USSR Like it or not?

[Roller123]

Masada

That was the endgame. Get the picture?

No i dont get it how reposting all that stuff here is supposed to change anything. You wanted to show Latvian resistance to the so called occupation, but there is none to see in the quotes but wild accusations. And the Nazi created forces. In 1944.

Forcible conscription into the Red Army began after the German invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941

And again, what does have it to do with Latvia joining USSR in 1940. Also, "forcible conscription" is called mobilization, unless the intention isnt to influence the reader negatively, which seems to be the case here.

The election results were fabricated

Yes, why didnt you bring up these numbers. So far we have
-Latvia didnt resist, you counter with time travelling Nazi protectors.
-Joined legitimately, you counter with foreign country newspaper speculations.

That certainly proved it.

 

[Masada]

No i dont get it how reposting all that stuff here is supposed to change anything. You wanted to show Latvian resistance to the so called occupation, but there is none to see in the quotes but wild accusations.

They resisted in 44' and heck it was for all Baltic States. If there was no resistance explain why the Soviets shot so many people when the Baltic States surrendered? Was it just for the sake of doing it or was resistance indeed taking place?

And the Nazi created forces. In 1944.

They all created a Russian army . Here's the key, "the Nazi's created forces" not, the "Nazi's created all forces" ahem, so not everyone resisting the "liberation" in the Baltic State was a Nazi puppet like you seem to be saying.

-Latvia didnt resist, you counter with time travelling Nazi protectors.

Hey I was wrong about that! I'll grant that armed resistance did not occur all that much till 44' against the Soviets. I'd like to see you worm out of the second instance of 'liberation'.

-Joined legitimately, you counter with foreign country newspaper speculations.

No, it states that The election results were fabricated: the Soviet press service released them early, with the result that they had already appeared in print in a London newspaper a full 24 hours before the polls closed we have an Estonian speaker here and I read English.

I'm sure if we took the time we could find said article, and compare it to the date of the election... a 24 hour differential will be fairly easy to spot.

 

[luiz]

1. The word "pahan" addressed to Stalin was not an innocent joke. If you want to start fighting against regime - do it at the peace time, otherwise you may get into the trouble.
2. If people like Vlassov were purged, it would be only better for us.
3. If I said that every action of Stalin were justified, he was angel with wings - you could start disproving this. If not, don't put your words into my mouth.

1- It was a private letter and very innocent indeed. To call that "fighting the regime" is ridiculous, pathetic and stalinist.
2-Yeah, everyone one of the thousands and thousands of the officers purged were bad. Only the good ones lasted. Which is why Russia had such a superb performance on the earlier stages of the invasion. Oh, wait.
3- You are trying to justify compltely unjustifiable and criminal acts of a person that is widely considered to be one of the worst dictators in human history.

If their complaining expressed in the form of armed uprising or collaboration with Nazis, yes.

You think every deported nationality (and genocided in the forced marchs) were in armed uprising and collaboration with the nazis? Men, women and children?

Jeez, try to read some history book not approved by your Ministery of Propaganda.

 

[red_elk]

Whut? whose talking in absolutes now?

Question: Are you in the habit of reading old prints of Pravda?

I said that Baltic states joined USSR in 1940 peacefully. Before bursting in righteous anger, read carefully what I'm writing. And read articles, before giving links to them.

 

[red_elk]

1- It was a private letter and very innocent indeed. To call that "fighting the regime" is ridiculous, pathetic and stalinist.

And I said it was stupid for him to send such letters, because he knew there were no "private" letters at the moment. Nothing more. Want to argue with this?

2-Yeah, everyone one of the thousands and thousands of the officers purged were bad. Only the good ones lasted. Which is why Russia had such a superb performance on the earlier stages of the invasion. Oh, wait.

Did I say something like this?

3- You are trying to justify compltely unjustifiable and criminal acts of a person that is widely considered to be one of the worst dictators in human history.

What, exactly I'm justifying which is unjustifiable? Until you specify it, there is no point in arguing. So far, you are continuously putting some statements into my mouth and disproving them.

You think every deported nationality (and genocided in the forced marchs) were in armed uprising and collaboration with the nazis? Men, women and children?

Again. See?
Did I say something like this?

 

[red_elk]

Technically, it's not proven that she even murdered him.

Which president though?

I was talking about Kennedy.
Sorry for English

 

[Dachs]

I was talking about Kennedy.
Sorry for English

Nah, no problem. Good thing there's really not much proof that he was assassinated by 'powerful persons' either. IIRC the conspiracy theory with the most weight behind it is the one that links Oswald to Cuba, and even that is pretty flimsy.

 

[red_elk]

Nah, no problem. Good thing there's really not much proof that he was assassinated by 'powerful persons' either. IIRC the conspiracy theory with the most weight behind it is the one that links Oswald to Cuba, and even that is pretty flimsy.

Agree, we don't know much about it. Though it seems logical to me, that anybody who was able to organize murder of such person as Kennedy, and get away with that, must be quite influencial in USA. But nevermind, this is OT.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Nah, no problem. Good thing there's really not much proof that he was assassinated by 'powerful persons' either. IIRC the conspiracy theory with the most weight behind it is the one that links Oswald to Cuba, and even that is pretty flimsy.

Well that, and the whole part about him defecting to the Soviet Union and moving there for several years, then coming back and killing several high-profile politicians within the space of a few days.

 

[Richard Cribb]

As I explained elsewhere here, I have been unable to participate in the activity of this board for a while.
I must also confess that I am not very tempted by engaging in a debate about such a controversial topic here seeing that quite a few of my Pappenheimers have appeared, and I would need to write at least one article to give it justice. I am not intending to do such a thing, at least not for the moment.
I will see if I manage to comment on the (very) few posts that deserves consideration during the weekend.I am for instance rather curious about what books are to be found in Red Ralph's bookstore, and I owe Cheezy a clarification.
As for the assasination of Kennedy, that is off-topic, but some of you might find this article by Michael Parenti interesting:http://www.michaelparenti.org/JFKAssassination.html.

 

[luiz]

And I said it was stupid for him to send such letters, because he knew there were no "private" letters at the moment. Nothing more. Want to argue with this?

Stupid and risky, maybe. But you did imply that it was his fault he did not understand the need for those rules in wartime. You continued that line of thought with that "invaded by a 4.5 millions army" nonsense. What I am saying is that, his unwise decision apart, what happened to him could only have happened in a massively repressive, unhuman regime. Do you accept this or not?

Did I say something like this?

Yeah, when confronted with the fact that he purged thousands you replied "it saved us from X". How is that supposed to be interpreted?

What, exactly I'm justifying which is unjustifiable? Until you specify it, there is no point in arguing. So far, you are continuously putting some statements into my mouth and disproving them.

When I mention th thing about being tortured and sent to labor camps because of a private letter, instead of saying "yeah that was regrettable" you went on and on about how stupid he was, how it was his fault for not understanding why such rules were needed in wartime.

When I mentioned the deported nationalities, you replied that "if they were in armed uprising or collaborating with the nazis" they deserved it. Of course I didn't mean anyone helping the nazis; you just chose to focus on them instead of the much, much more numerous innocents that were forced to march by Stalin's tyranny.

Yeah, I'd say you were justifying.

Again. See?
Did I say something like this?

Yeah.

 

[red_elk]

Stupid and risky, maybe. But you did imply that it was his fault he did not understand the need for those rules in wartime. You continued that line of thought with that "invaded by a 4.5 millions army" nonsense. What I am saying is that, his unwise decision apart, what happened to him could only have happened in a massively repressive, unhuman regime. Do you accept this or not?

I didn's say it was his fault - it was just his stupidity.
I'm not justifying anything, unless I'm clearly saying it. Why I need to explain all this?

Repressive regime - definitely yes.
Unhuman - may be. I'd prefer to live under unhuman regime which didn't fall to Nazis after a few weeks of fighting, like many human regimes did.

Yeah, when confronted with the fact that he purged thousands you replied "it saved us from X". How is that supposed to be interpreted?

If you don't want how to interpret something, ask. I said that in some cases, repressions were not unreasonable.

When I mention th thing about being tortured and sent to labor camps because of a private letter, instead of saying "yeah that was regrettable" you went on and on about how stupid he was, how it was his fault for not understanding why such rules were needed in wartime.

Dictature was needed in wartime, to withstand against more powerful enemy. Dictature always lead to many regrettable events. For us, if people like Nicolai II or Gorbachev were in power in 1941, consequences would be much more regrettable. For Solzhenitsyn - he understood how to behave in his country in particular time, to be safe.

Yes, it was tragedy for many people who were repressed for no reason. Whether it was possible to have less of those cases - no one can say, it's already history. I understand though, that any "human" regime in our country would be destroyed by Nazis for a few months, with all predictable consequences for Soviet state and people.

When I mentioned the deported nationalities, you replied that "if they were in armed uprising or collaborating with the nazis" they deserved it. Of course I didn't mean anyone helping the nazis; you just chose to focus on them instead of the much, much more numerous innocents that were forced to march by Stalin's tyranny.
Yeah, I'd say you were justifying.

Simple question: what was the reason of deportation?

 

[luiz]

I didn's say it was his fault.
I'm not justifying anything, unless I'm clearly saying it. Why I need to explain all this?

Repressive regime - definitely yes.
Unhuman - may be. I'd prefer to live under unhuman regime which didn't fall to Nazis for a month, like many human regimes did.

False dichotomy. Russia was not France or Poland. Imperial Russia didn't fall to Napoleon's mighty army either. If anything, what Stalin accomplished was to make Russia much weaker, what explains why the germans kicked their arses in the early stages of the invasion.

Russia was a mighty nation much before Stalin, and continued to be after him.

Dictature was needed in wartime, to withstand against more powerful enemy. Dictature always lead to many regrettable events. For us, if people like Nicolai II or Gorbachev were in power in 1941, consequences would be much more regrettable. For Solzhenitsyn - he understood how to behave in his country in particular time, to be safe.

Again, nonsense.
The brits did not need dictatorship when they fought alone against the nazis (you know, while Stalin still believed Hitler was his buddy).

The insane repression of Stalin did not help the war effort. His tactical stupidity surely didn't help either.

Yes, it was tragedy for many people who were repressed for no reason. Whether it was possible to have less of those cases - no one can say, it's already history. I understand though, that any "human" regime in our country would be destroyed for a few months, with all predictable consequences for Soviet state and people.

Nonsense.

Simple question: what was the reason of deportation?

Simple question: why did Hitler kill the Jews?

You see, evil dictators like Hitler and Stalin see things differently than normal people, and most importantly, they deal with problems differently. Stalin suffered from massive paranoia: in his mind his doctors wanted to kill him, his colleagues wanted to kill him, the army wanted to kill him. Obviously, a man like that was a little uneasy with different nationalities inside his country and questioned their loyalty. He saw plots and collaboration where there was nothing to see. That's why he forced many of those nationalities to march with little food and clothing for thousands of kilometers into death. Better safe than sorry, in his mind.

 

[Roller123]

If there was no resistance explain why the Soviets shot so many people when the Baltic States surrendered?

Who told you that. Im neither disagreeing nor agreeing. What is the source of this information. Another time travel wikipedia article?

They all created a Russian army . Here's the key, "the Nazi's created forces" not, the "Nazi's created all forces" ahem, so not everyone resisting the "liberation" in the Baltic State was a Nazi puppet like you seem to be saying.

Wait wait wait. The Nazi created a Russian army? This is getting more and more interesting. Besides, as we already found out Latvia rejoined USSR before Nazi occupation. So what you are telling is that during Nazi occupation, an anti-soviet force was created. Ok, but not by Nazis. And just whom was it going to fight if the country was under German rule? Really. This stuff doesnt add up.

Hey I was wrong about that! I'll grant that armed resistance did not occur all that much till 44' against the Soviets.

Again, why the sudden opinion change. Because Yeekim said so? Next thing he is gonna tell(and im not saying he will) is that <insert nation here> are eating babies. Are we gonna discuss that too then?

I'm sure if we took the time we could find said article, and compare it to the date of the election... a 24 hour differential will be fairly easy to spot.

Agreed. But what is that supposed to prove. If i were to tell that Obama will win the election does it mean the result was manipulated? There are alot of possible reasons, and manipulation is certainly one of them. but im not sure why you again are so 100% sure and quick to throw accusations, and not, say, think the results were supposed to be published with a delay, and some ppl in Moscow leaked the results. Here are some reasons, f.e. Latvia was part of Russia not long ago. There was a war in Europe. USSR was a big country to protect them.

 

[Yeekim]

Who told you that. Im neither disagreeing nor agreeing. What is the source of this information. Another time travel wikipedia article?

If you are indeed interested in the topic, you might want to check out this page: http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/index.htm
That is a website of Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity.
Apart from more detailed material, conclusions of the Commission are written for three separate periods (1940-1941; 1941-1944 and 1944-) and are reasonably short. It only deals with events related to Estonia, though.

Relevant extract:

Spoiler :

The NKVD imprisoned nearly 1000 citizens and
residents of the Republic of Estonia in 1940 and the
NKVD and NKGB imprisoned nearly 6000 in 1941.
The overwhelming majority of them were convicted
and sent to prison camps in the USSR where most of
them died. Alternatively, they were executed in
Estonia on the basis of death sentences or in the
USSR when the death sentence was passed after the
beginning of the war and/or the prisoner had been
taken away from Estonia. According to existing data,
of those arrested in 1940, at least 250 prisoners were
executed and nearly 500 died in imprisonment; of
those arrested in 1941, over 1600 prisoners were
executed and nearly 4000 died in imprisonment.
The policy of the USSR was aimed primarily
against the elite of Estonian society: national and
local politicians, prominent figures in economics
and finance, members of the military, active members
of the Defence League, the more prosperous
farmers, professionals and others were imprisoned.
***
Over 2000 civilians were killed in Estonia from
June to October of 1941. This total includes up to a
hundred so-called “forest brothers” (Estonian patriotic
partisans) who put up armed resistance to
retreating units of the NKVD, NKGB or Red Army
and can for this reason be considered to have fallen
in battle.

I'm feeling sort of like a broken record though. Why is it that every thread somehow related to Russia ends up with crimes of Stalin? There is so much more about Russian history than one paranoid dictator...

 

[red_elk]

False dichotomy. Russia was not France or Poland. Imperial Russia didn't fall to Napoleon's mighty army either. If anything, what Stalin accomplished was to make Russia much weaker, what explains why the germans kicked their arses in the early stages of the invasion.

Russia was a mighty nation much before Stalin, and continued to be after him.

I don't think Russia performed well in 1812. Alexander got Catherine's country (not long after her "golden age") and Suvorov's army. Russia was a military superpower. Despite this, Napoleon managed to take Moscow.

Again, nonsense.
The brits did not need dictatorship when they fought alone against the nazis (you know, while Stalin still believed Hitler was his buddy).

Neither Britain nor USA had enough power to withstand such attack of land forces as USSR got in 1941. There's nothing to compare.

I'd compare WW1 and WW2.
Unlike Nikolai 2, Stalin got a country which was devastated by a bunch of wars - Russo-Japanese, WW1, civil war, two revolutions and several smaller conflicts and disasters. Compare concentration of forces: during WW1 Germany was forced to fight on 2 fronts, whereas in 1941 wast majority of land forces were concentrated on Eastern front. Unlike Germany in 1914, Hitler controlled resources and industrial potential of almost all Europe. Hitler had allied Finland and Romania, controlled territories of France and Poland, USSR was forced to keep troops on far East, because of Japan.
And compare outcome:
WW1 - defeat, collapsed and demolished Russia, civil war.
WW2 - victory, world superpower, nuclear weapons, soon after end of war - first in the world space flight.

Soviet people paid a great price for this, millions of lives. Because of war, forced industrialization and repressions. I'm not doing moral definitions here, too many peoples died, and many of these achievements are now lost.

Have anything to comment, why liberal ruler fu*ng lost his country, and evil dictator left superpower after him?

Simple question: why did Hitler kill the Jews?

You see, evil dictators like Hitler and Stalin see things differently than normal people, and most importantly, they deal with problems differently. Stalin suffered from massive paranoia: in his mind his doctors wanted to kill him, his colleagues wanted to kill him, the army wanted to kill him. Obviously, a man like that was a little uneasy with different nationalities inside his country and questioned their loyalty. He saw plots and collaboration where there was nothing to see. That's why he forced many of those nationalities to march with little food and clothing for thousands of kilometers into death. Better safe than sorry, in his mind.

Hitler was killing the Jews because he followed Nazi ideology, extermination of subhumans. Not because he was crazy.
Soviet ideology didn't imply killing of people. Could you answer, why Stalin chose Chechens (for example) to deport? He just decided that he don't like them, pointed a finger to map and said "Deport them!" or what?

 

[red_elk]

Over 2000 civilians were killed in Estonia from June to October of 1941. This total includes up to a hundred so-called &#8220;forest brothers&#8221; (Estonian patriotic partisans) who put up armed resistance to retreating units of the NKVD, NKGB or Red Army and can for this reason be considered to have fallen in battle.

Doesn't look like neutral article.

 

[luiz]

I don't think Russia performed well in 1812. Alexander got Catherine's country (not long after her "golden age") and Suvorov's army. Russia was a military superpower. Despite this, Napoleon managed to take Moscow.

The russian military was no match for Napoleon's on an open field. Kutuzov knew this and pretty much allowed them to take Moscow because he pursued a "devastated land" strategy, which had a great cost but worked out very well. What proportion of the french army made it back home?
All things considered, I don't think Russia performed poorly. Better than during Barbarossa, I'd say.

Neither Britain nor USA had enough power to withstand such attack of land forces as USSR got in 1941. There's nothing to compare.

How can you know that about the US? They were more industrialised and better equiped than the USSR.

And my point is that even when Britain was alone (something that the USSR never was), and very much under the threat of invasion, they didn't need a dictatorship to get things done. This is a very false and dangerous notion, that dictatorships perform better in war. History has not vindicated this.

I'd compare WW1 and WW2.
Unlike Nikolai 2, Stalin got a country which was devastated by a bunch of wars - Russo-Japanese, WW1, civil war, two revolutions and several smaller conflicts and disasters. Compare concentration of forces: during WW1 Germany was forced to fight on 2 fronts, whereas in 1941 wast majority of land forces were concentrated on Eastern front. Unlike Germany in 1914, Hitler controlled resources and industrial potential of almost all Europe. Hitler had allied Finland and Romania, controlled territories of France and Poland, USSR was forced to keep troops on far East, because of Japan.
And compare outcome:
WW1 - defeat, collapsed and demolished Russia, civil war.
WW2 - victory, world superpower, nuclear weapons, soon after end of war - first in the world space flight.

Dude, Russia was not defeated in WW1. Lenin surrenderd because he was taking money from the germans. There is no way the germans would have taken Moscow in WW1; 0% chance.

Have anything to comment, why liberal ruler fu*ng lost his country, and evil dictator left superpower after him?

The "superpower" thing is overblown. Russia has always been mighty, and probably always will be. During the Soviet times, it was only a match for the USA in military terms (and only after the mid 60's). As far as the economy goes, it was completely dwarfed by the USA, always.

Hitler was killing the Jews because he followed Nazi ideology, extermination of subhumans. Not because he was crazy.
Soviet ideology didn't imply killing of people. Could you answer, why Stalin chose Chechens (for example) to deport? He just decided that he don't like them, pointed a finger to map and said "Deport them!" or what?

Do you think that Hitler's is one "sane" ideology? Oh, and soviet ideology very much implied killing the enemies of the people.

Why did Stalin chose the chechens? Well, why did he choose the Ukrainians, Poles, Koreans, Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Ingush, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Finns, Bulgarians, Greeks, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Jews?

 

[jumpydady]

since I don't want to spent the rest of my live living in misery, no plz.

 

[Roller123]

If you are indeed interested in the topic, you might want to check out this page: http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/index.htm
That is a website of Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity.

An estonian website? Thats like asking Hamas to investigate who started the Israeli&#8211;Palestinian conflict.