Originally posted by Bifrost
What's your real location? You tell the same things that majority of our nation do!!!!
?????? waht do u mean?:ak47:???? i am not russian tahts for sure, but i think russia is cool^_^ i live across the atlantic
Worst Soviet/New Russian leader
- Thread starter Globber
- Start date
?????? waht do u mean?:ak47:???? i am not russian tahts for sure, but i think russia is cool^_^ i live across the atlantic
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Worst? Yeltsin.
When I say "worst" - I mean how the USSR/Russia did socially, economically, politically, and militarily.
Yeltsin was a travesty, and I'm glad Putin is in control now.
Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, 1995 was probably the most dangerous year in terms of nuclear warfare would be. January 25th, Yeltsin feared that the U.S. had actually begun firing nuclear missiles at Russia and Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" to prepare for Russian retaliation against the U.S.
When I say "worst" - I mean how the USSR/Russia did socially, economically, politically, and militarily.
Yeltsin was a travesty, and I'm glad Putin is in control now.
Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, 1995 was probably the most dangerous year in terms of nuclear warfare would be. January 25th, Yeltsin feared that the U.S. had actually begun firing nuclear missiles at Russia and Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" to prepare for Russian retaliation against the U.S.
well i know little about how Putin is doing.......aparently all of the news channels talk about osama bin laden......they got little or no new info about him but they keep talking about him, is almost a year.........i miss the news taht talked about the world more often, not jsut afganistan............
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
People in the US don't bare Russians any real hatred, we DID hate the Communist system however.Originally posted by Bifrost
Thanks for "Russia is cool" I believe the majority of those who live across the ocean dont share your opinion
We also hated being blamed for things we didn't do, and given no credit for things we did do by many Russians I have read and spoken too.
After the USA, the most powerful nation ever was the Soviet Union, and Russian had many accomplishments.
Many Americans are aware that Russia bore the human burden of defeating the Nazis, for example, but many Russians I have spoken with brush off the west's contribution, which is insulting to the millions of westerners who fought, and many that died doing their part.
But you must remember, the freedom of thought and speach which you now enjoy has been with the west for a long time, we cannot understand that duty to the state was a cultural trait as old as Russia itself, and being so different, suspecian can only follow, sadly.
I am hopeful that Russia and the US will continue to become friends, and eventually allies, because I'd rather fight along side a Russian then against one!
Switch625
I don't care.
Originally posted by Bifrost
Thanks for "Russia is cool" I believe the majority of those who live across the ocean dont share your opinion
We hated and feared the communist regime controlling the Soviet Union, and all those nuclear missiles aimed at us, but not the Russian people. Now, while we may not be best chums, Russia and the United States have a good relationship which I hope will only get better. The United States and Russia have a lot to offer each other.
Like A of A said, it is far better to have Russia standing with us than against us.
After the beginning of the Cold War Cherchill started the world widest propaganda company to make West believe that England and USA are the actual winners. I know that now the propaganda machine is off, but anyway the thing that we afraid of is that someday people will forget the price we paid for the destroying the Nazis(20 mln people - officially).
Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I am hopeful that Russia and the US will continue to become friends, and eventually allies, because I'd rather fight along side a Russian then against one!
Better not to fight or to be forced to fight at all.
What a surprise! We were (some of us still are) afraid of the same nuclear weapons but from your side.
Well, I should say that the relation of the larger part of our population to USA becomes better nowadays. It would be great to have a common glorious future.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you that today I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
Whom are you citing, I wonder? Hopefully, not yourself.
Although we live in the same country, I can't share your point of view. The attitude of ordinary people to Americans never was bad. As you remember, lots of us didn't believe a word from propaganda speeches.
But if we talk of the US gov't, I'd agree w/ u. It annoyed and keep on annoying the majority of Russians mainly because of propaganda that we seem get rid of. "Wag the dog." A good film.
Perephrasing AoA, we didn't hate Americans, we hated Capitalism.
It's a bit naive to dream of common future. It's much more reasonable to think of the future world in which the relations between the states will not be defined by the ratio of nukes each of them has. (hope, the phrase is not very confusing)
news:
as the people were begining to say nice and understanding things about russia such as:
" am hopeful that Russia and the US will continue to become friends, and eventually allies, because I'd rather fight along side a Russian then against one!" from Alcibiaties of Athenae
"Russia and the United States have a good relationship which I hope will only get better. The United States and Russia have a lot to offer each other." from Switch625
many others joined them........and when a more permanent peace and an allience between Russia and America was being created...........
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you that today I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." said by rmsharpe
ended a posibility of a new ear of peace......russia retaliated.........
"Whom are you citing, I wonder? Hopefully, not yourself."by u-gene"
News:we have heard taht the misiles have been launched there is less than than 5 mins b4 the end of the world.........
Well thats how it has historically happened b4 (not to the point of war) but when peace appears, WW2 alliance, fall of the USSR yet yelsin almost send in his missiles thinking a satellite test was a attack. would something like taht happend again?
as the people were begining to say nice and understanding things about russia such as:
" am hopeful that Russia and the US will continue to become friends, and eventually allies, because I'd rather fight along side a Russian then against one!" from Alcibiaties of Athenae
"Russia and the United States have a good relationship which I hope will only get better. The United States and Russia have a lot to offer each other." from Switch625
many others joined them........and when a more permanent peace and an allience between Russia and America was being created...........
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you that today I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." said by rmsharpe
ended a posibility of a new ear of peace......russia retaliated.........
"Whom are you citing, I wonder? Hopefully, not yourself.
"by u-gene"News:we have heard taht the misiles have been launched there is less than than 5 mins b4 the end of the world.........
Well thats how it has historically happened b4 (not to the point of war) but when peace appears, WW2 alliance, fall of the USSR yet yelsin almost send in his missiles thinking a satellite test was a attack. would something like taht happend again?
For sure we were at the brink of the war a dozen of times in the post-war years. Thanks God it did not happen. Otherwise, we'd not have been here finding faults with economic and political situations of our countries. 
The experience of Japan did show it's not funny at all.
Yeltsin's readiness to send bombs to the USA or whatever just means there's no space for jokes or 'tests'. Probably he was not warned of that. But when it comes to the safety of your country, I think, any leader can allow missiles to fly to the enemy's territory. I imagine what could happen, if India started testing its satellites nowadays. It's almost certain that Pakistan has nukes... U R right saying that there'll be only 5 minutes left for us to enjoy living, if WW3 breaks out.
Once I came across such slogan: 'make love, not war'. I suggest everybody should stick to this rule. Sorry 4 going astray from the topic of the forum.
The experience of Japan did show it's not funny at all.Yeltsin's readiness to send bombs to the USA or whatever just means there's no space for jokes or 'tests'. Probably he was not warned of that. But when it comes to the safety of your country, I think, any leader can allow missiles to fly to the enemy's territory. I imagine what could happen, if India started testing its satellites nowadays. It's almost certain that Pakistan has nukes... U R right saying that there'll be only 5 minutes left for us to enjoy living, if WW3 breaks out.
Once I came across such slogan: 'make love, not war'. I suggest everybody should stick to this rule.
Sorry 4 going astray from the topic of the forum. veal
Warlord
I'm very curious, who did you ruskies vote for??
I voted for Stalin for the worst leader (meaning murderous tyrant), if you have ever seen what Stalin's post war policies did to the Baltic's you would to. (obviously speaking to non-Russians)
I voted for Stalin for the worst leader (meaning murderous tyrant), if you have ever seen what Stalin's post war policies did to the Baltic's you would to. (obviously speaking to non-Russians)
We, Ruskies, are a bit confused. It's difficult to choose. Stalin was by all means the most cruel one. But he dragged the young SU out of backwardness. BTW, that applies to Peter the Great, too. Stalin was not a fool. His charisma was quite OK.
Maybe it's easier for you to decide, 'coz you're 'outside'.
Probably, I'd vote for Chernenko. He did absolutely nothing.
About the Baltic states, can you mention any country where ex-SS soldiers are allowed to march through the centre of the capital, where monuments dedicated to Red Army soldiers are destroyed and where citizens, who fought against the Germans, are insulted and declared outlaws, where the V-Day is almost a Sorrow-Day? No? I can. Three of them. Try to guess?
veal
Warlord
OK probably not a good move on my behalf to open a discussion on the Baltic's with a Russian..
I know of the atrocities that happened there at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators (E.G. Vilnius was half Jewish and they killed them ALL..) but that could be a thread in itself so lets please leave that aside.
My main point is that the Baltic's and many other countries did not want to join the USSR. Stalin basically conquered them and completely and violently subdued them. Lithuania seemed to be the worst example of this in the baltics. There was a resistance force in the forests for years after the war, they wanted their country back. The KGB interrogated and killed everyone associated with them and left their bodies in the town squares as a message. Hell I've even been to the torture chambers and its not pretty. These things did moderate after Stalin died, he was just such a megalomaniac that wanted total control that he stripped any nationalist ideas from these people.
I'm not saying the people of the Baltic's were innocents. The Nazi collaborators highlight this. I was mealy pointing out why I believe Stalin was the worst leader and highlighting some of his polices. No offence to the Russians intended, I don't blame russians for stalin (just like I don't blame the germans for Hitler), and I am aware of the stigma that is attached to Russians in some parts of the Baltic's.
Lenin (Ulyanov) is first place. All started from him.
Death of culture, intelligence, religion.
Lenin also supported dictature, killing intelligence, and religious people. Killing whole family (with children) of czar Nikolay
Deals of this maniac are reflected even for nowadays.
And second of course, Yosif Djugashvili (Stalin)
Death of culture, intelligence, religion.
Lenin also supported dictature, killing intelligence, and religious people. Killing whole family (with children) of czar Nikolay
Deals of this maniac are reflected even for nowadays.
And second of course, Yosif Djugashvili (Stalin)
killing of intellegence sunround? it reminds me of a KGB joke:
why does the KGB always moves 3 at a time? because one knows how to read, teh other knows how to write, and teh third one has to keep in check the other two dangerous intellectuals
(no offence to the russian people who posts stuff in this thread)
why does the KGB always moves 3 at a time? because one knows how to read, teh other knows how to write, and teh third one has to keep in check the other two dangerous intellectuals
(no offence to the russian people who posts stuff in this thread)
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Originally posted by Bifrost
Thanks for "Russia is cool" I believe the majority of those who live across the ocean dont share your opinion
I'm not so sure that's true either. Most folks I talk to have a "trust but verify" attitude; they are happy at what's happened but nervous that it could all fall apart so very quickly...
Maybe that's just because I'm from the Canadian side of the Atlantic, but I've dealt with a lot of political hacks doing work on trade, visiting Moscow on trade missions and whatnot and the general impression is that Russia implemented the big things first without all the little things that matter...
E.g. Capitalism / "Free Enterprise" here depends far more on things like accurate land titles, fair courts, protection of contracts and accurate record keeping than it does on stock exchanges, big banks, currency reforms and But the post-Soviet order rushed to create more of the latter and less of the former.
Which tends to create a certain, uh, level of western frustration that is happily matched by enthusiasm for helping to overcome it.
At least, that's what my trade geek friends tell me.
R.III
Bifrost wrote:
After the beginning of the Cold War Cherchill started the world widest propaganda company to make West believe that England and USA are the actual winners.
I would disagree with this. Western histories have always highlighted the USSR's contributions to the war effort, and any Westerner who knew anything about the Second World War is usually also very aware that the USSR lost some 20 million people in the war. If you go into a Western library you'll find shelves of books on Operation Barbarossa, the battles for Moscow, Kursk and heroic Leningrad. What's more, you'll see that many of these books were written in the 1950s and 60s, during the worst years of the Cold War. The definitive American work on the Soviet-German war, Alexander Werth's Russia at War, was written in 1962. Any decent Western library worth its salt has books from all over the world as well. Remember, the Western governments do not control publishing the way the old USSR did. I can remember the 1980s when an Eastern European student returning home from the West (Austria, Germany, etc.) would get shook down by customs officers for what banned Western books they'd brought back, not for cocaine or guns. A friend of mine smuggled in an English-language copy of Mein Kampf to Hungary once while I had some books on WW II European resistance movements confiscated once.
On the contrary, the Soviet textbooks we had in school seemed to imply that the USSR alone had defeated Hitler, that no one else even showed up. I wonder how many Russians today are aware of how many Poles fought for the Allied side in the war, including in the Soviet armed forces...(despite the USSR's unprovoked attack on Poland in its collaboration with Hitler in 1939)? The number is not comparatively insignificant. These textbooks also didn't explain why Moscow expected the West to fight a multi-front war against the Germans, Italians and Japanese but the Soviets were allowed to wait until the Germans were comfortably defeated to join in the Japanese war in 1945.
I'm not taking pot-shots; I'm pointing out that when studying any event in history, it is best not to rely on one point of view for sources. In another thread I recommended the British historian John Keegan's book Re-Fighting World War II as a great place to start reading about the war, because it gives you a good overview of how historians the world over have seen the war over the past half century. He makes this startling statement in the book: "A history of the Second World War has not yet been written." He says this in 1992! He's talking about how nationalist passions, triumphalism and guilt have clouded too many of the histories written on the war so far. We're simply still too close to the events and still too passionate about them to really be objective.
I know that now the propaganda machine is off, but anyway the thing that we afraid of is that someday people will forget the price we paid for the destroying the Nazis(20 mln people - officially).
As an example, I'll point out that while indeed for the Soviet people it was a heroic sacrifice, losing some 20 million people in extreme circumstances, most historians today - including Russian - chalk a good number of these losses to several factors caused by the Soviets themselves. Stalin's inept military policies at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa caused unnecessarily high casualties in the Soviet Army, and his romantic notions of a soldier's duty also led to an extreme casualty rate as he liked to brag that the Soviet Army could and would absorb losses that no other army would or could. Soviet tactics were designed with the assumption that large numbers of men would be lost, with only the most practical concerns about these losses. Soviet soldiers fought bravely against a vicious enemy and ultimately prevailed, but it is generally agreed today that the numbers killed were artificially inflated by Soviet policies themselves, even after Kursk when the Soviets definitively began to outstrip the Germans in equipment, both in terms of quantity and quality. It also didn't help when Stalin hads returning Soviet POWs either shot or imprisoned because they didn't fight to the death....
As for the worst Soviet leader, I would go with Lenin. Lenin was the truest ideologue and I strongly suspect that if he'd lived another ten years, we would think of Stalin in much milder terms. Stalin was a common street thug with an acute innate sense for politics. His ultimate goal in life though was self-aggrandisement through sheer power. He had no compunction about wiping a people out if it suited his immediate needs, but he wasn't driven by a need to do so. For Stalin the USSR was just a medieval extension of himself and his whims. Lenin was driven by ideology. Lenin was very shrewd and practical, and could seem to give ground on areas he didn't think an immediate victory was possible or likely, but when he thought he could win he struck without mercy and he had a roadmap ready explaining who he wanted to wipe off the face of the Earth. He was a scary person in this regard, the wide-eyed fanatic imbued with power to carry out his extremist agenda. He was a bin Laden with a government. I think Russians should be very relieved that he did die when he did, though it's true his ultimate replacement wasn't much of an improvement.
And for whatever his actual deeds, Lenin is the one who got the whole 74 year totalitarian ball running...
After the beginning of the Cold War Cherchill started the world widest propaganda company to make West believe that England and USA are the actual winners.
I would disagree with this. Western histories have always highlighted the USSR's contributions to the war effort, and any Westerner who knew anything about the Second World War is usually also very aware that the USSR lost some 20 million people in the war. If you go into a Western library you'll find shelves of books on Operation Barbarossa, the battles for Moscow, Kursk and heroic Leningrad. What's more, you'll see that many of these books were written in the 1950s and 60s, during the worst years of the Cold War. The definitive American work on the Soviet-German war, Alexander Werth's Russia at War, was written in 1962. Any decent Western library worth its salt has books from all over the world as well. Remember, the Western governments do not control publishing the way the old USSR did. I can remember the 1980s when an Eastern European student returning home from the West (Austria, Germany, etc.) would get shook down by customs officers for what banned Western books they'd brought back, not for cocaine or guns. A friend of mine smuggled in an English-language copy of Mein Kampf to Hungary once while I had some books on WW II European resistance movements confiscated once.
On the contrary, the Soviet textbooks we had in school seemed to imply that the USSR alone had defeated Hitler, that no one else even showed up. I wonder how many Russians today are aware of how many Poles fought for the Allied side in the war, including in the Soviet armed forces...(despite the USSR's unprovoked attack on Poland in its collaboration with Hitler in 1939)? The number is not comparatively insignificant. These textbooks also didn't explain why Moscow expected the West to fight a multi-front war against the Germans, Italians and Japanese but the Soviets were allowed to wait until the Germans were comfortably defeated to join in the Japanese war in 1945.
I'm not taking pot-shots; I'm pointing out that when studying any event in history, it is best not to rely on one point of view for sources. In another thread I recommended the British historian John Keegan's book Re-Fighting World War II as a great place to start reading about the war, because it gives you a good overview of how historians the world over have seen the war over the past half century. He makes this startling statement in the book: "A history of the Second World War has not yet been written." He says this in 1992! He's talking about how nationalist passions, triumphalism and guilt have clouded too many of the histories written on the war so far. We're simply still too close to the events and still too passionate about them to really be objective.
I know that now the propaganda machine is off, but anyway the thing that we afraid of is that someday people will forget the price we paid for the destroying the Nazis(20 mln people - officially).
As an example, I'll point out that while indeed for the Soviet people it was a heroic sacrifice, losing some 20 million people in extreme circumstances, most historians today - including Russian - chalk a good number of these losses to several factors caused by the Soviets themselves. Stalin's inept military policies at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa caused unnecessarily high casualties in the Soviet Army, and his romantic notions of a soldier's duty also led to an extreme casualty rate as he liked to brag that the Soviet Army could and would absorb losses that no other army would or could. Soviet tactics were designed with the assumption that large numbers of men would be lost, with only the most practical concerns about these losses. Soviet soldiers fought bravely against a vicious enemy and ultimately prevailed, but it is generally agreed today that the numbers killed were artificially inflated by Soviet policies themselves, even after Kursk when the Soviets definitively began to outstrip the Germans in equipment, both in terms of quantity and quality. It also didn't help when Stalin hads returning Soviet POWs either shot or imprisoned because they didn't fight to the death....
As for the worst Soviet leader, I would go with Lenin. Lenin was the truest ideologue and I strongly suspect that if he'd lived another ten years, we would think of Stalin in much milder terms. Stalin was a common street thug with an acute innate sense for politics. His ultimate goal in life though was self-aggrandisement through sheer power. He had no compunction about wiping a people out if it suited his immediate needs, but he wasn't driven by a need to do so. For Stalin the USSR was just a medieval extension of himself and his whims. Lenin was driven by ideology. Lenin was very shrewd and practical, and could seem to give ground on areas he didn't think an immediate victory was possible or likely, but when he thought he could win he struck without mercy and he had a roadmap ready explaining who he wanted to wipe off the face of the Earth. He was a scary person in this regard, the wide-eyed fanatic imbued with power to carry out his extremist agenda. He was a bin Laden with a government. I think Russians should be very relieved that he did die when he did, though it's true his ultimate replacement wasn't much of an improvement.
And for whatever his actual deeds, Lenin is the one who got the whole 74 year totalitarian ball running...
Your friends visited Russia in period of 92-00? - This period is considered to be economical stagnation.
On 1st July 2002 there appeared a new judicial code of Russia who knows, maybe it will change something.
The governmental program of decreasing taxes rate still goes on. On 1st Jan 2003 the 'tax on added price' will be removed.
The social tax will be decreased more from 13% to 5-8%
The problem is that these innovations (and any others) give their real results very slowly.
The most profitable sphere of our economics (oil extracting and refining, Aluminium and steel production, poducing and supplying the e-energy) are shared between oligarhy, that can easily take the 'service' of mafia (it's not so strong as it represented on West, but on the regional level it is a real force).Putin tries to fight against those criminalized oligarchy, actually he has already claimed some of them 'out of law' , but only some.
I dont think Russia is ready to accept the foreign investments, just because the psychology cant change during 10 years to the opposite point of view.For example the privacy is not respected the way it is respected at the other civilized world - its hard to forget the 72 year lasting propaganda "Everything is common - no privacy". Situation with corruption is also quite qurious - maybe bribe-taking is in our mentality or maybe its the result of communism - you see, when something is forbidded for a long time and has a punishment like shooting any mitigation of laws may cause the increase of number of crimes.
On 1st July 2002 there appeared a new judicial code of Russia who knows, maybe it will change something.
The governmental program of decreasing taxes rate still goes on. On 1st Jan 2003 the 'tax on added price' will be removed.
The social tax will be decreased more from 13% to 5-8%
The problem is that these innovations (and any others) give their real results very slowly.
The most profitable sphere of our economics (oil extracting and refining, Aluminium and steel production, poducing and supplying the e-energy) are shared between oligarhy, that can easily take the 'service' of mafia (it's not so strong as it represented on West, but on the regional level it is a real force).Putin tries to fight against those criminalized oligarchy, actually he has already claimed some of them 'out of law' , but only some.
I dont think Russia is ready to accept the foreign investments, just because the psychology cant change during 10 years to the opposite point of view.For example the privacy is not respected the way it is respected at the other civilized world - its hard to forget the 72 year lasting propaganda "Everything is common - no privacy". Situation with corruption is also quite qurious - maybe bribe-taking is in our mentality or maybe its the result of communism - you see, when something is forbidded for a long time and has a punishment like shooting any mitigation of laws may cause the increase of number of crimes.
Similar threads
