USSR Like it or not?

Do you Like the USSR?

  • Total voters
    182
Status
Not open for further replies.
red_elk said:
We've already spoken about formal differences. You just mentioned one of important factual things: People in Baltic states were granted the same rights as all Soviet people.
Click to expand...
And you just could not start with this only argument that actually makes some sort of sense? Not that I say this necessitates creating a separate term, but at least the claim itself is essentially correct.
red_elk said:
Claim that there was an occupation means putting it into the same classification as for example, Nazi occupation of Belorussia.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. This would probably be an example from one extreme. I am quite sure there have also been "undisputed" occupations with less casualties of all sorts than the Soviet one in Baltics (at least for a period up to 1953)
red_elk said:
If I remember correctly, they killed 75% of population for a few years - the difference is principal.
Click to expand...
Was that a typo or do you honestly think they killed 16% more than the mortality rate of Soviet POW-s in German camps? :dubious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Belarus_by_Nazi_Germany
This article says Belarus lost about a quarter of its pre-war population - which seems plausible. But obviously you can´t write it all on the account of German occupation regime. The article also claims that some "pro-Nazi" Belarussians fought guerilla warfare against Soviet Union until 1957.
red_elk said:
International laws and agreements are sometimes contradictory. The same principle was used to justify secession of Kosovo, Abkhazia and S.Ossetia.
Click to expand...
True.
red_elk said:
but in democratic Estonia, children with Russian mother language are forced to use Estonian in schools?
Click to expand...
http://www.hm.ee/index.php?249457 - Часто повторяющиеся вопросы
Basically the reform only concerns upper secondary education - forms 10-12 and is aimed at better integration of society.
EDIT: Since this is English forum, here is link to English FAQ as well:
http://www.hm.ee/index.php?148684
red_elk said:
"Civilian occupants" - if this man committed crimes, ok, punish him. If he moved to Estonia in, say, 1970 to build new workshop or to teach your children - is he occupant?
Click to expand...
I used the term to describe the government policy that has been working for great effect for many countries, especially for both Russia and China in history - transfer your civilian population into "incorporated" territories to bind these to the motherland. "Colonists" might be more neutral, perhaps? Anyway, the difference is all in mentality of every single person. Just because people were intended for a role does not mean they all act into it. I know a good number of great Russian/Ukrainian people. I am glad I can call some of them friends.
 
:yup:

Some of his best butchers were Jewish, and interestingly at some point during the 30's he was practically surrounded by Jewish women.

What is next, are you going to ask if he supported creation of Israel?
 
Yeekim said:
And you just could not start with this only argument that actually makes some sort of sense? Not that I say this necessitates creating a separate term, but at least the claim itself is essentially correct.
Click to expand...

We discussed this. Principal difference between military occupation and forceful incorporation is state of war. Note that "forceful" here - de-facto, not de-jure.

Yeekim said:
Not necessarily. This would probably be an example from one extreme. I am quite sure there have also been "undisputed" occupations with less casualties of all sorts than the Soviet one in Baltics (at least for a period up to 1953)
Click to expand...

Don't know such examples. Where occupants discussed with occupied countries where to place their army.

Yeekim said:
Was that a typo or do you honestly think they killed 16% more than the mortality rate of Soviet POW-s in German camps? :dubious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Belarus_by_Nazi_Germany
This article says Belarus lost about a quarter of its pre-war population - which seems plausible. But obviously you can´t write it all on the account of German occupation regime. The article also claims that some "pro-Nazi" Belarussians fought guerilla warfare against Soviet Union until 1957.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant they left only 75% of population alive after a few years of occupation. Corrected.

Yeekim said:
http://www.hm.ee/index.php?249457 - Часто повторяющиеся вопросы
Basically the reform only concerns upper secondary education - forms 10-12 and is aimed at better integration of society.
EDIT: Since this is English forum, here is link to English FAQ as well:
http://www.hm.ee/index.php?148684
Click to expand...

Right, though it seems like they were not happy with such integration. Looks pretty much like integration is forceful.

Yeekim said:
I used the term to describe the government policy that has been working for great effect for many countries, especially for both Russia and China in history - transfer your civilian population into "incorporated" territories to bind these to the motherland. "Colonists" might be more neutral, perhaps? Anyway, the difference is all in mentality of every single person. Just because people were intended for a role does not mean they all act into it. I know a good number of great Russian/Ukrainian people. I am glad I can call some of them friends.
Click to expand...

"Colonists" and "bind" are more neutral than "civilian occupants" and "assimilate", yes.
 
Julian Delphiki said:
:yup:

Some of his best butchers were Jewish, and interestingly at some point during the 30's he was practically surrounded by Jewish women.

What is next, are you going to ask if he supported creation of Israel?
Click to expand...

So, he did hate Jews just for being Jews, and promoted them to highest levels of government?
:yup: ?
 
Can't you read? Obviously, yes.

They were constantly reminded of being Jews and it was useful leverage against them when he wanted to get rid of them. Also, remember that his antisemitism and paranoia got worse as he got older.
 
Yeekim said:
I used the term to describe the government policy that has been working for great effect for many countries, especially for both Russia and China in history - transfer your civilian population into "incorporated" territories to bind these to the motherland. "Colonists" might be more neutral, perhaps? Anyway, the difference is all in mentality of every single person. Just because people were intended for a role does not mean they all act into it. I know a good number of great Russian/Ukrainian people. I am glad I can call some of them friends.
Click to expand...

Not really the issue of minority caused by redrawing borders. Say, Israel have Arabic as second official language, doesn't stop anti-Israel sentiment here.

The fact is, redrawing border causes bad sentiments across the border. Whether the sentiment is oppressed (often see as "unpatriotic" if oppressing the majority's chauvinism, and "nazi" if oppressing minority's identity--language, religion etc.).
 
Back to the original question: do I like USSR or not? Well no. The big difference between the USSR and the Nazi Germany is that unlike the USSR, the nazis were stopped and since then they have been demonized. I believe this is mostly because of the allies' (US) need to retain their moral superiority, so they've demonized the nazis and somewhat ignored the crimes USSR (they can't just admit that they were working alongside with a country twice as evil as nazi germany, can they?). In terms of pure casualties USSR was (at least) twice as bad as the nazis, therefore I consider it to be at least twice as evil.

Also one thing I've learned is that arguing with a russian on a subject relating to russian history (especially WW2) is a complete waste of time. Those people have undergone decades of propaganda and the russian historiography is notorious for not being able to accept their mistakes, war crimes and all that s**t. Of course you can argue on a subject like this but I consider it as a waste of time.
 
Hehehe said:
Back to the original question: do I like USSR or not? Well no. The big difference between the USSR and the Nazi Germany is that unlike the USSR, the nazis were stopped and since then they have been demonized. I believe this is mostly because of the allies' (US) need to retain their moral superiority, so they've demonized the nazis and somewhat ignored the crimes USSR (they can't just admit that they were working alongside with a country twice as evil as nazi germany, can they?). In terms of pure casualties USSR was (at least) twice as bad as the nazis, therefore I consider it to be at least twice as evil.

Also one thing I've learned is that arguing with a russian on a subject relating to russian history (especially WW2) is a complete waste of time. Those people have undergone decades of propaganda and the russian historiography is notorious for not being able to accept their mistakes, war crimes and all that s**t. Of course you can argue on a subject like this but I consider it as a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Similar things could be argued against Finnish or Baltic as they have only seen the aggressive side of Russian expansionism.

For the US side, they ignored both Nazi and USSR first, then they demonized Nazi Germany for gaining war support, then they demonized USSR for gaining cold war superiority. Hardly a good indicator.
 
plarq said:
Similar things could be argued against Finnish or Baltic as they have only seen the aggressive side of Russian expansionism.
Click to expand...
In WW2 Russians annexed other countries by force. So tell me where's the non-aggressive side of Russian expansionism?

Unlike us, the Soviet Union never had freedom of speech or anything like that: schools, media, everything was state controlled and censored. What do you think they would tell the people? That they oppressed other people or that they "liberated" other people? After all this propaganda do you really expect them to be exactly objective? We Finns have been taught all the dark moments in our history, while Russians ignore their dark moments, or they'll try to justify them somehow (even today some people in Russia seem to think they were actually HELPING Estonia). Russian historiography is anything but objective and unbiased.

For the US side, they ignored both Nazi and USSR first, then they demonized Nazi Germany for gaining war support, then they demonized USSR for gaining cold war superiority. Hardly a good indicator.
Click to expand...

I don't think you realize what level of demonization were talking about. To me it seems that the nazis are like a synonym to all evil: ask a random American who is the most evil person ever existed and I'm sure at least 90% will say Hitler (while maybe 1% will say Stalin?). Even during and after the cold war, nazis are/were like the standard villain in movies and videogames and whatnot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark I know it's just one movie but I named it as an example. There's a lot more movies where the nazis are demonized but I can't think of any movies where the USSR would be demonized like the nazis. Hell, didn't James Bond even work with the soviets in some of the movies? Can you name an American movie where the hero is working with the nazis?
 
I can imagine documentary movie where some Finnish "hero" is working with Nazis. You won't agree with demonisation of Finland, do you? :)
 
Julian Delphiki said:
Can't you read? Obviously, yes.

They were constantly reminded of being Jews and it was useful leverage against them when he wanted to get rid of them. Also, remember that his antisemitism and paranoia got worse as he got older.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. He surrounded himself with people which he hated. And put them to government. No problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom