiawan, even if it means killing every last inhabitant. This will escalate almost immediately if the members of the UN move to offically recognize Taiwan.

So the SU was a cesspool of evil, as are the evil Red Chinese. This does not condemn every citizen of these nations... in fact, the average people are pretty good overall. The governments and the leaders are the ones that belong on (or in) the ash heap of history.

BTW, the fact that people can look back and rationalize a few "good" things that occured indirecly, based on the existance of a monsterously evil nation like the SU (or Red China) does not mitigate the evils they wrought upon mankind and civilization.

:cool:

klazlo

Jun 08, 2002, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by starlifter
The SU was the Evil Empire... a blight on humanity and mankind. Historical revisionists can't change that.

BTW, the fact that people can look back and rationalize a few "good" things that occured indirecly, based on the existance of a monsterously evil nation like the SU (or Red China) does not mitigate the evils they wrought upon mankind and civilization.

:cool:

Your opinion is based on (1) your perception and (2) the information that your government and the media presents. I grew up in a communist country. I would have been stupid to buy all the propaganda rubbish about the west that my government presented. It was the same in the west. Governments (any kind) always love using a threat to keep the home attention away of real problems. In the socialism we were prepared for an imperalist invasion. In the west people were prepared for a communist attack. For whom was it beneficial? You? Me? I don't think so.

If someone buys all the goverment propaganda rubbish that's too bad. Sorry guys, the world is not black and white, in fact 99 pct of it is grey. ;)

tonberry

Jun 08, 2002, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by starlifter
The SU was the Evil Empire... a blight on humanity and mankind. Historical revisionists can't change that.

The major Red Menace today is the evil Red Chinese, who kill their own citizens by the hundreds of thousands. Further, their evil leader have publically stated and subsequently confirmed that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons and any force necessary to regain the phyisical land of Tiawan, even if it means killing every last inhabitant. This will escalate almost immediately if the members of the UN move to offically recognize Taiwan.

So the SU was a cesspool of evil, as are the evil Red Chinese. This does not condemn every citizen of these nations... in fact, the average people are pretty good overall. The governments and the leaders are the ones that belong on (or in) the ash heap of history.

BTW, the fact that people can look back and rationalize a few "good" things that occured indirecly, based on the existance of a monsterously evil nation like the SU (or Red China) does not mitigate the evils they wrought upon mankind and civilization.

:cool:

Wow I hope you are either very young or you just post this comment for fun. Viewing the Soviet Union as a goulag from the beginning to the end is nonsense.

FredLC

Jun 08, 2002, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by akinkhoo
I believe people miss the point.
the soviet union create great focus....

a focus which give birth to NATO
a focus that unified western europe
a focus that begun the space exploration
a focus which saw man on moon, and modular space station
a focus for non european power to bargain on

India, pakistan, china, korea, middle east all modernisation their power due to soivet incident. It ended european imperialism together with WWII.

they didn't do good for themselve,
but without them, we would become lazy (like now)
I would perfer soviet than terrorist keeping us alert!

Hehehehe. I believe that you are looking at it with glasses made of Darwin’s “theory of evolution”... That progress comes in the form of adaptation, as a response to struggle.

I think such a view is utter reductionism, because it applies to natural biological processes of development. In terms of sociological growth, on the other hand, the human ability to think is a way to avoid that path and allow human race to develop through rationalism, instead of suffering.

Of course, I’m speaking potentials, and I don’t deny that SOME challenge does seen to trigger a faster development… but to say that it is a sine qua non condition is also not accurate. Also, if that were true, the harder the conditions, the more developed would be the society, what would make Africa’s or Middle Eastern’s countries the greatest nations in the earth.

Way I see things, Americans are not “lazy” or “lacking focus” because they “miss their greatest foe”. I see it quite the other way around – a nation in its peak, that had defeated all its serious opposition and is strong in its leadership.

When I see people saying that it’s crumbling and that it has lost it’s way, I think it’s quite a contradiction, because it shows more and more that it’s living a true golden age. AND in a period of peace, because its present wars are no more than skirmishes, as someone have pointed out before.

Regarding the theme of the thread, there are some considerations I would like to add and/or reinforce:

First, and I don’t think it was stressed enough so far, what happened in SU wasn’t by a long shot the idea of Marx… I use to say that he would jump out of his grave if he could know what people have made with his ideas. In Marx’s view, socialism would develop slowly, as a natural response to people’s indignation with the abuses of capitalism. And the communism would be just a momentary step until the development of the socialism – this one, being the ultimate goal.

Problem is that the next step was never taken, and the presumably “temporary government” that should be created just as a way to “return the power and the means of production to the people” has become permanent… a never completed transition, which’s flaws and imperfections have charged a terrible price to it’s own citizens.

In all those senses, the SU was an aberration… what does not mean at all that communism or socialism per si are intrinsically bad, or that they mean dictatorships. Those concepts are not linked. And if one day it comes to exist again, I hope it follows Marx steps of development to increase its probability of success.

Also, there’s one thing that always bothers me when people speaks of communism/socialism and capitalism… its when they say that communism is a curse for its citizens.

It is that people tend to think about the most developed capitalist nations, and forget the poor ones, when they compare. See, there is a reason why the world was once classified as 1th, 2th and 3th world, and that reason is the fact that the socialist world never developed living conditions that could match the ones in the rich nations, but were all able to provide better life than the poor nations.

Only after communism has imploded we were able to find in, like, Cuba, conditions that are as bad as the ones that always existed in the northeast of Brazil. To this day, I never saw such bad conditions in the old European Communist Block, even with the wars they faced with the crumbling of the SU.

And I don’t think anyone is as bad as some African Nations, which have the lowest grades on “human development” in the globe.

If we want to compare both economical blocks, we shouldn’t focus on what’s good in one and bad in the other, but to look at both as a whole. And, as, no doubt, there is far more people poor than there is rich people in the world, I wouldn’t say that capitalism is exactly a success. I just think that it’s successful extreme have much more influence than it’s failed extreme, and, as the first is the leading block, capitalism goes on.

I don’t think that capitalism has proved to be “good”, and equally I don’t think that communism has proved to be “bad”. Both could work; it just happens that in the given conditions, just one did. Too bad for us, that now will be stuck with one single option for quite some time.

I am capitalist, always have been, and that’s the orientation of my homeland, so you can see it’s not a biased opinion.

One more thing: I hear many of you people say that SU was the “red threat” and things like that. Well, USA is not Mother Theresa as well. It has quite a share of skeletons in the closet too. Its involvement in the overthrow of democracy in Brazil (and other South American lands) is as bad as any rule SU has imposed in its vicinities, the fact that they didn’t take the administrative control over us does not makes them less guilty (before people say that USA never done that, I say look at the thread “reasons for the crashing in WTC”, where I answered exactly that). To us, at least, the noxious part of USA influence (not all were bad) was much more present and real than the hypothetical threat of SU invasion.

Now, to give straight answers to the question:

Soviet Union – good or bad? BAD. Those who kills their own are BAD, BAD, BAD, no doubt. In that sense, USA is BY FAR better.

But it’s not all good as well, contrary to what some seen to think.

Regards :) .

SKILORD

Jun 08, 2002, 05:59 PM

This is almost as rough an argument as anyone pertaining to religion.......

do you worship Stalin?

(i voted neither)

SKILORD

Jun 08, 2002, 06:04 PM

hehe though if you think about it if they had won the Cold War (i can't see them doing it but if they had) A similar thread would be probably out there on whether or not Capitalism and the United States were good things.

FredLC

Jun 08, 2002, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by SKILORD
This is almost as rough an argument as anyone pertaining to religion.......

do you worship Stalin?

(i voted neither)

Is this for me? If so, i can only think you didn't read my post carefully.

If not, sorry.

regards. :)

SKILORD

Jun 08, 2002, 07:34 PM

i just saw the intense argueing i didn't actually read anything that closely

Pangur Bán

Aug 11, 2002, 09:47 AM

em...there seems to be quite an even split.

Smoking mirror

Aug 11, 2002, 10:54 AM

Stalin was much, much worse than Hitler.
Between 1917 and 1953 66,000,000 people were killed in the USSR that does not include the 30,000,000 known to have died in the second world war.

How many people did Hitler kill? (I don't know, I don't have the figures here, but it was probably around 7-10 million if you include all the german soldiers sent to their death in WWII).

But that is because hitler was only in power for a short period- if he had won WWII the true figure of people killed by the Nazis would have been far greater, especialy in the East.
I guess they are both just as bad as each other- being two sides of the same coin- Any form of political extremism is bad, because it takes political power out of the hands of the people.

Although democratic socialism is something that America and Europe are going to have to look at in the future, if ever the gap between rich and poor countries is ever going to be adressed (The UN does something of the sort by diverting money from the rich countries of europe to the poorer ones, for example spain and the eastern european countries).

Hamlet

Aug 11, 2002, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
Although democratic socialism is something that America and Europe are going to have to look at in the future,

Several points:

1 - Stalin was not a Democratic socialist.

3 - Democratic socialism is not extreme.

2 - Many European countries already have long histories of democratic socialist government, political influence, and strong socialist influences on economic organisation, such as welfare states.

Smoking mirror

Aug 11, 2002, 08:08 PM

Yes sorry, I didn't make my self clear perhaps I should have underlined Democratic.
Yes stalin wasn't a democratic socailist, he was an evil tyrant- What I meant was, sticking to the middle path (democratic capitalism, with leanings towards Anarcho-supercapitalism- I.E. reduced powers of the state, increased freedom for business) is perhaps not a good direction to continue to follow.

Am I right in saying in American politics that traditionaly the republicans are for lower taxes and reduced social services while the Democrats are more directed towards higher taxes and increased suport for the poor? I always get the two mixed up.

Well in England traditionaly it has always been the conservatives who offer greater freedoms to business (lower taxes etc.. mean business can opperate at higher profit levels) while reducing public spending. The labour government has always been the oposite- it was the government of the workers of the UK.

The thing is, a socialist government always fairs badly in isolation, because if taxes are high, it reduces prosperity and drives jobs and manufacturing abroard to countries with lower taxes. The gap between rich and poor has to be made smaller and the only way to do that is for governments to work together, not in competition with each other.
Anarcho-supercapitalism is the kind of thing you read about in science fiction- the rise of the "megacorporations"; but it is the natural development of continued economic competion between the superpowers, and there are many reasons why it is a very bad thing; Cheif among those reasons is the Enviroment, the ice caps Are melting, there is documetary evidence of it. The oceans are going to rise, in some places the world is going to get hotter and wetter, while in others it is going to get hotter and Dryer, and with weather patterns 1,000,000s of years old getting disrupted there will be new deserts formed in locations that are currently highly populated. (with the disruption of the gulf stream england is actualy going to get colder- people forget that were are on a similar latitude to Moscow).

This is not conjecture, it is going to happen, and what does George W Bush say on the matter? "hell I don't mind, last year global warming saved me 20billion dollars on heating Alaska! As it is global warming is a good thing for America, but if that changes, then we will have to think about doing something about it".
(perhaps you don't belive me, but thats what he said).

We need to reduce industrial production, we need to reduce consumpition of consumer goods- we need to use our cars less.
Global warming is not something Adam Smith took in to consideration; the very means to reduce the threat to the enviroment goes directly against the driving forces of Capitalism. What the governments of the world need to do is engineer a global economic slow-down, with greater care taken to provide for the people who will loose thier jobs .
What America (by which I mean the government of America- and its driving force- american business) refuses to see is that the only way of reducing the impact of the human race on the enviorment is through international Socialist style reforms- because continued economic growth will only lead to increased impact on the enviroment and ultimately disaster.

Socialism in Russia failed because it was not the right time and place for socialism the soviets just weren't progresive enough, and because of that their socailism took the wrong form. The economy in Civilization is not a very good model of reality, mainly because all you have to do to get rid of polution is build "mass transport systems" and magic "recycling centers" what civ doesn't show is the dificulty of getting people to use these things, and also the huge cost inherent in the gearing down of the economy that would be involved in reducing industrial production.

The time for socailism is Now and soon- because there is a good chance that the rainforests are reaching saturation point, there are fears that there is going to become a point where they just can't function any more, like a lung breathing in tainted air- there will come a day when the whole system fails- and by then we had better find a way to go some where else.

The world of tomorrow will either be a hell of desertsand swamps, or it will be a limbo of unemployment and impoverishment for all. Neither sound very nice, but thats the thing about choice; You can make one or the other, but if you continue to belive that there is no need to make a choice, you will find that time and fate have made it for you.

O.K. this is a bit off subject, but I think its relevant in that it adresses the real question "Is socialism possible, benificial and did the USSR prove that socailism can't work?" to which I would reply, yes socialism is possible, but not in the form developed by the USSR and as such the failure of that particular form of socailism means nothing.

RNolan

Aug 11, 2002, 08:25 PM

Alcibiaties of Athenae

Aug 11, 2002, 09:13 PM

Sometimes it is great fun to read threads, and this was one of them.

Interesting and insiteful posts from all angles, well done folks.

For my money, it was terrible, a regime of oppression and slavery, even if there were good residuals, millions of Russians and hundreds of other racial groups suffered for decades in a system that seemed to have no end, nor little interests in the rights of man, to which I believe should be put above ANY state.

A change from the Czar was certainly needed, but, unfortunatly, Lenin was the man best able to undermine the weak Kerinsky government, and replace it with his "rule by terror", and his ideas that only HE and his cronies knew the right thing to do, the ultimate example of letting intellectual know-it-alls having supreme power, they quicky forget the human equastion, and go for some "greater good', or "supreme ideal", that only they can see or define.

Yes, Stalin did pull the Russians out of centuries of backwardness, with an ironfist that often struck at the innocent far more often then the guilty.

It's also true that the Soviets had several amazing scientific triumphs, like the first orbiting sattelite, and the first human in space, but they were never able to follow up, as free thinking and ideas weren't readily encouraged.

As for the Soviets preventing the US from launching nukes, the idea is foolish, from a technical standpoint, in 1949, when the Russians detonated their nuclear bomb (made from stolen US plans, this is confirmed in the KGB archive, they researched nothing), they lacked a delivery system for it (they were frantically trying to copy the US B-29, which they eventually did, as the Tu-4) untill the mid 50s, and the plane that could deliever it was a sitting duck for interceptors ( the US had moved on to the B-36, then the B-47, and eventually the B-52, all partially or fully jet propelled, while the Russians still had to use Tu-4s).

The Soviet ability to hit the US with Nukes was not a real threat until the balistic missle age of the 1960s, so the premise of "mad" in the 50s is not sound (the Russians could hit Europe, however, a poltically undesirable postion for the US).

The Soviets were DIRECTLY behind the Korean war, and helped heavily in both China and Vietnam, all areas that the US is "blamed for", yet can be layed directly on the Kremlin's door.
What would have happened had South Vietnam not fallen?
Eventually, the regimes would become law abiding and democractic (using South Korea as a model), and would be pressing for union with the poor and corrupt north, instead of the 25 years of poverty and privation that the North won by kicking the US out, some "victory".

Next we can look at the middle east, the Soviets were major arms suppliers to many Arab states, well as sick regimes like Pol Pot's pathet lou (sp?) in Cambodia, were Kmer killed Kmer by the millions!
Or the troubles caused by the Soviets in the sub sahara, and in places like Etheopia and Somalia, all of this was helped along by the Soviets in their game of power politics with the US (who are also guilty of playing along, to the detriment of millions in the affected areas).

The cold war also saw the US suporting disgusting regimes, as long as they wern't connected to the Kremlin, a hateful and hurtful thing to behold, and a disgrace to the wonderful ideals of the United States of America, all brought on by the cold war.

The only good thing about the Soviet Union was it's end.

Good ridence to bad rubbish.

SKILORD

Aug 12, 2002, 01:59 AM

Soviets were neither i will say, I disagree with big governments which is why i can't say they were good but they kept the US from crawling back into it's bottle of isolationism.

But i don't like socialism, it returs to the fantasy where we can all go about and let the government take care of us and noone is motivated to work. Taxes should be low, business encouraged. If i remember correctly, after converting to socialism a European nation (Sweden maybe i dunno) saw enormous rise in the homeless (jobless?) rate.

It doesn't work, may the US survive as Europe plunges herself headfirst into this madness and not decide to follow.

Even if it means picking up the old isolationist bottle again.

u-gene

Aug 12, 2002, 03:09 AM

The only good thing about the Soviet Union was it's end.

The SU was needed to compete with the US. The two polar world is much better than the one polar we have now. I don't think the US would dictate the world what to do if the SU kept on existing.

Talking of Stalin and other bad guys who killed really lots of people, one should remember that if it's not for them, the result of the ww2 might have failed to be the same.

I'm not trying to speak in support of Stalin. I would not like to live in the SU in 30s. But Soviet history is not only Stalin. The same applies to America: killing Indians and oppression of people whose color of skin is not white does not cover the whole history of America as well.

The Soviets were DIRECTLY behind the Korean war, and helped heavily in both China and Vietnam, all areas that the US is "blamed for", yet can be layed directly on the Kremlin's door.

The SU was blamed for Afghanistan. Who stood behind the opposing troops? Need a hint? Should it have not been so, probably we would not have got Sept. 11.

I happened to watch a Mr. Turner's documentary about the ww2. I was shocked. I never thought the history could be revised in such a way. What he told had nothing to do with what really took place. And I've seen many films where brave Americans fought against ever-drunken and dumb Soviets. Guys, that's propaganda. That's so ridiculous to watch.

I suggest we should not be so categoric. The SU and US are equally bad/good.

Alcibiaties of Athenae

Aug 12, 2002, 03:29 AM

I sugest you reread my post more carefully, especially towards the end.

u-gene

Aug 12, 2002, 04:27 AM

I sugest you reread my post more carefully, especially towards the end.

Yeah, I did it before posting. I was not aimed at contradicting you. Just stressed some points that seem important to me.

One more point about science. We were behind America after ww2 because of the war. But it didn't last long. I think both countries were neck and neck by the end of the 50s.

As to the 'stolen' A-Bomb plans, maybe it was so though I haven't heard about it. I know there were a number of R&D centres that were busy developing an A-Bomb. And I always believed it was created without anybody's help or plans.

Soviets were really strong in military production. For instance, our aircraft (SU) and tanks (T-82, if I'm not mistaken) are still considered to be one of the best in the world.

Talking of the SU you should not forget such benefits as free education and health service. Education was also known to be very good. The illiteracy did not exist at all.

Once I came across one article in some newspaper quoting an American expert as saying that in the 70s he was afraid that the Soviet economy might turn out to be more effective than American one. He said he did not feel sure about the outcome of the struggle between the 2 big ones, 'coz Soviets really were a success.

Alcibiaties of Athenae

Aug 12, 2002, 06:39 AM

About A-bombs, the KGB confirmed it, the same with bombers.

Certainly the USSR was quite powerful at one time, but it's economy collasped, hopefully a better Russia will come from it.

As for a bi-polar world, I prefer a great power world, MORE then two countries would certainly be better.

u-gene

Aug 12, 2002, 07:10 AM

As for a bi-polar world, I prefer a great power world, MORE then two countries would certainly be better.

Good point. I do hope it will be so soon.

stalin006

Aug 12, 2002, 07:23 AM

well it is a hard question, bu ti guess it was bad, i could had been good if kruschev (bad spellin) had been alowed to chnage plans and produce consumer goods instead of so many nukes and heavy industry, then the system would had been better, well if the europeans like the USSR........i am going to move to germany! ^_^ they are making a european union, change the blue in their flag to red and.........there is still time !

u-gene

Aug 12, 2002, 07:35 AM

well it is a hard question, bu ti guess it was bad, i could had been good if kruschev (bad spellin) had been alowed to chnage plans and produce consumer goods instead of so many nukes and heavy industry, then the system would had been better

A lot has been told of the weaknesses of the Soviet economy. If the oil prices had been stable during the 80s, the SU might have survived. Who knows... Too vulnerable. No export income means a lack of consumer goods. It was impossible to spare money on military.

stalin006

Aug 12, 2002, 07:56 AM

ok lets look at it in this way, look at china, it is almost as old as teh USSR by now, and its history had problems like the USSR, but yet they dont, they moved away form the soviet way, they have some capitalist idaes now, but not fully, i bet tath w/ in a few years china will be a major economic boom, even bigger than japan was some years ago, and then having so much money their military will be bigger..............

u-gene

Aug 12, 2002, 08:23 AM

I can't see any 'Soviet' way. Because from the 70s it was obvious that it's much easier to sell oil and gas and other resources than finished goods which required some efforts to be pushed into the market.

The Chinese managed to change the system combining both socialism and capitalism. They had a very cheap workforce and very low starting position. They also reduced taxes in some provinces and began encouraging exports and investments.

Probably, we could do better if Soviet bosses had not been so ridiculously conservative. We've got enough resources, both natural and human, well-educated labour force etc. etc. But...

stalin006

Aug 12, 2002, 09:41 AM

i agree w/ the conservativism (except the last soviet one)

veal

Aug 15, 2002, 08:21 AM

I voted a bad thing

The point about CCCP shirts becoming popular in Europe is so true as well, it makes me sick. Every week in the trendy bars around my home I see wannabe wankers wearing CCCP shirts, wearing gucci sunglasses and probably ripped or extremely faded jeans for good measure. It is "cool" and hip man. What a rebel.. I had some friends from eastern Europe visit me and they noticed it and could not believe it. They still remember lining up for food rations as kids, there is absolutely nothing cool and hip about that! They were over here on exchange studying at an English Uni, are planning to travel the world and one is planning to start his own company back at home. They sure as hell don't want the CCCP back.

u-gene

Aug 15, 2002, 08:42 AM

Coming across people wearing T-shirts with Brittish flag on them, I don't say it's a good taste, either.

Food rationing is horrible. But I think there is always something very unpleasant in the history of ANY country, which makes people hate it.

Sorry, but if the UK stopped existed, would Irish people want it back?

veal

Aug 15, 2002, 09:09 AM

I Imagine you are disagreeing with me somehow but I'm not sure what your point is.

Coming across people wearing T-shirts with British flag on them, I don't say it's a good taste, either.

Sure I don't think it is in good taste either. But that is because I think it looks tacky not because they stripped me of my natural heritage forced to me accept another and took away my land.

Sorry, but if the UK stopped existed, would Irish people want it back?

So British imperialism subjugated others. Does that make it ok that the USSR did so as well?

u-gene

Aug 15, 2002, 09:28 AM

So British imperialism subjugated others. Does that make it ok that the USSR did so as well?

Of course, no. It shouldn't, at least.

Just wanna say that we shouldn't be categoric, it's very subjective. There were a lot of good things in SU. I can't say I want it back but it's really a trying question. Many (maybe too many) people remember living in the USSR as their BEST years. I'm not that old to feel nostalgia, but I know lots of Russians could tell me why they want it back. And their words would be justified.

So, it's neither bad nor good, in my opinion.

Switch625

Aug 15, 2002, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by u-gene

Of course, no. It shouldn't, at least.

Just wanna say that we shouldn't be categoric, it's very subjective. There were a lot of good things in SU. I can't say I want it back but it's really a trying question. Many (maybe too many) people remember living in the USSR as their BEST years. I'm not that old to feel nostalgia, but I know lots of Russians could tell me why they want it back. And their words would be justified.

So, it's neither bad nor good, in my opinion.

As an outsider, I wonder if those people who remember the Soviet Union as their best years do so simply because that situation was familiar, and the present one is not. Even a miserable person can take comfort in knowing what is going on and what is expected of him. If you drop him into an unknown situation where he might be better off he may not like it because it confuses him.

Zarn

Aug 15, 2002, 09:45 AM

Ukraine being free from Russia is good. The SU is not good.

veal

Aug 15, 2002, 10:00 AM

Just wanna say that we shouldn't be categoric, it's very subjective. There were a lot of good things in SU. I can't say I want it back but it's really a trying question. Many (maybe too many) people remember living in the USSR as their BEST years. I'm not that old to feel nostalgia, but I know lots of Russians could tell me why they want it back. And their words would be justified.

You know I agree with you there, and think there is a good point in this that you say some RUSSIANS want it back. That is a lot of Russians feel they were better off under the USSR. The other soviet "republics". Baltic's, Hungary. Czech etc. lost their independence and they are sure as hell happy to have it back. But for the Russians I can see how the last decade has been extremely painful as people have to adjust to a free market and I'm sure it was probably too sudden. (Russian default, rouble devaluation etc.. ) So therefore I agree with you that it is perfectly reasonable for some Russians to feel this way.

As a staunch capitalist all I can tell you is stick with it! It will take time but in my opinion the change to a free market economy will in the long run be for the best.

stalin006

Aug 15, 2002, 10:17 AM

they dont sell those CCCP shirts over here........mostly cus 98% of the high school students wont even know waht it is :( i am always trying to teach them or give them some facts......but they sure are ignorant.......... but i managed to buy a real soviet parade hat ^_^

newfangle

Aug 15, 2002, 11:38 AM

OMG, I can't believe I failed to locate this thread before it grew to some 50 posts.

Being a socialist (you right wingers simply call it communism regardless), like Damien said, the USSR set back our cause significantly. Stalinism resulted in the deaths of millions.

However, it limited the US's ability to completely dominate the globe in the last half century, and it was the first country in which the workers rose up (Marxist style). I can't really see Russia if the revolution never took place. Imagine Catherine VII *shudder*.

Ozz

Aug 15, 2002, 12:30 PM

CCCP was a success.

It imho was no worse than the previous
monarchies (even with Stalin murdering
millions, the czars were no better and
alot more incompentent) and was able
to rise from the serf to an industrial
economy built on blood.

Once this was attained, it was time for
it to go. And it died.

nixon

Aug 15, 2002, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by newfangle
OMG, I can't believe I failed to locate this thread before it grew to some 50 posts.

Being a socialist (you right wingers simply call it communism regardless), like Damien said, the USSR set back our cause significantly. Stalinism resulted in the deaths of millions.

However, it limited the US's ability to completely dominate the globe in the last half century, and it was the first country in which the workers rose up (Marxist style). I can't really see Russia if the revolution never took place. Imagine Catherine VII *shudder*.

What do you mean when ye say that "it limited the United States' ability to completely dominate the globe" ?
What do ye actually think we had in mind, conquering Europe and Canada, like the bloodthirsty villains we are? :lol:

We weren't the aggressors, the Soviet Union was. We didn't want to colonize the world, the Soviets wanted to. One of the main objectives of the Soviet Union was the spread of communism all over the world, and soon afterwards turning the respective countries into proxies. One knows very well, the old cliche to the effect that the Soviet Union was merely defending itself by invading other countries; to serve as buffers against a potential attack by the United States. This is a ridiculous postulate. Because the sane man knows that the U.S. would never launch an aggression campaign against Soviet Union with the sole objective --- adding landmass to its empire. The Soviets were instead obliged to launch a war of aggression, as a part of the ideology, somewhere in the world, as a part in turning the entire globe red.

The funny part is, that people actually tend to believe the official Soviet version --- that they simply had to defend themselves by invading other countries, to defend themselves from the evil capitalist U.S. which seeked to fulfil its only objective --- total world domination. :rolleyes: :lol:

newfangle

Aug 15, 2002, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by nixon

What do you mean when ye say that "it limited the United States' ability to completely dominate the globe" ?
What do ye actually think we had in mind, conquering Europe and Canada, like the bloodthirsty villains we are? :lol:

We weren't the aggressors, the Soviet Union was. We didn't want to colonize the world, the Soviets wanted to. One of the main objectives of the Soviet Union was the spread of communism all over the world, and soon afterwards turning the respective countries into proxies. One knows very well, the old cliche to the effect that the Soviet Union was merely defending itself by invading other countries; to serve as buffers against a potential attack by the United States. This is a ridiculous postulate. Because the sane man knows that the U.S. would never launch an aggression campaign against Soviet Union with the sole objective --- adding landmass to its empire. The Soviets were instead obliged to launch a war of aggression, as a part of the ideology, somewhere in the world, as a part in turning the entire globe red.

The funny part is, that people actually tend to believe the official Soviet version --- that they simply had to defend themselves by invading other countries, to defend themselves from the evil capitalist U.S. which seeked to fulfil its only objective --- total world domination. :rolleyes: :lol:

That lovely little rant of your was in vain. When I say "dominate" I refer to the uttermost certainty that the US would go to any measure to assure a complete monopoly over world economics. Oil, forestry, fresh water, etc.... The Soviets kept them at bay during a very important time- when the rest of the world was obliterated by war. Not much would have stopped the US from "liberating" all of Europe.

Keep in mind that everything I say about the US is completely true for the USSR.

stalin006

Aug 15, 2002, 04:46 PM

i agree w/ newfanglethe US does dominate teh world w/ its economic policies, it goes to poor nations, takes the resources, makes the nation eventually poorer in exchange for so called "developing" which ends destroying th environment and the native family values (which are way better than some others.........

EdwardTking

Aug 15, 2002, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by nixon
The Soviets were instead obliged to launch a war of aggression, as a part of the ideology, somewhere in the world, as a part in turning the entire globe red.

When and where was this?

stalin006

Aug 15, 2002, 05:23 PM

mmmh......KOREA, VIETNAM NICARAGUA AFRICA CHINA (indirectly of course) :P

u-gene

Aug 15, 2002, 11:45 PM

We weren't the aggressors, the Soviet Union was.

Cool! Did you read it in a textbook? Probably published in Cold War years. I almost forgot these propaganda things. :lol:

I always wondered how Americans (not all, of course) believe in such a nonsense as the Evil empire (USSR, if some of you forgot) and the Good empire (guess who).

stalin006

Aug 16, 2002, 06:41 AM

well maybe the USSR was historicaly more agresive than nato, altough nato sometimes did teh wrong things..........

nixon

Aug 16, 2002, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by u-gene

Cool! Did you read it in a textbook? Probably published in Cold War years. I almost forgot these propaganda things. :lol:

I always wondered how Americans (not all, of course) believe in such a nonsense as the Evil empire (USSR, if some of you forgot) and the Good empire (guess who).

1) Well one doesn't. As a matter of fact one has the memoirs of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, talking about propaganda, one does not forget easily the propaganda in those books.

2) Is it just too much to ask for, but do you find yourself unable to comprehend the fact that the Soviet Union was the aggressors. One is not pointing at the Russian man in general, one is pointing at the regime. Why do you think the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in '79, started a massive campaign in Africa to instate communist leaders, eventually making the countries proxies of the Soviet state? Expansion. Expansion that would increase any thinkable resource, and make the Soviet Union even more powerful so that it would be an easier task crushing America.

marshal zhukov

Aug 18, 2002, 07:02 PM

The Soviet Union was a good thing.

It showed to the world that the US and Western Europe use double standards whenever the pression is on.
Hungary tried to be free in 1956, the Soviet Union then invaded, and restored the status quo.
What did the US do? Nothing, watched the movement get annihilated.
Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.
There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries.
US sponsored an evil dictatorship in Brazil for 20 years, we are still findind the remains of those that "disappeared "during that period

u-gene

Aug 18, 2002, 11:48 PM

Well one doesn't. As a matter of fact one has the memoirs of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, talking about propaganda, one does not forget easily the propaganda in those books.

So, do you mean that we all should keep on thinking and talking nonsense? Only because we cannot forget propaganda things? OK, I've got a lot to say about McCarthy, Bush, Reagan.., of their spreading propaganda.

Is it just too much to ask for, but do you find yourself unable to comprehend the fact that the Soviet Union was the aggressors

No, it's not much even for a Russian who doesn't understand such simple stuff you're talking about.
But don't you think that the US was/is an agressor, too? Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Yugoslavia... But please do not tell me that everything that was done in the name of love to the mankind, that we all should be grateful to the US for all this.

There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries.

I agree. Thanks for a good point.

klazlo

Aug 19, 2002, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by marshal zhukov
Hungary tried to be free in 1956, the Soviet Union then invaded, and restored the status quo. What did the US do? Nothing, watched the movement get annihilated.

That is true, they were busy at the Suez Canal, and that was way more important issue for them - but being a Hungarian I still cannot blame them for this.

Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.

That's a very good point. During the Cold War both countries did everything they could to support regimes, which were in favor of them and kick out regimes, which were not. Both country used military power if they could and secret operations if there was no other way. Both country was convinced that their ideology is better than the other therefore they have the right to dictate others. Both country tried to push economic pressure on other countries to "convince" or punish them.
And the education about the other country was just a propaganda rubbish in both countries. It's too bad that some people still buy this crap.

nixon

Aug 19, 2002, 11:22 AM

I do understand your point of view. It would be a kind of obvious to a Russian deeming the United States as aggressors. I don't have a clue about your age, but if you were alive, and intelligent, at the time of the Russian quest for the world, running to the the late 1980s before collapsing along with the union itself, it would be an obvious position for you to take.

It's a recurrent and palpable observation by the Russians and even many non-Americans to say that the United States was the aggressor in the sense that we decided to intervene in Vietnam, Korea etc. You may perhaps be familiar with several doctrines, hereof, the famous Truman Doctrine. A theory which pervaded the post-war administrations was the notion about the Domino Theory which you may be familiar with too. The Domino Theory grew out of the Soviet rape of Eastern Europe following the defeat of Nazi Germany, including the ignition of communist insurgencies and guerilla warfare which ravaged the Balkans after the war.

Something had to be done about it, thus hereof the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine etc. I mean, even from a Russian point of view, you must be able to see that we had to do something instead of just standing, watching by and seeing Europe become a part of the Soviet Union.

But you seemed insatiable. Therefore, you ignited even more campaigns with the purpose of controlling the respective countries which had the pleasure of receiving your generous "advice" and "aid material" But what happened to all these countries after a while --- they suddenly went communist all over the place. One's talking about the countries in Africa and South America which eventually become proxies of the Soviet state. Your motive was obvious and very evident to us, and that's why the whole thing about the Domino Theory evolved. Therefore, something had to be done when the Koreas were suddenly thrown into war in the early 1950s, and the same goes with the conflict in Vietnam. Then the treacherous former Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that Southeast Asia wasn't of real concern and interest to the United States, the communists seized the opportunity in ignited a war. All this just for the cause of deterrence, to make sure to you, the Soviet Union, that the United States would do anything in order to defend capitalism and freedom. Yep, that's how it sounded in the 1950s and we still hear it today just in another respect and to a different opponent.

All this "nonsense" about preserving freedom and defending liberty was, of course, distorted in the hostile Soviet press, who of course turned the situation 180 degress and said that it was the U.S. which was on a picnic. This is understandble, to a certain extent, because that's what it says in the Russian history books today. The situation and motives will never, I believe, become understandable to any of the parties involved.

Ah, hoped one shed some light on one's views on the Soviet Union's motives in the post-war period, and one's sure that you have just the opposite view. So one's effort is totally wasted. :D :)

u-gene

Aug 20, 2002, 12:35 AM

Ah, hoped one shed some light on one's views on the Soviet Union's motives in the post-war period, and one's sure that you have just the opposite view. So one's effort is totally wasted.

I'm quite aware of your views. They are understandable, too. And I don't think one's effort has been totally wasted. I'm trying to be flexible. ;)

Two points:
1. If you try to convince me that the SU was an agressor, you don't need to. I know it.
2. If you want me to believe the US was innocent and just protected the weak countries from the monstrous USSR, you don't need to do that, either. I'll never believe it. As one of the messages in the forum went, there's no black, no white, everything's grey.

Both countries did a lot of harm in Cold War years. And you and me are not to blame for it. I'm not saying that actions of the USSR were always justified. I see that plenty of things should never been done. But I see the same problems in the US behavior.

OK, I do realize Vietnam and Korea might still be a painful experience for Americans. But what about Kosovo? The UN voted against, Europe was not happy with it. And at the same time, you decided to attack Yugoslavia. Nobody asked you to. You would not listen to others' points of view. It's not of interest to you.

Some of my friends left Russia for America a while ago. Afterwards, when I talked to them, they told me that mass-media in the US is something horrible. If you know black is black and white is white, they'd convince you that everything is the other way round. So I'm not surprised at learning that e.g. "80% of Americans support the idea of bombing Yugoslavia! Yeah!". That reminds me of the Soviet era, when all the elections showed "99% for".

And what's the difference between America and Spanish conquestadors (probably, bed spelling)? Both wanted to thrust its opinion on 'lepers'.

Finally, 2 A-Bombs that you dropped on Japan. And NEVER begged pardon for it. It's an agressive we-know-what-to-do-ourselves style of policy.

Propaganda

Aug 22, 2002, 10:06 PM

u-gene, ne slushay shto eti amerikansi govaryat. mi dolshni dratsa za savetzkuyu vlast, na vsegda!!!!!

u-gene

Aug 22, 2002, 11:45 PM

hey, Propaganda, ty tozhe iz rossii? :) No v lyubom sluchae dratsya za sovetskuyu vlast' ya vryad li budu. :crazyeye: A sredi etix amerikantsev est' neglupye lyudi. don't u think so?

Propaganda

Aug 23, 2002, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by u-gene
hey, Propaganda, ty tozhe iz rossii? :) No v lyubom sluchae dratsya za sovetskuyu vlast' ya vryad li budu. :crazyeye: A sredi etix amerikantsev est' neglupye lyudi. don't u think so?

:D

Koneshno yest pravda ot obye storanov v'etom razgovorye. Ti menya prosto ne slushai, potomushta ya ochen nostalgic(;) ) za savetzkogo sayuza.

Now, to answer this question, in a sense that the majority will understand, I'll say this. In terms of pros, the Soviet Union brought on stability to much of the world. It kept people in-check. It helped illeterate, poverty-stricken people to become productive in society. It sheltered and fed most of it's citizens. It provided free health care, free education, and guaranteed pension, to all it's citizens(most of which are now used by different types of countries/governments). It also provided guranteed/fixed wages, and job security. It helped shape the idea of workers' benefits(such as paid vacations) and it made socialism fashionable(and looking at the US, almost a necessity) to many countries. As for the cons, it helped coin the term, "terrorism," by funding and educating people, on the fundamentals of guerrila warfare, bio-terrorism, etc. It created hostilities between differing ethnic groups, within itself and abroad, by dissallowing "free speech"(no, not the American version), freedom of religion, freedom of press and other basic human rights, and by constantly funding the war effort in the Middle East.

There are probably more, but I'm too tired to type anymore.

nixon

Aug 23, 2002, 09:04 AM

Darn ****, one moment....

nixon

Aug 23, 2002, 09:08 AM

Ahh, the forum doesn't support Cyrillic letters. :)

:D

Bifrost

Aug 23, 2002, 12:51 PM

We should consider this a joke? I think we should,becuse your smile is so charming, nix:)

Propa what the hell are you writing? Navsiegda is written in one word!

:p

Where could he learn Russian?.. Gde?.. Aaaa! Understood he is an CIA agent!

Or you have seen that inscription on some propaganda poster?
I should say the Russian language changed since the times of cold war, no one in russia will understand anything you ve written, but let me help u after the 2nd word this word must follow:.... oh Ive noticed A of A message its too late. But that word looks like: TBO|-O where "|-O" is written in one word.
Well, no posts in Russian any more;)

Alcibiaties of Athenae

Aug 23, 2002, 01:09 PM

This is an English board, kindly post ONLY in English.

Thanks.

nixon

Aug 23, 2002, 01:19 PM

No, we better stop. :D

No, it's not something I've seen on some kind of propaganda poster, one was simply honing one's delicate Russian skills. :lol: :rolleyes:

It's a combination of several sources, trust me, I don't know any Russian at all, but one just thought I had to give the English-Russian dictionary a go. :)

You can't be serious, you can read what it says right?

Falcon02

Aug 23, 2002, 01:21 PM

I've gotta say a few things... BTW: I think the US was much more of a good guy (in actions) over the USSR.

A few things I admit...

1.) Socialism Ideas are great Ideas. Though I feel it's normally overly optimistic, because Human greed, (particularly the Government). Social Programs, such has Health Care, etc. are also good, however some people try to abuse the system. Look at the United States Health care system... with healthy people getting Disability pay. (Mind you this is the MINORITY who try to take advantage of the system)

2.) The USA isn't totally innocent in it's entire History. Teddy Roosevelt's extention on the Monroe Doctrine was essentially pushing for United States Imperialism in the Western Hemisphere, wasn't fixed until the "good Neighbor" policy of FDR. More important for this discussion is America's mistakes in the Cold War. Iran and Iraq for example... we supported the Monarchy in Iran. And when it fell we supported the dictatorship in Iraq, seeing the Fundamentalist Irani Government as the "greater evil."

We didn't interfere with Hungry for 1 reason.... World War III. If we had supported the Hungry rebellion militarily then the USSR would have "liberated" West Berlin or would have just attacked US forces in Hungry, and then you'd have all out war between the USSR and the US. The certianty of Attack came from the philosophy to use Eastern Europe as a cushion for any Western Invasion. By losing Hungry... they'd lose some cushion, impending an invasion.

About the A-bombs and Japan... that's a different story. I personally hold the belief that that Saved lives because an invasion would have been much more costly in both American and Japanese lives, esp. since Japanese Culture deems "No Surrender" and the Japanese Civilians (including Women and Children) were preparing to fight the Americans to the last man, woman and child. Trying to get the Allies to just quit cause it got too costly for us, since we were the weak westerner who actually felt surrender was an option when near defeat. Should we have allowed Japanese observers to watch the Trinity detonation before using it on Japanese cities.... Yeah. Were, the Japanese in peace talks with the Russians? I think so... but there's A.) the Fear of Communism to take into concideration, and B.) I don't believe they Japanese would seek to "Surrender" to the Russians, just negotiate a mutual peace, since the Russians jumped into the Pacific war at the last minute for Railroad rights in Manchuria, and that this agreement was only intended to be with the Russians not with the Americans. However, I must admit my "BELIEF" is only based on speculation and the Japanese Culture and the personality of the Japanese leadership fo the time I haven't seen any documents relating to any Peace negotiations with the Russians. In fact one Veteran and US Air Force Museuam Volenteer told me that he was leading a tour group of Japanese in the Museum and showed them "Bock's Car" (sorry if my spelling's off, I'm sure it's not "Box Car"), the B-29 which droped the Second Atomic Bomb. And he said how it prevented the invasion and saved both American and Japanese lives. And, one old Japanese man broke down in tears and said "Thank You" for using that and not invading. Is that Story true? I can't be 100% sure, the only evidence I have is the Veteran's word and that the way he said it gave me the impression that he was sincere.

Anyway, I've gotten off topic...
"And what's the difference between America and Spanish conquestadors"

Spanish Conquestadors-
1.) Gold was their primary Goal, Idealogy (religion) was just a good Excuse to gain the support of the Pope.
2.) Forcibly Surpressed local culture.
3.) Actually Conquered the people they came across.

America-
1.) Primary concern is Idealogy and to create Allies. Any profits are a side benefit. (We patched up Japan and we import more from them than Export to them, so we give them more money than they give us.)
2.) Local culture can remain. If people choice to adopt Western Culture, we don't mind, but we don't FORCE them to.
3.) The US tends to Liberate, establishing a Democratic Government. Whenever we haven't truely "liberated" we set up independent Dictatorships friendly to us and ussually benevolent to the people. (I know of no post-cold war examples of this, which is a good sign). It's more the Imperial British Idea of a "Protectorate" so basically "you can be independent and do what ever you want, so long as you're friendly to us, and we'lll help protect you"

klazlo

Aug 23, 2002, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Falcon02
We didn't interfere with Hungry for 1 reason.... World War III. If we had supported the Hungry rebellion militarily then the USSR would have "liberated" West Berlin or would have just attacked US forces in Hungry, and then you'd have all out war between the USSR and the US. The certianty of Attack came from the philosophy to use Eastern Europe as a cushion for any Western Invasion. By losing Hungry... they'd lose some cushion, impending an invasion.

Well, as I noted in one of the threads, the crisis in Egypt was far more important for the West than the Hungarian uprising. No wonder about it. Hungary was considered as a country in the interest sphere of the Soviet Union, thanks to the Jalta agreement and the three leaders (including the US) who agreed upon this. It really wouldn't make any sense to mess with the Hungarian situation for the West, although many Hungarians think to it as a betrayal. 1956 in Hungary was a second-class uprising within the East Block and since Austria was not a NATO-member there wasn't any opportunity to approach Hungary from the West without creating a larger mess - maybe another war. It just did not worth it for the US. That was the spirit of Jalta and therefore there was no way to change the status quo on either side of the iron curtain - at least in Europe.

Bifrost

Aug 23, 2002, 03:15 PM

You can't be serious, you can read what it says right?

Actually, everything's OK ,but I've already explained you everythig by private message

u-gene

Aug 26, 2002, 11:58 PM

...one old Japanese man broke down in tears and said "Thank You" for using that and not invading.

Sorry, that reminds me of a good Russian proverb that can be translated into English like 'we soon believe what we desire'. Very doubtful.

Pangur Bán

Jan 24, 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by marshal zhukov
The Soviet Union was a good thing.

It showed to the world that the US and Western Europe use double standards whenever the pression is on.
Hungary tried to be free in 1956, the Soviet Union then invaded, and restored the status quo.
What did the US do? Nothing, watched the movement get annihilated.
Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.
There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries.
US sponsored an evil dictatorship in Brazil for 20 years, we are still findind the remains of those that "disappeared "during that period

Some good points.

Richard III

Jan 24, 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by sgrig
Apparently after WW2, the US did have plans to begin nuclear war against Soviet Union in 1950, but had to abandon their plans when USSR got the bomb.

No, they had plans for the contingency of a war with the USSR, just as they had plans for the contingency of a war with Mexico, and probably had contingency plans for a war with Lower Timbuktu.

The anti-soviet war plan - codenamed "Dropshot" - recognized that in the event of expected AGGRESSION by the Soviet Union, the likely result of conventional fighting in Europe could see the allies pushed back to redoubts as far back from the Rhine as Brittany and the Pyrenees in less than two weeks, in addition to the loss of virtually all of the middle east, northern Japan and Korea.

In the event that these redoubts fell, "Dropshot" dictated that the only logical US response to the nearly complete conquest of Free Europe by Stalinists would be a series of atomic bombardments designed to permanently destroy the Soviet Union, and specified target lists and likely attack routes accordingly.

Fascinating reading; the full text of the strategic outline of the plan, with force estimates, fallback lines and so forth, is published and available in a single volume. Fascinating also that the existence of such a plan - of which the Soviets surely had several variations - is somehow translated by the raw undercurrent of anti-Americanism into "a plan to begin nuclear war in 1950."

R.III

Vrylakas

Jan 24, 2003, 12:15 PM

Marshall Zhukov wrote:

The Soviet Union was a good thing.

It showed to the world that the US and Western Europe use double standards whenever the pression is on.
Hungary tried to be free in 1956, the Soviet Union then invaded, and restored the status quo.

What did the US do? Nothing, watched the movement get annihilated.

So, the U.S. should have started World War III over Hungary in 1956? What besides a full military confrontation could the U.S. or the West have done to save Hungary? Completely ignoring the larger "distraction" of the day, the Suez Crisis, the West could do nothing but condemn with words the Soviet invasion. Do you think they could have negotiated Soviet tanks out of Budapest? :rolleyes:

Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.

As a Pole who has lived in the Soviet empire I'd like to differ. There was a very significant difference between Soviet and American foreign policy. It is quite true that both sides used local petty thugs in the Third World to support their respective sides but in the larger context the basic picture was of the Soviets trying to take over the world and the Americans trying to contain them. The Americans never tried to control their allies; France was able to partially bail out of NATO under De Gaulle but look what happened when Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Poland (1981) looked like they might leave the WTO. France and Britain were able to develop their own nuclear arsenals but the USSR never allowed any of its "allies" (i.e., captive satellites) anywhere near modern military technology. The Americans' allies have often and loudly criticized American policies, but Soviet "allies" never dared do so, without dire consequences. Quite bluntly, if you can't tell the difference between a militaristic, expansionist dictatorship and a democratic if somewhat overzealous republic, then perhaps you need to read more - much more.

There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries.

Again, I invite you to visit any one of the many mass graves created by the Soviets and their puppet cronies; can you find any such mass graves in Western Europe left by the Americans?

US sponsored an evil dictatorship in Brazil for 20 years, we are still findind the remains of those that "disappeared "during that period

"Sponsored"? Do you mean that the U.S. recognized an existing Brazilian dictatorship and treated it as an ally of convenience? Are you trying to hoist what is really a Brazilian problem with political development and maturity (endemic among nearly all South American governments) onto the U.S., despite the fact that the social and political conditions that created the dictatorship vastly pre-date American involvement? The dictators who ruled Poland from 1944-1989 were directly installed and approved by the USSR; they could do nothing significant at all in Poland without Moscow's approval. Had the Soviet Army not installed these dictators in 1944, they would never have had a chance of seizing power in Poland. They were Russian puppets. Did an American army install the Brazilian dictators and control their every move, or did these dictators seize power by themselves (due to Brazil's weak political structures and history) and ally themselves with the Americans' anti-communist crusade, basically still retaining complete control in Brazil? Left by itself, Poland in 1944 would never have developed the kind of dictatorship it got from the Soviets; but I strongly suspect that even if the Americans had never dealt with Brazil at all it still would have gotten that same dictatorship. That's a critical difference, and one you can't blame the Americans for. The blame for Brazil's political and economic ills is much closer to home than Washington.

Again, you're right that it is reprehensible that both the USSR and the USA supported dictators around the world in their Cold War confrontation, and perhaps the USA is worse in the sense that they claimed to be supporting democracy around the world. (The Soviets made no such claims; quite the opposite.) The Americans have spent the last decade since the Cold War examining the consequences of their support for anyone who was anti-Soviet; this got a lot of press with the recent Afghan war as an obvious example. But to pretend that all the evil in the world between 1945 and 1990 was caused by the Cold War is to live in a state of personal (and perhaps national) denial.

tonberry

Jan 24, 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by calgacus

Some good points.

You actually take 4 months to write that? ;)

Pangur Bán

Jan 24, 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by tonberry

You actually take 4 months to write that? ;)

:mischief:

Kamilian

Jan 24, 2003, 09:14 PM

The USSR was good AND bad.
it was originally a benevolent creation that took a wrong turn and ended up being totalitarian and destructive to its people.

HOWEVER
1. it routed the Nazi advance and helped the Allies crush Nazi Germany in a vicegrip.
2. it liberated east europe from the Nazis
3. it brought into Russia welfare programs and health care support for people who were unable to receive or afford it in the tsarist times or during Kerensky's republic
4. it kept the global power and influence of the USA in check - balancing out the spheres of influence
5. when it detonated its first nuclear weapon, it helped the USA and West European democracies realize that weapons of mass destruction arent the way to solve things - they will ultimately lead to destruction of both sides. basically, the Soviet nukes kept the Americans and the other nations from using them in wars or conflicts.

the bad?
1. gulags - killed off millions of people
2. dictatorships in the Soviet Republics and the Eastern European People's Republics
3. refused to give independence to East Europeans
4. repressed attempts for reforms - therefore taking a turn towards the reactionary right
5. no freedom
6. self-serving Supreme Soviet and Premiers
7. tended to care mostly about the power of the Russian Soviet Republic, neglecting the needs of the other 14 Soviet Republics

so basically, the USSR was both good and bad. though the USSR was mostly the agressor in the Cold War, no one can say that the USA was an angel trying to protect the world - it, too, helped dictatorships to power and used them for their own needs, not the people's.

andrewgprv

Jan 24, 2003, 09:36 PM

WOW:eek: good reading

Zarn

Jan 24, 2003, 10:06 PM

Believe me, Ukraine didn't want to be under Soviet control. They were brainwashed like many Germans in joining the NAZI Party. Ukraine never saw the Soviets as liberators, but more like enslavers.

Kamilian

Jan 24, 2003, 10:57 PM

i agree with you, Zarn.
Ukraine wanted independence - after WW1 it was divided into western and eastern zones (the former being taken by Poland and the latter by the USSR). The people opposed both, thought they may have had more freedom under the Polish Republic - this im not sure of, though. Stalin repressed the Ukrainians for their will to free themselves and the Ukrainian freedom fighters were some of the first prisoners of gulags, while the rest were brainwashed by the mass propaganda campaigns, or were simply so intimidated by the Soviet Secret Police that they eventually began to believe the things that they knew were lies.

Vrylakas

Jan 25, 2003, 08:08 AM

Kamilian 1 wrote:

The people opposed both, thought they may have had more freedom under the Polish Republic - this im not sure of, though.

Mildly, yes. Poland was a democracy from 1918-1926 and in this period all the minorities were given full rights. For instance, the first schools anywhere to teach in Byelorussian as well as the first books ever printed in Byelorussian happened in Poland in this time. After Pilsudski's coup in 1926 he tried to keep a semblance of equality for the nationalities but Poland was becoming (like the rest of Europe) increasingly nationalistic. After his death in 1935, the successor regimes (Beck, et al) relied heavily on nationalism and the minorities were completely excluded from the political processes, non-Polish language schools and institutions lost their funding or closed outright, etc. This was the period when the worst Polish nationalists controlled minority affairs, and this is where Ukrainians, Byelorussians, etc. all learned their hatred for the interbellum Sanacja regime in Poland. The historian Jan T. Gross mentions how these groups cheered when the Soviet Army entered their areas of Poland in the 1939 invasion.

However, as Kamilian 1 mentions, there was no Polish NKVD, no Polish gulags or concentration camps, no executions of these minorities - so perhaps life in Poland wasn't so bad as compared to life in Stalin's USSR. This is why during the war the Ukrainians also turned out to welcome the German invaders after a couple years in the USSR, only to be betrayed by them and their üntermensch ideas as well. Large Ukrainian partisan groups formed that fought the Germans, Soviets, and Polish AK as well. After the war parts of this group (OUN) tried to fight its way out of the USSR, southern Poland and Czechoslovakia, Soviet-occupied Austria and into the West - ultimately, successfully.

Nowadays, the news for Ukrainians is better - they're independent of Russian or Polish control, but unfortunately they have one of the most corrupt governments in Europe, resembling a mafia more than a public organization.

Kamilian

Jan 25, 2003, 10:24 PM

its sorta true that today Ukraine's government is basically a mafia oligarchy. the President (i forget his name) basically created a presidential "constitutional" dictatorship. i read that ever since he took over, any reforms that mightve been made since the collapse of the Soviet Union were basically reversed and its sort of a non-communist Stalinistic government.

sween32

Jan 26, 2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Damien
It was a bad thing.C what people think about communism now!
If USSR would have applied a democratic system(based on the swiss system),the entire world would be communist nowadays. exactly my thoughts. communism was never meant to be aggressive but a peaceful government for the common working man, and the soviets gave communism the label of being big meanies. the truth is, the communist party itself is much against aggressiveness towards other countries while in power.

i voted for it being bad, because they were extremely irresponsible for their actions. they dumped the old reactors from their nuclear subs INTO THE OCEAN for crying out loud! imagine if it was the US that fell instead of the Soviets? I would hate to have the only world power be a country who has no concern for other countries unless they are going to swallow them. the only reason why they backed up the little countries like N. Korea and Cuba was because we had a beef with them.

Propaganda

Jan 26, 2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Vrylakas

Mildly, yes. Poland was a democracy from 1918-1926 and in this period all the minorities were given full rights. For instance, the first schools anywhere to teach in Byelorussian as well as the first books ever printed in Byelorussian happened in Poland in this time. After Pilsudski's coup in 1926 he tried to keep a semblance of equality for the nationalities but Poland was becoming (like the rest of Europe) increasingly nationalistic. After his death in 1935, the successor regimes (Beck, et al) relied heavily on nationalism and the minorities were completely excluded from the political processes, non-Polish language schools and institutions lost their funding or closed outright, etc. This was the period when the worst Polish nationalists controlled minority affairs, and this is where Ukrainians, Byelorussians, etc. all learned their hatred for the interbellum Sanacja regime in Poland. The historian Jan T. Gross mentions how these groups cheered when the Soviet Army entered their areas of Poland in the 1939 invasion.

I'm not particularly in the know-how on Polish history, but you are correct about the different "Russian" nationalities living in Polish borders. But that is not why I'm replying to your post.

However, as Kamilian 1 mentions, there was no Polish NKVD, no Polish gulags or concentration camps, no executions of these minorities - so perhaps life in Poland wasn't so bad as compared to life in Stalin's USSR.

Unless many here are unaware, when Gorbachev released "glasnost" into Soviet society, he opened up the Soviet Archives for study. Not surprisingly, many historians and researches went out of their way to prove Solzhenitsyn's and Conquest's assumptions correct. Unfortunately for them, what they found was that both were bluffing, pulling numbers out of their proverbial asses. The American Historical Journal, as well as some other historians released numbers proving Conquest and co. wrong.

The fact is, the Soviet prison system never saw more than 3 million in it's system, throughout Stalin's reign. About 30% of sentenced(or about) were "political prisoners," ranging anywhere from saboteuers to spies. The rest were common criminals, comprised of rapists, thieves and murderers. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is much less than the 7 million languishing in the American justice system today. Not to mention that the people sentenced under Stalin's Soviet prison system were paid for their labor and fed and housed(albeit, not under very good conditions, but that was mostly because of war). Most saw release after about a year or less.

Also, one common misconception in European and American understanding of the Soviet system was it's trial system. Americans see the soviet justice system comprised of "show trials" where the defendents were beaten into submission and forced confession. This is absolutely not true, as the American ambassador to the Soviet Union noted in 1937, after witnessing these trials, that the trials were fair and that the defendents were guilty of their crimes, found guilty by the jury of the court(the people.)

Now, on to the Purges. These did in fact happen; Soviet Archives prove that people, in the thousands range were executed by KGB(and most likely, Stalin's)orders. Most of these are found to be factory managers, beaurocrats, military officials, Party members or high-echelon CC members. The dispute here is really the reason for all of this. Stalin found that many of the beaurocracies were no longer willing to work for the worker's sake. In fact, they were taking all means necessary to entrench themselves in their positions, taking a hostile policy towards the workers, who they saw as taking away their piece. Some of these went as far as to criticize Stalin and gloat about how they bypassed the system, how they were taking from the workers, how some of them were forming alliances between themselves to help better position themselves. Stalin took matters on himself to boot many out of their respective positions, purging others who weren't going willingly. Workers actually were found kicking some of their managers around, elections were held as well, some strict policies were enacted to consolidate the economic system, because it was found that the different ministries and lower level committees were actually competing against each other, buying resources from "outside sources" which offered these at inflated prices, instead of using those at that are available(because this helped overfulfill their quotas, which made sure to give them less work in the next plan.)

Now, on to collectivization, the least understood of Stalin's policies. This occured because the Kulaks(the rich peasants) were not distributing their work properly. They kept most of what they made, to artificially inflate prices, which alarmed Stalin and the Party members, as they saw that this would lead to famine in the urban areas. Stalin also saw that the rural beaurocracies were atrociously rude to the peasants, and catered mostly to the kulaks. As a result, Stalin sent 25,000 of loyal Party members to take positions in the rural areas. He also sent the Red Army to train the peasants, who fought against the different kulaks. As a result, the kolkhozniks took over(most) of the land, and started working it as it was theirs(but still had to meet quotas in the 5-Year Plans). Now, there are many disputes as to how many died in this class war. Solzhenitsyn and co. claim that 20 mil died here. Well, I'm here to tell this is absurd! The fact is there weren't even that many people in the Ukraine then! Others cite that somewhere between 1-5 million had either died, were lost, detained; many others converted(i.e. became kolkhozniks).
By 1933, the new kolkhoz were making grounds, nearly reaching the kulak output. This time, however, this was all distributed properly and priced fairly.

This is why during the war the Ukrainians also turned out to welcome the German invaders after a couple years in the USSR, only to be betrayed by them and their üntermensch ideas as well. Large Ukrainian partisan groups formed that fought the Germans, Soviets, and Polish AK as well. After the war parts of this group (OUN) tried to fight its way out of the USSR, southern Poland and Czechoslovakia, Soviet-occupied Austria and into the West - ultimately, successfully.

In the Ukraine, there was a fascist movement(I'm Ukranian, BTW) even before the Nazis came. This movement, along with the Nazis, spread propaganda(all of which is still used and believed today) and as a result, had many recruits(some of whom were bitter about Stalin's use of Ukraine in the Winter War, others brainwashed). But once the Nazis unleashed their police force, many Ukrainians perished, so as a result, partisan groups from here and there formed against the Nazis, and also against the Soviets. Some others fought for the Soviets. The fact is, there were different objectives within different people. The Liberation forces, however, still fought even after the war.

Nowadays, the news for Ukrainians is better - they're independent of Russian or Polish control, but unfortunately they have one of the most corrupt governments in Europe, resembling a mafia more than a public organization.

That's actually a reason for why it just plain sucks. During Communist era, especially Breznhev's rule(who was Ukrainian), Ukraine was much better off than it is now. We were probably one of the most stable regions.

klazlo

Jan 26, 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Propaganda

Now, on to collectivization, the least understood of Stalin's policies. This occured because the Kulaks(the rich peasants) were not distributing their work properly. They kept most of what they made, to artificially inflate prices, which alarmed Stalin and the Party members, as they saw that this would lead to famine in the urban areas. Stalin also saw that the rural beaurocracies were atrociously rude to the peasants, and catered mostly to the kulaks.

After the direct military threats, War Communism as a temporary system that ruthlessly collected any surplus was substituted with a different development policy. In 1921 the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced, which realized that peasants should be given more incentive to produce food. The theory behind was to allow some "capitalism" for the peasantry and the petty bourgeois in order to ease the food shortages. This gave way to the agricultural capitalism, the class of the kulaks.
This agenda had a practical cause also: the Bolshevik movement, although it was successful in the urban areas needed to win the peasantry as a mass base. The peasantry was completely exploited during the civil war, its relatively wealthy members were considered as enemies of the system and the Narodnik traditions were still there, causing very few reasons why they should see the Bolsheviks as not another oppressor regime after the czar - the NEP was to ease this.
But the NEP was later seen as a betrayal of the socialist agenda as small scale farming was not compatible with the Marxist ideas. Right after Lenin died, serious debates arose about further development. Although the NEP really helped the economy after the war devastation, this practice was considered revisionist and especially not rapid enough to meet the requirements of the Politburo.
The debates were going on between 1924 and 1928, but finally the grain crisis in 1927 convinced Stalin, who strengthened his position by that time, about the forced industrialization agenda as a solution, realizing that the accumulation in the agriculture is slow and risky. He ordered the agricultural collectivization and a strong push for industrialization.
Note that collectivization was encouraged under the period of NEP also, but in a more graduate way, which turned to be contraselective since only those joined to collectives who were not able to farm by their own.
So the collectivization agenda had a political (get rid of the agricultural capitalism) and an economic (speed up economy) reason.

You are right to claim that the Kulak class did not distribute their benefits properly, but why would they do so? They were on a capitalist ground and thought that the NEP allows this perspective. On the other hand I think that Stalin and the Politburo was not really concerned with the famine but with the ideological and economic aspects of the collectivization. The famine of 1927 was embarassing for them but not because many people died but because it showed that an economic development based on agriculture will never let them catch up with the more developed western countries.

If someone is interested, Paul Gregory and Robert Stuart had a book in 1981 about these early develoment debates: "Soviet Economic Structure and Performance".

Bifrost

Jan 26, 2003, 10:44 AM

Kamilian ! I demand satisfaction !
;)

7. tended to care mostly about the power of the Russian Soviet Republic, neglecting the needs of the other 14 Soviet Republics

so basically, the USSR was both good and bad. though the USSR was mostly the agressor in the Cold War,

This is blsht! How dare you say that USSR neglected the needs of other 14\15 republics?!
It is Russian Soviet Rupublic that had always wasted its money to develop the industry, culture, agriculture of the republics that lagged behind. If there had been no USSR as a unity, then Russians would have been one of the richest people in the world. That endless sucking money turned the mid-asian republics into prosperous and well-educated independent states. Can you imagine that prosperous Turkmenistan now if it wasn't financed from USSR budget for a long time?
You are wrong.
...Or you think you're not?

aggressor in the Cold War? define what you mean by "aggressor"... According to how I understand this word, you're trying to say that Churchill was in fact Russian guy who declared Cold war on innocent West :hmm:

Kamilian

Jan 26, 2003, 03:38 PM

ok so i was probably wrong about the part about the Russian Soviet Republic dominating the economy and neglecting the needs of the others within the union.
but im confused about the thing about aggressor.
in this instance, i meant "aggressor" as more provocative from the two sides (USA and USSR).
i should've made it clear, i guess
but o well.
BTW, Turkmenistan is prosperous? i thought it was sorta poor...
i dunno

amadeus

Jan 26, 2003, 05:52 PM

For anyone that said the Soviet Union was a good thing -- would you have wanted to live there?

Vrylakas

Jan 26, 2003, 07:30 PM

This one takes two parts:

Part I:

Propaganda wrote:

Originally posted by Vrylakas

Mildly, yes. Poland was a democracy from 1918-1926 and in this period all the minorities were given full rights. For instance, the first schools anywhere to teach in Byelorussian as well as the first books ever printed in Byelorussian happened in Poland in this time. After Pilsudski's coup in 1926 he tried to keep a semblance of equality for the nationalities but Poland was becoming (like the rest of Europe) increasingly nationalistic. After his death in 1935, the successor regimes (Beck, et al) relied heavily on nationalism and the minorities were completely excluded from the political processes, non-Polish language schools and institutions lost their funding or closed outright, etc. This was the period when the worst Polish nationalists controlled minority affairs, and this is where Ukrainians, Byelorussians, etc. all learned their hatred for the interbellum Sanacja regime in Poland. The historian Jan T. Gross mentions how these groups cheered when the Soviet Army entered their areas of Poland in the 1939 invasion.

I'm not particularly in the know-how on Polish history, but you are correct about the different "Russian" nationalities living in Polish borders. But that is not why I'm replying to your post.

That wonderful Treaty of Riga. Funny thing is that while this treaty is celebrated as a Polish victory in modern Polish schools, no one would ever suggest in Poland that they try to get the old eastern Kresy lands back. Hungary had a hard time swallowing the loss of the Bánság, Felvidék, Burgenland and Transylvania but Poland never wanted its lost lands back. I guess Wroclaw and Szczecin are more valuable than Wilno or Lwów. I also noticed from some Finnish acquaintences that Finnish desire for getting Karelia back dampened after being overrun with refugees in the 1990s. Hmmmm....

However, as Kamilian 1 mentions, there was no Polish NKVD, no Polish gulags or concentration camps, no executions of these minorities - so perhaps life in Poland wasn't so bad as compared to life in Stalin's USSR.

Unless many here are unaware, when Gorbachev released "glasnost" into Soviet society, he opened up the Soviet Archives for study. Not surprisingly, many historians and researches went out of their way to prove Solzhenitsyn's and Conquest's assumptions correct. Unfortunately for them, what they found was that both were bluffing, pulling numbers out of their proverbial asses. The American Historical Journal, as well as some other historians released numbers proving Conquest and co. wrong. The fact is, the Soviet prison system never saw more than 3 million in it's system, throughout Stalin's reign. About 30% of sentenced(or about) were "political prisoners," ranging anywhere from saboteuers to spies. The rest were common criminals, comprised of rapists, thieves and murderers. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is much less than the 7 million languishing in the American justice system today.

Actually, the Soviet historians Mikhail Geller and Alexander Nekrich, both of whom had full access to the Soviet archives, peg the total Soviet number at some 15 million. At the height of the Great Purges there were some 8 million, and by 1940 6.5 million. They lay out in extensive numbers how many of these gulag inmates were used in several Soviet industrial projects as virtual slave labor - 20% of all labor in the USSR in 1940, according to Geller & Nekrich. They also mention that the overwhelming majority of gulag prisoners did not survive the experience.

Also, a critical difference between American prisoners and Soviet prisoners would be that most Soviet gulag prisoners were political prisoners (according to both Geller & Nekrich and Dmitri Volkogonov), or worse yet simply random captives turned in by some Soviet citizen or used to fill quotas. For instance, when Budapest fell in 1945, the NKVD expected x number of Hungarian and German POWs but when captured the number turned out to be much less - so Hungarian citizens were randomly rounded up and shipped off to Siberia to fill the quotas.

I looked up the American prison population and found the largest, most up-to-date (2002) numbers being around 2 million. Where did you get your numbers?

Not to mention that the people sentenced under Stalin's Soviet prison system were paid for their labor and fed and housed(albeit, not under very good conditions, but that was mostly because of war). Most saw release after about a year or less.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That was very entertaining. Check out Geller & Nekrich's book Utopia u vlastyi pp. 319-320 for a detailed rendering of numbers of gulag prisoners and how they "lived", even before the war. Let me give you a sample quote:

Most of those arrested in 1937 and 1938 were unable to survive the harsh conditions in the camps for more than two or three years. It is true that the Soviet concentration camps did not have gas chambers or crematoriums like the Nazi death camps. Mass extermination was organized in a more primitive way, due to technical backwardness. People were simply shot, starved to death, or killed off by disease, brutal treatment, or unendurably demanding labor.

Also, one common misconception in European and American understanding of the Soviet system was it's trial system. Americans see the soviet justice system comprised of "show trials" where the defendents were beaten into submission and forced confession. This is absolutely not true, as the American ambassador to the Soviet Union noted in 1937, after witnessing these trials, that the trials were fair and that the defendents were guilty of their crimes, found guilty by the jury of the court(the people.)

Another funny one. The American ambassador from 1936-1938, Joseph Davies, was an avowed communist sympathizer who pathetically bought into everything and anything Moscow said. He claimed at different times that the GPU didn't really exist, or that it was just a minor economic security organization. The entire American embassy staff hated working with Davies (which comes out loudly in the FRUS). The American ambassador to Poland from 1945-1949, Arthur B. Lane, had a long public argument with Davies in which Lane would point out crimes committed by the communists in Poland and provide evidence, and Davies would answer something like "He's mistaken", "He's wrong", etc. Finally Davies was completely discredited when it became clear to the world the Soviets were violating the Potsdam accords.

And I am afraid you are very mistaken about the show trials. After WW II the Soviets installed the immediate local communist leaders in Eastern Europe but shortly thereafter from 1948-49 instituted closely-controlled purges to put their own Moscow-trained puppets in power. There were lots of good old-fashioned Soviet show trials, where the accused made extreme and bizarre confessions to working for 20 different foreign intelligence services at once. When in Poland and Hungary the local communists were able to re-assert control in 1956, both governments admitted that these trials - hundreds of them in both countries - were all fabrications. After 1989 the Czechs also admitted that their trials - like the famous Josef Slansky trial - were also faked. And these trials were all closely controlled by Andrei Vyshynsky from Moscow. :hmm:

There's a very funny Hungarian film from I think 1972 or so about these show trials called A Tanú (The Witness), showing how they wee staged. And of course, the defendants always confessed, were always found guilty, and were almost always executed.

Let me share a Polish joke with you:

Two Japanese scientists find an old humanoid skeleton but are only vaguely able to determine its age. They guess about 1-3 million years old. They give it to a German institute and it comes back with a better age, c. 1-1.5 million years old. They in turn forward to an American university who studies it comes back with a date of about 1.3-1.5 million years old. When the Soviets hear about this they claim they can do better - so the Japanese give them the skeleton, and after a month TASS issues a statement that the Great Soviet Scientists have discovered that the skeleton is exactly 1 million, 456 thousand and 3 years, 8 months, 2 weeks and 7 and a half hours old. The Japanese are of course stunned and they telephone Moscow, asking how they got such an amazing date - to which Moscow answered, "It confessed."

Part II comin' next -

Vrylakas

Jan 26, 2003, 07:31 PM

Part II

Propaganda wrote:

Now, on to the Purges. These did in fact happen; Soviet Archives prove that people, in the thousands range were executed by KGB(and most likely, Stalin's)orders. Most of these are found to be factory managers, beaurocrats, military officials, Party members or high-echelon CC members. The dispute here is really the reason for all of this. Stalin found that many of the beaurocracies were no longer willing to work for the worker's sake. In fact, they were taking all means necessary to entrench themselves in their positions, taking a hostile policy towards the workers, who they saw as taking away their piece. Some of these went as far as to criticize Stalin and gloat about how they bypassed the system, how they were taking from the workers, how some of them were forming alliances between themselves to help better position themselves. Stalin took matters on himself to boot many out of their respective positions, purging others who weren't going willingly. Workers actually were found kicking some of their managers around, elections were held as well, some strict policies were enacted to consolidate the economic system, because it was found that the different ministries and lower level committees were actually competing against each other, buying resources from "outside sources" which offered these at inflated prices, instead of using those at that are available(because this helped overfulfill their quotas, which made sure to give them less work in the next plan.)

Even if your ludicrous account were true, I am amused that you find it fine that a leader could execute bureaucrats who disagreed with him and didn’t want to fulfill his plans. In any event, there is a huge body of evidence across the world that the purges did in fact happen. None but a few desperate ideologues try to pretend they didn’t (Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky, etc.). Sorry, but the Soviet Union’s penchant for murdering and imprisoning its citizens is only surpassed by communist China’s. How about the artificial Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 – did that never happen too? Katyn? British officers returning Soviet POWs held in Nazi camps to Archangelsk in 1946 reported that often the returning Soviet soldiers were shot by the NKVD right on the docks, while others were arrested.

Now, on to collectivization, the least understood of Stalin's policies.

Actually, it’s quite well understood. It has failed in every country it was implemented, destroying what had been for centuries very productive food-producing regions. You may recall that the Soviet Union was forced to import American and foreign grain in the 1970s-1990s. It had utterly ridiculous results in 1950s Poland and Hungary, and was largely ditched in both. Feudal-organized Ukraine in 1914 produced more grain than Soviet Ukraine in 1939.

This occured because the Kulaks(the rich peasants) were not distributing their work properly. They kept most of what they made, to artificially inflate prices, which alarmed Stalin and the Party members, as they saw that this would lead to famine in the urban areas. Stalin also saw that the rural beaurocracies were atrociously rude to the peasants, and catered mostly to the kulaks. As a result, Stalin sent 25,000 of loyal Party members to take positions in the rural areas. He also sent the Red Army to train the peasants, who fought against the different kulaks. As a result, the kolkhozniks took over(most) of the land, and started working it as it was theirs(but still had to meet quotas in the 5-Year Plans). Now, there are many disputes as to how many died in this class war. Solzhenitsyn and co. claim that 20 mil died here. Well, I'm here to tell this is absurd! The fact is there weren't even that many people in the Ukraine then! Others cite that somewhere between 1-5 million had either died, were lost, detained; many others converted(i.e. became kolkhozniks).
By 1933, the new kolkhoz were making grounds, nearly reaching the kulak output. This time, however, this was all distributed properly and priced fairly.

Ah, Kulaks – one of those Stalinist jingo terms that has no exact meaning. What exactly is a kulak? A kulak was any peasant who stood in the communists’ way. And what does “properly” mean? In early Soviet Russia Lenin had initially very severely exploited the peasants – especially the successful ones – because they had rejected his idiotic “rural proletariat” theories. They did what peasants always do when an oppressive and exploitive government starts pushing them – they withheld food from the cities. After trying shooting them and throwing them off their land, Lenin realized he wasn’t strong enough yet to force them to cooperate. This is where NEP comes from, because the food situation was getting critical in Russian cities. Here’s the lesson – stupid government policies may have consequences. No one knows how long Lenin really intended to stop NEP but it is assumed he was going to eventually do what Stalin eventually did, which was invent a term for the new evil enemy (“kulaks”) and kill them. Your idea of “proper distribution” seems to mean “by orders from Moscow”, i.e. a command economy. The “kulaks” of the 1920s and 30s were taking the first baby steps towards something called private property; an idea that is the basis for the West’s vast economic superiority to modern Russia. Too bad the communists didn’t simply allow the Russian peasants to produce on their own terms – Russia might have been able to produce so much more food. But then, Russia in the 20th century has a long history of making political decisions for economic problems.

Here’s the gist on kulaks: they were relatively new to Russia in a sense, and this is part of the fury Stalin vetted against them. Recent traditional Russian agriculture was based on a collective form, with communal ownership and operation. However, the first problem was that this was a uniquely Russian experience (which didn’t transfer well when the Soviets tried to start anti-kulak campaigns in their Eastern European empire) and secondly that this was a very primitive and non-productive form of agriculture that put Russian peasants very far behind almost all other European peasants in terms of output. Stalin needed to exert communist control in the countryside (and he didn’t trust anyone he couldn’t completely control) so he invented an enemy and used this bogeyman to terrorize the countryside into submission. Bottom line: There’s no such thing as a kulak.

This is why during the war the Ukrainians also turned out to welcome the German invaders after a couple years in the USSR, only to be betrayed by them and their üntermensch ideas as well. Large Ukrainian partisan groups formed that fought the Germans, Soviets, and Polish AK as well. After the war parts of this group (OUN) tried to fight its way out of the USSR, southern Poland and Czechoslovakia, Soviet-occupied Austria and into the West - ultimately, successfully.

In the Ukraine, there was a fascist movement(I'm Ukranian, BTW) even before the Nazis came. This movement, along with the Nazis, spread propaganda(all of which is still used and believed today) and as a result, had many recruits(some of whom were bitter about Stalin's use of Ukraine in the Winter War, others brainwashed). But once the Nazis unleashed their police force, many Ukrainians perished, so as a result, partisan groups from here and there formed against the Nazis, and also against the Soviets. Some others fought for the Soviets. The fact is, there were different objectives within different people. The Liberation forces, however, still fought even after the war.

Yup.

Nowadays, the news for Ukrainians is better - they're independent of Russian or Polish control, but unfortunately they have one of the most corrupt governments in Europe, resembling a mafia more than a public organization.

That's actually a reason for why it just plain sucks. During Communist era, especially Breznhev's rule(who was Ukrainian), Ukraine was much better off than it is now. We were probably one of the most stable regions.

Stable regions compared to…? And as I understood, Brezhnev was born in Soviet Moldavia to Russian parents, though he worked for Khrushchov in Ukraine. I’ve heard Brezhnev speaking and while my Russian isn’t great, I couldn’t detect a Ukrainian accent. Is he indeed Ukrainian, perhaps from the modern Transdniestr region of Moldova?

Modern Ukrainian corruption is unfortunately normal for the circumstances. The communist Ukrainian government was run like a mafia organization too, so Ukraine (like all the former communist states) switched from a gangster-style communism to a gangster-style democracy. Same thugs, different suits. Ukraine is too far from Western influence to be able to deal with this corruption (as the former Eastern Bloc states are doing) but is still struggling to keep itself free from Russia – at least Western Ukraine is. Still, for as bad as modern Ukraine is, it is not nearly as bad as Belarus, and Ukraine does have some Western sponsors – happily Poland among them – so over time I think Kiiv will be able to overcome the likes of Kuchma, etc.

klazlo

Jan 27, 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Vrylakas
There's a very funny Hungarian film from I think 1972 or so about these show trials called A Tanú (The Witness), showing how they wee staged. And of course, the defendants always confessed, were always found guilty, and were almost always executed.

Yes, that's a great film! Let me quote one scene. There is a guy who is used as a star witness in a show trial. He is a simple guy, but the secret police trains him how to speak, what to wear etc. They even write his testament, since he doesn't understand the whole situation. There comes the trial day and before his appearance the secret service leader tells him to read his testament one more time just to be sure that he can tell it. The guy says, ok. The ss leader pulls out the papers from his briefcase and gives it to the witness. The witness starts to read and one second later with a surprised face he tells:
"Comrade, this is not the testament but the sentence!"

In Hungary most of the show trial victims were sentenced by collaborating with Tito. Later, after Khruschev's peace agenda with Tito the Hungarian leaders were in great trouble to justify the trials. These trials had nothing to do with justice and fairness.

Propaganda

Jan 28, 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Here we go: :)

That wonderful Treaty of Riga. Funny thing is that while this treaty is celebrated as a Polish victory in modern Polish schools, no one would ever suggest in Poland that they try to get the old eastern Kresy lands back. Hungary had a hard time swallowing the loss of the Bánság, Felvidék, Burgenland and Transylvania but Poland never wanted its lost lands back. I guess Wroclaw and Szczecin are more valuable than Wilno or Lwów. I also noticed from some Finnish acquaintences that Finnish desire for getting Karelia back dampened after being overrun with refugees in the 1990s. Hmmmm....

Karelia is a wasteland. I don't blame the Finns for not wanting it back.

Actually, the Soviet historians Mikhail Geller and Alexander Nekrich, both of whom had full access to the Soviet archives, peg the total Soviet number at some 15 million. At the height of the Great Purges there were some 8 million, and by 1940 6.5 million. They lay out in extensive numbers how many of these gulag inmates were used in several Soviet industrial projects as virtual slave labor - 20% of all labor in the USSR in 1940, according to Geller & Nekrich. They also mention that the overwhelming majority of gulag prisoners did not survive the experience.

I don't know about these two specifically, but I do know Geller has published multiple books in the West, and I read he has an anti-communist stance. People like Alexander Zinoviev (published books like "Yellow Home," "Crisis of Communism and "Undertaking") and others after him have already come out to admit that they too maintained the same stance, such as Solzhenitsyn and Conquest, but admitted they were paid to lie by the Westerners. Everyone has a price, it seems. BTW, this Zinoviev was arrested by Stalin's police before the Purges, if I remember correctly, because he was plotting an assasination of Stalin, utilizing his underground terrorist group which he admitted to. He says he hated Stalin, but now understands his policies truly, and admits Stalin's USSR was different than the latter revisionist USSRs under Khruschev and Breznhev.

Also, a critical difference between American prisoners and Soviet prisoners would be that most Soviet gulag prisoners were political prisoners (according to both Geller & Nekrich and Dmitri Volkogonov), or worse yet simply random captives turned in by some Soviet citizen or used to fill quotas. For instance, when Budapest fell in 1945, the NKVD expected x number of Hungarian and German POWs but when captured the number turned out to be much less - so Hungarian citizens were randomly rounded up and shipped off to Siberia to fill the quotas.

You have to remember this is RIGHT after the war. Some of these countries you mentioned were PART OF THE AXIS and that some of these still had Nazi militias running around. We even had Fascist militias in the Ukraine, which didn't go away until the 1950s. Also, if you don't think the West wasn't cracking down on dissidents during this time, then you're disillusioned. There will always be things that will never reach your ears, because as been said, the victor always writes the history.

I looked up the American prison population and found the largest, most up-to-date (2002) numbers being around 2 million. Where did you get your numbers?

My numbers are not up-to-date. I used 1996 data.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That was very entertaining. Check out Geller & Nekrich's book Utopia u vlastyi pp. 319-320 for a detailed rendering of numbers of gulag prisoners and how they "lived", even before the war. Let me give you a sample quote:

Here's an interesting link: http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

It covers many subjects, so I will use this to add to my replies further down the line.

Another funny one. The American ambassador from 1936-1938, Joseph Davies, was an avowed communist sympathizer who pathetically bought into everything and anything Moscow said. He claimed at different times that the GPU didn't really exist, or that it was just a minor economic security organization. The entire American embassy staff hated working with Davies (which comes out loudly in the FRUS). The American ambassador to Poland from 1945-1949, Arthur B. Lane, had a long public argument with Davies in which Lane would point out crimes committed by the communists in Poland and provide evidence, and Davies would answer something like "He's mistaken", "He's wrong", etc. Finally Davies was completely discredited when it became clear to the world the Soviets were violating the Potsdam accords.

Interesting. What evidence did this Arthur B. Lane provide?

And I am afraid you are very mistaken about the show trials. After WW II the Soviets installed the immediate local communist leaders in Eastern Europe but shortly thereafter from 1948-49 instituted closely-controlled purges to put their own Moscow-trained puppets in power. There were lots of good old-fashioned Soviet show trials, where the accused made extreme and bizarre confessions to working for 20 different foreign intelligence services at once. When in Poland and Hungary the local communists were able to re-assert control in 1956, both governments admitted that these trials - hundreds of them in both countries - were all fabrications. After 1989 the Czechs also admitted that their trials - like the famous Josef Slansky trial - were also faked. And these trials were all closely controlled by Andrei Vyshynsky from Moscow. :hmm:

Isn't it funny how this debacle in 1956 coincides right wuth Khruschev "secret speech," which made the case against Stalin. Truth is, those "revolutions" were Khruschev creations, because this did 3 things: 1. tested Western response 2. Help Khruschev consolidate his power by making the case against Stalin, 3. Put the Eastern Bloc under control and made sure to tell them who's really running things.

In 1989, I wouldn't even bother. 1989 saw liberals, or former "communists" taking power. Anything anti-Communist helped them throw off the yoke of Communism and continue with reforms. Even Yeltsin used this trick.

There's a very funny Hungarian film from I think 1972 or so about these show trials called A Tanú (The Witness), showing how they wee staged. And of course, the defendants always confessed, were always found guilty, and were almost always executed.

Let me share a Polish joke with you:

Two Japanese scientists find an old humanoid skeleton but are only vaguely able to determine its age. They guess about 1-3 million years old. They give it to a German institute and it comes back with a better age, c. 1-1.5 million years old. They in turn forward to an American university who studies it comes back with a date of about 1.3-1.5 million years old. When the Soviets hear about this they claim they can do better - so the Japanese give them the skeleton, and after a month TASS issues a statement that the Great Soviet Scientists have discovered that the skeleton is exactly 1 million, 456 thousand and 3 years, 8 months, 2 weeks and 7 and a half hours old. The Japanese are of course stunned and they telephone Moscow, asking how they got such an amazing date - to which Moscow answered, "It confessed."

Part II comin' next - [/B]

japskua

Jan 28, 2003, 02:50 PM

But if you consider how life was in USSR, you can surely thank for communism.

The long lasted monarchy of Russia had already made Russia a "land of no hope". In end of 1800 it was one of the only countries in Europe, which didn´t have major industrialism.
The czar (I don´t know how it´s spelled in english) had much wealth and power and the "lumpenproletariat" (like Marx called them) were many (it means peasantry and proletariat means factory workers). Peasants were poor and worked long days. With the revolution the monarchy was gone and new, radical communistic leadership was started. Lenin was great (the best actually) follower of Marxist ways. He had his own, more complex view of the working communistic system, altough he didn´t have it ready at the times of revolution. As Lenin died in illness, his works of making perfect communistic country was left undone. Stalin, his follower did not understand or didn´t want to understand how to make things work better. He was a dictator with his own goals to have, to unite the world as under his communistic leadership.

But back to people. From the 1918 to 1970-1980 everything went fine. People had food, clothes and good living (well, at least most of them). They were proud of their "superrior" nation. The old people nowdays in Russia, speak proudly of the soviet Russia. Nowdays living is hard, government is in great debts and money isn´t paid to workers. Everything is going straight to he**.

Also when people speak of Soviet Union and communism, they always think the system as corrupted. Well, ofcourse it had some major problems, I don´t doubt that, but it wasn´t as corrupted as nowdays Democratic Russia.
And it isn´t so different from the USA if you ask from me.

When you go to Moscow, you might aswell go to Washington. The language is different and the history is longer and more prosperious. The people are the same, the manners are the same (well, almost). So actually, only difference between these two "powers" are, that they both were on the other sides of the cold war and both sides have been affected by negative propaganda of the other side...

Vrylakas

Jan 31, 2003, 08:26 PM

First of all, my apologies for being tardy in replying; work this week got ugly.

Propaganda wrote:

Here we go:

S-udovolstvjem...

Vrylakas wrote:
That wonderful Treaty of Riga. Funny thing is that while this treaty is celebrated as a Polish victory in modern Polish schools, no one would ever suggest in Poland that they try to get the old eastern Kresy lands back. Hungary had a hard time swallowing the loss of the Bánság, Felvidék, Burgenland and Transylvania but Poland never wanted its lost lands back. I guess Wroclaw and Szczecin are more valuable than Wilno or Lwów. I also noticed from some Finnish acquaintences that Finnish desire for getting Karelia back dampened after being overrun with refugees in the 1990s. Hmmmm....

Karelia is a wasteland. I don't blame the Finns for not wanting it back.

Was it always a wasteland or did something happen to it that made it that way...?

Actually, the Soviet historians Mikhail Geller and Alexander Nekrich, both of whom had full access to the Soviet archives, peg the total Soviet number at some 15 million. At the height of the Great Purges there were some 8 million, and by 1940 6.5 million. They lay out in extensive numbers how many of these gulag inmates were used in several Soviet industrial projects as virtual slave labor - 20% of all labor in the USSR in 1940, according to Geller & Nekrich. They also mention that the overwhelming majority of gulag prisoners did not survive the experience.

I don't know about these two specifically, but I do know Geller has published multiple books in the West, and I read he has an anti-communist stance. People like Alexander Zinoviev (published books like "Yellow Home," "Crisis of Communism and "Undertaking") and others after him have already come out to admit that they too maintained the same stance, such as Solzhenitsyn and Conquest, but admitted they were paid to lie by the Westerners.

Which "Westerners"? CIA? I have to admit it took me a while to stop laughing when I read that one. Those who live in Russia, Ukraine or the former Soviet Union and have never lived in the West often carry a common misconception, that the West is just like the East. It isn't. As someone who's lived in both the Soviet empire and the West, let me fill you in on a reality: In the (former Soviet) East, everything was centralized and controlled by the central government. The fact that even today most paychecks in Russia come from Moscow absolutely baffles Americans - they've never seen the huge bureaucracy that Soviet life created. Things are not centrally controlled in the West. There is no American Academy of the Sciences where all historians must belong - there is no such thing here. Historians in the West meet in conferences that they themselves organize and pay for. All governments create propaganda but in the West almost all news agencies are privately-owned and operate completely independent of the governments - and cannot be controlled by them. Every single day you can read in newspapers, on the radio, on TV, and on millions of newssites someone claiming the government is full of sh*t on some subject. In Russia it is still possible for Putin to heavily influence the press but not in the Netherlands, Germany, Canada or the U.S. Most Western politicians hate the press exactly because they can't control it and it won't let them get away with lies.

What this means is that it is impossible for any government in the West to have the kind of control that the Soviet government had - which shouldn't be surprising, right? The Soviet government was a dictatorship and the Western governments are democracies, which were designed specifically so no one could achieve too much power. That's how a democracy works. What this also means is that the Soviet idea of "Western propaganda" is a bit lame and based on ignorance, since no one has control over the flow of information here. Does the government say something you don't agree with? It's very easy here to do the research and find out if they're telling thr truth - and there's nothing they can do if you publish your findings.

Everyone has a price, it seems.

All those thousands of Russian historians being paid by the West; no wonder the Western economies aren't doing so well nowadays. ;) I should get on the bandwagon because no one's paying me to hold my beliefs. Where do I sign up?

BTW, this Zinoviev was arrested by Stalin's police before the Purges, if I remember correctly, because he was plotting an assasination of Stalin, utilizing his underground terrorist group which he admitted to. He says he hated Stalin, but now understands his policies truly, and admits Stalin's USSR was different than the latter revisionist USSRs under Khruschev and Breznhev.

Um, you don't really believe that stuff, do you?

Also, a critical difference between American prisoners and Soviet prisoners would be that most Soviet gulag prisoners were political prisoners (according to both Geller & Nekrich and Dmitri Volkogonov), or worse yet simply random captives turned in by some Soviet citizen or used to fill quotas. For instance, when Budapest fell in 1945, the NKVD expected x number of Hungarian and German POWs but when captured the number turned out to be much less - so Hungarian citizens were randomly rounded up and shipped off to Siberia to fill the quotas.

You have to remember this is RIGHT after the war. Some of these countries you mentioned were PART OF THE AXIS and that some of these still had Nazi militias running around. We even had Fascist militias in the Ukraine, which didn't go away until the 1950s. Also, if you don't think the West wasn't cracking down on dissidents during this time, then you're disillusioned. There will always be things that will never reach your ears, because as been said, the victor always writes the history.

The Soviets did similar things in Poland and Czechoslovakia, two Allied countries. They made little distinction in their new imperianum. Hungarian communists who were arrested in the first wave of Stalinist show trials in 1948-49 were sometimes put in the same cells as old fascist Hungarian Nyilaskereszt (Arrow Cross) members.

I looked up the American prison population and found the largest, most up-to-date (2002) numbers being around 2 million. Where did you get your numbers?

My numbers are not up-to-date. I used 1996 data.

So you're saying that the American prison population went from 7 million to 2 million in 6 years? :eek:

That was very entertaining. Check out Geller & Nekrich's book Utopia u vlastyi pp. 319-320 for a detailed rendering of numbers of gulag prisoners and how they "lived", even before the war. Let me give you a sample quote:

Here's an interesting link: http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

Sorry - I have 8+ years of studying History behind me, and one thing every single professor - from Hungary, Poland and the U.S. - all told us is never, never, never trust any website on the internet. Here's a basic difference: A historical article published in a professional journal or a book must lay out all its sources with proper citations and show through progressive levels how one's thesis was developed and associated with previous historians' work. Then, after the evidence is stacked up and it's published it is then subjected to fellow historians' scrutiny. This is called peer review, and it means that fellow experts all over the world in your particular field read your work and critique it - your methodology, how you build your argument, check your sources to se if they're credible and if you've interpreted them correctly - and reviews are published. That's how history, or for that matter all science, works - through research, presentation, and peer review. The distorted, misunderstood, or just plain kooky arguments are labeled as such and cast aside, while the credible ones or ones with verifiable new evidence are advanced.

With the internet, a wonderful and democratic place, anyone can put anything on a website. Here's (http://www.mt.net/~watcher/april30.html) an example. Alien conspiracies, faked celebrity photos, bizarre religious cults and just plain crapola all rest side by side with credible sites - but how to tell the difference? Conspiracist sites have a habit of writing lots of garbage then citing one another, as if one garbage validates another. Go and ask any professional historian and you'll be told that serious historical research cannot be done on the internet. You'll have to provide me with credible published sources whose works have been seriously examined and reviewed by professional historians. Revisionist history is fun but all too often falls into the same holes as alien conspiracies...

Another funny one. The American ambassador from 1936-1938, Joseph Davies, was an avowed communist sympathizer who pathetically bought into everything and anything Moscow said. He claimed at different times that the GPU didn't really exist, or that it was just a minor economic security organization. The entire American embassy staff hated working with Davies (which comes out loudly in the FRUS). The American ambassador to Poland from 1945-1949, Arthur B. Lane, had a long public argument with Davies in which Lane would point out crimes committed by the communists in Poland and provide evidence, and Davies would answer something like "He's mistaken", "He's wrong", etc. Finally Davies was completely discredited when it became clear to the world the Soviets were violating the Potsdam accords.

Interesting. What evidence did this Arthur B. Lane provide?

Lane published his collected evidence in his 1948 book I Saw Poland Betrayed: An American Ambassador Reports to the American People. You can also read the correspondance of American ambassadors (thirty years later, anyway) in the Foreign Relations of the United States, a collection of embassy activities published by the U.S. government at least thirty years after they happened. (I think this year the U.S. will publish the 1963 or 1964 volume.) In the FRUS (which I've used in research) you can also read that initially the U.S. didn't believe Lane, and thought he was exaggerating things. His claims were since substantiated by defectors, and of course we've had full access to the Polish PZPR, UB, SB, etc. archives since 1989 - full and open access, unlike the Soviet archives which have been only partially opened to select historians.

And I am afraid you are very mistaken about the show trials. After WW II the Soviets installed the immediate local communist leaders in Eastern Europe but shortly thereafter from 1948-49 instituted closely-controlled purges to put their own Moscow-trained puppets in power. There were lots of good old-fashioned Soviet show trials, where the accused made extreme and bizarre confessions to working for 20 different foreign intelligence services at once. When in Poland and Hungary the local communists were able to re-assert control in 1956, both governments admitted that these trials - hundreds of them in both countries - were all fabrications. After 1989 the Czechs also admitted that their trials - like the famous Josef Slansky trial - were also faked. And these trials were all closely controlled by Andrei Vyshynsky from Moscow.

Isn't it funny how this debacle in 1956 coincides right wuth Khruschev "secret speech," which made the case against Stalin. Truth is, those "revolutions" were Khruschev creations, because this did 3 things: 1. tested Western response 2. Help Khruschev consolidate his power by making the case against Stalin, 3. Put the Eastern Bloc under control and made sure to tell them who's really running things.

The admissions about the show trials actually began in 1955 in both Poland and Hungary, before Khrushchov was fully in control, although they were due to the slackening of control from Moscow after Stalin's death. The problem was that these countries were on the verge of revolution because of failed and repressive Stalinist policies, and Moscow didn't quite know what to do. The resulting confusion allowed some odd freedoms to emerge, including the replacement of the some of the worst communists in these countries (Nagy in Hungary in 1954, Gomulka being freed from prison). Khrushchov merely tried to ride out the turmoil in these countries, which explains why he reacted so differently to both - letting Poland go after a military confrontation in October 1956 but attacking Hungary only days later for the same.

In 1989, I wouldn't even bother. 1989 saw liberals, or former "communists" taking power. Anything anti-Communist helped them throw off the yoke of Communism and continue with reforms. Even Yeltsin used this trick.

And 1989 was one of the best years in Eastern Europe's history - getting rid of the thugs from Moscow. I have very happy memeories from that year, watching the communists (like Orwell's piggies in Animal Farm) scatter and run for cover. It's too bad it took Russia, a backward old 19th-century-style empire, until 1991 to finally overthrow the bastards and liars of 1917.

onejayhawk

Jan 31, 2003, 11:29 PM

I missed these. To bad Alex isnt participating.

I have a question. Now that the strong central government is gone, the common wisdom in the west is that crime has taken a strong hold on the Eastern European countries. Is this true? If so how does it compare with the problems of having a secret police which, mostly incidentally, controlled or at least supressed it before.

J

Chairman Yang

Feb 01, 2003, 09:58 PM

Ja toche gavaryo pa ruski, no tolko njemnogo, no ja panimal a chom vui pisateli.
:hmm: Wonder if I made any sense?

I am honestly too tired to get into this thread, of which I am sure those who knows me are quite glad. Though I think I will shortly and simply put tell my personal views on the SSSR, if anyone feels like reading it.

In my own head, a constant battle between information and dis-information is taking place regarding what my standpoint really is on the SSSR. I would say officially my standpoint is that it was and is a great nation and symbol for communism, simply because it is not in a communists best interest questioning the past of his ideology when he should look to the future and not get stuck in constant squabbling within groups of likeminded over this and that regarding certain nations and leaders.

On the other hand, Stalins idea of "one-nation" communism goes quite against what is the essence of communism, that is should be spread world-wide. And of course the suffering of people is never good, I think paranoia and desire for power got the upper hand. But it will serv as any good reminder in the next revolution, that we must remember WHY we started it, and not only be about self-preservation.

I voted "a good thing" since I am also rather nostalgic when it comes to Soviet revolution romantisicm. :D

Russia is a great country and I advise everyone to visit it sometime! :)

Vrylakas

Feb 01, 2003, 11:26 PM

OneJayHawk wrote:

I have a question. Now that the strong central government is gone, the common wisdom in the west is that crime has taken a strong hold on the Eastern European countries. Is this true? If so how does it compare with the problems of having a secret police which, mostly incidentally, controlled or at least supressed it before.

The answer for every country is going to be different. I'll speak specifically about Poland.

A critical problem about the communist years that came to light after 1989 was that for the past several decades people had been forced to learn how to act covertly, how to work out of government sight. This wasn't for criminal purposes; it was the only way to live. From about 1975 onwards basic things like gasoline, bread, some meats, soap, etc. etc. etc. just couldn't be found in government shops (i.e., the only shops around) and yet just about everyone managed to buy these things. How? Black market. the black market was an absolute necessity for survival, and everyone - everyone - was involved. The police made the occasional arrests to catch "profiteers" but that was just for show. They had to use the black market too.

There was of course, especially after Solidarnosc and 1980-81, the political aspect as well. Secret communications, publications, newspapers, organizations, etc. etc. etc. proliferated throughout the country. This the authorities tried harder to crack down on but with only limited success.

What these realities added up to for post-communist Poland was a country well trained in undermining authority and acting secretly. The whole country had excellent skills for criminal activities. Only a minority took to that exact kind of activity but their skills, coupled with:

1. arms bought illegally from the retreating Soviet Army
2. a weakened police force not sure how far its powers reached in the new democratic order
3. a collapsing economy

all added up to the quick formation of crime groups. These vied for control of different areas, and Polish cities were hit with car bombings and spectacular mafia-style assassinations in gang turf wars. (I happened upon one such bombing once, in which a shop had all its windows blown out.) To illustrate how the police were affected, once while in Hungary I watched as a BMW ripped by me at high speed in a city center, followed shortly by a police car with sirens blazing - and the police car was an old Soviet Lada. The moment that BMW got to the open road, you just know they were long gone...

BTW, a Polish actor named Boguslaw Lind became famous in the 1990s portraying a hardened cop fighting the Polish and Russian mafia in Poland in a series of films called Psy ("Cop"). I've seen him playing bit roles in other, foreign films since.

The U.S. and Interpol stepped in with some training for special anti-mafia units in the 1990s, and these seemed to have made a difference because the worst, most violent aspects have largely stopped. No society, especially one so close to Russia, will ever be free of a mafia and with the large Polish emigre community abroad the Polish mafia has a global reach. They tend to be more high tech and not quite as brutish as the Russians, though that may be a luxury. In 1988 or so it was revealed that the Polish SB (Polish KGB) had been involved with a government-sanctioned burglery scheme in Western Europe (especially France), effectively stealing luxury goods and re-selling them for profit. Many former SB agents went to work for the mafia after 1989...

Another reality feeding the Polish mafia is the border with Belarus. It is clogged with illegal immigrants from Belarus, Russia, Central Asia, Pakistan, China, Mongolia, etc. who all are happily willing to pay large amounts of $$$ to get smuggled into the country - and onward to Western Europe. Every so often one of these rings is shown being busted on the news. The EU is obviously very concerned about this, as is the U.S. since it is thought a few of the 11. September hijackers may have transited Poland to Germany in this way.

In all I think the mafias in Poland are less potent than the 1990s when they seemingly could operate with impunity, but they are still around. The police are better armed and trained, and more confident. They also have working relationships with international police, which helps much.

klazlo

Feb 02, 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by onejayhawk
I have a question. Now that the strong central government is gone, the common wisdom in the west is that crime has taken a strong hold on the Eastern European countries. Is this true? If so how does it compare with the problems of having a secret police which, mostly incidentally, controlled or at least supressed it before. J

And now after Poland, let's take a look at Hungary... ;)

Vrylakas wrote a lot of good points that is valid in Hungary also and I guess it is valid in all Eastern European country, I just note some other factors, which were present in Hungary.

1. The public opinion about the role of the police changed. There was a "public demand" for the police to be "softer". At the same time (and due to the role of the police under socialism) the prestige of the police decreased. This prestige problem and the fact that the wages did not rise (since police wages were paid from the state budget and the states were bankrupt) resulted in a change in the human resources - in other words the people who became policemen were not the best types.
2. Besides the police, there was a "social control" under socialism, when people were expected to behave in certain ways. When the system collapsed there were no sign of expected behavior, indeed the outbreak of capitalism resulted in a strong individualism. People were free to express their own personalities that were supressed under socialism and when social homogeneity goes away you will see some bad guys also.
3. The economic breakdown and the feeling that there is no way out of poverty, put several people on the illegal side, especially when everybody saw how much wealth can be accumulated in illegal business and there isn't any consequence (see Vrylakas' example about the BMW).
4. Finally, since these countries had to setup a very different system, there was a period of some years, when the lack of regulations and laws made possible the walk on the "grey" side and as Vrylakas wrote, keep up with the covert business.

onejayhawk

Feb 02, 2003, 02:27 PM

I seem to have hijacked this thread. Oh well.

All this fits in with the popular belief that the criminal organizations growing out of the black market are also ruthless and vicious. Presumably because only such people could be actively criminal in face of the KGB, or its local equivalent. On the other hand black marketers are businessmen of a sort, and they would not want to stay underground if they did not need to. I suspect that there is substantial social pressure on those engaging in criminal behavior to restrain the violence.

I wonder how many fortunes have "gone straight" as we would say, and become recognized businesses. Al Capone claimed he was providing a public service when he sold his liquor. Conrad Vanderbilt was one of the crudest and most offensive people imaginable. Yet his family is noted for its social graces. Time will tell I suppose.

J

Cimbri

Feb 02, 2003, 04:17 PM

A few million dead Soviet citizens would likely vote that it was a bad thing…

West German

Feb 04, 2003, 08:20 PM

It is bad because it supported terrorist groups and would have conquered Europe.

Bifrost

Feb 18, 2003, 12:12 PM

It is bad because it supported terrorist groups and would have conquered Europe.

Ohh.. these "would have" are charming.
I can compose a few wouldhaves myself, check this out:
Germany wouldn't have become a Fascist country wheteher Hitler's paintings were more popular.
There would have been no USA if Mayflower crushed.
If there would be no Jews some people would have nobody to accuse of everything bad happening to them.

Go on wouldhaving! Succeed in wouldhaving! Wouldhave like me, wouldhave better than me! Wouldhave so that no one can overwouldhave you!

Use Civilization if you're so willing to rewrite history ;)

Ja toche gavaryo pa ruski, no tolko njemnogo, no ja panimal a chom vui pisateli.
Wonder if I made any sense?

According to my knowledge in Russian there are a couple of mistakes, though I'm not sure.

Siegmund

Feb 18, 2003, 05:48 PM

Oops! Realized after I posted this that there were 3 more pages to this thread and it isn't a timely comment anymore -- oh well.. heh -------------

Why didn't we go on a "nuke spree" when we had the chance?

Two reasons, really...

One is that calmer heads prevailed over those - and there were a fair few of them - who advocated preemptive strikes against the USSR. It remained a hot topic through the period when we had the hydrogen bomb and they had "only" fission bombs. Want to hear the full argument spelled out? See any biography of John von Neumann, one of the most brilliant men of the last century if also somewhat - erm - unconventional.

Also, while we had enough bombs to do badly scare whomever we chose shortly after WWII, the total number of available bombs remained in the single digits until 1950ish and the maximum production rate was still only a few per year. Complete destruction of a major country's infrastructure, as opposed to just taking out a few key attention-getting targets, really was not an option until the mid- to late-1950s... and by that time they could do the same to us.

Personally, I doubt the strategy would have worked: a nuclear war before the mid-50s would have an opening phase with a few big mushroom clouds, then with each side's nuclear production sites taken out, we resume WWII for another year before anyone can use the bomb again.

Remorseless

Feb 19, 2003, 12:46 PM

AoA, I must disagree. There have been very few good arguments (on both sides) in this debate, and a lot of nationalist chest-thumping.

And, to my horror, I found myself agreeing with Nixon. But even conservatives and liberals agree when it comes to the Soviet dictatorship.

Much has been said about the CCCP providing free education, free health care, guaranteed pensions, employment, etc.

How about guaranteed FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION, THOUGHT, MOVEMENT, POLITICAL AFFILIATION? Are you supports of the old CCCP such wimps that you would surrender your right to live your life on your feet instead of kissing the butt of whatever commissar threw out your daily ration of bread?

No, the US is not perfect -- nothing made by human hands, hearts and minds is. Yes, the US has made mistakes, sometimes egregious mistakes. But in this country, we can say what we want, we can insult our government leaders (and rather often, by the way), we can freely debate the issues of the day, we can go to any church/temple/mosque we want to or not attend any, we can read a variety of newspapers, we can get up and move to anywhere in the country or overseas without having to get permission from the enlightened leaders of the people, etc. What is wrong with you people -- is bread and security more important than freedom? Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that if the CCCP had won the Cold War, we'd be debating: the US, good or bad? No F***ING WAY. We'd be shot for even considering the West was anything but horrible -- besides, we would not have access to anything as dangerous as the free information on the Web. Of course, we would not have the time. We'd be waiting in a four-hour-long line to get cheap and rough toilet paper at the government store, while watching the government ministers whisk by in their limos heading to their dachas, their special closed stores and their mistresses.

I love the Russian people -- brave, noble, intelligent folks. But I hated the CCCP with all of my American heart. Yes, indeedy, it stood in direct opposition to what I believed in.

I think Mel Gibson said it best in the otherwise forgettable movie, Braveheart:
"THEY CAN TAKE OUR LIVES, BUT THEY CAN'T TAKE OUR FREEDOM!" I personally would rather die on my feet a free man, than live on my knees as a "subject" of the Party.

nixon

Feb 19, 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Remorseless
AoA, I must disagree. There have been very few good arguments (on both sides) in this debate, and a lot of nationalist chest-thumping.

And, to my horror, I found myself agreeing with Nixon. But even conservatives and liberals agree when it comes to the Soviet dictatorship.

Much has been said about the CCCP providing free education, free health care, guaranteed pensions, employment, etc.

How about guaranteed FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION, THOUGHT, MOVEMENT, POLITICAL AFFILIATION? Are you supports of the old CCCP such wimps that you would surrender your right to live your life on your feet instead of kissing the butt of whatever commissar threw out your daily ration of bread?

No, the US is not perfect -- nothing made by human hands, hearts and minds is. Yes, the US has made mistakes, sometimes egregious mistakes. But in this country, we can say what we want, we can insult our government leaders (and rather often, by the way), we can freely debate the issues of the day, we can go to any church/temple/mosque we want to or not attend any, we can read a variety of newspapers, we can get up and move to anywhere in the country or overseas without having to get permission from the enlightened leaders of the people, etc. What is wrong with you people -- is bread and security more important than freedom? Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that if the CCCP had won the Cold War, we'd be debating: the US, good or bad? No F***ING WAY. We'd be shot for even considering the West was anything but horrible -- besides, we would not have access to anything as dangerous as the free information on the Web. Of course, we would not have the time. We'd be waiting in a four-hour-long line to get cheap and rough toilet paper at the government store, while watching the government ministers whisk by in their limos heading to their dachas, their special closed stores and their mistresses.

I love the Russian people -- brave, noble, intelligent folks. But I hated the CCCP with all of my American heart. Yes, indeedy, it stood in direct opposition to what I believed in.

I think Mel Gibson said it best in the otherwise forgettable movie, Braveheart:
"THEY CAN TAKE OUR LIVES, BUT THEY CAN'T TAKE OUR FREEDOM!" I personally would rather die on my feet a free man, than live on my knees as a "subject" of the Party.

Amen, Remorseless. And welcome to China.

Remorseless

Feb 19, 2003, 01:39 PM

Damn right Nixon, damn right. Funny how many of our political differences disappear when we reach the shoreline.

Bifrost

Feb 19, 2003, 02:26 PM

How about guaranteed FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION, THOUGHT, MOVEMENT, POLITICAL AFFILIATION? Are you supports of the old CCCP such wimps that you would surrender your right to live your life on your feet instead of kissing the butt of whatever commissar threw out your daily ration of bread?

Kissing a butt of a commisar? I think both 'kissers' will be shut in twenty minutes somewhere in a backyard. Corruption wasn't appreciated before Brezhnev.

to give comments to all the rest....????....
no

Remorseless

Feb 19, 2003, 06:40 PM

BiFrost, kissing the butt of a commissar translates in American to mean groveling at the feet of tyrants and thanking them for the stale crust of black bread they let fall out of their fine heated cars as they drive by, and giving thanks you weren't shot for not showing proper respect to a representative of the people.

You must understand that many Americans believed we had far more in common with the Russians than with many of our "allies." Now that you have thrown off the shackles of dictatorship, I believe my country wants to be your friend -- not your enemy, not your dictator, but your friend.

But you are victims of your history -- oppressed by a thousand years of princes, khans and tsars. It is truly better to die on your feet as a free man than to accept a tiny bit of security, food and a crappy apartment in trade for your freedom.

sgrig

Feb 20, 2003, 04:27 PM

When answering whether the USSR was a good or bad thing, it really depends, compared to what and for whom.

Ironically, in my opinion, the existance of the Soviet Union did more good to the Western World, rather than the East. If not for the Soviet Union providing competition to USA and Western Europe, then the technological process would be much, much slower. Most of the technological advances from 1950's to late 1980's were fuelled by the need for new military technology. Since Stalin's time, the Soviet Union allocated a very large proportion of the budget to science. There are many arguments that Soviet science wasn't really that effective, and to a certain extent it is true - there was just far too much bureaucracy, too much was based on personal contacts, etc. But many still achievements remain. More importantly however, the Soviet attitude to science caused the American government to heavily increase funding and make science more effective. For example the NSF (National Scientific Foundation), was created as direct response to Soviet scientific achievements. If not for the Soviet Union, the US space program would have been much, much slower - I doubt if we would even have satellite TV by now, if not for the competition. Other things, such the internet, were also a direct result of the stand-off between the USA and the USSR. Of course, people living in the former Soviet Union, are only just starting to gain access to these achievements of the Cold War, while westerners had access to them for a very long time.

When considering whether the Soviet regime was good for Russia, and other countries in the region, it is important to consider what the alternative could be. The Tsarist government was doomed anyway - had it not been overthrown in 1917, it would suffer the terrible humiliation of being deposed by the advancing German army. Even the monarchy somehow survived until after WWI, the Russian Empire would most certainly disintegrate, just like the Ottoman Empire did. If there had not been a binding idea such as Communism was, the warring factions would be easy prey for colonisation by other Western powers, such as Britain (which really did like some parts of the Russian Empire, as the short occupation of Baku during the Russian Civil War has shown).

It's easy to say that Russia would've been better off as a democratic Republic rather as Communist country, but in the first half of the 20th century there was absolutely no basis for democracy in Russia (or even something remotely resembling democracy). Firstly, for a democracy to work, you need a somewhat educated population. Although literacy in the Russian Empire improved between 1900 and 1917, but still the literacy rate was at most 30-40% in 1917, or even 25% accoring to some sources. A mostly illiterate population, which was used to living under despotic governments for a thousand years is unlikely to grasp the essence of democracy. Any even remotely democratic government would have to keep intact most the government structure leftover from the Tsarist regime (since they are 'civilised' they can't forcefully remove people), which means much of the government apparatus would be the same people who cannot stand the guts of an ordinary peasant or worker. This makes things programs to educate the masses very unlikely. The society would be left extremely stratified, and such a society obviously cannot be democratic.

So basically, what I'm saying is that probably, historically there was no other choice for Russia to become a dictatorship. Not just a dictatorship, but a totalitarian society which was (at least initially) strongly bonded by a catchy idea.

Stalin had two major aims. One was to fully consolidate his unrivalled power inside the Soviet Union, the other one was fully industrialise USSR, so that military it can overwhelm any other country. Aim one resulted in millions of deaths through purges, and aim two resulted in deaths of millions through forced collectivisation and industrialisation. However if we suppose that rise of USSR and rise of Nazi Germany were independent events (which might not necessarily be true), then if not for the rapid industrialisation, Russia would've stood absolutely and utterly no chance against Nazi Germany. I highly doubt that any non-totalitarian government would be able to industrialise Russia within 20 years sufficiently to withstand Germany.

As for Stalin's purges, many of the people arrested were completely innocent, and many were reported to the NKVD by their colleagues or neighbours purely for personal reasons. I know this because my great-grandfather was arrested in 1936, and had some extremely ridiculuous charges put against him. He was lucky to be released a year later - mainly because he was quite a prominent psychologist and some major scientists in Moscow stood up for him. However among those arrested were also genuine plotters against Stalin's regime. An overthrow of Stalin's regime by somebody like Ezhov (head of NKVD until 1937), would probably result in either an even more despotic regime or complete chaos, which would obviously play into the hands of foreign powers.

As much as I hate some of Stalin's policies, I realise that his ironfist rule helped to keep USSR together during a critical time in the world's history, and even survive to become a great power in some respects. I highly doubt that it would be feasible for any other kind of government in Russia to achieve the same, given the initial conditions in 1917/18.

Stalinism was a very extremist form of Soviet rule. Later on Khruschev's rule was much "liberal", and is remembered by many as the "Golden Age" of the Soviet Union. The living conditions of the people finally began to improve and the Soviet Union was finally recovering from the devastation of WW2. (Oh, and by the way, Khruschev was Ukrainian). By 1970's, the communist ideas were already becoming a joke and really "communism" had already fulfilled its job. Soviet Union was extremely industrialised, the people were educated, but corruption in early 70's wasn't too rampant, so in my opinion that would've been a good time to begin a transition to market economy and some elements of democracy, because the population was ready for it. However that didn't happen, and by the time Gorbachev began his reforms the whole system was too rotten to be able to reform effectively.

So my point is that a "communist" totalitarian regime in the USSR was a "necessary evil" in the 1920's - 50's for Russia, but later on it lost it's point in Russia and the main benefits of its existance were enjoyed in the West.

Oh and by the way, Remorseless, I found some of your comments quite offensive. Soviet people (well most of them) regarded themselves to be free and no one would even think of "groveling at the feet of tyrants and thanking them for the stale crust of black bread". Soviet people realised the major shortcomings of the system but no one bowed to anyone. (Well, there were sycophants of course, but they exist in every country) Since the 1960's, state control wasn't as tight as it was during Stalin's time. You would probably be surprised, but in practically every kitchen people were only talking about how bad the government is. No one regarded the high-ranking party officials as being some higher class people. People genuinly believed that everyone is supposed to be equal. And so no one has to bow anyone. And no one did.

Sorry for the long post.

Vrylakas

Feb 21, 2003, 12:17 PM

Sgrig - A well written post. Only a few comments:

Ironically, in my opinion, the existance of the Soviet Union did more good to the Western World, rather than the East. If not for the Soviet Union providing competition to USA and Western Europe, then the technological process would be much, much slower. Most of the technological advances from 1950's to late 1980's were fuelled by the need for new military technology.

Agreed in principal, that the West benefitted much more from its Cold War competition with the USSR than the USSR was able to. I would add though that there was a price. An American author whose name I can't recall just this past year published a book cataloguing the price of the Cold War for the U.S., in terms of resources, money, people, time and potential lost development the U.S. invested in its struggle with Moscow. It is a mighty price tag indeed, and we'll never know how those resources might otherwise have been used. I am very glad that the West committed those resources in the Cold War, but from the perspective of technological development one could imagine an easier way to progress...

When considering whether the Soviet regime was good for Russia, and other countries in the region, it is important to consider what the alternative could be.

I'm a little uncomfortable with your thesis here. I agree that democracy for Russia in 1918 was probably unrealistic, at least democracy in the Western sense. After all, democracy failed throughout most of Europe in the 1920s and 30s, including Germany - which was much more socially and economically developed than Russia. However, to go to the opposite extreme and assume that a totalitarian dictatorship was the only way to go, that I'm not so sure. I agree with your linkage of the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes, but I do so because I believe both were part of the same phenomenon. Both were aberrations, unusual departures from the norm of their respective histories. In both cases extremist groups hijacked the country and imposed their distorted view of their national history (and hence future) on the country. I suspect that had the October 1917 coup failed, Russia might have drifted towards a 1930s Romanian-style authoritarian oligarcho-democracy, where technically there was democracy but in reality an economically powerful urban elite ruled the country. The country would have been a mass of semi-literate peasants paying little heed to the political mechinations in Moscow, little influenced by it and little interested in what happens there. Economic (industrial) and etc. development would have been much slower but on the other hand the Stalinist repression never would have happened.

Still, it is true that industrializing economies are always unstable and the dislocation brought on by economic development might have sparked more radical protests, uprisings and even regimes later, in the 1930s (when most of Europe experienced the same). Stalin dealt with this natural instability by merely terrorizing the whole country into submission. Perhaps the result might have been a more blatantly Russian fascism.

Stalin had two major aims. One was to fully consolidate his unrivalled power inside the Soviet Union, the other one was fully industrialise USSR, so that military it can overwhelm any other country. Aim one resulted in millions of deaths through purges, and aim two resulted in deaths of millions through forced collectivisation and industrialisation. However if we suppose that rise of USSR and rise of Nazi Germany were independent events (which might not necessarily be true), then if not for the rapid industrialisation, Russia would've stood absolutely and utterly no chance against Nazi Germany. I highly doubt that any non-totalitarian government would be able to industrialise Russia within 20 years sufficiently to withstand Germany.

The last is a valid point. It is shocking to me that some Russians today can still rationalize the deaths and enslavement of millions as simply necessary for the common good, but it is also true that Russia's modern economic infrastructure is largely due to the Stalinist efforts. What a price though, a price few other countries would ever consider paying...

As for Stalin's purges, many of the people arrested were completely innocent, and many were reported to the NKVD by their colleagues or neighbours purely for personal reasons. I know this because my great-grandfather was arrested in 1936, and had some extremely ridiculuous charges put against him. He was lucky to be released a year later - mainly because he was quite a prominent psychologist and some major scientists in Moscow stood up for him. However among those arrested were also genuine plotters against Stalin's regime. An overthrow of Stalin's regime by somebody like Ezhov (head of NKVD until 1937), would probably result in either an even more despotic regime or complete chaos, which would obviously play into the hands of foreign powers.

There undoubtedly were some plots against Stalin - what sane man wouldn't? - and these threats came almost exclusively from within the party apparatii themselves (GPU/NKVD, Army, etc.) but the overwhelming majority of those arrested in the purges were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. Stalin was paranoid and saw demons where there were none. It must also be said that Stalin's purges did great damage to the USSR's ability to defend itself against the Nazi attack in 1941, as many historians directly blame his gutting of the Army's officer corp for the extremely high casualty rates and fumbles of the first year of the war. Yezhov BTW had of course made his career sending many of those millions to their deaths, and was liquidated by Stalin primarily because he had become too powerful in his own right.

Soviet people (well most of them) regarded themselves to be free and no one would even think of "groveling at the feet of tyrants and thanking them for the stale crust of black bread". Soviet people realised the major shortcomings of the system but no one bowed to anyone. (Well, there were sycophants of course, but they exist in every country) Since the 1960's, state control wasn't as tight as it was during Stalin's time. You would probably be surprised, but in practically every kitchen people were only talking about how bad the government is. No one regarded the high-ranking party officials as being some higher class people. People genuinly believed that everyone is supposed to be equal. And so no one has to bow anyone. And no one did.

This is a matter of definitions. Westerners define "freedom" as individual, personal guaranteed freedoms; while Russians tend to think more in corporate or collective terms. There also is a different sense of scale... For instance, while in the end the Russians and Germans behaved in more or less the same way in their occupations of Poland, Poles tend today to be angrier with the Germans. The reason is that the Russians simply behaved in Poland as they did in their own country - and Poles who travelled to the USSR knew that for as bad as things were in Poland, they were far worse in Russia itself for the average Russian. Germans on the other hand behaved very differently in Poland than they did back home, and didn't dare do half the things they inflicted on Poland back in Germany itself. Even from the perspective of Poland, Hungary or Bulgaria, Russia has an unusually tyrannical history with a long list of all-powerful rulers whose word was virtual diktat. As a Hungarian professor of mine said in the 1990s, Russians are famous for being able to endure deprivations that almost no other country ever could - but Russia won't become a full democracy until Russians stop enduring deprivations and start making demands of their government.

Sorry for the long post.

Apologies for long posts are completely unnecessary around here. :D

sgrig

Feb 21, 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Agreed in principal, that the West benefitted much more from its Cold War competition with the USSR than the USSR was able to. I would add though that there was a price. An American author whose name I can't recall just this past year published a book cataloguing the price of the Cold War for the U.S., in terms of resources, money, people, time and potential lost development the U.S. invested in its struggle with Moscow. It is a mighty price tag indeed, and we'll never know how those resources might otherwise have been used. I am very glad that the West committed those resources in the Cold War, but from the perspective of technological development one could imagine an easier way to progress...

I agree that the Cold War did cost a lot. The military budgets were huge during the Cold War. However it is precisely some of these resources which contributed to the technological development. Fast progress always has a price tag (and there "overheads" as well). An easier way to progress is to progess slowly. Of course even without Soviet competion, there would've been progress, driven mostly by competition between major corporations. But no corporation can finance some of the huge projects, like the space program. Without the outside competion I doubt the US space program would get the attention from the government as it did during the Cold War.

I suspect that had the October 1917 coup failed, Russia might have drifted towards a 1930s Romanian-style authoritarian oligarcho-democracy, where technically there was democracy but in reality an economically powerful urban elite ruled the country. The country would have been a mass of semi-literate peasants paying little heed to the political mechinations in Moscow, little influenced by it and little interested in what happens there. Economic (industrial) and etc. development would have been much slower but on the other hand the Stalinist repression never would have happened.

Still, it is true that industrializing economies are always unstable and the dislocation brought on by economic development might have sparked more radical protests, uprisings and even regimes later, in the 1930s (when most of Europe experienced the same). Stalin dealt with this natural instability by merely terrorizing the whole country into submission. Perhaps the result might have been a more blatantly Russian fascism.

Very good points. Actually the situation in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union did show that the country could slide either towards an "oligarcho-democracy" or fascism. Currently Russia is treading a thin line between sliding back into the oligarcho-democracy of the 1990's and sliding into a nationalistic semi-dictatorship. This shows that something like this, but without any educational, technological or industrial base could have happened in 1920's-30's. Given such alternatives, I would say that for my generation, and especially my parents' generation communism in Russia was the most advantageous possibility.

The last is a valid point. It is shocking to me that some Russians today can still rationalize the deaths and enslavement of millions as simply necessary for the common good, but it is also true that Russia's modern economic infrastructure is largely due to the Stalinist efforts. What a price though, a price few other countries would ever consider paying...

That's the essence of Russia's history. Russia always pays a horrific price to achieve something. I don't think there has ever been progress in Russia which hasn't been paid for in blood. :( :(

There undoubtedly were some plots against Stalin - what sane man wouldn't? - and these threats came almost exclusively from within the party apparatii themselves (GPU/NKVD, Army, etc.) but the overwhelming majority of those arrested in the purges were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. Stalin was paranoid and saw demons where there were none. It must also be said that Stalin's purges did great damage to the USSR's ability to defend itself against the Nazi attack in 1941, as many historians directly blame his gutting of the Army's officer corp for the extremely high casualty rates and fumbles of the first year of the war. Yezhov BTW had of course made his career sending many of those millions to their deaths, and was liquidated by Stalin primarily because he had become too powerful in his own right.

It's true that Stalin's purges in the officer corps had a devastating effect on the Red Army's fighting capabilities. It seems to me one of the few extremely illogical things which Stalin did (if we consider his logic) - I can sort of see the logic of many of his other actions, but not this one. Even if he did suspect that there would be plots against him in the Army, any possible plot would've been in the higher echelons of military power, but surely not middle-ranking officers? :confused:

I read sometime ago that a group of journalists went on a tour of the KGB museum in Moscow, and when passing through the room devoted to the history of NKVD, the predecessor to KGB, their guide noted that out of all government structures in the 1930's, the NKVD suffered most from Stalin's purges! Upto 60% of the the staff were arrested.

As a Hungarian professor of mine said in the 1990s, Russians are famous for being able to endure deprivations that almost no other country ever could - but Russia won't become a full democracy until Russians stop enduring deprivations and start making demands of their government.

I fully agree with this. However it depends what to demand. It modern Russia, most of the older generation people demand of the government to start "taking care of the people", ie in a Soviet way - control food prices, subsidise housing costs, provide free health care, etc. The middle generation, which was the main driving force behind the reforms of the late 80's, early 90's, usually demand more western-style freedoms. The younger generation is mostly split.

Remorseless

Feb 21, 2003, 03:23 PM

So it's okay to imprison, execute and exile millions of people because it's always been done that way?

So democracy is only for the educated, which means the uneducated masses should be grateful for oppression and tyranny?

So you have freedom if you can whisper complaints about the government while you're in the bathroom (loo) taking a crap but can't demostrate in the street because you'll be hauled off to prison?

So you have freedom if churches are left standing but you're put under surveillance because you attend a church?

Sgrig my friend, I must respectfully disagree. Freedom is for everyone, democracy is for everyone and tyranny is tyranny -- there is no justification. The glorification you gave Stalin could be applied to Hitler as well.

Bifrost

Feb 22, 2003, 12:14 PM

So democracy is only for the educated, which means the uneducated masses should be grateful for oppression and tyranny?

Democracy is not for everyone. 'grateful for oppression and tyranny' is well said, but 'should' is out of place - many people are grateful for tyranny - that's how I'd say. You think that people of Iraq dream about installing democracy? No, certainly no. And it's too naive to think so. The part tyranny has played in the world history can't be overestimated. Tyranny is a powerful item to overcome various troubles: wars, revolts, etc. Certainly it's unbelieveable that a tyranny state might be a wellfare state, a state of justice and a state of rich people, actually it can't be so. But is it so nessesary to talk about some rights, some wages while there's an enemy's army near your town, while you're hiding somewhere in a subway during bombings? USA has shown the world how tyranny works in extreme situations - a great example of efficiency of tyranny was FDR's reign.
Uneducated or poor people would rather choose tyranny instead of some democracy and market economy. People in extreme situations do not need any freedom, they need a leader. Besides, there are nations of the so-called 'eastern mentality' which would prefer tyranny to other government types no matter whether the country is being destroyed by the enemy, or is entering its Golden age.

Sgrig my friend, I must respectfully disagree. Freedom is for everyone, democracy is for everyone and tyranny is tyranny -- there is no justification. The glorification you gave Stalin could be applied to Hitler as well.

The thing that has always amazed me is such talks about Stalin that always lead to the words like 'Stalin is almost Hitler, just speaks different language' or something...
Stalin, whatever he has done, is the man in whose name Europe was set free. Who knows what was Europe nowadays without Stalin, how long would it take USA to destroy Germany, if it stayed the only unoccupied powerful country in the world? Was USA able to defeat Germany in 40-s? Seriously, I doubt. The economy of USA has always been the most powerful word in any argument, but then it was too weak.

You can talk about freedom as much as you wish, but what is the value of freedom in a poor, uneducated country? People of many states just don't undertand Americans while they are talking about democracy. Saying that freedom is above the interests of the country they live in would be equal so saying some nonsense, and it it quite predictable that people of such countries like Iraq resist to any attempts of installing democracy there.

I know that the most valueable thing in the world is human life, but it seems to me that wars and troubles lower its value to almost nothing; in such times some people are to give their lifes for other people to survive. If everyone tried to save their asses, no one would stay alive.

SKILORD

Feb 22, 2003, 09:00 PM

:lol:

I agree with Bifrost, the thought is funny.

However, in his final comment 'If everyone tried to save their asses...."

I would have phrased it: If everyone saved their asses, noone would stay alive.

I also agree with his 'support' of Uncle Joe, Staklin was evil, as evil even as Lenin ( :D ) himself, but he did kinda save Europe from the Germans, though i disagree that the US couldn't have, we could've, if we had the will (though we probably didn't) It would have taken forever and a week though.

Bifrost

Feb 23, 2003, 10:01 AM

Something's wrong with you, Skilord - you've already agreed with me twice:confused:
Fortunately, you're not a hopeless case:

"Staklin was evil, as evil even as Lenin"

I may start yet another thread, if you're interested in this topic... ;)

SKILORD

Feb 23, 2003, 11:18 AM

we've hashed it over already bi... no point left to it, if you're game though.....

Remorseless

Feb 24, 2003, 02:02 PM

Bifrost, the value of freedom is that it allows people to find their own way out of poverty and hopelessness. Of course, I have a rather high opinion of my fellow man, be he one that lives in New York City, in Minsk or Africa. Let to his own devices, a person can usually figure out a way to increase his standard of living, if he is left alone by the government.

And with all due respect, the "tyranny" under FDR during World War II was more like emergency powers. Free elections will held throughout his 12 years in office, there was even a lessening of the Democrats' hold on Congress in the 1944 elections, and free speech (when it applied to politics) was never even slightly degraded. Franklin never sent anybody out to Wyoming to "count trees," and while the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans was a shameful chapter in this nation's history, again compare them to the death camps of Hitler and Stalin's work prisons. There was no starvation, no beatings, no forced labor, no gas chambers, no executions of any kind, let alone random executions.

Again, I will repeat this: the idea that democracy "isn't for everybody" is a monstrous lie fostered by autocratic power bases to justify their oppression of the masses. How can you tell a man or a woman they do not have a right to cast a vote to determine the direction of the government they support with their taxes, and if need be, with their lives or the lives of their children? Where is the justice in that?

SKILORD

Feb 24, 2003, 03:22 PM

again compare them to the death camps of Hitler and Stalin's work prisons. There was no starvation, no beatings, no forced labor, no gas chambers, no executions of any kind, let alone random executions.

Never try to make an evil seem not so evil just because it was/is common practice. Your belief that democracy is universal implies that there is a universal code of morals, relative in no sense, and that a thing is either right or wrong, never less so, or more so, than another thing.

There are people in this world who are incapable of making their own decisions, there are races, yes ethnicity has a bit to do with this, that perfer absolutism to freedom. There are also those who require freedom, like the British, Americans, Germans, among others, these races, (groups), are damned to success, because their system is the most efficient and easily the best. It is not the only way, and it is not right for everyone, but it is the best.

Remorseless

Feb 24, 2003, 04:23 PM

Bifrost

Feb 24, 2003, 04:30 PM

So the white folks are the ones who get democracy, while it's the brown folks who don't? Sorry, I don't agree. Democracy and freedom do not presuppose any universal code of morals, only that people have the right to govern themselves.

You speak as if you were brown.
No he didn't mean this, but he's right.
Listen, if someone does not want any democracy, you'll give it to him by force?, or you think that there are no such people who would gladly obey a tyrant?

nixon

Feb 24, 2003, 04:37 PM

I wholeheartedly believe that democracy can't grow in every soil. It's about knowledge, and a proper understanding what the functions of democracy are. That cannot be taugh to everyone, because some refuse you accept and embrace that very understanding which is so essential.

SKILORD

Feb 24, 2003, 10:40 PM

I named America, Germany and the Brits (Angles in specific) because they are shining examples of the theory i put forward.

Yes, I am sure that if I did the research I could find countless examples of African and Asian (well... maybe not Asian... :D) examples of freedom seeking races/nations/tribes/clans who have succeeded.

You ask me to pretend that a dog and a cat are the same beast, and I refuse to, though I will admit that they are perfectly equal as individuals.

The Turks are interesting in this theory, because they sit amidst a sea of theocratic dictatorships as a generally secular republic, watching an Empire fall around their ears taught them that only would a democratic regime succeed in the long run, and they put this learning to use.

The Egyptians, as an example in the ancient world, were unprepared at the time for any democracy. Imagine telling the common pyramid builder that he would now vote for pharoh and a group of men able to check pharoh.

He would have spat at you for sacrelige.

And, if you think, and look at what i wrote, you will see a good bit of Marxist theory on the evolution of society and government is supported here. He was wrong, however to assume that finishing this cycle mankind would throw off freedom and revert to tyrrany. This was caused by series of misconceptions on his part, and on the grand scale of history he was dealing with it is understandable, as he lived during a particularly sifting time, when the world as he knew it was being brought forth into democracy, I can rant for hours about this, write extensively about Marx's genius and failings, it would do little good here.

The Egyptians still have a way to go of course, the evolution of many parts of the world was thrown off by colonialism and the like, disrupted, slowed down.

Now as for the cries of Remorseless,( 'm jumpin about). A call for Universal democracy is a call that there is one, absolute right, that of a people to govern themselves and to be free, from this freedom springs many other, inviolable freedoms, that right to live and breathe as you see fit among others. These rights are not relitive, they have either been violated or not, like Litmus paper, rather than a gradual scale. There is a prerequisite belief in a universal moral code, because that single tenant of such a code which you admit to posessing, that of freedom of a people to rule and be free, brings forth all other rights conceivable to such a code.

And Bifrost: Thnx for backing me up there. i knew that opinion would be tough for many to swallow and was afraid i would have to debate you again.

On a side note: I had the poles up on my other post originally, but took them off because they were hardly a success, but I have rethought this, and they failed because they did not believe in individual freedoms especially, they were simply too lazy, as a race/nation/tribe/clan to create a viable central governemnt.

Sultan Bhargash

Feb 25, 2003, 12:08 AM

On the one hand they gave us the aquaduct, on the other hand they crucified Jesus.

Oh wait, that was the Roman empire.

Yeah, Soviets, equal parts good and bad- they probably held up the planet's progress and kept the US from world domination, but on the other hand they held up the planet's progress and kept the US from world domination.

Bifrost

Feb 25, 2003, 07:57 AM

Yeah, Soviets, equal parts good and bad- they probably held up the planet's progress and kept the US from world domination, but on the other hand they held up the planet's progress and kept the US from world domination.

:goodjob:
Well said! Unfortunately I have nothing to add, just well said! :)

Remorseless

Feb 25, 2003, 11:20 AM

nixon, I am shocked by your contention that democracy isn't for everyone -- that's far too elitist even for a Republican.

I won't post here again. I cannot contenance apologists for a regime that exulted over its oppression of the masses, executed millions, conquered Eastern Europe, etc. etc.

What saddens me the most, however, is the seeming agreement among many posters that not everyone wants to be free and have a vote. I would point out South Africa, where the blacks were oppressed by the white minority, very little access to education or the modern world, yet their unifying slogan was:
"One man, one vote."

By the way, I'm a middle-aged white guy, a real veteran of Gulf War One and an Air Force brat who has lived in many countries around the world, not all of them democracies. So I have a little real experience with this subject.

nixon

Feb 25, 2003, 11:53 AM

Remorseless, my friend, I did not say that democracy isn't for everyone, because it is - I was contending that democracy simply would be hard to raise in countries like Sudan, Somalia, et al. I doubt not one second that every person on this earth wants to be free and independant, I believe that the human independent and individualistic traits exist in us all. What concerns me is the prospects of raising democracy successfully in non-secularized societies and nations in which the state and religion are synonyms. I doubt the possibilities of democracy there, what I do not doubt is the individual desire to break free and have a more free life. Look around you, all across the Muslim world, people are swept by the religious waves and spellbinds them back in time. Here the state chooses for them, which is terrible. Religion plays in entirely different role in those kind of societies, they call themselves an "Islamic state of ....", while we don't name our societies "Christian state of....". There's something wrong already, because "Islamist state" refers to the religion Islam and all that it contains. That is what I mean that some 'refuse' to understand democracy, because they believe it's a threat to their religion and lifestyle.

Remorseless

Feb 25, 2003, 12:17 PM

nixon, I withdraw my objection.

Bifrost

Feb 25, 2003, 02:02 PM

Remorseless

Feb 25, 2003, 03:06 PM

I broke my vow, but ....

Who are you to decide what the Muslims want? Have they ever been free enough to decide for themselves what kind of government they want? When you are forced to sweat every day for your bread, and only on the pleasure of a ruler, you don't have time to think too much about what kind of government you want?

Incidentally, BiFrost, would it shock you that many, many people in my country used to say the Russians weren't ready for democracy so a communist dictatorship was really what they wanted after all. Funny, seems to me that as soon as the Soviets failed, democracy took hold fairly strongly in your country -- a country, with all due respect, that had no history of a government in the hands of the people.

I respect what my friend nixon is trying to say, but I think we Americans tend to sanitize our history too much. Democracy is messy, ugly, occasionally bloody. Your country's experience with democracy since 1991 bears that out. It is not a guarantee of right actions, right deeds. All it guarantees is that the people -- not the elites, not the rulers -- decide what happens in their country. It is the universal morality of humanity - self-determination. Think about Iran. The more democratic the Islamic Republic gets, the further the people get from fundamentalist Islam. In democratic South Africa, there has been no retribution against the minority whites, but in autocratic Zimbabwe, there has been.

This was the tragedy of the Soviet Union. Doesn't Soviet mean, very loosely, a committee or group of like-minded equals making a decision. The Communist Party had the opportunity to bring that kind of decision making to the people in 1923, but instead turned to dictatorship.

nixon

Feb 25, 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Remorseless
I broke my vow, but ....

Who are you to decide what the Muslims want? Have they ever been free enough to decide for themselves what kind of government they want? When you are forced to sweat every day for your bread, and only on the pleasure of a ruler, you don't have time to think too much about what kind of government you want?

Incidentally, BiFrost, would it shock you that many, many people in my country used to say the Russians weren't ready for democracy so a communist dictatorship was really what they wanted after all. Funny, seems to me that as soon as the Soviets failed, democracy took hold fairly strongly in your country -- a country, with all due respect, that had no history of a government in the hands of the people.

I respect what my friend nixon is trying to say, but I think we Americans tend to sanitize our history too much. Democracy is messy, ugly, occasionally bloody. Your country's experience with democracy since 1991 bears that out. It is not a guarantee of right actions, right deeds. All it guarantees is that the people -- not the elites, not the rulers -- decide what happens in their country. It is the universal morality of humanity - self-determination. Think about Iran. The more democratic the Islamic Republic gets, the further the people get from fundamentalist Islam. In democratic South Africa, there has been no retribution against the minority whites, but in autocratic Zimbabwe, there has been.

This was the tragedy of the Soviet Union. Doesn't Soviet mean, very loosely, a committee or group of like-minded equals making a decision. The Communist Party had the opportunity to bring that kind of decision making to the people in 1923, but instead turned to dictatorship.

I can't decide, because I honestly don't know what they want. I can only speculate that they want just as much freedom as any other citizen of this world. But that problem is, I think, that the Muslim countries lack this..call it "enlightenment" into those democratic processes; that they are actually other ways, and far better ways of running a society. The reason why, my friend, you and I haven't watched countless Muslim rebellions on the news, because their personal liberties are being supressed, no real freedom to choose for themselves etc., is because the goverments effectively supress any such attempt to break free. I believe as soon as those barriers were broken, democracy would be just as viable there as anywhere else on the planet.

One last thing is that Russia is, despite its recent history, renowned for its Medieval veches. That would be places where ordinary citizens just like us would meet at the city marketplace and vote whether the prince had to much power, whether they should go to war, vote on taxes etc. etc.
Direct democracy, really. Unfortunately, that was destroyed as time progressed, but that is a very strong proof that Russia can indeed be a democratic society.

SKILORD

Feb 25, 2003, 04:00 PM

Funny, seems to me that as soon as the Soviets failed, democracy took hold fairly strongly in your country -- a country, with all due respect, that had no history of a government in the hands of the people.

You seem to be backing up my arguments about the Evolution of Regimes... Russia was ready for government by the people in the early 20th century, the peasants who wanted a revolution wished no harm to the tsar, they wished primarily for some little say in the government. Perhaps a constitutional monarchy, they may have hyad this if... other forces had not perversed their metamorphasis to display a new set of freedoms, the freedom to serve foremost among these, as the people suddenly took a step backwards.

But back to the present topic, I could use the Pyramid builder example again, but I won't, I shall hope that you have already percieved my point here, The people who are democratically minded, even the races i named earlier, did not attain perfect freedom in a day, through the Magna Charta, the English bill of rights, all of the gradual trappings of democratic thought, came a Constiturional Monarchy, and even a Republic across the sea from the British shore. Rome wasn't built in a day, and if it had, would it have been worth a damn? If the Roman dieties had saw fit to plant Rome as a gift to the Italians, would it hold such pride as the Rome they would concieve and construct?

Nay, it was better for the toil invested by those who sought empire.

And therefore shall we seek to impose upon the unprepared population of this earth a democratic regime? A Rome granted as a gift? I assure you that any government of the people, not put forward by the people, shall tremble and fall.

In this way, one must be patient as those nations who labor still in the darkness of opression find their way, rather than lead them, only to watch as the loose the gift we bestowed.

SKILORD

Feb 25, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Remorseless
nixon, I am shocked by your contention that democracy isn't for everyone -- that's far too elitist even for a Republican.

I won't post here again. I cannot contenance apologists for a regime that exulted over its oppression of the masses, executed millions, conquered Eastern Europe, etc. etc.

What saddens me the most, however, is the seeming agreement among many posters that not everyone wants to be free and have a vote. I would point out South Africa, where the blacks were oppressed by the white minority, very little access to education or the modern world, yet their unifying slogan was:
"One man, one vote."

By the way, I'm a middle-aged white guy, a real veteran of Gulf War One and an Air Force brat who has lived in many countries around the world, not all of them democracies. So I have a little real experience with this subject.

1. Don't try to make such a vow, simple disagreements are no reason to cut us off.

2. Apologists for the Soviet Regime? Hardly. I disagree with virtually every aspect of that regime, from it's Hijjaking of a revolution to it's construction of the Berlin Wall. It was an inherintly evil thing, and yet it did perform good works. For it's own purpouses yes, but it still helped the world.

3. S. Africa: To be dominated by a people who are free is all the education needed to instruct one nation in the art of freedom.

4: Your qualifications for debate: We never questioned them. We never attempted to say you were wrong, only that our opinions differed, and we proceeded to, in a gentlemanly manner, discuss the variances of our opinions in hopes of convincing one or the other of our own opinion's righteousness. I am hardly one to question your qualifications, my only one being that I am well read on the subject of freedom and liberty, as the subject fascinates me.

SKILORD

Feb 25, 2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
On the one hand they gave us the aquaduct, on the other hand they crucified Jesus.

Oh wait, that was the Roman empire.

Yeah, Soviets, equal parts good and bad- they probably held up the planet's progress and kept the US from world domination, but on the other hand they held up the planet's progress and kept the US from world domination.

Au contraire, the Soviets lead to US Domination.

The United States would have been more than happy to revert to isolationism, but for the beginning of the Cold War, a party they couldn't miss, the British wouldn't let them.

Europe was Stalin's playground after the Second War, if the US had left he would have plowed through to the Atlantic and we would today be faced with (Among other things) the People's Republic of France (wait... what's different?)

When this socialist state rotted from within and collapsed Europe would have been in a rather nasty situation, as Asia and whatever parts of Africa the Soviets got to.

However the communist machine would have more time to burn itself out, with so much more more fuel.

The Americans would have been left alone, perhaps a treaty with the Soviets establishes this. We certaintly make it known that we have every intention of enforcing Monroe doctrine on them. We have no desire for world domination, and only the untested courage to take it. Korea is wholly Communist, there were never any protests of Vietnam, and many of the cultural movements in the 70's would never have started as many centered around anti war rallies.

Which is how the Soviets lead to our domination, rather than countering it.

Without the Soviet Union we certaintly would have left for our ide of the Atlantic following the Second World War, or maybe a Democratic Russia looses the war, lacking Stalin's resolve. Germany and America ar th two powers here, and while there might be appeals from the north to make a cold War with the Germans, we probably won't listen to Canada and things play out like before, with genocide and a lot more blood than even communism can muster.

If we do listen then the Cold war is more transitory. Perhaps a civil war in Italy between Democratic (Communist?) rebels backed by the US and the Fascist regime divides that nation, leading to the construction of a Roman Wall (Rather than Berlin) and the Republic of the two Sicilies and the Republic of Italy.

In any event Africa is the major battlefield here, Germany holds North Africa, but the US has taken alliance with S. Africa at least, perhaps Apartheid is ended earlier thanks to this. and we slowly creep to a meeting place in the Congo, where the Fascists and Democratics face off.

Fascism might hold sway for longer than Communism did, perhaps in such a case the Nazies still rule Germany.

Here are the efects of the USSR, examined in it's absence.

Remorseless

Feb 26, 2003, 01:31 PM

Excellent, gentlemen, excellent.
Through lengthy and sometimes frustrating yet impersonal debate, I think we have all come to understand each other's viewpoints.
Nixon, SkiLord, I never advocating "imposing" democracy on a populace, a country, a region. Yet we all agree the only true way for a large group of people to reach a common decision is to vote upon such resolutions put forth by themselves. Nixon, I agree wholeheartedly that once the impediments put forth by the Arab ruling classes are removed, we shall see the birth of democracy in that troubled part of the world. You can see the glimmerings of it in, of all places, Iran.
SkiLord, you are indeed well-read. However, I would like to make one point concerning Stalin's intention to dominate Europe. There is an old saying among historians that regimes may change but national goals remain the same. Russia has always looked for buffers between itself and its opponents, access to warm-water ports and favorable trading conditions. In his brutal way, this is what Stalin accomplished. The mechanisms of the state were horrific, but he did accomplish what Peter the Great could not.
Still, my friend, I disagree that the people recoiled when offered a democratic government in 1917. The Communist Party had done too much, spilled too much blood and sacrificed too much to acquiese to a secondary role in the government.
But really guys, it has been fun debating this subject. My apologies for getting a bit huffy about the freedom thing, but to quote my favorite Republican, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Bifrost

Mar 04, 2003, 01:47 PM

While reading all the posts above I realized that USSR was intended to lead Russian society to democracy - The Empire was not ready for democracy, as SKILORD has already mentioned, all the peasants believed in kind and graceful tzar-father* and no one wanted any governments or soviets. Bolshevicks educated peasantry by force, they made a modern man out of a limited person, - they helped Russian people to realize what sh!t they had been living in all that time. When the Empire couldn't keep itself from collapse, there was no foundation for democracy and so Russia couldn't become any kind of Republic, just couldn't.
Communism was the step on the way to capitalism.

Incidentally, BiFrost, would it shock you that many, many people in my country used to say the Russians weren't ready for democracy so a communist dictatorship was really what they wanted after all. Funny, seems to me that as soon as the Soviets failed, democracy took hold fairly strongly in your country -- a country, with all due respect, that had no history of a government in the hands of the people.

I'm in doubt whether your last phrase is correct, but well, it's not so important...
Do you think that these "relations" -> "american-soviet" and "american-iraqi" are not equal. If they'd been saying that Russia wasn't ready for democracy, then they must scream now that Iraq is not ready for democracy. Who made our revolution '91? - Communist Party(generally) and people. For our country it was evolution. For contemporary Iraq it is intervention. For Russia it was natural, for Iraq it is made by force. People of Iraq should understand what democracy is and what dictatorship is themselves, without any 'help'.

------------------------------------
* - well actually it is not the way in which they called tzar, but there's no such word in English :)

onejayhawk

Mar 04, 2003, 03:32 PM

Speaking as one American who considers such things, Democracy is not all that important. What the US would give to all the world if it could is a two headed system 1)Rule of law with division of powers and 2)popular input into the making and revising of laws. Democracy is just the village meeting taken to extremes. The US does not pretend to practice it. Insted there is a representative Republic, with some form of popular election of those representatives, which form varies from place to place.

Iraq is less ready for such changes than USSR. The forced education which ws refered to is one reason. Representative governments need an informed populous. Universal education ensures that. I am unfamiliar with the situation in Iraq, but I doubt that 90% can read, write and do arithmatic.

J

AccessDenied

Mar 26, 2003, 06:08 PM

I think, that Soviet Union was "a good thing".
I regret, that it was finally destroyed :(

Anti-EUA

Apr 01, 2003, 11:25 PM

"3. S. Africa: To be dominated by a people who are free is all the education needed to instruct one nation in the art of freedom."

What is that supposed to mean? So, the black south africans coudn't decide what they wanted all by themselves? They can't think for themselves?

SKILORD

Apr 02, 2003, 01:02 PM

I was simply saying that they needed introduction to concepts.

If I were to say that you were unable of conceiving of all the concepts of Nuclear Fission on your own, without any education in the subject, would I be calling you stupid? Would I be saying that since you needed a teacher you were unable to think for yourself?

andvruss

Apr 08, 2003, 05:57 PM

If the Soviet Union hadn't given all the money that it did to countries to be communist, it wouldn't have mabye fallen...

SKILORD

Apr 08, 2003, 06:14 PM

The third world was the staging ground of the cold war. That money was put in to fight that war. Your point boils down to this statement andvruss:

"Russia collapsed because it lost the cold war".

andvruss

Apr 08, 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by SKILORD
The third world was the staging ground of the cold war. That money was put in to fight that war. Your point boils down to this statement andvruss:

"Russia collapsed because it lost the cold war".

*edit: the Soviet Union collapsed because it lost the cold war. Russia is still rebuilding.

marshal zhukov

May 03, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Marshall Zhukov wrote:

US sponsored an evil dictatorship in Brazil for 20 years, we are still findind the remains of those that "disappeared "during that period

"Sponsored"? Do you mean that the U.S. recognized an existing Brazilian dictatorship and treated it as an ally of convenience? Are you trying to hoist what is really a Brazilian problem with political development and maturity (endemic among nearly all South American governments) onto the U.S., despite the fact that the social and political conditions that created the dictatorship vastly pre-date American involvement? The dictators who ruled Poland from 1944-1989 were directly installed and approved by the USSR; they could do nothing significant at all in Poland without Moscow's approval. Had the Soviet Army not installed these dictators in 1944, they would never have had a chance of seizing power in Poland. They were Russian puppets. Did an American army install the Brazilian dictators and control their every move, or did these dictators seize power by themselves (due to Brazil's weak political structures and history) and ally themselves with the Americans' anti-communist crusade, basically still retaining complete control in Brazil? Left by itself, Poland in 1944 would never have developed the kind of dictatorship it got from the Soviets; but I strongly suspect that even if the Americans had never dealt with Brazil at all it still would have gotten that same dictatorship. That's a critical difference, and one you can't blame the Americans for. The blame for Brazil's political and economic ills is much closer to home than Washington.

The US did sponsor and supported a brutal military dictatorship not only in Brazil, but in Chile, Argentina, Paraguai and in a host of other countries in Latin America.
Declassified Documents show the US had carrier battle group in the Atlantic just in case the brazilian military resisted the coup.
Without American support the coup would have failed not only in here but in some other Latin American countries. It might have never happened
Now just because you got the Green Card to live in America it doesn't mean that you have to close your eyes to the mistakes that America, just like the USSR, has made.
What about this :
"what is really a Brazilian problem with political development and maturity (endemic among nearly all South American governments) ". This is down right racism and offensive, soon you will say that we are to stupid to run a democracy.
In this case I could say that the only reason why the the Germans and then the Soviets occupied Poland, is that the Polish are too weak to defend their own country. But I wont stand by that argument because I know some of thet history of Poland, and therefore know better.
The dicatator that the US supported in Chile was the worst, he was really violent, but just because he was pro-america, the US closed their eyes and allowed the killings to continue.
More people died in Latin America because of military dictatorships than in Poland. And spite all of that I still think that America is a great country, and deserves to be world superpower.
You should thank the russians because they protected you from another German invasion.
Vrylakas why are you in denial ?

SKILORD

May 03, 2003, 10:47 PM

This is down right racism and offensive, soon you will say that we are to stupid to run a democracy.

Not.... really. WE must first confess that while all men are certaitly created equal, tghey are not the same. Spaniards are, through culture, more inclined to religion and monarchy than republicanism (Franco's spain was a reaction against the Republic)just as the English and Poles are more inclined towards governments which perserve their freedoms. Cultures also mature, as Zhukov implied, and many a democracy has been overthrown by a people who are not, as a sum whole, prepared for freedom. A racial thing? nay, Germans tossed away Republic for a Despot, Italy as well, race is a coincidence. As for US blindness towards these regimes, we are citicised when we police the world, as well as when we don't/ :sigh: As for US assistance towards those regimes... I am willing to concede that it was wrong, though Zhukov makes a valid point in that it had far more popular support than communism in Poland, which was loved with the same passion that the Nazi occupation received, Solidarnosc was not the first try, it was only the one that struck when the iron was finally hot.

amadeus

May 03, 2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by AccessDenied
I think, that Soviet Union was "a good thing".
I regret, that it was finally destroyed :(

...

Furry Spatula

May 04, 2003, 02:58 AM

I don't know how anybody here could say that a regime that ended up in the deaths of tens of if not hundreds millions people dying so a few people could have palaces that were lined in gold was good. Think about it before you type.

And for that who Hitler thing. Russia could still have stopped Nazi expansion if they weren't communist.

Maybe because I've seen the damage done and heard about the damage from my parents i am biased.

And back to stopping Hitler, history can't be predicted if events were changed. But looking at it this way. A man who murdered millions of people because of hair colour and eye colour and skin colour wasn't in power. But rather a man who killed millions of people because he was a power crazed paraniod maniac. Can you say either was good?

So if you haven't guessed already, USSR was a bad thing according to me.

Vrylakas

May 04, 2003, 11:18 AM

Marshall Zhukov wrote:

The US did sponsor and supported a brutal military dictatorship not only in Brazil, but in Chile, Argentina, Paraguai and in a host of other countries in Latin America.

Agreed. I say as much in my post:

Again, you're right that it is reprehensible that both the USSR and the USA supported dictators around the world in their Cold War confrontation, and perhaps the USA is worse in the sense that they claimed to be supporting democracy around the world. (The Soviets made no such claims; quite the opposite.) The Americans have spent the last decade since the Cold War examining the consequences of their support for anyone who was anti-Soviet; this got a lot of press with the recent Afghan war as an obvious example.

Declassified Documents show the US had carrier battle group in the Atlantic just in case the brazilian military resisted the coup.
Without American support the coup would have failed not only in here but in some other Latin American countries. It might have never happened. Now just because you got the Green Card to live in America it doesn't mean that you have to close your eyes to the mistakes that America, just like the USSR, has made.

Oh yes, South America would certainly be a democratic and prosperous continent if it wasn't for the intervention of those evil Americans.

:rolleyes:

Here's a blurb I found about a scholar writing on the 1964 coup in Brazil:

Ollie Johnson tells a new story of Brazilian party politics by highlighting heretofore neglected issues such as the ideologies and programmatic agendas of party factions and trans-party alliances. Focusing on the rise of leftist and nationalist party forces and the reactions of conservatives and moderates, Johnson uses the concept of realignment to analyze three central aspects of the Brazilian party system: electoral evolution, intra-party competition, and supra-party legislative alliances.

Johnson demonstrates that Brazil emerged from a one-party dominant system in the mid-1940s into a highly competitive, polarized, and radicalized multiparty system in the 1960s. This evolution brought new progressive elites to positions of power, introduced a reformist political agenda with distinct ideological positions, eroded older patterns of clientelism and personalism, and inevitably led to a reorganization of party forces.

Contrary to those who criticize leftist leaders for the coup of 1964, Johnson shows that major political players of the left, center, and right all had opportunities for different courses of action that might have avoided the dismantling of democratic institutions. He argues that fears among political elites about the course of modernization--not reckless leaders and weak institutions--brought the parties to an impasse and crisis.

Ollie Andrew Johnson III is assistant professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park. He has published book chapters and articles in the Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs and National Political Science Review.

I also found a few links (like this (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/120.html) and this one (http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/smallman_fear.html) that both strongly suggest that Brazil's coup and subsequent political troubles were home-made. Websites as sources are not reliable sources but every single website I pulled up in a Google search on the 1964 coup in Brazil all focused on the same issues: the military's growing power, extreme poverty, failed middle class, growing extremists on both the left and right; in other words, they focused on Brazilian problems.

What about this :
"what is really a Brazilian problem with political development and maturity (endemic among nearly all South American governments) ". This is down right racism and offensive, soon you will say that we are to stupid to run a democracy.
In this case I could say that the only reason why the the Germans and then the Soviets occupied Poland, is that the Polish are too weak to defend their own country. But I wont stand by that argument because I know some of thet history of Poland, and therefore know better.

First of all, you should be more careful about who you're calling racist. This is a much-abused term nowadays, and has come to be applied to anyone the accuser disagrees with. Racism is the belief that a particular group of people have innate and intrinsic qualities that make them inferior in some way. I hold no such beliefs. I made NO such statement, said NO such thing, and for you to claim I did or will do so is unfair, defamatory and libelous. If you can't debate with someone without calling them names, then the debate is over.

Secondly, while people may not have any innate qualities that make their group more or less suited to good governance, cultures and societies do develop different attitudes towards government and society. Different societies organize themselves differently, with the end result that not all achieve the same results or even have the same goals. The bottom line is that while all human beings are created equal, all societies are not. Some succeed better than others, as any read of history will bear out. The English-speaking societies have clearly been more successful than most with their unique institutions - and keep in mind that I do not have a drop of English blood in me, nor am I native to that world. This is not to say that no one else has also had success - like them or not, French democracy today is firmly established, Japanese democracy is working, Spain is a wonderful example, etc. I believe that any and every society is capable of adapting democratic institutions successfully, but it takes work - lots of work.

That said, democracy is a complicated tool that requires a very sophisticated society to handle it successfully - and even the most experienced democratic societies in the West sometimes fumble with it. Democracy is unwieldy and difficult. It requires a certain kind of society to be able to manage it, sort of like having the right plug for the right electrical outlet. A democratic government cannot function if it does not have a democratic society as a foundation. South America has clearly had great difficulty in developing democratic societies, which is understandable given its economic extremes of entrenched elites and vast poverty. This is not to say that South America is incapable of democracy; rather that it requires further social evolution. Democracy must come from below; it rarely works when imposed from above.

Now, to make you feel better I will point out that Poland has also been politically immature in the 20th century. In fact, almost all of Central and Eastern Europe have been. Remember that democracy failed throughout most of Europe in the 1920s and 30s, including advanced Germany. In 1918 Poland was declared a democracy, although no one in Poland quite knew what that really meant. Surely it just meant holding elections and open debates in parliament, but when it turned to be much more - so much more- it destabilized the country. We assassinated our first elected President (Gabriel Narutowicz) after only days in office, and only 7 years after its foundation the democratic government was overthrown by the military. Sound familiar? Poland spent from 1926 until its destruction in 1939 by Germany and the USSR as a "soft" military dictatorship: opposition parties and elections to parliament were allowed, few political prisoners (mostly communists), suppression of minorities, suppression of extremists. The 1944-1989 dictatorship was imposed from the outside through direct military occupation, but it certainly did little to foster a democratic society in Poland. Only now, in the last 10 years, has Poland finally been taking the first real baby steps of a democracy. A significant portion of the electorate still votes for extremist parties (a sign of a young, immature democracy) but slowly the new government's institutions are being accepted and gaining legitimacy. Dying old government-supported industries from the old dictatorship still threaten the new government, but Poland has an advantage Brazil doesn't: local support. The EU and NATO offer economic and security stability for Poland in ways the country would never be able to do for itself. It desperately needs these instiitutions to help it develop its own democratic institutions, not only within the government but within Polish society as well. Remember that our last military coup was in 1981, when the crumbling old dictatorship had to be supported. Spain also had an attempted military coup that year. Spain and Portugal, among other countries around the world, are grappling with the same problems Poland is, though they obviously are much farther along.

I don't understand why this is a problem for you. We are developing nations; our economies and societies are not nearly as developed as, say, Canada's, Japan's, or Italy's. We are the developing world. That's a reality. Brazil currently has something like the world's 9th largest economy by GDP and output, but on the other hand Brazil has far wider extremes in economic potential per citizen than Poland - in other words, poverty is far more widespread and extreme in Brazil than Poland. This is due to historic conditions in both countries, but it is a reality. Do you believe that South America's economy and society are equal with the U.S. or Western Europe? Do you not believe that South America has had some particular problems of its own, stretching far back into its history, that have held it back in its development? Or is it that you believe that all these problems had outside sources; i.e., were caused by the evil U.S.? It is a historical reality that Poland and Brazil, for their own historical reasons, have favored pre-modern, non-democratic forms of society and government, and they are both struggling today to overcome these parts of their past.

The dicatator that the US supported in Chile was the worst, he was really violent, but just because he was pro-america, the US closed their eyes and allowed the killings to continue.
More people died in Latin America because of military dictatorships than in Poland.

Between 8-10 million Poles have died in the 20th century from dictatorships, almost all of them civilians.

But my ultimate point in my previous post was that while you relativized the U.S. and U.S.S.R. as more or less the same because they both supported dictatorships, you missed a crucual point: that the USSR was a dictatorship, an imperial dictatorship whose stated aim was world domination. The two were locked in a global struggle, and in this struggle they both supported local petty dictatorships who paid lip service to one or the other side. You're right in saying this was reprehensible and a discredit to both states' rhetoric. But the U.S. did not directly create any of the dictatorships it supported like in Brazil; they were home-grown dictatorships who supplemented their legitimacy by allying with a superpower. That was my point - that you cannot compare Brazil's dictatorship, which was created by local conditions and born of Brazilian history, to Poland's which was imposed directly by Soviet troops. The U.S. also pressured several of its supported-dictators to democratize, as in South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, etc. The USSR did no such thing, ever.

If you were right, that there really was no difference between the U.S. and the USSR, then there would be absolutely no difference in who eventually won the Cold War - but I strongly beg to differ. For whatever the merits of a world in which the U.S. is pre-eminent, the world would be a much, much worse place had the USSR won. The two are not the same, and to be upset that neither is lily-white perfect squeeky-clean is to miss the point.

And spite all of that I still think that America is a great country, and deserves to be world superpower.
You should thank the russians because they protected you from another German invasion.

The Germans and the Soviets both signed a secret pact in 1939 in which they agreed to destroy the Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian states forever. They carried out this pact, with both invading Poland in September 1939 and the Baltic countries being taken over by the USSR in 1940. The USSR only became Poland's "ally" because Hitler betrayed his pact with Stalin. At the time that Hitler invaded the USSR, most of the surviving Polish military forces were in concentration camps in the USSR, and the officer corp had already been murderec by Stalin's NKVD (precursor to the KGB) at Katyn. Throughout the war Stalin worked against the Polish underground resistance movement, and refused the Western Allies' attempts to resupply them or even bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz. Stalin halted the Soviet Army on the banks of the Vistula River, across from Warsaw, and they just sat there and watched as the Germans brutally suppressed a last-ditch attempt by the Polish resistance to capture Warsaw, and as well the Soviets offered no aid whatsoever (with their armies sitting across the river) when Hitler had every single building left in Warsaw dynamited, so that a city of more than 1 million people was reduced to zero (0) population in a few days' time. (Modern Warsaw is a virtually completely new city.) When the Soviets entered Poland in their invasion towards Germany they dismantled whole industries and carted them off to the USSR, and forced Poland to export raw materials Poland desperately needed to the USSR in mass quantities until 1955. The Soviet Army also plundered, pillaged and raped its way through Poland (as Russians and Poles have always been suspicious of one another), and the NKVD took up where the Gestapo had left off with mass arrests, executions, etc. In 1955 Khrushchov granted an amnesty to most WW II-era prisoners in the Soviet gulag system, so a few hundred thousand Poles suddenly came home after a decade in Siberian work camps, not being allowed to tell their families where they'd been.

Oh yes, and the USSR is the only country that was allowed to keep territories that Hitler granted it after the war - i.e., eastern Poland and the Baltic states. Hint: My family is from eastern Poland...

Now what exactly were you saying about how Poles should all be grateful for the Soviet "liberation"? Do you know that English expression, "With friends like these, who needs enemies...?

Vrylakas why are you in denial ?

I am married, brother M. Zhukov; that means I spend my whole life in denial. ;)

marshal zhukov

May 04, 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Vrylakas

First of all, you should be more careful about who you're calling racist. This is a much-abused term nowadays, and has come to be applied to anyone the accuser disagrees with. Racism is the belief that a particular group of people have innate and intrinsic qualities that make them inferior in some way. I hold no such beliefs. I made [b]NO such statement, said NO such thing, and for you to claim I did or will doso is unfair, defamatory and libelous. If you can't debate with someone without calling them names, then the debate is over.

Vrylakas. If you didn't mean to issue a racist statement, you should have chosen you words better. During your previous post you didn't mention of any other region of the world, you single out South America for political imaturity and political undevelopment therefore your remarks toward South American countries were offensive. You unintentionally debased the South American people.
I did not said that you are a racist. If you read carefully the " this" is clearly indicating that the sentence had a racist nature, not you. I agree with you in that I might have exaggerated, when I said that the statement was racist.

Secondly, while people may not have any innate qualities that make their group more or less suited to good governance, cultures and societies [i]do develop different attitudes towards government and society. Different societies organize themselves differently, with the end result that not all achieve the same results or even have the same goals. The bottom line is that while all human beings are created equal, all societies are not. Some succeed better than others, as any read of history will bear out. The English-speaking societies have clearly been more successful than most with their unique institutions - and keep in mind that I do not have a drop of English blood in me, nor am I native to that world. This is not to say that no one else has also had success - like them or not, French democracy today is firmly established, Japanese democracy is working, Spain is a wonderful example, etc. I believe that any and every society is capable of adapting democratic institutions successfully, but it takes work - lots of work.
The women in America only started to vote in the XX century, so we can say that not even America was a true democracy until then. Worse yet blacks only got to vote in the 60's. Real democracy that is.

I don't understand why this is a problem for you. We are developing nations; our economies and societies are not nearly as developed as, say, Canada's, Japan's, or Italy's. We are the developing world. That's a reality. Brazil currently has something like the world's 9th largest economy by GDP and output, but on the other hand Brazil has far wider extremes in economic potential per citizen than Poland - in other words, poverty is far more widespread and extreme in Brazil than Poland. This is due to historic conditions in both countries, but it is a reality. Do you believe that South America's economy and society are equal with the U.S. or Western Europe? Do you not believe that South America has had some particular problems of its own, stretching far back into its history, that have held it back in its development? Or is it that you believe that all these problems had outside sources; i.e., were caused by the evil U.S.? It is a historical reality that Poland and Brazil, for their own historical reasons, have favored pre-modern, non-democratic forms of society and government, and they are both struggling today to overcome these parts of their past.

I don't believe that Brazil is equal to the developed world. The only differences between Latin America and the 13 American Colonies were the type of colonization. Explotative and the later Settlement, and the amount of greed of the colonizers

Between 8-10 million Poles have died in the 20th century from dictatorships, almost all of them civilians.
How many people were killed by the Soviet dictatorship in Poland?
Period lasting from 1945-1989.

But my ultimate point in my previous post was that while you relativized the U.S. and U.S.S.R. as more or less the same because they both supported dictatorships,...

No, I did not write anything like that, I wrote:
"Regarding its foreign policy, there is absolutely no difference between the US and the Soviet Union, because both were capable of supporting oppressive goverments, and evil dictators.
There is a need to end with the hypocritical concept of "the evil empire ", because one can't not differentiate the 2 when it comes with the treatment of other countries."
The USSR and the US are very different from each other, when it comes to foreign policies, there is no difference. Only when it regards the foreign policy the two are the same. The USSR was a dictatorship while the US is a free country.

...you missed a crucual point: that the USSR was a dictatorship, an imperial dictatorship whose stated aim was world domination. The two were locked in a global struggle, and in this struggle they both supported local petty dictatorships who paid lip service to one or the other side. You're right in saying this was reprehensible and a discredit to both states' rhetoric. But the U.S. did not directly create any of the dictatorships it supported like in Brazil; they were home-grown dictatorships who supplemented their legitimacy by allying with a superpower. That was my point - that you cannot compare Brazil's dictatorship, which was created by local conditions and born of Brazilian history, to Poland's which was imposed directly by Soviet troops. The U.S. also pressured several of its supported-dictators to democratize, as in South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, etc. The USSR did no such thing, ever.
The US pressured a lot of countries to democratiza after the threat of the Soviet Union was gone or fading.
The US created, plotted, gave money and then supported dictatorships all over the world, from America to Asia. It was Cold War, the american lifestyle was threatened, therefore everything was justifiable. Remember Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, really really cruel, US backed dictator.
Here is a list of what happened during the Cold War in Latin America.
Notice that in a short period of time following Cuba's revolution,
democratic regimes in Latin America suddenly became military dictatorships pro-US:
Chile: military dictatorship from 1973 - 1990
Argentina: military dictatorship from 1976 - 1983
Uruguai: military dictatorship from 1973 - 1985
Brazil: military dictatorship from 1964 - 1985
Paraguai: military dictatorship from 1954 - 1989
Bolivia: military dictatorship from 1964 - 1982

Mind that I not listing the military interventions into Central American nations(Panama, Haiti), also notice that as soon as Breznev was dead those dictatorships started to crumble and the regimes went back into democracy.

If you were right, that there really was no difference between the U.S. and the USSR, then there would be absolutely no difference in who eventually won the Cold War - but I strongly beg to differ. For whatever the merits of a world in which the U.S. is pre-eminent, the world would be a much, much worse place had the USSR won. The two are not the same, and to be upset that neither is lily-white perfect squeeky-clean is to miss the point.

Now what exactly were you saying about how Poles should all be grateful for the Soviet "liberation"? Do you know that English expression, "With friends like these, who needs enemies...?

Not only they protected Poland from everyone, but the redrawing of the maps after 1945 gave Poland territory rich in coal, Silesia, if I am not mistaken.
I hold no grudge against America, I like the US very much , I also appreciate US culture and I agree with the values of the American society.
I am married, brother M. Zhukov; that means I spend my whole life in denial. ;)
I din't understand that, what does one thing have to do with the other?

Alcibiaties of Athenae

May 04, 2003, 05:16 PM

He was joking, if your ever married, you will understand.

The only good thing about the USSR was it coming to end, anyone thinking differently either refuses to look at history objectivly or isn't playing with a full deck.

Trying to say the US is the moral equivalent of the USSR in any part of that peroid is an excercise in stupidity, especially concerning South America. Any regime the two powers would have supported would have been authoritarian in nature, and for each Pinochet, we have a Castro.

In the end, the US can and would try to help people, all the USSR would do is exploit them.

Many of you refuse to believe this, or to accept it, but those kind of closed minds also refused to believe the Earth was round, and we all know how THAT turned out. :yeah:

marshal zhukov

May 04, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
He was joking, if your ever married, you will understand.

Trying to say the US is the moral equivalent of the USSR in any part of that peroid is an excercise in stupidity, especially concerning South America. Any regime the two powers would have supported would have been authoritarian in nature, and for each Pinochet, we have a Castro.

In the end, the US can and would try to help people, all the USSR would do is exploit them.

Many of you refuse to believe this, or to accept it, but those kind of closed minds also refused to believe the Earth was round, and we all know how THAT turned out. :yeah:

I never said that the US is the moral equivalent of the USSR.
All I said was that just like the Soviets, the US, has made mistakes, I don't what is the problem that with that.
Those that say otherwise is because have never lived under a dictatorship.
I don't know how can the US be helping chileans who like to be free, when it puts Pinochet in power. Or be helping the poor zairians when it backs the corrupt, cruel Mobutu Sese Seko.

Richard III

May 04, 2003, 05:49 PM

Was just directed to the fireworks on this thread and wanted to chime in.

Marshal Zhukov, for the record, I am a great admirer of Latin America, which I regard as a great hope for the coming century. I also think that US policy toward many Latin American states had been appalling and frequently immoral for decade . The US admiration for stability above all else led to the US making the decision to support brutal authoritarian regimes that were, for the most part, the very cause of the instability themselves.

Nevertheless, I'm a little stunned to see you pretend...

1) That this is the fault of the United States per se. Golpes and coups d'etats of every sort long predated American interventionism in the region, and continued unabated in the rare moments where the US kept its distance. I should add that the economic inequities endemic to the region - made illegitimate by the abusive support of the state - also predated any US activity. To pretend that the various oligarchies and the endless triumphs of caudilloismo were somehow US inventions is ludicrous.

2) That this is somehow NOT the responsibility of Latin America. When the US intervened on the wrong side in El Salvador, for example, it's important to remember that there WAS a wrong side made up of perfectly willing Salvadorean authoritarian bastards. Ditto fifty other odd examples of the same phenomenon.

On that note, though, I think the difference for me in terms of "moral equivalance" is simple: would you really rather the USSR had won? I quibble with American means, but I never questioned that theirs was the better end. I don't expect the USSR ever had a crisis of conscience over what it was doing in, say, Czechoslovakia. I'm really sure the Americans had a crisis of conscience over dozens of cold war decisions; they often made the wrong ones, but at least they were capable of making the right ones just as often, and capable of debating which was which.

And 3) Is it racist against Britons for me to suggest, say, that my ancestors in Great Britain were too brutal to the Sudanese without, say, listing every other noteworthy brutality committed by man? I doubt it; I'm not - to use a favorite phrase of mine - obliged to "save the world in every press release," nor is Vrylakas. Just because he used Latin America as an example doesn't make it the only one.

One reason I have such great hope for Latin America is precisely because its citizens appear more and more to be struggling to actually solve problems rather than simply searching for some outside force to depend on or to blame. I suggest that this might be a trend worth emulating here :D

R.III

marshal zhukov

May 04, 2003, 06:51 PM

Brazil has had a quite stable political history.
We were an Empire from 1822 to 1889. The Old Republic lasted from 1889 to 1930. We then experienced 15 years of fascist dictatorship ( 1930 - 1945).
When everything looked as if democracy was going to be the norm, the US sponsored a new dictatorship in 1964 which lasted for 21 years.
I am saying that the US sponsored the coup, because there are documents proving the American involvement, and the ambassador to Brazil also confirmed the American sponsorship.
Without american knowhow the coup would have failed. Of couse that there was support for the coup in the ranks of our military. The US also bribed those keys figures in order for the coup to work. A carrier battle group was also stationed near by in case of resistance. All of this is DOCUMENTED, I am not inventing.
The US is not always friendly and fair, there seems to be a great resistance towards accepting this fact, I don't know why.
The Brazilian military also takes the blame for the coup.
The US is not always friendly and fair, there seems to be a great resistance towards accepting this fact, I don't know why.
It seems to shock people and horrify them, when I say that the US is capable of sponsoring dictatorships.
My personal view since none of my relatives or friends died during the dictatorship is that the US did the right thing. But a lot of people don't see it that way.
Had Brazil gone Socialist I wouldn't be using my PC, writing messages to you guys, right now.

Vrylakas

May 05, 2003, 08:11 PM

Marshall Zhukov wrote:

Brazil has had a quite stable political history.
We were an Empire from 1822 to 1889. The Old Republic lasted from 1889 to 1930. We then experienced 15 years of fascist dictatorship ( 1930 - 1945).

Actually, according to the brief in one of the scholarly reviews Brazil has had a fairly turbulent history:

It is true that Brazil achieved independence from Portugal in 1822 without war, largely because the monarch's son, Pedro I, became the new emperor. But this political continuity did not stop Brazil from experiencing a series of uprisings, rebellions, and racially inspired revolts at the local and regional level throughout the nineteenth century, as recent scholarship has emphasized.[4] The government suppressed many of these uprisings with great brutality. Still, at the national level the figure of the emperor provided a sense of continuity and stability lacking in Spanish America, until a military coup ended imperial government in 1889. Between the foundation of the republic and the 1964 coup, Brazil ostensibly remained a democracy for all but nine years (the Estado Novo or New State, 1937-45).

The armed forces did frequently intervene in politics. In 1889, 1930, 1937, 1945, and 1954, the military (or factions within it) helped either to change the structure of government or to replace the nation's leader. Even so, during the twentieth century the military never retained power after intervening in politics but rather transferred power to civilians. In Brazil this changed with the 1964 coup, after which the armed forces dominated the political system for twenty-one years (1964-85). The military first engineered "the Brazilian miracle"—six years of explosive growth—then oversaw an equally remarkable period of debt and decay.

- Shawn C. Smallman

This does not sound like a model of stability to me, unless you're just comparing Brazil to its even worse-off Spanish-speaking neighbors.

The articles I found for you all seemed to believe that the 1964 coup was a Brazilian problem with Brazilian origins. I have no problem believing that the U.S. government supported the coup, and sanctioned it by recognizing its leaders. The U.S. policy towards Third World states during the Cold war tended to be stability; any government would do, dictatorship or whatever, so long as they were anti-communist. While the U.S. did become involved in overthrowing foreign governments like Allende in Chile or Mossadegh in Iran, I think it is disingenious to claim that every coup and regime change in post-WW II South America was an American conspiracy. I am not at all concerned what you think about the U.S., nor do I think the U.S. is an angel but I have found that far too many South Americans have relied on the U.S. as a very convenient bogeyman to explain away their enduring poverty, weak economies, entrenched elites and political instability.

Old imperial Poland, over 800 years old, was overcome and conquered by Russia, Prussia and Austria in three partitions and two wars between 1772-1795. (In fact, Constitution Day celebrating the 1791 Polish attempt to re-create itself based on the new American model just passed, on 3. May.) After a brief respite under Napoleon Poland spent the whole 19th century under Russian, Prussian and Austrian rule (with revolts in 1831, 1846, 1863, & 1905), until these three empires collapsed in 1918.

For instance if you ever visit Warsaw, take a look at the remnants of the old Powazki Cemetary which is filled with monuments about Polish history. This was because in the late 19th century the Russians outlawed any display of Polish culture in Poland, so when someone died Polish sculptors made magnificent monuments for them there, safe from the Russians - who never bothered with a Roman Catholic cemetary.

Poland was a democracy (sort of) from 1918 to 1926, then a dictatorship from 1926 to 1939. After the war, Poland was occupied by the Soviets from 1944 to 1991. After all of this, Poland is now trying to develop a prosperous and democratic society - but part of this has meant that we have to address our past and how we got to where we are today. We have many to blame - the Germans, the Russians, the Austrians, Western Europe for the abandonment of 1945. But in the end we also have had to realize that for all the outside problems - and there have been many - some of our problems were also ours. One joke that circulated in the 1990s was based on a true story of a dissident in the communist years who supposedly wrote on his prison wall that it was so easy to fight for Poland, but so hard to work for Poland. Developing a modern working standard and discipline, overcoming Polish prejudices, legitimizing business (and de-legitimizing the black market mafia), and getting away from the traditional local economic activities - these are Polish problems that Poles caused, not Germans or Russians. In 1966, Polish bishops got together and wrote a letter collectively to all Germans, apologizing for Polish treatment of German civilians after WW II, especially the expulsions. Last year a Polish historian wrote a very controversial book about how one Polish village in WW II seemingly went insane and murdered its Jewish population in horrid ways. (Poles learning about WW II usually learn how Poles were victims, not victimizers.) These are steps towards building a modern and healthy country. Step # 1 was recognizing that Poland can't always blame others for its problems.

Do you get my point?

tecc

May 06, 2003, 07:42 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Citizen_K
[B]Wow.

"I can't believe someone actually said stalin was not as bad as Hitler"

What? of course he was'nt! Hitler strongly and ideologically believed in the eradication of entire groups of people, simply based upon their genetic makeup, he was responsible for nearly 55m deaths in the European arena alone! Stalin was a vile despot who killed a shocking 5-10 million during the industrialisation of Russia, but industrialisation is always a very messy business, it killed way more than that in Europe through poverty and disease and basically was the cause of WW1.

"I'm beginning to think that a lot of Europeans are out of touch with reality, "
The cheek you must have as an American to say this!!? America is the singly most niave and ignorant country on the globe, only a third of you have passports! Europe is an old, old place and WW2 is still living memory for us, the evidence of the bombs still visible in most european cities, europe is just 6km from Morrocco and Africa, merges with Turkey and has been at continous war with itself for 3000 years! The Balkans, Northern Island, the basques Americans know nothing of these things.

Europe has learnt its lesson... Imperialism Bad... America has only just started on its imperialist years, but remember ALL empires fall, Rome, Persia, British..., and no one knows its going to happen until it does...

:mad:

amadeus

May 06, 2003, 08:26 AM

Yes, yes, death to America, blah blah...I've heard it all before.

TheStinger

May 06, 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by tecc
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Citizen_K
[B]Wow.

"I can't believe someone actually said stalin was not as bad as Hitler"

What? of course he was'nt! Hitler strongly and ideologically believed in the eradication of entire groups of people, simply based upon their genetic makeup, he was responsible for nearly 55m deaths in the European arena alone! Stalin was a vile despot who killed a shocking 5-10 million during the industrialisation of Russia, but industrialisation is always a very messy business, it killed way more than that in Europe through poverty and disease and basically was the cause of WW1.

"I'm beginning to think that a lot of Europeans are out of touch with reality, "
The cheek you must have as an American to say this!!? America is the singly most niave and ignorant country on the globe, only a third of you have passports! Europe is an old, old place and WW2 is still living memory for us, the evidence of the bombs still visible in most european cities, europe is just 6km from Morrocco and Africa, merges with Turkey and has been at continous war with itself for 3000 years! The Balkans, Northern Island, the basques Americans know nothing of these things.

Europe has learnt its lesson... Imperialism Bad... America has only just started on its imperialist years, but remember ALL empires fall, Rome, Persia, British..., and no one knows its going to happen until it does...

:mad:

Im european and I think stalin was as bad as hitler. You could argue that Hitler was less bad, he at least had a reason(a shockinly bad one) to wipe out people. Stalin killed because he could and it was a way to say in power.

They are both as bas as each other IMO. The reat of your rant was just ridiculous.

CurtSibling

May 06, 2003, 11:16 AM

The USSR, like many of man's lofty ideas, was tainted by the application of human vices.
The old favourites: Needless cruelty, greed, intolerance and cult of personality.

IMHO:
There is no such thing as 'good' country; any more than here is such a thing as a 'good' person.
Nations are economic entities, not charities.
Both the USA and USSR sought power, cash and prestige during the cold war era.

Let's measure these super-powers up some: :)

The USA obviously comes up looking better, due to intelligent and sound financial choices and a miles better military/industrial strategy.
Despite the social problems and death penalty, the USA is a civilised system and allows great freedom and success to its citizens.

America is no perfect nation, no matter what a true believer may tell you.
But it is stratospherically better than a myriad of bloody regimes it challenged in it's history.

The USSR, on the other hand, was hamstrung by a system that strangled free-thought and a lame economical mindset.
Communist Russia was a repressive and bloody regime that was intolerant of any dissent was by far the most nightmarish extreme of power play.
The mass killing and general terror meted out on the Russian people was the leading factor in the crumbling and death of the Red Empire.

Repression, mass-arrests, poor GNP. These things do not equal a long-lasting hegemony.
The USSR is dead by it's own hand, comrade. And long may it remain so.

:D

SKILORD

May 06, 2003, 02:49 PM

The USSR, like many of man's lofty ideas, was tainted by the application of human vices.
The old favourites: Needless cruelty, greed, intolerance and cult of personality.

Their ideals were not lofty, I'm aghast that you could say so. They held that might makes right and that private property is not yours, but everyones. They also sought to cripple any amount of free thought and deed, my philosophy is that I'm gonna grow old and die one day, which I can deal with, but I will be damned if I let myself get bossed around while I'm here. I won't be robbed by the state of free will or of private property.

You can not have a Red RUssia without a red terror, the Dictatorship of the 'Proletariot' was kept in place by fear and repression of the people of Russia.

They are both as bas as each other IMO. The reat of your rant was just ridiculous.

Hitler was democratically elected (With the help of slightly abusing the system, but he was)) at least. :shrug: neither Lenin nor Stalin can boast that.

amadeus

May 06, 2003, 04:25 PM

Hitler wasn't elected, he was appointed by Hindenburg in 1933.

SKILORD

May 06, 2003, 05:11 PM

Alright, but his party was... I think. I know they never got a majority, but they did well enough at the polls to get him that chancellorship to 'keep him outta trouble'

marshal zhukov

May 07, 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Marshall Zhukov wrote:

Brazil has had a quite stable political history.
We were an Empire from 1822 to 1889. The Old Republic lasted from 1889 to 1930. We then experienced 15 years of fascist dictatorship ( 1930 - 1945).

Actually, according to the brief in one of the scholarly reviews Brazil has had a fairly turbulent history:

- Shawn C. Smallman

This does not sound like a model of stability to me, unless you're just comparing Brazil to its even worse-off Spanish-speaking neighbors.

The articles I found for you all seemed to believe that the 1964 coup was a Brazilian problem with Brazilian origins. I have no problem believing that the U.S. government supported the coup, and sanctioned it by recognizing its leaders. The U.S. policy towards Third World states during the Cold war tended to be stability; any government would do, dictatorship or whatever, so long as they were anti-communist. While the U.S. did become involved in overthrowing foreign governments like Allende in Chile or Mossadegh in Iran, I think it is disingenious to claim that every coup and regime change in post-WW II South America was an American conspiracy. I am not at all concerned what you think about the U.S., nor do I think the U.S. is an angel but I have found that far too many South Americans have relied on the U.S. as a very convenient bogeyman to explain away their enduring poverty, weak economies, entrenched elites and political instability.

Do you get my point?

Eventhough your post offered some interesting points , I still believe that Brazil had a stable political history, just because we had only one civil war whose aim was the overthown of the Central goverment ( Revolution of 1930). The rest of the rebelions were caused by civil unrest over the economic situation, with the exception of one the Farrapos whose aim was to emancipate the Southern part of Brazil.
Besides the US sponsored coup of 1964, the coup of 1930, was the only other time in which brazilian political continuity was in jeorpardy.

If you read my posts carefully you would see that I have NEVER suggested, implied or put the blame of the poor state of the brazilan economy on the United States. The only one to blame for our economical problems is ourselves, I am perfectly aware of that. The fault for our poverty lies with us not with anybody else.

It is not naive the belive that all coups which resulted in the formation of a pro-american dictatorship in South America during the Cold War had some kind of American support and or finacing.
Basically it was a cheaper, much faster way for the US to keep socialism away from South America.

Marshall Plan's objective, besides rebuilding Europe, was to keep Socialism away from Europe. The logic was that if the Europeans are wealthy enough they will think twice before joining the Communist Party or doing something communist.
The problem with that plan was that it was hugely, immesely, expensive and it also required years and years of strong economic growth in order for the all wealthy to be generated.

Now besides South America being far away from the clutches of any Socialist country, I admit, South America is much poorer than any European nation and also less educated, that means that it would take a lot MORE money, and a lot more time, in order to make South Americans wealthy enough so that they wouldn't try or do anything Socialist.
A easier and cheaper way for the US to stop Communism spreading into South America was to topple every single democratic regime that could go Communist and installing in its place a pro-american dictatorship. Simply put, make a revolution before they do.
And it worked. I admit it was better that way. The US did what it had to do.