PDA

View Full Version : Maybe the West misunderstands USSR history?



Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 08:45 AM
Lately I've been doing a bit of superficial research, stimulated largely by Egorka's resolute opposition to my confident opinions. It's possible that my confident opinions might be based on common misunderstandings in the West rather than informed historical evidence, depending upon the reliance one places on various sources.

Maybe Western perceptions confuse some quite distinct issues to produce a distorted picture of the USSR in WWII.

Maybe the West confused the deaths under Stalin's regime caused by bad management in executing great plans and the existence of harsh or brutal labour gulags with the intentional extermination of people by the Nazis in death camps, to see both regimes as similar.

Maybe the West confused the well publicised high rates of death of, for example, Stanligrad POW's with a generally lower but unplublicised rate of death for German POW's overall. Not that the lower overall rate of 15 to 30% suggests a benevolent approach by the Russians, but it's quarter to a half of the German rate.

Maybe the West confused a lot of things because of the secrecy in the USSR, and maybe it confused or it governments simply distorted a lot of things because of its strong opposition to communism.

Anyway, would anyone like to put the arguments for either or both sides of the case about whether the USSR mightn't have been as bad as it was generally regarded in the West?

Egorka
04-17-2007, 08:51 AM
Maybe... maybe... maybe... not a good start for thread! ;)

If I may drop my answer before others... Not to be an arshole, but "generally regarded" picture of USSR in the West (I guess you think of Australia as a western country, right? :) ) is BOUND to be distorted! Just like the "generally regarded" picture of West in USSR was distorted.

Do I need explain why? :roll:

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 09:03 AM
Maybe... maybe... maybe... not a good start for thread! ;)

If I may drop my answer before others... Not to be an arshole, but "generally regarded" picture of USSR in the West (I guess you think of Australia as a western country, right? :) ) is BOUND to be distorted! Just like the "generally regarded" picture of West in USSR was distorted.

Do I need explain why? :roll:

'Maybe' issues can also be presented as a definite statement for contradiction, for or against either case. I specifically wanted to avoid that, to avoid generating a yes / no division.

I'm interested in discussion to challenge what may be a distored view of the USSR in WWII, both then and now.

I don't want to get into the Cold War stuff, even if it influenced views of WWII, because we'll be all over the place if we do that.

32Bravo
04-17-2007, 10:41 AM
Some members of this site seem to prefer to be disagreeable when they disagree, and I find it most disagreeable when they disagree with me! :)

Egorka
04-17-2007, 04:55 PM
Rising Sun,

I am a bit confused about the exact topic of this thread.
You say:


Anyway, would anyone like to put the arguments for either or both sides of the case about whether the USSR mightn't have been as bad as it was generally regarded in the West?
and then say:

I don't want to get into the Cold War stuff, even if it influenced views of WWII, because we'll be all over the place if we do that.

So we are talking about WW2, right? But I do not think, correct me if I am wrong, that West thought that USSR was "bad" during the WW2. Except Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Othervise they underestimated USSR effort (USSR did the same).

So what is it exactly we are talking here about?

Sneaksie
04-18-2007, 03:15 AM
I suppose you read newspapers, watch TV news, etc. Just think about it - when last time you heard something good or even neutral about Russia?
West doesn't misunderstands USSR and Russian history; it just writes own version of history which suits its needs.

Egorka
04-18-2007, 03:36 AM
I suppose you read newspapers, watch TV news, etc. Just think about it - when last time you heard something good or even neutral about Russia?
West doesn't misunderstands USSR and Russian history; it just writes own version of history which suits its needs.

Agree. If there is info - it is a negative one.

Man of Stoat
04-18-2007, 03:56 AM
No one would be tolerated writing the top post about the Nazis, so why is it tolerated about the communists?

Why is the deliberate extermination of a class any different from the deliberate extermination of a race? The USSR deliberately killed millions of its own citizens through slave labour, forced deportations to inhospitable places without providing the necessities of life, deliberately man-made famines, and through plain old-fashioned execution.

Fact.

Digger
04-18-2007, 04:34 AM
Ok, I'll try to make a point about the Soviet Union without mentioning the Cold War or even the negative stuff of today.

When I first began serious war/eronautical research in the 1970's there was a dearth of good material and what there was a good deal of it was inaccurate and in some cases wildly so.

The point is, even subject material say, on the Allied bombing offensive was fairly rudimentary and getting your hands on government documents was well nigh impossible. Only the release of archival and private material which began in earnest in the 1980's did things begin to change and challenge the 'accepted view'.

Now think of any information on the fighting of the Eastern Front. Much of that material was based on German sources or retold from a modern western viewpoint.

My first exposure to the true horrors of the Eastern Front were two novels by a guy called Plevoir-Pievor? The subjects were Moscow and Stalingrad and I learned more from reading these books, than all the research material I had.

But even today with an absolute wealth of material available, old attitudes die hard, ignorance remains and there are still gaps in the story.

But this is the wonderful thing about history, it never dies and I dare say thirty years from now new material will be still unearthed from the WWII era.

WWII IN COLOR plays a part in this process. Look at the exchanges of views, the new information that is shared here. This is a meeting place for some great brain storming and while some subjects can raise the heat at times, for the most part discussions are healthy and informative.

This is a very apt thread and many thanks to Rising Sun's enquiring mind.

Regards digger.

Egorka
04-18-2007, 05:48 AM
No one would be tolerated writing the top post about the Nazis, so why is it tolerated about the communists?

Why is the deliberate extermination of a class any different from the deliberate extermination of a race? The USSR deliberately killed millions of its own citizens through slave labour, forced deportations to inhospitable places without providing the necessities of life, deliberately man-made famines, and through plain old-fashioned execution.

Fact.

Yes, you are right. So what is your point? What do you want to prove and for whoom?

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 06:33 AM
I suppose you read newspapers, watch TV news, etc. Just think about it - when last time you heard something good or even neutral about Russia?
West doesn't misunderstands USSR and Russian history; it just writes own version of history which suits its needs.


Western society is generally suspicious of the East as a result of so many years of the East being closed to the West. Yes, of course, there has been much rubbish written and aired in the West and, yes, we are probably ignorant of a lot of that which is good in the East. However, our media tends to focus more on the bad news than the good, even when reporting on our own society, which, at times, can be rather depressing.

After seventy years, or so, of suspicion, these suspicions have become deep rooted in both Eastern and Western cultures and both societies probably consider themselves to be the victim of the other at some time or other. In time, as there is more inter-action between our societies, and the people that populate them, then things ought to improve.

Our historians usually work independently and, therefore, they report things as they find.

Finally, I work among a number of ladies who possess enquiring minds. When they are unable to discover anything to enquire about, they usually resort to ‘Heat’ or ‘Okay’ magazines. :D

Man of Stoat
04-18-2007, 06:40 AM
I suggest any apologists should read the recent work by Anne Applebaum: GULAG. it is based on research in recently opened archives.

Digger
04-18-2007, 06:44 AM
I'm glad I only discussed this issue from a WWII perspective;)

Regards digger.

Rising Sun*
04-18-2007, 06:52 AM
I suggest any apologists should read the recent work by Anne Applebaum: GULAG. it is based on research in recently opened archives.

Applebaum says millions of people passed through the gulags.

What percentage does she say died there?

Rising Sun*
04-18-2007, 07:31 AM
I suggest any apologists should read the recent work by Anne Applebaum: GULAG. it is based on research in recently opened archives.

I haven't read Applebaum, but as she's based her work on recently opened archives I'm assuming that Russia has opened more archives than the ones that have been the basis for the previous gulag figures covered in articles such as:

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Scale_Repression.pdf
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Secret_Police.pdf
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/archive/hunger/deaths.xls

Do you have any links to the latest archives she's used?

Sneaksie
04-18-2007, 07:48 AM
Why is the deliberate extermination of a class any different from the deliberate extermination of a race?

It is different because extermination of a class is not neccesarily physical.
Man can not change his race; thus any jew in 3rd Reich was doomed. Man can change his class; thus, for example, many aristocrats, officers of Russian empire, served in RA. Man in communism has a choice; man in fascism has not.
More to that, class struggle and 'extermination' of 'parasite' classes officialy ended in early 30s. It was declared that new community was formed - 'soviet people'.
What i don't quite understand, how is your post connected with the topic in the first place.

Man of Stoat
04-18-2007, 07:54 AM
it WAS generally physical though, for 10s of millions of people.

Chevan
04-18-2007, 08:00 AM
I suggest any apologists should read the recent work by Anne Applebaum: GULAG. it is based on research in recently opened archives.
I hope she did not forget to write in his book that her far relatives Grigory Zinoviev (indeed the Hirsch Apfelbaum) was closly involved in the genocide of native population of former russian imperia by the bolsheviks murders;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Zinoviev

Sneaksie
04-18-2007, 08:21 AM
Western society is generally suspicious of the East as a result of so many years of the East being closed to the West.

As you know, symbol of Russian empire and modern Russia is a 2-headed eagle which looks at east and west simultaneosly.
Western countries, Europe, fought with eastern muslim invaders and waged war with East; it was nothing dangerous to the west except ocean. Middle East countries fought with crusaders from the West. What is unique about Russia? It faced onslaught from both sides in its entire history.
You say that West is suspicious of Russia, that means that West sees Russia as a threat.
Now, does Russia sees West as threat?
There are bones of many western invaders in Russian soil; french, german, sweden, english, austrian, not mentioning many eastern europeans. Kinda strange potential threat to west - potentional invader which fought all major battles in its history on own territory, defending.
Strangely enough, probably most anti-Russian state in Western Europe is Britain. I say strange, because no russian soldiers ever set foot on british isles. Come on, after 2 world wars, one of them being war of total destruction between Germany and USSR, today relations between our countries is much warmer than with GB.
Sad irony of all this is that all the time while west thought about Russia as ultimate enemy, Russia always respected west, west christianic culture, but it was never accepted as equal and i doubt that Europe will ever forget about it's not so clever preassumptions.

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 08:21 AM
I suggest any apologists should read the recent work by Anne Applebaum: GULAG. it is based on research in recently opened archives.

If you are referring to my previous post, then, I apologise!
If not, then I'm truly sorry! :D

Rising Sun*
04-18-2007, 08:34 AM
If you are referring to my previous post, then, I apologise!
If not, then I'm truly sorry! :D

Being truly sorry for something you didn't do and apologising for something you might not have done is the essence of a polite and noble cricketing nation.

It's no coincidence that the Axis powers didn't play cricket, although Goering did get around in rather ostentatious whites. :D

They were the sort of chaps who would bowl underarm ;) and run a chap out. What? :D

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 08:46 AM
Being truly sorry for something you didn't do and apologising for something you might not have done is the essence of a polite and noble cricketing nation.

It's no coincidence that the Axis powers didn't play cricket, although Goering did get around in rather ostentatious whites. :D

They were the sort of chaps who would bowl underarm ;) and run a chap out. What? :D

That's probably how we were run-out of the World Cup?

But, what about the emergence of the Irish? :D

Rising Sun*
04-18-2007, 09:13 AM
That's probably how we were run-out of the World Cup?

But, what about the emergence of the Irish? :D

Irish emerging in cricket now, or from the peat bogs circa 1712?

I'm of Irish, among others, descent so I can say that. Probably won't stop me getting kneecapped though, by the IRA (Irishmen Really Annoyed). :D

This was the underarm to which I referred. Old inter-colonial stuff, so you probably missed it in the mother country, but New Zealand thought about declaring war on us over it. :D http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/feb/01greg.htm

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 09:29 AM
Irish emerging in cricket now, or from the peat bogs circa 1712?

I'm of Irish, among others, descent so I can say that. Probably won't stop me getting kneecapped though, by the IRA (Irishmen Really Annoyed). :D

This was the underarm to which I referred. Old inter-colonial stuff, so you probably missed it in the mother country, but New Zealand thought about declaring war on us over it. :D http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/feb/01greg.htm


Well, if he's Chapel, he must be Welsh - what do they know of the game? :D

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 12:16 PM
Irish emerging in cricket now, or from the peat bogs circa 1712?

I'm of Irish, among others, descent so I can say that. Probably won't stop me getting kneecapped though, by the IRA (Irishmen Really Annoyed). :D

This was the underarm to which I referred. Old inter-colonial stuff, so you probably missed it in the mother country, but New Zealand thought about declaring war on us over it. :D http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/feb/01greg.htm

I just had a call from Dublin. They said they'll not kneecap you - this time!
However, they asked me to warn to you that if ever you dare to use that ridiculously overused and meaningless word 'Bog' in relation to the good people of Ireland,again, or post any such-like comments, they will reach their hand down the cyber connection and throttle you - "Ur Oirish-Ozzy eejit!" :D :D

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 12:32 PM
As you know, symbol of Russian empire and modern Russia is a 2-headed eagle which looks at east and west simultaneosly.
Western countries, Europe, fought with eastern muslim invaders and waged war with East; it was nothing dangerous to the west except ocean. Middle East countries fought with crusaders from the West. What is unique about Russia? It faced onslaught from both sides in its entire history.
You say that West is suspicious of Russia, that means that West sees Russia as a threat.
Now, does Russia sees West as threat?
There are bones of many western invaders in Russian soil; french, german, sweden, english, austrian, not mentioning many eastern europeans. Kinda strange potential threat to west - potentional invader which fought all major battles in its history on own territory, defending.
Strangely enough, probably most anti-Russian state in Western Europe is Britain. I say strange, because no russian soldiers ever set foot on british isles. Come on, after 2 world wars, one of them being war of total destruction between Germany and USSR, today relations between our countries is much warmer than with GB.
Sad irony of all this is that all the time while west thought about Russia as ultimate enemy, Russia always respected west, west christianic culture, but it was never accepted as equal and i doubt that Europe will ever forget about it's not so clever preassumptions.

No, I didn't know the meaning of the two-headed eagle.

I hear what you are saying. There are many Russians living in the UK at present. Yes, relations have become warmer, but your average Brit doesn't take much notice of what is happening in Russia, today (hardly take any notice of what is happening in the UK). To many, Russia might as well be on another planet. Russia might not necessarily be seen as a threat, when one sits back and reasons it out. However, Russia was seen as a threat for some seventy years, or so. Communism per se was never the enemy here. The enemy was perceived to be the Soviet Union and that was the average Brits concept of communism.

This is what is ingrained in the psyche, and it will take considerable time to completely erase this 'instinct'. I am sure that the same could be said of many people in Russia - it's simply human nature.

Many people have little interest in history and, therefore, remain somewhat ignorant of the events of the two world wars and the Cold War (to a lesser degree). The younger generations have other, more urgent, priorities. ;)

AllHailCesar
04-18-2007, 03:17 PM
No, I didn't know the meaning of the two-headed eagle.

I hear what you are saying. There are many Russians living in the UK at present. Yes, relations have become warmer, but your average Brit doesn't take much notice of what is happening in Russia, today (hardly take any notice of what is happening in the UK). To many, Russia might as well be on another planet. Russia might not necessarily be seen as a threat, when one sits back and reasons it out. However, Russia was seen as a threat for some seventy years, or so. Communism per se was never the enemy here. The enemy was perceived to be the Soviet Union and that was the average Brits concept of communism.

This is what is ingrained in the psyche, and it will take considerable time to completely erase this 'instinct'. I am sure that the same could be said of many people in Russia - it's simply human nature.

Many people have little interest in history and, therefore, remain somewhat ignorant of the events of the two world wars and the Cold War (to a lesser degree). The younger generations have other, more urgent, priorities. ;)

Exchange USA for UK.........same here.

Egorka
04-18-2007, 04:39 PM
Guys! Well, thanks for getting back on the topic!

I still do not get what Rising Sun wants to discuss! As I read his post I should prove him that we are also humans with emotions and life going on. We have a saying in Russian about someone having to prove somthing obvious and still having problems exactly because it's obvious: "Prove that you are not a camel."

I know Rising Sun has most honorable intentions, but could his majesty elaborate a bit? ;)

arhob1
04-18-2007, 04:50 PM
So we are talking about WW2, right? But I do not think, correct me if I am wrong, that West thought that USSR was "bad" during the WW2. Except Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Othervise they underestimated USSR effort (USSR did the same).



Egorka - you have got to be joking.

Before 1917 the West was scared of and from 1917 it was hostile to the USSR.

The British in India were always worried about the Russians attacking India via Afghanistan.

Churchill intensely disliked the Soviets and Stalin, during WW2 he made many references to his distrust and dislike of the Soviets. Most other Western nations felt the same - the Germans taking it to the extreme of portraying you Russians as an inferior class to be enslaved and conquered.

The 1937/38 purges were well known in the West at the time, Communism and collectivisation were feared and scorned even at the time. The British, Americans and Russians made unlikely bed fellows at the time. Safe to say that the West thought the USSR to be bad during the war but needs must.

32Bravo
04-18-2007, 05:07 PM
I know Rising Sun has most honorable intentions, but could his majesty elaborate a bit? ;)


Now, come along. You know R.S. asked you not to refer to his bloodline in public. :cool:

Cojimar 1945
04-19-2007, 01:26 AM
People often travel to different countries. Foreigners who visit Russia for extended periods could get an idea of what things are like there.

Cojimar 1945
04-19-2007, 01:30 AM
Also why should one form a view of a place just based on its people? There are many different species in the former USSR and one can still apppreciate the native fauna regardless of their feelings towards the people.

32Bravo
04-19-2007, 02:58 AM
Also why should one form a view of a place just based on its people? There are many different species in the former USSR and one can still apppreciate the native fauna regardless of their feelings towards the people.

I doubt that many Brits have any animosity towards Russians. Many friends of mine have visited Russia to enjoy the culture and architecture of cities such as St Petersburg, usually by way of a cruise. If they held bad feelings towards the people, they wouldn't travel there.

To travel wider and more extensively would, presumably, involve a certain time and cost element neither of which most people are not able to afford.

Walther
04-19-2007, 04:03 AM
Man of Stoat,

Don't forget that the Gulag system predates the Communists for centuries. Even under the various czars anybody who might disagree with the government was sent to prison camps. Forced labour under inhuman conditions was used by the czars as well, see the construction of the original trans Siberian railway. Russia was also the last European country to abolish serfdom.
Lenin ansd Stalin simply used and expanded an existing system, both with the prison camps and in the way they treated the farmers.

Also, what many people forget is that Russia was a major colonial power. The only reason why most people do not see it is that the Russian colonies (former and still existing) are sharing joint borders with Russia proper.
Basically events like the Baltic states or Finland breaking away was like the movement for independence in India for the UK ( or Indonesia for the Netherlands).

Jan

Egorka
04-19-2007, 04:28 AM
Egorka - you have got to be joking.

Before 1917 the West was scared of and from 1917 it was hostile to the USSR.

The British in India were always worried about the Russians attacking India via Afghanistan.

Churchill intensely disliked the Soviets and Stalin, during WW2 he made many references to his distrust and dislike of the Soviets. Most other Western nations felt the same - the Germans taking it to the extreme of portraying you Russians as an inferior class to be enslaved and conquered.

The 1937/38 purges were well known in the West at the time, Communism and collectivisation were feared and scorned even at the time. The British, Americans and Russians made unlikely bed fellows at the time. Safe to say that the West thought the USSR to be bad during the war but needs must.

Yes, sure. I just ment that if USSR was considered to be bad, it was not as much during the WW2 it self. At the end of the days we were allies, for better or worse. So I mean my impression is not that west thinks that USSR did something evil from june 1941 - Sept 1945. It is more before and after the period. But we were worn to talk only about WW2, hense my comment.

Egorka
04-19-2007, 04:33 AM
Man of Stoat,

Don't forget that the Gulag system predates the Communists for centuries. Even under the various czars anybody who might disagree with the government was sent to prison camps. Forced labour under inhuman conditions was used by the czars as well, see the construction of the original trans Siberian railway. Russia was also the last European country to abolish serfdom.
Lenin ansd Stalin simply used and expanded an existing system, both with the prison camps and in the way they treated the farmers.

Also, what many people forget is that Russia was a major colonial power. The only reason why most people do not see it is that the Russian colonies (former and still existing) are sharing joint borders with Russia proper.
Basically events like the Baltic states or Finland breaking away was like the movement for independence in India for the UK ( or Indonesia for the Netherlands).

Jan

Jan,

You are awear that this is very oversimplified explanation, right? Essentially it half truth, half lie kind of thing.
I do not want to comment because it is not WW2 related as Rising Sun wants to be. :)

Walther
04-19-2007, 04:46 AM
Jan,

You are awear that this is very oversimplified explanation, right? Essentially it half truth, half lie kind of thing.
I do not want to comment because it is not WW2 related as Rising Sun wants to be. :)
Ok, oversimplified it might be, but I think that whatever happened in Russia between 1917 and now has it's roots somewhere in Russian history before. It didn't just start all with Lenin.

Jan

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 04:56 AM
So I mean my impression is not that west thinks that USSR did something evil from june 1941 - Sept 1945. It is more before and after the period. But we were worn to talk only about WW2, hense my comment.

Open it up from whatever point anyone wants to start to the end of the Cold War, if that helps the discussion.

I'll post something more substantial shortly.

Egorka
04-19-2007, 05:09 AM
Ok, oversimplified it might be, but I think that whatever happened in Russia between 1917 and now has it's roots somewhere in Russian history before. It didn't just start all with Lenin.

Jan

This I absolutely agree with you. As much Communists wanted to "destroy the old world and build a new one", they could not deal with the profound aspects of the culture that was built in the area of Russian Empier.
This connection of different epoches with all positive and negative in them, helped to go through the turmoil in 20th century.

Lexa
04-19-2007, 05:14 AM
Russian Empire had almost nothing common with USSR in 1920s and 1930s. Russia wasn't totalitarian counrty, it didn't use repressions in mass scales, it almost didn't applied death penalty. Forced labor for criminals was used not only in Russia. Russia was more conservative than other european countries, that's true. But in the beginning of 20th century Russia was on the way of modernization, and it developed with high rate. Lenin completely destroyed the existing system, and Stalin constructed the fully new one, with only similar borders.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 05:42 AM
The USSR deliberately killed millions of its own citizens through slave labour ...

Let's take that as a talking point.

That statement reflects a common perception in the West that the gulags were the Soviet equivalent of Nazi extermination camps, and that prisoners were systematically starved to death or otherwise killed there. The evidence doesn’t seem to support that impression.

Death rates for gulag prisoners, according to Soviet archives, were 24.9% in 1942; 22.4% in 1943; 15,3%; in 1933; 9,2% in 1944; around 5% to 6% in 1938, 41 and 45; around 4% to 5% in 1930, 32, 34, and 38; 3,59% in 1947; around 2% to 3% in 1931, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46 and 48; 1.21% in 1949; and between 0,67% and 0,95% from 1950 to 53: Anne Applebaum, Gulag, Doubleday, New York, 2003, pp. 582-3. (A quick cross-check on one of these and some other figures she presents shows that there may be problems with those figures, as there seems always to be in this area, but her figures will do for indicative figures for the purposes of this topic.) Applebaum rightly cautions against taking even the figures I’ve quoted as accurate, if only because they ignore deaths outside the gulags.

The death rates for 13 of the 23 years in Applebaum’s figures are in roughly the same range as for Axis POW’s held in Allied camps of 1% to 2.6% http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/us-germany-pow.html The wartime gulag death rates reflect food shortages and, probably, less healthy prisoners remaining in the system while the healthier ones went into the armed forces. Applebaum says nearly a million prisoners left the gulags during the war to join the forces (p. 579) Death rates declined steadily after the war to below 1% for the last four years of figures for 1950 - 53..

People didn’t leave Nazi extermination camps alive. Most prisoners left the gulags alive: about 75% in the worst year and over 99% in the four best years.

Applebaum notes at p. 579 that in 1943 2,42 million prisoners passed through the gulags and that the total held declined from 1,5 million on 1 January to 1,2 million at the end of the year. Assuming the Soviet population was about 165 million in 1943 (based on a 162 million real figure in the 1939 census rather than the 170 million Stalin wanted and which 170 million new statisticians wisely delivered after their 1937 predecessors were eliminated for coming up with only 156 million - this is from memory so don‘t crucify me if it‘s a bit wrong), about 0,72% of the population was in gulags in 1943. I can’t find 1940’s figures for America, so the best I can do is current figures. America’s current population is around 301 million https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html
of which about 2.2 million http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm , or about 0,73% of the population, are in prison. America‘s current imprisonment rate is just about identical with the USSR’s in 1943, although America‘s imprisonment rates have gone up dramatically in recent years. If we don’t regard America now as running a shockingly unjust legal and penal system just because of the percentage of its population in prison, we can’t regard the USSR in 1943, when attitudes and penalties in all nations were much harder, as having an excessive imprisonment rate.

Applebaum notes at p.580 that there were frequent amnesties for the old, the ill and pregnant women. That’s hardly consistent with gulags being extermination camps.

Still, there is no question that the gulags were often very harsh places where people were misused; abused; starved; worked beyond their capacity; subjected to harsh physical punishment; and often with death rates that could only be explained by appalling treatment. Some prisoners managed to escape. The following passage summarizes a 1930’s book by an escaped prisoner.


Conditions were brutal. Men were put out to work, swinging 12lb sledge hammers for 16 hours a day, malnourished. Prisoners were shackled together, unable to move their legs a full stride. The shackles rubbed against their legs and the resulting wounds often became infected, leading to illness and death. Prisoners who could not keep up with the grueling pace of labor were beaten. Prisoners were regularly whipped for disobeying orders. Particularly recalcitrant prisoners were shut in a small coffin-like enclosure with no ventilation. They suffered severe dehydration, hallucinations and frequently, death.

The author of that book was describing his experiences before he escaped. From an American chain gang. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=634711

In looking at the gulags, it’s fair to compare them with the American prison system of the time, because both were state run systems of forced convict labour..


The fundamental "reform" in abolishing convict leasing and replacing this system with chain gangs was that the state now owned the convicts and their labor. Whereas previously the bureaucracy of the state had been the supplier of convict labor for private industries, they now became the direct exploiters. For over 30 years, African-American, and some white, convicts in the chain gangs were worked at gunpoint under whips and chains in a public spectacle of clear chattel slavery and torture. Eventually, the brutality and violence associated with chain gang labor in the United States gained worldwide attention. As reformists learned about the endless stories of prisoners dying in sweat boxes after being beaten by the guards, and of teenage boys being whipped to death, they began organizing and calling for an end to the use of extreme violence against convicts. Historian and theorist, Walter Wilson, was particularly critical of the ideology behind these movements, since they focused only on the most outward displays of violence. In 1933, Wilson wrote of this reform movement:
When some of the inhumane tortures that constantly occur on the gangs are forced into the light, reformers and liberal apologists for capitalism are "shocked" and call for an investigation. The investigation usually whitewashes the prison system as a whole by pinning the blame on one or two subordinate guards who are then dismissed. The reformers then go into ecstasy over their "victory." [13]
Cases involving the dismissal of certain guards were hailed as the "abolition of whipping," until the next horrifying story of torture was released. Reformers failed to address the fundamental problem of violent domination, control, and isolation forming the basis of the penitentiary system from which the chain gangs had emerged. They failed to realize that there could be no benevolent form of a chain gang. Consequently this system of overt slavery persisted through all the minor reforms. The chain gang was finally abolished in every state by the l950s, almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War. http://prisonactivist.org/?q=node/view/452

Walter Wilson, quoted in the above passage, compared the American prison labour system unfavourably with the gulags in his 1933 book Forced Labor in the United States, which is on the internet http://ia331315.us.archive.org/1/items/forcedlaborinuni00wilsrich/forcedlaborinuni00wilsrich_djvu.txt
Wilson is clearly pro-Soviet and his conclusions, along with the quotes I’ve used from others, should be treated with caution in the absence of more solid evidence for their sweeping claims, but for the purposes of this exercise it is plain that the gulag system and the legal system behind it was, so far as forced labour went, not different in its essential nature to that operating in parts of the United States before and during WWII.

The American chain gang system suffered the same problem as the gulags: government desire for free labour encouraged sentences to forced labour camps. If my trawling through the internet and a university library catalogue today is any guide, surprisingly little seems to have been written on the history of the American chain gangs and prison farms in comparison with gulags, although chain gangs and their brutality have been a staple of American cinema since the 1930’s.

The gulags, like the American penal system, differed from Nazi extermination camps because they were part of a prison system in which prisoners served defined sentences for various criminal or political offences.

The gulag system, like parts of the American prison system at the same time and especially in the American South, was a source of labour for the state. The state had an interest in keeping its labourers alive and productive for as long as possible, unlike extermination camps where there was no point in wasting food on people who were going to die anyway.

Like the American chain gang system, the gulag system was supposed to be self-supporting on its earnings from forced labour.

There was nothing remarkable about prisoners being required to undertake forced labour up to 1945, or later, in any country. It’s within living memory that courts in England and Australia, along with other countries, routinely sentenced prisoners to ‘hard labour’ as extra punishment for worse crimes. Even if it meant just breaking up stones with a sledgehammer in a prison yard all day. We also hanged and flogged people under our legal systems during the war, and afterwards. And put prisoners on a diet of bread and water for punishment. Was this so much worse than the mentality behind the gulags?

Continues next post

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 05:43 AM
I don’t think a case can be sustained that the gulags, however terrible they may have been – and they certainly were terrible, were designed or operated to kill millions of people in anything like the way Nazi extermination camps operated. The gualags had more in common with the penal system that operated in parts of America at the same time. It’s a matter of choice whether one condemns both systems, as I would, as brutal and unconscionable by today’s standards or whether one wants to view the gulags as being not that bad after all because if America was doing much the same as the USSR in the gulags then it had to be alright.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 06:03 AM
I still do not get what Rising Sun wants to discuss! As I read his post I should prove him that we are also humans with emotions and life going on. We have a saying in Russian about someone having to prove somthing obvious and still having problems exactly because it's obvious: "Prove that you are not a camel."

I know Rising Sun has most honorable intentions, but could his majesty elaborate a bit? ;)

Mate, it doesn't matter what I want to discuss. I'll do that in my posts. Everyone can have a go at what they want to discuss in their posts.

I've just thrown the first post out there to stimulate discussion. It hasn't gone too real bad so far. People can respond to it, and subsequent, posts as they wish.

What I'm interested in here is challenging Western perceptions about the USSR and seeing if there's any evidentiary basis for them.

Have a look at my last post and you should get an idea of how I'm trying to challenge those perceptions.

Rising Sun* I
Rex Australis :D

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 06:08 AM
But even today with an absolute wealth of material available, old attitudes die hard, ignorance remains and there are still gaps in the story.

But this is the wonderful thing about history, it never dies and I dare say thirty years from now new material will be still unearthed from the WWII era.

WWII IN COLOR plays a part in this process. Look at the exchanges of views, the new information that is shared here. This is a meeting place for some great brain storming and while some subjects can raise the heat at times, for the most part discussions are healthy and informative.

Regards digger.

Thanks, mate.

That's exactly what I'm on about.

Egorka
04-19-2007, 06:50 AM
Rising Sun,

These are some very sensible post you wrote there! You come along nicely. A little push and we can accept you in to the lines of out comrads working for our couse in the capitalist wasp nests! ;)

Digger
04-19-2007, 07:03 AM
Egorka, your comedy attempts get better all the time.:mrgreen: Keep it up cobber.

Thanks for the posting on the Gulag system Rising Sun. Excellent stuff. As an off shoot have you read "His Natural Life" It backs up a lot of what you're talking about.

Regards digger.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 07:14 AM
Thanks for the posting on the Gulag system Rising Sun. Excellent stuff. As an off shoot have you read "His Natural Life" It backs up a lot of what you're talking about.

Regards digger.

Marcus Clarke?

A long, long time ago.

I haven't made a study of it, but I suspect that penal systems generally didn't change much between most Western countries in a given era, except in questions of degree and severity.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 07:20 AM
Rising Sun,

These are some very sensible post you wrote there! You come along nicely. A little push and we can accept you in to the lines of out comrads working for our couse in the capitalist wasp nests! ;)

Mate, I'll try to break this to you as gently as I can :D , but the Comintern sort of disappeared a while back and the biggest capitalist wasps' nests are now run by the oligarchs in the FSR and China, where laissez faire capitalism is powering both economies along free of the sort of worker protection rubbish that the capitalist West has, like occupational health and safety. Which is why the West is busily exporting as many jobs as it can back to those countries, and especially China.

Digger
04-19-2007, 07:20 AM
I last read it in high school, but recently picked up a copy in a Red Cross store for 50 cents. When I get the chance I intend to fully study it.

Yes I agree, these penal systems have a familiarity about them. And perhaps in some aspects the British system of the time was the most brutal of all.

Regards digger.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2007, 07:37 AM
Yes I agree, these penal systems have a familiarity about them. And perhaps in some aspects the British system of the time was the most brutal of all.

Regards digger.

Off topic, but I have the proud heritage of an early Irish ancestor in Australia, when the Irish convicts were being transported to Australia in droves.

Unfortunately my ancestor was a sergeant in the British army in the penal colony in Tasmania. Although the family folklore is that he ended up doing a spell himself due to some injudicious comments to British officers about a sensitive matter relating to the Pope.

royal744
05-20-2007, 08:41 PM
I suppose you read newspapers, watch TV news, etc. Just think about it - when last time you heard something good or even neutral about Russia?
West doesn't misunderstands USSR and Russian history; it just writes own version of history which suits its needs.

Oh my! Do you suppose the pot is calling the kettle black? We can now announce that the Soviets/Russians, on the advice of Sneaksie, have never distorted history or misunderstood the west. This is the Potemkin Village argument in all its glory!

royal744
05-20-2007, 08:56 PM
This I absolutely agree with you. As much Communists wanted to "destroy the old world and build a new one", they could not deal with the profound aspects of the culture that was built in the area of Russian Empier.
This connection of different epoches with all positive and negative in them, helped to go through the turmoil in 20th century.

It's an odd factoid of history that many revolutions aren't really revolutions at all - they are the replacement of one group of oppressors by another. This definitely happened in the Soviet Union. It happened in France in a particularly virulent form after its revolution, and it happened again when Napoleon showed up and crowned himself emperor - some revolution! I suppose we could call Hitler a German revolution, when the scum of its society took control and put on pretty uniforms while slaughtering their opponents in a back room. Although Lenin was no saint himself, I doubt that he would have approved of what Stalin after him. Certainly, Trotsky developed a splitting headache as a result.

I leave out the American Revolution from this picture because instead of developing a class of oppressors, it was led by people who were unusually aware of how a new government should be run and the human weaknesses that needed to be dealt with in an institutional manner.

Yes, you might think I am all starry-eyed about this, but I am not. Here we have George Washington being offered, surreptitiously, the kingship of America flatly turning it down. We have Thomas Jefferson in all his imperfections writing the finest declaration of independence anyone has ever penned before or since. Yes, it would be a fair statement to say that relatively wealthy planters and farmers constituted a sort of nobility that led the country in its original stages, but that was certainly not true of all the leaders who emerged.

The Russian Revolution was not what I would call a raving success. If it had been, it would be still be in power instead of relegated to the rubbish heap of history as yet another failed experiment. Plus ca change, plus les choses restent les memes.

Egorka
05-21-2007, 03:22 AM
Oh my! Do you suppose the pot is calling the kettle black? We can now announce that the Soviets/Russians, on the advice of Sneaksie, have never distorted history or misunderstood the west. This is the Potemkin Village argument in all its glory!

It is not "Potemkin Village argument" at all! I lhave been living in Europe for the last 9 years and I can only confirm this statement. You hear either bad or nothing of USSR/Russia. There are really tiny seldomg bits of neutral or positive information.

The thing is that USSR lost the information war against the USA and Europe. But ironicaly enough (actually it is not aronic but rather natural) we were tought the hard way. But you as winners in this phsycologigal war were not forced to think about these issues. So as the result the wast majority of the USA/Europe public still live in the Cold War cultural clishes.

Gen. Sandworm
05-21-2007, 03:51 AM
It is not "Potemkin Village argument" at all! I lhave been living in Europe for the last 9 years and I can only confirm this statement. You hear either bad or nothing of USSR/Russia. There are really tiny seldomg bits of neutral or positive information.

The thing is that USSR lost the information war against the USA and Europe. But ironicaly enough (actually it is not aronic but rather natural) we were tought the hard way. But you as winners in this phsycologigal war were not forced to think about these issues. So as the result the wast majority of the USA/Europe public still live in the Cold War cultural clishes.

Why I find what you say sounds true.............seems to me that USSR lost because they failed to promote their ideas to the west on the benefits of their lifestlye. Would appear that the Soviet government didnt take world opinion very seriously. Even today it seems that info that comes out of Russia is not much or bad.

On the other hand we Americans seem to skip around the world making friends or annoying the shit out of ppl. Less friends lately. :roll: Just about everywhere ive been in Europe at least ... ppl have opinions about the US. Just like assholes ..... if you get the expression. Now Ive meet many Russians/Former Soviets in the last couple of years. Very nice ppl. Not much different then their former enemies the Americans (General Sense). Anyhow to make a long story short.....

Of all the major countries in the world, Russia is the country I know the least about. And its not due to lack of interest. So I ask you: Whats the problem?

Egorka
05-21-2007, 04:05 AM
It's an odd factoid of history that many revolutions aren't really revolutions at all - they are the replacement of one group of oppressors by another. This definitely happened in the Soviet Union. It happened in France in a particularly virulent form after its revolution, and it happened again when Napoleon showed up and crowned himself emperor - some revolution! I suppose we could call Hitler a German revolution, when the scum of its society took control and put on pretty uniforms while slaughtering their opponents in a back room. Although Lenin was no saint himself, I doubt that he would have approved of what Stalin after him. Certainly, Trotsky developed a splitting headache as a result.
No Hitler was not a revolution. He was elected in democratic elections and enjoyed VERY broad support in the German publi c right until the coffins started to come in. This is an other odd factoid of history. Just like the fact that the people that make revolution normally are consumed by it's own creation.

It is difficult to say for certain about what Lenin whould do, but he was a ruthless in acheving his goal like any revolution leader. And Trotsky was just like Lenin.

Actually chances are very high that the West had it better with Stalin than with Lenin. The reason for this saying is that Lenin was in reality for world revolution, wheras Stalin was for building communism in one specific state. These are 2 differences between them. So Lenin might have been even worse than Stalin.



I leave out the American Revolution from this picture because instead of developing a class of oppressors, it was led by people who were unusually aware of how a new government should be run and the human weaknesses that needed to be dealt with in an institutional manner.
Well the lack of oppession in USA since it's creation is not so obvious at all. I agree it is of different nature, but existent nontheless.

And please do not mistake oppression with a political system other than modern democracy. A monarchy does not have to be oppressive by definition. Just like some democraticaly elected leaders can be pain in the *** for million of other people.



Yes, you might think I am all starry-eyed about this, but I am not. Here we have George Washington being offered, surreptitiously, the kingship of America flatly turning it down. We have Thomas Jefferson in all his imperfections writing the finest declaration of independence anyone has ever penned before or since. Yes, it would be a fair statement to say that relatively wealthy planters and farmers constituted a sort of nobility that led the country in its original stages, but that was certainly not true of all the leaders who emerged.
Yes, American history has many exhiting and great moments. I was actually very facinated by the scale of the rapid colonisation of the West when I read about it. It was very dramatic and interesting.


The Russian Revolution was not what I would call a raving success. If it had been, it would be still be in power instead of relegated to the rubbish heap of history as yet another failed experiment. Plus ca change, plus les choses restent les memes.
In my opinion the revolutions as such are not ment to be successful as their nature is to brake the old system without keeping the good from the old days. This blindness towards the heritage of the previous epoch is what makes revolutions fail, IMHO. Plus they always based on boundless violent measures which lead to the showball of cruelty and destruction.

Rising Sun*
05-21-2007, 05:38 AM
In my opinion the revolutions as such are not ment to be successful as their nature is to brake the old system without keeping the good from the old days. This blindness towards the heritage of the previous epoch is what makes revolutions fail, IMHO. Plus they always based on boundless violent measures which lead to the showball of cruelty and destruction. My bold.

That's the biggest problem with them

The violent expression of resentment towards the oppressor generally turns into one or another form of civil war and or state sanctioned terror when the organs of the previous government have been overthrown. Might becomes right. If you're not with us, you're against us. For example: Revolutionary France. Revolutionary Russia. Revolutionary Iran.

I think it's a mistake to regard what was properly called the American War of Independence from Britain as a revolution, although Americans like to think of it as one.

Wars of national liberation don't necessarily involve the overthrow of everything that went before, leaving a vacuum for the terrors in a revolution. Rather, if successful and if an expression of the dominant will of the people, they allow the liberated nation to continue with whatever it elects to keep from the past and to change whatever it wants to change for the future. Unlike true national revolutions, there is no need to keep rooting out the remnants of the old regime whenever they seem to pop up in some individual or collective form, because the old regime has been defeated and ejected from the colonial nation as a necessary part of the liberation process.

That doesn't mean that vicious and protracted civil wars and terrors won't follow wars of national liberation as various elements jockey for control, but I'm struggling to think of any in developed nations to rival those following the French and Russian revolutions.

Egorka
05-21-2007, 07:53 AM
My bold.

That doesn't mean that vicious and protracted civil wars and terrors won't follow wars of national liberation as various elements jockey for control, but I'm struggling to think of any in developed nations to rival those following the French and Russian revolutions.

Yes, the French and Russian ones were the biggest during the last 200 years. France actually had more than one!
But the European history is full of civil wars. For example in Germany during the reformation was VERY bloody.

Egorka
05-21-2007, 07:59 AM
Of all the major countries in the world, Russia is the country I know the least about. And its not due to lack of interest. So I ask you: Whats the problem?

I guess the problem is twofold.

One is that general public thinks that they actually know about Russia/USSR. The reason for it is that western people were not forced to criticaly assess their view because they won the Cold war. So there was no need to criticaly approach the common picture.

Secondly Russians are maybe not as much interested and able of waging this "information war". Or call it a "spin". For ecxample China is even more extrim example, IMHO, that how much little a country would think of it's external image. Well, they do until it hurts they interests.

Gen. Sandworm
05-21-2007, 08:17 AM
I might add that one of the reasons I dont know alot about Russia is because it wasnt untill later in life that I found out the majority of things I learned as a kid were bullshit. So kinda starting all over again.

royal744
05-21-2007, 10:38 AM
Why I find what you say sounds true.............seems to me that USSR lost because they failed to promote their ideas to the west on the benefits of their lifestlye. Would appear that the Soviet government didnt take world opinion very seriously. Even today it seems that info that comes out of Russia is not much or bad.

On the other hand we Americans seem to skip around the world making friends or annoying the shit out of ppl. Less friends lately. :roll: Just about everywhere ive been in Europe at least ... ppl have opinions about the US. Just like assholes ..... if you get the expression. Now Ive meet many Russians/Former Soviets in the last couple of years. Very nice ppl. Not much different then their former enemies the Americans (General Sense). Anyhow to make a long story short.....

Of all the major countries in the world, Russia is the country I know the least about. And its not due to lack of interest. So I ask you: Whats the problem?

Truthfully, Egorka, the US has been doing a horrible job on its own lately. I think this is mostly fueled by having a President and an administration that has been so completely arrogant and thoughtless, not to mention shameless, in promoted its own narrow view of the world that ther US went from being an admired country under Bill Clinton, to being one of the mkost hated on the planet under George Bush. I can only hope that we will do better once we throw these scoundrels out of office and replace them with reasonable people! This would be hard for you to say, but as an American, frankly, I am only too glad to say it here.

royal744
05-21-2007, 10:51 AM
My bold.


I think it's a mistake to regard what was properly called the American War of Independence from Britain as a revolution, although Americans like to think of it as one.

I'll take issue with that a little bit Rising Sun. The first of the modern movements to replace monarchies with a democracy, albeit a republican (little "r") surely has to figure among the fundamental sea changes to sweep the world. Considering it involved the removal of the predominant world power at the time - the British Empire - it would seem to be a rather large event. It is sobering to reflect, however, that without French assistance, this probably would not have succeeded, or at least would have taken far longer to accomplish. There were many interests in France at the time that were greatly troubled by the overthrow of a monarchy, even an enemy one, but nevertheless, it happened. And, Rising Sun, lest we forget, the elimination of the United States as a place to harbor prisoners of the British, contributed to the settlement of Australia.

Revolutions do not necessarily need to be followed by or accompanied by tyrranies or bloody aftermaths to be called revolutions.

royal744
05-21-2007, 11:02 AM
It is difficult to say for certain about what Lenin whould do, but he was a ruthless in acheving his goal like any revolution leader. And Trotsky was just like Lenin.

Actually chances are very high that the West had it better with Stalin than with Lenin. The reason for this saying is that Lenin was in reality for world revolution, wheras Stalin was for building communism in one specific state. These are 2 differences between them. So Lenin might have been even worse than Stalin.

Lol, Egorka. I will defer to your greater knowledge of what Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky may or may not have done!

royal744
05-23-2007, 10:37 PM
The thing is that USSR lost the information war against the USA and Europe. But ironicaly enough (actually it is not aronic but rather natural) we were tought the hard way. But you as winners in this phsycologigal war were not forced to think about these issues. So as the result the wast majority of the USA/Europe public still live in the Cold War cultural clishes.

Actually Egorka, I'm ready to make peace. I'd like to forget all about the cold war. It created big problems on both sides of the fence. The waste in resources devoted to this on both sides was just incredible. OK, maybe not forget, but we should at least forgive one another and move on.

royal744
05-23-2007, 10:46 PM
Man can not change his race; thus any jew in 3rd Reich was doomed.

Let me take a little issue with that, Sneaksie. The question of race is a rather thorny one because there are quite a few scholars who take the position that jews are not a race at all. There apparently is no biological/genetic basis for determining who is or is not a jew. It turns out, according to what I have read and gathered, that jews and arabs are essentially the identical people - they are both semitic people. Like the Japanese and the Koreans, there is simply no discernible difference among them. There are scholars who say that jews are just another "socio-economic group" in the semitic clan that peoples the middle east. Interesting. Add to that the very strong possibility that Hitler had some "jewish blood" in him and we have a case of monumental self-loathing.

This stuff has its fascinations.

Chevan
05-24-2007, 12:44 AM
Actually Egorka, I'm ready to make peace. I'd like to forget all about the cold war. It created big problems on both sides of the fence. The waste in resources devoted to this on both sides was just incredible. OK, maybe not forget, but we should at least forgive one another and move on.

hi royal.
We all are ready to forget about cold war. And i'm really glad we could speach with each other in this formun frankly about;)
You absolutly right the cold war was a more problem for both sides. And we need to change the our relation for the better way.
But...... it could be not easy for the...... west.
Just look for the USA.
Do you know what is the Johnson-Venic correction to the law that forbid the export of hight-tehnologic goods to the USSR. this was admitted in the mid 1970.
So even after the dissapearing of the USSR through the 17 years this correction is STILL ACTUAL against Russia ( althout the according the "offisial" position the Russia is not a treat)
What is this - the stoopid bureaucracy or the dual standarts policy?;)
I don't know but this is obvious the Wasington is not ready ( or do not wish) indeed to change the relation.
Besides as we saw it in the Ugoslavia the Wasington stilll prefered to use the old cold war approachs for solving of the political problems fro a position of rough power when the ONLY that one right who is strong.
The war against the Islamic terrorism could join us but again the USA prefered to solve its own aims by the attacking of the Iraq.
But this is whole other thread....
Cheers.

Sneaksie
05-24-2007, 02:09 AM
Actually Egorka, I'm ready to make peace. I'd like to forget all about the cold war.

It doesn't matter because aim of your government remained the same more than 15 years after USSR was divided into several independent states, after help Russia offered during 9/11. The only friendship USA approves is being master. No, thanks. We are not some minor east-european country which jump, sit or send troops to Iraq to please Washington.

Egorka
05-24-2007, 02:11 AM
Let me take a little issue with that, Sneaksie. The question of race is a rather thorny one because there are quite a few scholars who take the position that jews are not a race at all. There apparently is no biological/genetic basis for determining who is or is not a jew. It turns out, according to what I have read and gathered, that jews and arabs are essentially the identical people - they are both semitic people. Like the Japanese and the Koreans, there is simply no discernible difference among them. There are scholars who say that jews are just another "socio-economic group" in the semitic clan that peoples the middle east. Interesting. Add to that the very strong possibility that Hitler had some "jewish blood" in him and we have a case of monumental self-loathing.

This stuff has its fascinations.

Royal744, what you say here is reasonable and it 's more or less how I see it. The only issue here is that the Jews disagree with it! The Jews concider themselve as chosen. And it implies many things... and it is one of the foundations of their culture. You can not take it away without damaging their system of beleive. That is how I see it based on the limited knowledge that I have.

I remember I had similar discussion with my Grand Mother (She was Jewish. Actually my all female line of ansestors is Jewish. Do you know what it means in the Jewish law? It means I am a Jew.) when I was a teenager. I can not remember the exact context but my Granny mentioned that according to the story of her mother who remembered living in the Jewish getto (it was not getto in the Nazi sense. It was just a location/town almost comletely populated by Jews) when someone would convert to Judaism he would have become a Jew in etnic sense. At least that is what the Jews tradition said.

I remember I was a bit confused then by this statement (my mother was there and also could not understand how can one just turn into different nationality in a matter of minutes). I objected that maybe the Granny did not understand it right. I remember saying that what if it was a black guy that converts. What then? The granny was a bit puzzled by this example, but said: "I do not know, but that is what everyone was asaying and that is what they clamed."

And my granny was right. Because for the Jews you DO change antionality and etnicity, because they see these notions only in the context of Judaism.

Rising Sun*
05-24-2007, 04:57 AM
Jews are no more a race than are Catholics or Muslims or Buddhists or followers of any other religion. Whatever their more homogeneous ancient origins may have been, for at least the past millennium they have been simply people of different racial origins who have a religion in common just like Catholics etc., to the extent that any religion has common ground as there are various branches of each religion. The Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have been so widely dispersed and inter-mingled with various races that it is impossible to treat either of them as a distinct race.

A simple illustration that Jews are not one race is Ethiopian Jews, many of whom are now in Israel after fleeing Ethiopia in the 1980's and early 1990's. They are a different race to European Jews. Their existence, as black Jews who were not Jews by conversion, would have caused egorka’s granny some confusion if she had known about them. :D

http://www.rhylljetty.com/ethiopian_jews.jpg

Recent history on the Ethiopian Jews here http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejolim.html

Or maybe they're not really Jews. Ethiopian Jews weren't accepted as genuine Jews by non-Ethiopian (i.e. predominantly Askenazi) Israeli rabbis http://www.cofc.edu/chrestomathy/vol3/franco.pdf pp. 77 -80.

Interestingly, there has been conflict between Ethiopian and Soviet Jews in Israel, which is race based and confirms that Jews are not one race, as illustrated here


The hesitancy of native Israelis to implicate race as a factor in the
Falasha’s [Ethiopian Jews] assimilation difficulties was exhibited in the case of a violent clash between Ethiopian and Soviet immigrants in 1991 at the Diplomat Hotel, where members of both groups were being temporarily housed
by the government. Three men and women from the Soviet Union
were wounded after a scuffle involving the use of stones, iron bars
and possibly knives (Haberman, 1991, 1). Clyde Haberman wrote,
“At first glance, and to the embarrassment of Israeli officials, the
incident seemed to reflect nasty racial divisions between the black
Jews from Ethiopia and the white Jews from the Soviet Union. Some
former Soviet citizens accused the Ethiopians of being lazy, while the
Ethiopians complained that the people on the other side had not left
anti-black prejudice at home”
http://www.cofc.edu/chrestomathy/vol3/franco.pdf at p.80

See also http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/3/858?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=50&journalcodepnas on the varied racial / genetic sources of modern Jews.

The same confusion between race and religion occurs in relation to Muslims now, with anti-Muslim sentiment often being called ‘racist’, which is plain nonsense.

Egorka
05-24-2007, 05:19 AM
RisingSun, if you answered to me you got confused.

I personally also do not see Jews as a separate race.
My point is that the Jews see themselve as different to anyone else. And this one of the foundations of their faith. It is not just a small addition in a specific group, it is the corner stown.

Call it race or whatever. But this is a fact - they underline their "differenceness".

Understand that it is not normal logic that applies here. Do you undersatnd what I mean?

Rising Sun*
05-24-2007, 05:25 AM
Just in case anyone thinks that drifting into matters concerning Jews as a race or anything else has nothing to do with Western understanding of USSR history, it is very much at the source of USSR history, as illustrated by this summary of the significance of Jews in the creation of what became the USSR.

It is most interesting that the author, in the sections I have made bold, makes the common assumption that Jews were not Russians etc, but treats them as a different race outside the true Russian etc heritage. It reflects, probably unintentionally, exactly the same attitude that the Nazis had towards Jewish German citizens whose ancestors had been in Germany for generations, but who somehow weren't true Germans.

The final section in the quote illustrates that Russians weren't alone in being suspicious or fearful of Jewish internationalists, much as similar concerns were held at a lower level about Catholics being subordinate to Rome which, even in my childhood in Australia in the 1950's, was still a significant issue.


A Taboo Subject

Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country's total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied.

With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and -- as chairman of the Central Executive Committee -- head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.

A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. "An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins."

Critical Meetings

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical.

Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik "October Revolution" of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party's Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews.

To direct the takeover, a seven-man "Political Bureau" was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev). Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet -- whose chairman was Trotsky -- established an 18-member "Military Revolutionary Committee" to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews. Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man "Revolutionary Military Center" as the Party's operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky).

Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality." The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

"The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel."

And before Egorka and Chevan get stuck into finding faults in this quote, which is just one view, I'm just presenting it to illustrate my opening statement in this post.

Gen. Sandworm
05-24-2007, 05:33 AM
It doesn't matter because aim of your government remained the same more than 15 years after USSR was divided into several independent states, after help Russia offered during 9/11. The only friendship USA approves is being master. No, thanks. We are not some minor east-european country which jump, sit or send troops to Iraq to please Washington.

Firstly :D

On of my favorite quotes by JFK
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women -- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

While Kennedy's statement is idealistic. Its seems that many in Washington are seeking a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war.

With the current tension between the US and Russia we should be very careful how we proceed. A new cold war is a very distinct possibility.

Rising Sun*
05-24-2007, 05:45 AM
RisingSun, if you answered to me you got confused.

I personally also do not see Jews as a separate race.
My point is that the Jews see themselve as different to anyone else. And this one of the foundations of their faith. It is not just a small addition in a specific group, it is the corner stown.

Call it race or whatever. But this is a fact - they underline their "differenceness".

Understand that it is not normal logic that applies here. Do you undersatnd what I mean?

Egorka

I wasn't referring to your personal opinions about Jews at all.

I was focusing on the difference between a race and a religion.

I was actually thinking much more about the views of people who aren't Jews, rather than Jews' own belief about themselves, which are worlds apart.

A lot of people who have strong views about or hostility towards Jews wouldn't even know that Jews conceive of themselves as the chosen people, or know anything about Judaism. Their hostility comes from other sources, frequently envy and the mistaken belief that all Jews are [insert the speaker's preferred prejudice here]. The same morons usually have equally uninformed prejudices against migrants, blacks and other people who aren't like them. It's the same in all countries, although how it is expressed differs greatly.

As for Jews seeing themselves as the chosen people, they're not unique. All of the major religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - and each of their sub-branches all think they're the chosen people and that adherence to their particular brand of worship is the only path to heaven. Even if one of them is right, there will still be an awful lot of disappointed souls in the afterlife.

Rising Sun*
05-24-2007, 05:54 AM
Firstly :D

On of my favorite quotes by JFK
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women -- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

While Kennedy's statement is idealistic.

There's nothing wrong with idealism.

It ought to be encouraged more, rather than derided, as in common usuage where it is said sneeringly or dismissively "He's just an idealist."

It's a pity that 'politician' and 'idealist' are contradictory terms.

If all the politicians around the world were working towards Kennedy's ideal, the world would be a vastly better place.


Its seems that many in Washington are seeking a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war.

With the current tension between the US and Russia we should be very careful how we proceed. A new cold war is a very distinct possibility.

I'd be more worried about a hot war, provoked by the bellicose approach Bush & Co have adopted.

I wouldn't bet on it being with Russia.

Check out, for example, the situation in nuclear armed Pakistan, and its links at government and other levels with al Quaeda and similar brands of lunacy. That might be a problem well before Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Gen. Sandworm
05-24-2007, 06:13 AM
There's nothing wrong with idealism.

It ought to be encouraged more, rather than derided, as in common usuage where it is said sneeringly or dismissively "He's just an idealist."

It's a pity that 'politician' and 'idealist' are contradictory terms.

If all the politicians around the world were working towards Kennedy's ideal, the world would be a vastly better place.

I totally agree. I wasnt meaning to down Kennedy's remark but it does seem to be a goal that would be very hard to reach.




I'd be more worried about a hot war, provoked by the bellicose approach Bush & Co have adopted.

I wouldn't bet on it being with Russia.

Check out, for example, the situation in nuclear armed Pakistan, and its links at government and other levels with al Quaeda and similar brands of lunacy. That might be a problem well before Iran gets nuclear weapons.

A bit off topic but I meet a man once at a physics seminar. He works/worked on Nuclear weapons ......... mainly new and better guidance systems. Naturally he couldnt tell me much about what he did. What sticks out is that I remember he said that he would bet money within the next 30 years we will see a nuclear war. Even be it just a small one. I hate to say it but I think he is right. India and Pakistan would be a strong example.

And since I like quotes :D

[quoting a message from Khrushchev to Kennedy concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis] "We and you ought not pull on the ends of a rope in which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence."

Only part I dont like it the YOU have tied the knots of war. Seems to me they both tied it. However this is a man the was normally seen as a nut (especially in the west) but this comment comes from a person that has a strong grip on reality concerning war. The failure to relate and empathize with you enemy can have disastrous effects.

Egorka
05-24-2007, 06:26 AM
Their hostility comes from other sources, frequently envy and the mistaken belief that all Jews are [insert the speaker's preferred prejudice here]. The same morons usually have equally uninformed prejudices against migrants, blacks and other people who aren't like them. It's the same in all countries, although how it is expressed differs greatly.
Yes, exactly my point. The so called pogroms uring the history of the past few handred years (not all of them as I can not generalise that much) were happening due to economical reasons, which is hardly an excuse for the acts of violense obviously gainst the innocent Jews. And the racial/religious aspects were more of overstructure based on the existing economical conflict.

But it's also correct to say that hatered grows like a snowball - let it start and will grow very quick!



As for Jews seeing themselves as the chosen people, they're not unique. All of the major religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - and each of their sub-branches all think they're the chosen people and that adherence to their particular brand of worship is the only path to heaven. Even if one of them is right, there will still be an awful lot of disappointed souls in the afterlife.

Well, I can only say that I an orthodox Christian. In my Religion ANYONE can save his soul - even Jews, Muslims or pagans. It is better to be a kind, generous, modest Jew than hateful, griddy, selfproud Christian. That is how I beleive and that is how the Orthodox Christianity teaches. I beleive that Christianity shows the right way to the salvation, i.e. the easiest way, not the only way. But at the end what counts is the state of one's soul and if it is filled with the vanity and hatered then it will not be able to be in communion with God. The denomination is not a ticket to Heaven!

But as always the problem is that poeple not only don not "know anything about Judaism", but they do not even know their own Religion! As the result the brutality commited by people calling themselve Christians. The paganism is creaping from everywhere. Paganism - is a folk religion. The religion of our sick fallen mind. And the product of it is vanity, hatred and greed.

Egorka
05-24-2007, 06:31 AM
And since I like quotes :D

[quoting a message from Khrushchev to Kennedy concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis] "We and you ought not pull on the ends of a rope in which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence."

Only part I dont like it the YOU have tied the knots of war. Seems to me they both tied it. However this is a man the was normally seen as a nut (especially in the west) but this comment comes from a person that has a strong grip on reality concerning war. The failure to relate and empathize with you enemy can have disastrous effects.

Just 2 sidenotes:

1. Khrushchev knew much more about reality of war - that is for sure!

2. Before the nukes were setup on Cuba they were also setup in Turkey. Fair?

Rising Sun*
05-24-2007, 07:00 AM
Only part I dont like it the YOU have tied the knots of war. Seems to me they both tied it. However this is a man the was normally seen as a nut (especially in the west) but this comment comes from a person that has a strong grip on reality concerning war. The failure to relate and empathize with you enemy can have disastrous effects.

The reference to "YOU' also struck me immediately in reading K's comment, which I haven't seen before.

As you say, they both tied the knot but one of them, even in predicting the disasters to follow if they couldn't agree to back off, couldn't resist blaming the other one.

It reminds me of a instructive event I saw many years ago. A dispute between two sisters aged under four years resulted in one pushing the other off a fairly low deck onto grass, with the victim landing on her back with her head a few inches from a cast iron object which would have caused a grave injury if it had connected. When berated by her irate father, the offending child screamed "She made me do it!". That's the same justification that Japan used for attacking in December 1941. Nations aren't much more developed or less capricious than little children, just a bloody sight more dangerous.

Gen. Sandworm
05-24-2007, 07:04 AM
Just 2 sidenotes:

1. Khrushchev knew much more about reality of war - that is for sure!

2. Before the nukes were setup on Cuba they were also setup in Turkey. Fair?

1. Thats for sure

2. Thats why I dont like the YOU comment in the quote. Classic example of fighting fire with fire. The knot of the crisis was completed by placing nukes in Cuba. Therefore they both did it.

edited to add:



It reminds me of a instructive event I saw many years ago. A dispute between two sisters aged under four years resulted in one pushing the other off a fairly low deck onto grass, with the victim landing on her back with her head a few inches from a cast iron object which would have caused a grave injury if it had connected. When berated by her irate father, the offending child screamed "She made me do it!". That's the same justification that Japan used for attacking in December 1941. Nations aren't much more developed or less capricious than little children, just a bloody sight more dangerous.

2. contd...............perfect example RS!

Rising Sun*
05-24-2007, 07:17 AM
2. Before the nukes were setup on Cuba they were also setup in Turkey. Fair?

Of course it was fair.

The nukes in Turkey were aimed at the bad guys. ;)

The nukes in Cuba were aimed at the good guys. ;)

It only became a problem when the bad guys aimed nukes at the good guys. ;)

What most people didn't know at the time, and just about everyone nowadays still doesn't know, especially in America where it was trumpeted as a great victory in facing down the Soviets and getting rid of the missiles in Cuba, was that the US agreed to remove its nukes from Turkey and secretly did so shortly afterwards. Which is what it was really all about from Kruschev's perspective.

So, who really won? ;)

Egorka
05-24-2007, 08:39 AM
2. Thats why I dont like the YOU comment in the quote. Classic example of fighting fire with fire. The knot of the crisis was completed by placing nukes in Cuba. Therefore they both did it.


I agree this "You" sounds too sharp. I just wanted to say that from Khrushchev's perspective he was right. I mean he was not the first mover. I reffer to nukes in Turkey (not a thanksgiving meal, but a country).

But obviously objectivly it was like pooring oil into fire. So from moral perspective Khrushchev's actions were doubious, but they were not extraordinary or exceptional in the political sense.
Do you understand what I mean?

Egorka
05-24-2007, 08:43 AM
So, who really won? ;)

My quic kguess would be that USSR won as the rockets were removed from Turkey, but USA had political victory. Almost 99% of people in Europe/USA still think that Kenedy saved the world from Nuclear War from that crazy Khrushchev .

Rising Sun*
05-24-2007, 09:44 AM
My quic kguess would be that USSR won as the rockets were removed from Turkey, but USA had political victory. Almost 99% of people in Europe/USA still think that Kenedy saved the world from Nuclear War from that crazy Khrushchev .

That about sums it up.

But, having lived through that event, I'm bloody glad that one or other of them didn't push the button!

Gen. Sandworm
05-24-2007, 11:21 AM
Well both sides did win IMO. Kennedy got to say he got the nukes out of Cuba. Khrushchev got to say he stopped a US invasion of Cuba. Let not forget Cuba was a major factor.........and dont mean just the missiles. By placing the nukes there the USSR put the ball in the US court and said what are you going to do.

1. Live with it...........that wasnt going to happen.
2. Invade Cuba and remove the nukes. Bad idea because it was found out later that some where ready to go. Plus this would have most likely sparked WW3. Might add that Castro had suggested to Khrushchev that he launch a first strike in the face of a US invasion of Cuba. I think about here is where the Soviets were thinking their friendship with Castro might not have been a good idea.

It was a bold move on the USSR part and im not sure what they were thinking would result. Thankfully someone in the White House came up with the Blockade idea. This allowed for talks while stopping further build up. The time to talk was important while both leaders where having war plans shoved down their throats.

If you have ever seen the movie "Thirteen Days" about the crisis. I would love to see the same story but from the Soviet side.

Maybe sometimes the West misunderstood the USSR but not all the time.

Egorka
05-24-2007, 01:14 PM
The time to talk was important while both leaders where having war plans shoved down their throats.

I have heard form some americans that read the transcripts of the talks in the White House that the american generals were really pushing for nuclear strike or similar action. I never heard of this about USSR. But I have not been studying this topic much yet.

To your knowledge, where there specific war plans for any kind of "hot" war in USSR during the crysis?

Gen. Sandworm
05-24-2007, 02:17 PM
I have heard form some americans that read the transcripts of the talks in the White House that the american generals were really pushing for nuclear strike or similar action. I never heard of this about USSR. But I have not been studying this topic much yet.

To your knowledge, where there specific war plans for any kind of "hot" war in USSR during the crysis?

I dont know of any plans by the US or USSR for direct attacks on those countries. Im sure they had them but most were nuclear attacks.

If you mean starting a hot war between the countries then..

Yes.........I heard a recording once where Chief of Staff of the Air Force Curtis LeMay told Kennedy in so many words to quit messing around and start ordering the air strikes on Cuba. The other generals were very pro-invasion as well. There was a massive build of troops for a possible invasion if the nukes werent removed. The blockade was the last chance for peace and it damn near failed. There is no doubt in my mind that any military action by the US or USSR would have resulted in WW3. Note also that at the same time was another scary crisis between India and China.

I would say that Washington was in chaos over the issue and can only assume the same for Moscow. Would be nice to know the other side of the story and what plans the Soviets had. Open to anyone to answer!

royal744
05-24-2007, 10:00 PM
It doesn't matter because aim of your government remained the same more than 15 years after USSR was divided into several independent states, after help Russia offered during 9/11. The only friendship USA approves is being master. No, thanks. We are not some minor east-european country which jump, sit or send troops to Iraq to please Washington.

Well, Sneaksie, I see that there is still a great deal of suspicion and resentment on both sides, certainly on your side. When this worthless administration is well and truly kicked out of Washington, DC after the next presidential election, perhaps there will be changes. Our current Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice is a cold warrior from way back. Ditto Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz and Perle.

Rice was more interested in star wars and pointing big missiles at Russia/the Soviets than in Iraq or terrorism, which explains her gross incompetence when faced with a war in that quarter. But truly, the fish rots from the head down, so the source of this bumbling can be found on the doorstep of the White House, I'm afraid. Having said that, I am not sure that Mr. Putin is what we would call a "tall, cool drink of water" either. He has all the appearance of of moving away from democratic principles, but I am no expert on him.

royal744
05-24-2007, 10:07 PM
Of course it was fair.

The nukes in Turkey were aimed at the bad guys. ;)

The nukes in Cuba were aimed at the good guys. ;)

It only became a problem when the bad guys aimed nukes at the good guys. ;)

What most people didn't know at the time, and just about everyone nowadays still doesn't know, especially in America where it was trumpeted as a great victory in facing down the Soviets and getting rid of the missiles in Cuba, was that the US agreed to remove its nukes from Turkey and secretly did so shortly afterwards. Which is what it was really all about from Kruschev's perspective.

So, who really won? ;)


Very interesting RS. Kennedy, however, had asked that the missiles in Turkey be removed well before the guacamole hit the fan in Cuba. The missiles in Turkey were Thor MRBMs and already considerably out of date and obsolote. It infuriated Kennedy that these missiles had not in fact been removed precisely because it had all the appearance of a quid pro quo which, in Kennedy's eyes, looked bad. They were going to remove them anyway because Atlas ICBMs could do the same job better - larger payloads - from here. At any rate, that's what I heard and read. Whether it is true or not, historians can better answer.

royal744
05-24-2007, 10:55 PM
Firstly :D

On of my favorite quotes by JFK

[/I]While Kennedy's statement is idealistic. Its seems that many in Washington are seeking a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war.

With the current tension between the US and Russia we should be very careful how we proceed. A new cold war is a very distinct possibility.

Great Kennedy quote. I do recall it vaguely. I hope we don't get into another Cold War. What purpose would that serve? Besides, as a nation we have so thoroughly bankrupted ourselves in Iraq that I doubt we have the resources to crank it up again, and the guy in the White House is a lame duck who has been thoroughly discredited already.

royal744
05-24-2007, 11:08 PM
Royal744, what you say here is reasonable and it 's more or less how I see it. The only issue here is that the Jews disagree with it! The Jews concider themselve as chosen. And it implies many things... and it is one of the foundations of their culture. You can not take it away without damaging their system of beleive. That is how I see it based on the limited knowledge that I have.

I'm more inclined toward RS' view. I'd have to ask my jewish friends about this. It is true from my personal observations that the jews I know or have known in San Antonio and Houston and Dallas are part of a fairly tightly-knit community. The high school I attended in Houston had a very large jewish population. It was also a very good school, partly as a result of that. I have numerous jewish friends, some that I have known for nearly fifty years. They are Americans and I don't see them as being anything else unless I attend a bar mitzvah or a bat mitzvah and am reminded of their religion. I am privileged to know a number of cowboys who happen to be jewish, one of whom - Kinky Friedman - actually ran for governor of Texas last year. Americans of jewish origin are so thoroughly integrated into American society that it would be like trying to separate two colors of water after they have been mixed together. They have raised the bar in this society in terms of literature, scholarly research, medicine, scientific research, architecture, engineering, entertainment - you name it. When Hitler lost or chased out his jewish scientists, it was America's gain in a big way, and Germany's big loss, thank heaven. We have always been a haven for many.

Chevan
05-25-2007, 01:11 AM
Frankly speaking I'm share the point of Egorka about jews. ( not becouze he is my countyiman ;))
The jews do not feels themself as other nations, moreover they not behave as other ethnic groups.
In fact the jews is one of the richest and powerfull ethnic group in the world and at the same time the group that the present themself as the most "opreessed and pursued" ethnic group in the world.
The jews is the group that the most succesfully defends its ethnic interests than any other group in the world.And honestly speaking i think we have to learn a much from their experience.
We really have to study the jewish way of succes.

Chevan
05-25-2007, 02:05 AM
I'm more inclined toward RS' view. I'd have to ask my jewish friends about this. It is true from my personal observations that the jews I know or have known in San Antonio and Houston and Dallas are part of a fairly tightly-knit community. The high school I attended in Houston had a very large jewish population. It was also a very good school, partly as a result of that. I have numerous jewish friends, some that I have known for nearly fifty years. They are Americans and I don't see them as being anything else unless I attend a bar mitzvah or a bat mitzvah and am reminded of their religion. I am privileged to know a number of cowboys who happen to be jewish, one of whom - Kinky Friedman - actually ran for governor of Texas last year. Americans of jewish origin are so thoroughly integrated into American society that it would be like trying to separate two colors of water after they have been mixed together. They have raised the bar in this society in terms of literature, scholarly research, medicine, scientific research, architecture, engineering, entertainment - you name it. When Hitler lost or chased out his jewish scientists, it was America's gain in a big way, and Germany's big loss, thank heaven. We have always been a haven for many.
Here you have contradict for yourself.
You say all the jews that you know is the part of fairly tightly-knit community, right?
And then you say "Americans of jewish origin are so thoroughly integrated into American society that it would be like trying to separate two colors of water after they have been mixed together'
May i ask you did you somewhere see the Americans non-jewish origin who so carefully observes its ethnic clearness and who is the part of such close community?
I'm strongly doubt the afro-americans, indians or sombody else in America has a such strong ethnic ties as the jewish community has.
I have the jewish friend too- and i have to say all they are the peoples who has a bright mind ( with good feeling of humor) but i could not say they more clever or has a more adventages for the success realising its ambitions.
The great succes of jewish comminity in the world is determinenated ONLY by its internal mutual ethnic assistence and interaction.In fact they lead a most tightly-knit ethnic policy in every country that they live.
Having that ethnic system that helped the jews succesfully survived all the repressions and problems nowadays the jews has a most good chances to realise itself in society, has a better chances in bisiness and in the science and other fields where the jews already widely presented.
So my point is - only the naive man could think that we have an equal right and possibilities in the society where the such strong ethnic group is widely presented in the power structures of society.
For instance in the Rusiia the 7 of 10 superichest oligarhs has a jewish origin - you may say whatever you want about the more "clever jewish intellect" - i will never believed in this race-superiority bulshit. But the fact is fact and in society where the Jews has a total percentage of population is no more 1-2% they could get is over the 30-40% and in some field much more percentage of the places.
I do not wish to say it bad( the jews really could be enough good in the ruling elite, they excellent scientists and culture activists) , but ..... its wrong.
We have to understand that we "lose the competition" with the tightly-knit jewish comminity in the every our state. We lost the possibility of national and individual self-expression. And we lost our national origin culture when the "our" ruling elite chanched it by the its "international culture".
Who do say its bad?;)I am? Not
Having the majiority in each gov the jew really could joind the world and we could get the perfect SINGLE state in the Globe on day, due to them.
But .... we all ( who non-jews) will ONLY the second-race in this world.
Just think about it;)

Cheers.

Chevan
05-25-2007, 02:33 AM
When Hitler lost or chased out his jewish scientists, it was America's gain in a big way, and Germany's big loss, thank heaven. We have always been a haven for many.
Well this sorry again royal for the persistence to the your posts.
But i just see the tupical clishes in your point.
Endeed the time of existense of Third Reich ( 12 years) don't lets us the possibility to assert the Germans fundamental science has a big lost in comparitions with the World.
But we have to notice the GREAT technological progress of the Germans industry.
In fact they could developed the rocketry system of V-2 that was widelly used in the both USSR and USA after the war. Only after the 4-5 yyears after the war the our ingeners could ONLY REPEAT the Germans achivements in that field.
Moreover the Germans had in the 1944 the best piston high altitude fighter (Ta-152H) and the best jet aircraft Me-262 . And do not forget about the best tanks and U-boats.
So as we see the Germans tecnological advantage in manies fields was even more than the allies.
True the US made first the a-bomb, but the USSR could repeat it already in the 1949 (with help of american stealed datas) or coud create own project of A-bomb in the 1950. I have no any doubts that the tecnological adventage of Germans could help repeate it already in the 1946-47. But who know, this is just one more fantasy on theme " what could be";)
Just do not think i wish to justify the Nazy anti-semitism.This was a worst think in any way.
But i just to notify you to fall down in opposite extreme point - there only the jews who are the best scientist in the world and who "only moves the science forward".
Cheers.

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 02:39 AM
Frankly speaking I'm share the point of Egorka about jews. ( not becouze he is my countyiman ;))
The jews do not feels themself as other nations, moreover they not behave as other ethnic groups.
In fact the jews is one of the richest and powerfull ethnic group in the world and at the same time the group that the present themself as the most "opreessed and pursued" ethnic group in the world.
The jews is the group that the most succesfully defends its ethnic interests than any other group in the world.And honestly speaking i think we have to learn a much from their experience.
We really have to study the jewish way of succes.

I think the experience might be very different in different parts of the world.

There is no evidence here that Jews do not behave as other ethnic groups, except for (a) being over-represented in medicine, law, science, business, and various forms of intellectual and artistic endeavour and (b) participating more rapidly and successfully in the wider community than many other ethnic and religious groups.

Jewish convicts were in the first group of convicts, and the first settlers, to land in Australia. My city, Melbourne, has the highest proportion of Jews in any Australian city and is believed to have the highest proportion of Holocaust survivors of any Jewish community anywhere outside Israel. Proportionate to the national population, Australia accepted more Holocaust survivors than any other nation except Israel.

Nonetheless, before the war there were significant sections of the Australian Jewish community opposed to allowing Jewish refugees in from Europe for a variety of reasons which, in sum, were that the opponents felt that the immigrants could jeopardise the life that Jews had in Australia free of the discrimination Jews experienced in Europe. Against that, there was a pre-war proposal which went moderately close to success to establish a Jewish homeland in Australia, which received a lot of state government support. The saga is covered in Leon Gettler’s The Unpromised Land, which is good read on both that topic and the wider issue of Zionism and conflicts within the Zionist movement. Here is an interview with Gettler which covers the essence of the book http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/ark/stories/s1438826.htm

There is undoubtedly prejudice here towards Jews, as is there is towards Muslims and various migrant groups and between various national, ethnic and religious groups. Unfortunately there seems to be a rise in threats and attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions, but this emanates from isolated groups rather than reflecting general hostility. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065032706.html

We don't have the European experience over a couple of millennia and the ingrained attitudes it seems to have produced and handed down the generations. Leaving aside occasional bigots and nutcases, there isn't any strong negative feeling, or generally probably any negative feeling, here towards Jews as such.

The exception is Zionists, who have influenced Australian foreign policy, and not to our national advantage. But similar criticisms could be made of some Muslims, and for that matter Greeks and Lebanese and Italians and Serbs and Croats and Turks and sundry others living here who have sought to influence Australian foreign policy to achieve their external aims, although generally not with anything like the success of the Zionists. These activities often cause other Australians, as they do citizens of other countries where similar events occur, to question the loyalty to the host country of those advocates of another country’s interests. I think the rise in acts against Jews and their institutions probably corresponds with issues about Israel, the Palestinians, and so on and in part reflects hostility from some fringe, and not so fringe, Arab and Islamic elements along with the usual neo-Nazi nutcases etc.

Suspicions about loyalty which arise legitimately from an assessment of the actions of people advocating external interests are very different to the notion which has permeated Europe for centuries that Jews are automatically a separate people with no allegiance to their host country, and not to be trusted.

The history of Jews in Europe is not that they sought to be separate but that they were forced to be separate by the dominant Christian communities and governments. It's illogical and unfair to blame Jews for not being part of the nation when the nation prevented them being part of it; didn’t want them to be part of it; and often mistreated them shockingly for no reason other than that they were Jews.

As for Jews not being loyal to their nation, there is no evidence that Jews were any less loyal than anyone else, given an equal chance. There is, however, evidence that people hostile to Jews don't want to believe that and won't hear a word which contridicts their prejudices. Here's a case which encapsulates the problems Jews face when nobody wants to treat them fairly or rationally, about national loyalty or anything else.


We have Felix A. Theilhaber, a Berlin physician, to thank for most of what we know about Germany's Jewish fighter pilots. Theilhaber served with distinction as a doctor in the German Army during World War I, and was dismayed to constantly hear in the media that Jews were not doing their part in the war effort. He was especially dismayed to hear that there were no Jewish fighter pilots because Jews were too cowardly to fly; he knew this was a lie and was determined to set the record straight. In 1916 he wrote a book called Die Juden und der Weltkrieg (The Jews and the World War). In 1918 he wrote Jüdische Flieger im Kriege (Jewish Flyers in the War) and revised it in 1924 as a volume called Jüdische Flieger im Weltkrieg (Jewish Flyers in the World War), in which he gave accounts of over one hundred Jewish soldiers who flew for Germany. The book was coldly received in Germany, and Theilhaber had a difficult time trying to advertise it or sell it.
http://people.sinclair.edu/thomasmartin/knights/

Chevan
05-25-2007, 02:58 AM
The history of Jews in Europe is not that they sought to be separate but that they were forced to be separate by the dominant Christian communities and governments. It's illogical and unfair to blame Jews for not being part of the nation when the nation prevented them being part of it; didn’t want them to be part of it; and often mistreated them shockingly for no reason other than that they were Jews.


You sir Rising Sun just do not tell us about thing that you do not enough know.
I mean befor the claiming the all European nations in the 'illogical and unfair hostinity toward the jews" you have to study the history of the relations in Europe.
I'm very glad for the Australia where the jewish influence was a as good as you have wrote.
But unfortinatelly i could not say it about my coulntry where the jewish-bolshevicks had leaved the bold bloody trace in history.But again this is not the point agains the all jews, at that same time there were a lot f jews who were a excellent members of society - the scientists , authors of book , directors of films and ets.
Your "neitral" point do not express the whole depth of complex relation between of the jewish comminities and other native races in the world.

Gen. Sandworm
05-25-2007, 03:27 AM
Anyway, would anyone like to put the arguments for either or both sides of the case about whether the USSR mightn't have been as bad as it was generally regarded in the West?

Quote = What thread is about!

I think we might be getting a bit off topic here. Let try and stick to issues that deal with the West misunderstanding the USSR and vice versa.

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 05:22 AM
Quote = What thread is about!

I think we might be getting a bit off topic here. Let try and stick to issues that deal with the West misunderstanding the USSR and vice versa.

I think it's directly relevant. As I noted in #70


"Just in case anyone thinks that drifting into matters concerning Jews as a race or anything else has nothing to do with Western understanding of USSR history, it is very much at the source of USSR history, as illustrated by this summary of the significance of Jews in the creation of what became the USSR. "

Chevan's posts here, and comments from Russian members in other threads, point to that significance; to the different perspective on and relationship with Jews in the USSR; and to the inability of people in the West with a very different perspective on and experience with their Jewish communities to comprehend the Soviet position.

To understand why the West might not have understood the USSR, it's necessary to understand a theme which runs through the USSR from its inception.

The Western view of Soviet treatment of Jews from about the 1960's was that they were oppressed and discriminated against, and on some versions not much better off than they were under the Nazis. It was one of the constants in why the Soviets were bad and the West wasn't, and actively promoted by Western governments; Zionists; Israel; and various Jewish groups.

I think it's a worthwhile exercise to discuss this issue, but you're the boss so I'll leave it to you to decide whether you want us to desist.

Chevan
05-25-2007, 05:42 AM
The Western view of Soviet treatment of Jews from about the 1960's was that they were oppressed and discriminated against, and on some versions not much better off than they were under the Nazis. It was one of the constants in why the Soviets were bad and the West wasn't, and actively promoted by Western governments; Zionists; Israel; and various Jewish groups.


Risin Sun you wonder me more and more.
The assetion that "jews in USSR were discriminated not much better way than thay were under Nazy" is most sensless think that i've somewhen heared. May be you don't know but the percentage of the jews among the soviet scientists , cinema directors and theather actors WAS the one of the biggest in the world.
True they were limited in the emigration to the Israel ( after what the rumors about pursuring of jews in USSR had appear in West) but for the any ather groups of soviet sitizents the emigration was FORBIDDEN. So the jews were EVEN in relatively better conditions that the other soviet ethnic peoples.
If you wath in the early soviet repablic in 1917-1939 when the jews HAD the ABSOLUTE majority in the ruling elite of USSR - you found that the jews in the USSR has a much more rights ( and the real possibilities) to make the state carier.
In that moment the former russian inteligencia were practically fully changed by the new jewish intelligencia that formed the culture, scientist live of USSR.
So from the jewish point the USSR was not as much "bad" as much it coul seems now. ( or as much it like presents the some of the people;)
BTW the USSR was only the SINGLE state of the world where the anti-semitism was a crime , pursuited by the law.
This was a first law ( it sound "About of ethnic minorities" or something like that) that bolshevics in 1917 has accepted ;)
Cheers.

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 06:45 AM
Risin Sun you wonder me more and more.
The assetion that "jews in USSR were discriminated not much better way than thay were under Nazy" is most sensless think that i've somewhen heared.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm not putting that forward as my belief but just as what was presented by some people.

Here's a fairly typical Western Jewish assessment of aspects of being a Jew in the USSR.


The promises of the Russian Revolution of 1917 offered hope to the Jews that the injustices of the Tsarist period would end, and that a new period in the history of the Jewish people living in that area of the world would begin. With the passage of time, it became clear that these were hollow promises, and the communist successors to the Tsars began a systematic campaign to eradicate all religion, including Judaism. In 1952, Stalin had a number of leading Jewish cultural figures murdered. In early 1953, fifteen Jewish doctors were arrested in what became known as the "Doctors' Plot." Only Stalin's death, in March 1953, saved the doctors, who were subsequently released. Under Khrushchev a new campaign emerged to stamp out the Jewish religion and Jewish culture. Jews began to be excluded systematically from many institutes of higher education and professions. Many of the remaining synagogues were closed, and, in the early 1960s, a number of Soviet Jews were imprisoned.

.....

Meanwhile, official Soviet policy denied the existence of anti-Semitism in the USSR. Khrushchev, himself, denounced the pogroms of the Tsarist era, and Prime Minister Kosygin in the mid-1960s went so far as to assert that "the road is open" and "no problem exists" for Soviet Jews who might want to leave for Israel. This remark provoked an increase in applications from Soviet Jews, primarily in the Baltic republics, for emigration to Israel in 1965 and 1966. As the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union worsened, Jews in the West began to react with concern. In April 1964, the American Jewish Conference on Soviet Jewry (AJCSJ) was founded to spearhead a national campaign on behalf of Soviet Jewry. The AJCSJ established contact with the US Government, seeking to make the issue of Soviet Jewry an item on the bilateral agenda between the United States and the Soviet Union.

In 1967, in response to these early Soviet Jewry advocacy efforts, the Soviets permitted limited Jewish emigration. The Six-Day War in June 1967 brought this emigration to a virtual halt. At the same time, the success of the Israelis in defending the Jewish homeland sparked a reawakening of Jewish consciousness and pride among a segment of Soviet Jewry. The harsh sentences given to a group of individuals gave new impetus to the Soviet Jewry advocacy movement in the United States. All but two of the group were Jewish and were tried on charges of treason for an attempted airline hijacking. This episode was followed by a new crackdown on Soviet Jewish activists and the beginning of an anti-Zionist campaign by the Soviet government. It was at this time that the state-sponsored Anti-Zionist Committee was created and a steady stream of anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel material was published.
http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/history.shtml


And another current assessment of Jews in the Soviet Union, from the UNHCR.


Moreover, Jews in Russia lived in constant fear of pogroms, murderous anti-Jewish riots that were frequently organized or incited by the Tsarist authorities as a way of deflecting popular discontent.[3]

Although the Bolshevik regime which came to power after the 1917 Russian Revolution initially attempted to distance itself from anti-Semitism, Soviet leaders eventually returned to policies of discrimination against Jews. In general, the Soviet record on human rights was abysmal. While the Soviet constitution and laws guaranteed its citizens numerous political and civil rights on paper, in practice these guarantees were not enforced. Soviet citizens" rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of movement and travel, freedom of religion, and many others, were regularly violated. The interests of the state had primacy over those of the individual, and law enforcement agencies and state security structures worked to protect the Communist Party's hold on power, with little or no regard for human rights. There were no legal constraints on state power, and no means of redress against abuses.[4]

Jews suffered a great deal under this system. The Soviet era witnessed the destruction of Jewish religious and cultural institutions. Attempts to deflect popular discontent included scapegoating Jews and resurrecting anti-Semitic myths and slanders. Jews were discriminated against in education and employment.[5] Discrimination was facilitated by the fact that Jews whose parents were both[6] Jewish were – and still are – identified in their Russian passports as being of Jewish nationality (in Russia, Jews are defined as a nationality, not as a religious group – Jews who either practiced no religion or who converted to Christianity were still identified as Jews). Anything that expressed Jewish national or cultural identity – studying the Hebrew language, attending synagogue – was grounds for being harassed by the KGB, dismissed from one's job, or imprisoned on either political or criminal charges.

The Jewish cultural revival and emigration movement that began in the 1960's had mixed consequences for Jews. Many Jews were allowed to emigrate, but emigration made life more difficult for those who stayed behind. Jews were treated by the state as potential traitors on whom the state should not waste education or other resources. Jewish "Refuseniks," many of whom remained in the Soviet Union against their will, suffered severe harassment and imprisonment. The ability of some Jews to leave Russia – seen by many Russians as a privilege they did not share – also increased societal hostility among those who had no such options.
http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/3ae6a60a2.html

Egorka
05-25-2007, 06:48 AM
Chevan wrote:
True they were limited in the emigration to the Israel ( after what the rumors about pursuring of jews in USSR had appear in West) but for the any ather groups of soviet sitizents the emigration was FORBIDDEN. So the jews were EVEN in relatively better conditions that the other soviet ethnic peoples.

A commnet: The Jews were the ONLY group of people that actually could emmigrate from USSR based on just teir nationality and no other reasons.

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 06:53 AM
A commnet: The Jews were the ONLY group of people that actually could emmigrate from USSR based on just teir nationality and no other reasons.

So, does the last sentence in the last quote in my last post accurately express the attitude of some, many or all Russians at the time?

Egorka
05-25-2007, 06:56 AM
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm not putting that forward as my belief but just as what was presented by some people.

Here's a fairly typical Western Jewish assessment of aspects of being a Jew in the USSR.


http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/history.shtml


And another current assessment of Jews in the Soviet Union, from the UNHCR.


http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/3ae6a60a2.html

Rising Sun, are we suppose to comment quotes in this post?

I liked this one: "Jews were discriminated against in education and employment." I guess all the jewish kids from my class would have choke if their have read it.

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 07:09 AM
Rising Sun, are we suppose to comment quotes in this post?

I liked this one: "Jews were discriminated against in education and employment." I guess all the jewish kids from my class would have choke if their have read it.

Hence my comments to Gen Sandworm at #96, about the differences between Western understanding and Soviet experience.

Why not comment on the quotes? They're a fair reflection of some Western views.

Chevan
05-25-2007, 07:22 AM
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm not putting that forward as my belief but just as what was presented by some people.

Here's a fairly typical Western Jewish assessment of aspects of being a Jew in the USSR.


And another current assessment of Jews in the Soviet Union, from the UNHCR.

That right this is FAIRY WESTERN Cold war wiev toward the Jewish "pursuting" in the USSR

Jews suffered a great deal under this system. The Soviet era witnessed the destruction of Jewish religious and cultural institutions. Attempts to deflect popular discontent included scapegoating Jews and resurrecting anti-Semitic myths and slanders

HA HA HA :)
Destrruction of jewish relogions dear Risin Sun has bagan when the Bolshevic declared the "Relogion as enemy of the Soviet Russia" and immediatelly has bagan to explode the Ortodoxy churchs.
BTW coudl you remind me the Ethnic origin of the Bolshevic leareds please ;);)
So if the author of this stupid and funny article is the jew how could he be so insolent to lie about the "destruction of religion in Soviet era"?

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 07:34 AM
I liked this one: "Jews were discriminated against in education and employment." I guess all the jewish kids from my class would have choke if their have read it.

I assumed that the article was referring to access to university and other post-secondary education which opened the door to better employment.

My understanding is that post-secondary education wasn't exactly an equal opportunity area during much of the Soviet Union era, with the children of Party officials having better access depending upon the seniority or connections of their parent(s).

Did Jews get the same access to universities etc as everyone else?

royal744
05-25-2007, 08:58 AM
Here you have contradict for yourself.
I'm strongly doubt the afro-americans, indians or sombody else in America has a such strong ethnic ties as the jewish community has.

You're incorrect there, Chevan. Lots of groups in America stick together. That's how we know those groups or affiliations exist. But they are still all Americans. No contradiction.


So my point is - only the naive man could think that we have an equal right and possibilities in the society where the such strong ethnic group is widely presented in the power structures of society.

Actually, success is America is basically determined by hard work, enterprise and individual intiative and of course education. Therefore, virtually anyon who exhibits these traits regardless of background or ethnic origin can do well here if he or she persists. The jews may assist one another, but so do catholics, protestants, baptists, lutherans, Indians, muslims, etc.


For instance in the Rusiia the 7 of 10 superichest oligarhs has a jewish origin - you may say whatever you want about the more "clever jewish intellect" - i will never believed in this race-superiority bulshit. But the fact is fact and in society where the Jews has a total percentage of population is no more 1-2% they could get is over the 30-40% and in some field much more percentage of the places.

Might there just be a tinge of jealousy and a hint of, uh, I don't know, racism here? The jews are a tiny percentage here too. but they spend an awful lot of time giving back to this country, which is something that other groups don't seem to do much of.


I do not wish to say it bad( the jews really could be enough good in the ruling elite, they excellent scientists and culture activists) , but ..... its wrong.

What is wrong? That the cream rises to the top of the milk? I don't think so. Best is best and if that is a christian, a catholic, a muslim, a Bah'ai or a jew, so be it. What is wrong is in thinking that you have a right to be on top because you are you and because you are many. In my opinion, of course.

Oh well.

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 10:21 AM
You're incorrect there, Chevan. Lots of groups in America stick together. That's how we know those groups or affiliations exist. But they are still all Americans. No contradiction.



Actually, success is America is basically determined by hard work, enterprise and individual intiative and of course education. Therefore, virtually anyon who exhibits these traits regardless of background or ethnic origin can do well here if he or she persists. The jews may assist one another, but so do catholics, protestants, baptists, lutherans, Indians, muslims, etc.



Might there just be a tinge of jealousy and a hint of, uh, I don't know, racism here? The jews are a tiny percentage here too. but they spend an awful lot of time giving back to this country, which is something that other groups don't seem to do much of.



What is wrong? That the cream rises to the top of the milk? I don't think so. Best is best and if that is a christian, a catholic, a muslim, a Bah'ai or a jew, so be it. What is wrong is in thinking that you have a right to be on top because you are you and because you are many. In my opinion, of course.

Oh well.

If anyone does well without unfair advantage, what is wrong with that?

I don't get the impression that any Jews had an unfair advantage in the USSR.

32Bravo
05-25-2007, 01:41 PM
If anyone does well without unfair advantage, what is wrong with that?

I don't get the impression that any Jews had an unfair advantage in the USSR.


Topol, did! :D

royal744
05-25-2007, 02:12 PM
I think it's fairly impressive that Chevan, Egorki, Sneaksie and others are able to discuss postings in English. I could NEVER do that in Russian. Although grammar is a bit lacking and word order often messed up, their responses do show a clear understanding of what the discussion is about, even if I find myself just as often in disagreement with their points of view.

Gen. Sandworm
05-25-2007, 02:17 PM
I think it's fairly impressive that Chevan, Egorki, Sneaksie and others are able to discuss postings in English. I could NEVER do that in Russian. Although grammar is a bit lacking and word order often messed up, their responses do show a clear understanding of what the discussion is about, even if I find myself just as often in disagreement with their points of view.

Cheers to our Russian comrades that give us insight everyday even with the struggle of speaking English. :D Seriously, you just cant have a good conversation about 2 sides of an issues without the other side voicing their opinion. Thanks from me to you for being great members of the site. ;)

Egorka
05-25-2007, 03:34 PM
You are welcome guys. But

"I am afariad the pleasure will be entierly mine!"



The bad guy from movie "Moulin rouge"

:D

I am glad some one reads my pity words and can therefore take a look at things from different point of view.

Gen. Sandworm
05-25-2007, 03:52 PM
I am glad some one reads my words and can therefore take a look at things from different point of view.

A bit of editing there but one of the most important things ive learned from living abroad. ;)

Egorka
05-25-2007, 04:38 PM
Jews were discriminated against in education and employment.

The source reffers to the document "Soviet Anti-Semitism: Through Perestroika and Beyond" by D.Waksberg, 1993.
But I guess it implies longer period than mentioned in the title.

Here is what I have at hand right now.

Education:
Quote from the book "Three millenium long mistery" by Igor Shafarevich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafarevich), 2002.




page 254 and 255:
Lets introduce some statistics about education. ... And for the purpose of being ubiased (or rather that the bias would be one sided) lets take info only from jewish sources.

In an article by I.Domalsky that was printed in Israeli magazin "Time and we" the author states the number of students in the study year 1972/1973 - total 4,6302 million, jews were 88,5 tousands - 1,9%. In 1970 the Jews constituted 0,8% of population. About the access to the higher postgraduate education and the scintific research the article also presents some information. In 1973, among the scintific researches the jews accounted for 6,1%. The russians researches - 66,7%, the russian population - 53%.

In the later book by R.Ribkina presented that the percentage of the jewish student kept falling down among the students: 1927 - 7,5% ; 1959 - 3,7% ; 1962 - 2,18%. At the same time the jews population share was lower than 0,8%.
...
She writes:

"Jews have been very visible in the Soviet social structure: the share of jews among scintists, universities and institution employees, doctors was significantly higher than of the average urban population."
...
In the other issue of the "Time and we" the interview with Zeev Katz, who teaches soviet sociology in the Univercity of Jerusalem. He mentioned that in the US 80%-90% of jews during the past 10 years got high education and that the similar situation exists in France, Italy, Argentina, Romania. He also sais:

"The same applies to the young generation of jews in USSR. App. 70% graduate from Univercities and Institues, being the most educated part of the soviet youth." (underlined by me - I.Shafarevich)
All these facts that I know supports the last underlined statement. And even more: jews in USSR in 70th and 80th were the most privileged social group in the area of education, access to the prestigious work types, material welfare. They lived in the cities, mostly bigger one, and had almost exclusive right for emmigration. Of course they abtained this status in a strugle and competition with representatives (who saw in jews perilous contenders and rivals) of the other ethnic groups in the power structure of the country. But we are now discussing the result of this competition, not the competition itslef.

About the author from wiki, just to give you a clue if he could have an idea about the education issues:

"a Russian mathematician, founder of the major school of algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry in the USSR, and a political writer. He was also an important dissident figure under the Soviet regime, a public supporter of Andrei Sakharov's Human Rights Committee from 1970. He supported the criticisms of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn of both Soviet communism and liberal proposals for the future of Russia."

"Allegations of antisemitism started after Shafarevich wrote an essay titled"Russophobia", which was written in 1982 and first published in Germany in 1988. His sources were writings by Soviet emigrants of Jewish origin.[17] He complained that "Russophobes," who are cunning, hostile Jewish critics, "dream of transforming Russia into. .. a robot deprived of all elements of human life.""
no comments as of now...

Egorka
05-25-2007, 04:41 PM
A bit of editing there but one of the most important things ive learned from living abroad. ;)

Gen Sandworm, no need to edit. If I said "pity" - I ment it. I am not good at presenting my arguments I know that for sure. But never mind! :)

royal744
05-26-2007, 12:32 AM
True the US made first the a-bomb, but the USSR could repeat it already in the 1949 (with help of american stealed datas) or coud create own project of A-bomb in the 1950. I have no any doubts that the tecnological adventage of Germans could help repeate it already in the 1946-47. But who know, this is just one more fantasy on theme " what could be";)
Just do not think i wish to justify the Nazy anti-semitism.This was a worst think in any way.
But i just to notify you to fall down in opposite extreme point - there only the jews who are the best scientist in the world and who "only moves the science forward".
Cheers.

The Germans and the Japanese are a very talented people - industrious, inventive, original and thorough. When the jewish scientists and writers, and playwrights, and doctors, etc. left Germany - the remainder who could not believe any people could be as barabraric, being killed - it was a net gain for the west. That is what I meant. Perhaps it was poorly expressed. There were, in fact, many, many talented scientists of the nuclear variety in the US scattered throughout American universities. But it took the initiative of Albert Einstein at the instigation of Leo Szilard - himself a scientist and refugee who saw the big picture - to write the vital letter to President Roosevelt that got the atomic bomb project rolling. Actually, the British had already begun it and realized early on that they did not have the resources to carry it through, so they transferred their progress on "Tubular Alloys" (the code name) to the US and sent many of their scientists to the US as well. Prominent Americans in this field included Oppenheimer, the brainchild of the effort at Los Alamos, Geln T Seaborg, and too many others to name here. The first sustained and controlled nuclear reaction was put together by Enrico Fermi, an Italian immigrant who quit Europe and Italy because his wife was jewish and he saw the danger ahead. So while jewish scientists made a very important contribution to the A-bomb effort, in the end it became a much wider, broader and eeper effort that spanned the entire nation and involved hundreds of thousands of people.

Chevan
05-29-2007, 02:45 AM
You're incorrect there, Chevan. Lots of groups in America stick together. That's how we know those groups or affiliations exist. But they are still all Americans. No contradiction.

Sorry again royal.
You or do not know the theme or simply try to ignore the some of obvious things.
Firstly NO OTHER ONE community in the America ( or in any western state) has the such tightly-knit community that so care about ethnical cleariting of its members.
And no one community in the world has its OWN ETHNICALY oriented religion, that has the its goal the SAVING the race origin of its peoples.
The any "groups or affiliation" that you wrote , in the America has assimilated among the other native americans through 2-3 generations. But ... not the jewish.
Certainly there a lot of mixed marriages with the jews but this is not rule for them.
If you watch to the jewish religion you should learn - the relation for the mixed marriages is negative.
I do not wish to say it wrong, maybe they do it right - they has a full right to do it;)
And nobody could forbit them it;)
Actualy they has a full right to take care about their "nation" and do not mix it with others.
But here one question has appeared - why their religion so negative toward they joining oter ethnic groups?
I mean why they so fear the other nations they lives among?
I do not know. Do you?


Actually, success is America is basically determined by hard work, enterprise and individual intiative and of course education. Therefore, virtually anyon who exhibits these traits regardless of background or ethnic origin can do well here if he or she persists. The jews may assist one another, but so do catholics, protestants, baptists, lutherans, Indians, muslims, etc.

You quite missunderstood me royal.
I/m not dany the fact of hard work for the success.
i told another - you will not have thw EQUAL possibilities for the success in the society whre the so strong ethnic community has a such great presents in the ruling elite.
True , as you wrote, the jewish community may assists for each other and this is iheir right.
But no any one of the "catholics, protestants, baptists, lutherans, Indians, muslims" groups HAS the OWN rase oriented religion that has as the goals the egoistic ethnic interests for the "great aim".
I/m not agains the right for the jews to help to each other , but sometimes the way that they chosed for it is simply frighten me.
Look for instanse for the activity of jewish lobby in Ameriaca to involve the USA into the war conflict to the near East ( Iraq and ets). They finally has reach the success of it.


Might there just be a tinge of jealousy and a hint of, uh, I don't know, racism here? The jews are a tiny percentage here too. but they spend an awful lot of time giving back to this country, which is something that other groups don't seem to do much of.

Sorry royal may i ask you something - are you the jew?
It's not a principial just interest.Your reaction perplexs me.
Indeed here is no any jealosy or racism - (this is the tupical reaction of the jews to blaime the everybody in rasism).
I just try to analise why it happend so.
Why in the every state where the ethnical minorities has a majority in the rulling elite - the members of its ethnical group has an exclusive right for the success in the bisiness, science and art?
Do you doubt? Just wath to the ethnical origin of the most of Nobel laureates;)
I/m not sure the other ethnical origin scientists work less hard then they.
There is no surprise if you as the member of a such ethnical-religion group has more chances for the success simply coz you have a protection of your strong group.
Especially if your group has a dominated place in the FINANCIAL hierarchy of your country.


What is wrong? That the cream rises to the top of the milk? I don't think so. Best is best and if that is a christian, a catholic, a muslim, a Bah'ai or a jew, so be it. What is wrong is in thinking that you have a right to be on top because you are you and because you are many. In my opinion, of course.

Oh well.
The wrong is - who do determine "the cream of the milk".
The problems that if you think that some ethnic group is the "more clever then the other" and they has more rights for the rules of the state.
The "Democraty" means the power of the whole people any race ( according the its persentage in society) not the just the power of the some of groups ( whatever ethnical or - in contrast with the "aristocracy"( the power of the bests).
Let me to show you a one example of the "who do choice the cream of the milk".
The ceremony of Oscar 2006.
The film "Paradise now" about palestinians was BANNED by the jewish community coz they recognized it as the"sumpatized for the palestinian terrorists and its tactick".
Thus the enough neitral and objective film that BTW was awarded by the Gold Globe in the Europe was factically banned in the USA simply coz the jewish community wanted it.
This is just a litle example ( that ONLY pablically rised at the surface) of the non-objective decigion - that could not be even disputed.
Now do you see who do determine the "cream of the milk" and how they do it;)

Cheers.

Chevan
05-29-2007, 07:01 AM
I don't get the impression that any Jews had an unfair advantage in the USSR.

Well dear Risin Sun let me to send you some more impressions.;)
As it absolutly right said Egorka from the excellent objective book of the Shafarevich "Risofobia" ( BTW he has a jewish origin) the jews in the USSR has a exclusive right for everything.
I'v read in excellent book of Andrey lv. Diky "Jews in the Russia and USSR".
http://lib.metromir.ru/author7260
He was forced to emigrate to the USA being pursuted by the bolshevick.
He gives a amazing analisys of the race origin of the Bolshevick leaders in the USSR in the 1917-1928.
His estimates are qiute wondering.
He gives the next figures of jews who was in the high soviet gov organs.
1.The Central commitete of Bolshevic party (the hirest state department)
Jews- 61 (72%), non-jews -17 , not defined - 7
2.The SNK (Soviet of people commissars - the highest executive organ of the Soviet Russia)
Jews - 115(85%), non-jews -18, not defined -3
So as could you see the jews took the ABSOLUTE majority in the ruling elite of the soviet Russia.
And they bear the responsibility for all the evil of bolshevick - destruction of religion ( firstluy - ortodoxy christian), mass murdering of the "Class enemies" ( firstly thre native russia intelligencia and peasants) and the creation of GULAG.
This fact EVEN undisputable among the jews.
The jews has a such great rules that the The bolshevic decided for the Great historical experiment ( as they thought) - to craet the first jewish territory in the compaund USSR.
The jewish Autonomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast

The Jewish administrative division was founded with the help of Komzet in 1928 as the Jewish National District. It was the result of Stalin's nationality policy, by which each of the national groups that formed the Soviet Union would receive a territory in which to pursue cultural autonomy in a socialist framework. In that sense, it was also a response to two supposed threats to the Soviet state: Judaism, which ran counter to official state policy of atheism; and Zionism, and the creation of the modern State of Israel, which countered Soviet views of nationalism. The idea was to create a new "Soviet Zion", where a proletarian Jewish culture could be developed. Yiddish, rather than Hebrew, would be the national language, and a new socialist literature and arts would replace religion as the primary expression of culture.

Stalin's theory on the National Question held that a group could only be a nation if they had a territory, and since there was no Jewish territory, per se, the Jews were not a nation and did not have national rights. Jewish Communists argued that the way to solve this ideological dilemma was by creating a Jewish territory, hence the ideological motivation for the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Politically, it was also considered desirable to create a Soviet Jewish homeland as an ideological alternative to Zionism and the theory put forward by Socialist Zionists such as Ber Borochov that the Jewish Question could be resolved by creating a Jewish territory in Palestine. Thus Birobidzhan was important for propaganda purposes as an argument against Zionism which was a rival ideology to Marxism among left-wing Jews. The propaganda impact was so effective that several thousand Jews immigrated to Birobidzhan from outside of the Soviet Union, including several hundred from Palestine who had become disillusioned with the Zionist experience

Just a little mistake in WIKI ( like always) - the creation of Birobidgan was not a resault of Stalin's national policy - this was resault of the national policy of Central Commitete of VKPB ( where before the Stalin did not played the main role in that time).
This was a national policy of the pro-jewish CK ( he was jewish untill the end of 1930).
The creation of First Jewish territory cost for the Soviet Russia a billions rubles - the money mostly from a robber of the non-jewish peasants ( who died at the same time from hunger- unfortinatelly this fact the pro-jewish source ( like the WIKI) do no like to note).
But as it turn out to be - the jews did not wish to go to the "their new land", althout there were build a city with infrastructure ( bu the hands of simple soviet worker- not jewish voluntaries), school where the yiddish was a ONLY language, own jewish newspapar and even the own radiostation.
Moreover later the jews themself recognized this idea as a anti-semitic and blaimed the Stalin for that:);)

Cheers.

Rising Sun*
05-29-2007, 08:05 AM
Sorry again royal.
You or do not know the theme or simply try to ignore the some of obvious things.
Firstly NO OTHER ONE community in the America ( or in any western state) has the such tightly-knit community that so care about ethnical cleariting of its members.
And no one community in the world has its OWN ETHNICALY oriented religion, that has the its goal the SAVING the race origin of its peoples.
The any "groups or affiliation" that you wrote , in the America has assimilated among the other native americans through 2-3 generations. But ... not the jewish.
Certainly there a lot of mixed marriages with the jews but this is not rule for them.
If you watch to the jewish religion you should learn - the relation for the mixed marriages is negative.
I do not wish to say it wrong, maybe they do it right - they has a full right to do it;)
And nobody could forbit them it;)
Actualy they has a full right to take care about their "nation" and do not mix it with others.
But here one question has appeared - why their religion so negative toward they joining oter ethnic groups?
I mean why they so fear the other nations they lives among?
I do not know. Do you?

You quite missunderstood me royal.
I/m not dany the fact of hard work for the success.
i told another - you will not have thw EQUAL possibilities for the success in the society whre the so strong ethnic community has a such great presents in the ruling elite.
True , as you wrote, the jewish community may assists for each other and this is iheir right.
But no any one of the "catholics, protestants, baptists, lutherans, Indians, muslims" groups HAS the OWN rase oriented religion that has as the goals the egoistic ethnic interests for the "great aim".
I/m not agains the right for the jews to help to each other , but sometimes the way that they chosed for it is simply frighten me.
Look for instanse for the activity of jewish lobby in Ameriaca to involve the USA into the war conflict to the near East ( Iraq and ets). They finally has reach the success of it.

Sorry royal may i ask you something - are you the jew?
It's not a principial just interest.Your reaction perplexs me.
Indeed here is no any jealosy or racism - (this is the tupical reaction of the jews to blaime the everybody in rasism).
I just try to analise why it happend so.
Why in the every state where the ethnical minorities has a majority in the rulling elite - the members of its ethnical group has an exclusive right for the success in the bisiness, science and art?
Do you doubt? Just wath to the ethnical origin of the most of Nobel laureates;)
I/m not sure the other ethnical origin scientists work less hard then they.
There is no surprise if you as the member of a such ethnical-religion group has more chances for the success simply coz you have a protection of your strong group.
Especially if your group has a dominated place in the FINANCIAL hierarchy of your country.

The wrong is - who do determine "the cream of the milk".
The problems that if you think that some ethnic group is the "more clever then the other" and they has more rights for the rules of the state.
The "Democraty" means the power of the whole people any race ( according the its persentage in society) not the just the power of the some of groups ( whatever ethnical or - in contrast with the "aristocracy"( the power of the bests).
Let me to show you a one example of the "who do choice the cream of the milk".
The ceremony of Oscar 2006.
The film "Paradise now" about palestinians was BANNED by the jewish community coz they recognized it as the"sumpatized for the palestinian terrorists and its tactick".
Thus the enough neitral and objective film that BTW was awarded by the Gold Globe in the Europe was factically banned in the USA simply coz the jewish community wanted it.
This is just a litle example ( that ONLY pablically rised at the surface) of the non-objective decigion - that could not be even disputed.
Now do you see who do determine the "cream of the milk" and how they do it;)

Cheers.

There is just so much in there that is wrong and illogical.

If your opinion reflects the opinion of many in Russia, it demonstrates that the East still doesn’t understand the West on some issues, either.

Rather than dealing with each of your points individually, which would take a few weeks, I’ll pose a few questions.

1. Given that America was founded by Christian religious refugees from England and that America has always been a strongly Christian nation, how do you explain the supposed prominence and influence of Jews in America as being the supposedly dominant religious group in the nation?

2. Especially when you say that Jews remain separate from the rest of all the nations they inhabit. How can a group which remains separate and won’t participate in national life be so strongly involved at the highest levels of the nation?

3. You say that the Jewish lobby in America is responsible for involvement in Iraq etc, as if that is the whole story about Iraq and completely unrelated to oil and other American grand strategy. If the Jewish lobby matters, what about the crucial political significance in America of the votes of fundamentalist Christian groups which believe that Israel must be preserved to ensure the second coming of Christ, and of how they are the constituency to which Bush and Co owe more electoral allegiance than to numerically insignificant Jewish voters?

4. You are concerned that Jews allegedly dominate various areas in business, science and so on. At an evolutionary level, is it possible that a couple of thousand years of unreasoning persecution and mass executions have selected people who are more adept in many areas than the groups which never had such experiences? How good would Russia be now if the various Soviet regimes had crushed and killed all the drones instead of those with the drive, ability, intelligence and independence to challenge the dictatorial regimes? At a cultural level, is it possible that the rigors of Jewish education produce people who learn to learn better than many other people from more relaxed cultures? Is it possible that after a couple of thousand years of persecution the Jews have learned that their best hope of survival is to get themselves into positions where they can influence the decisions which previously led to their persecution? Is it possible that a couple of thousand years of relentless persecution of a downtrodden people for no good reason has in fact succeeded in producing a strong and proud people who have determined that never again will they allow something like the Holocaust or any other persecution to harm them? Can anyone blame them for this? If anyone doesn’t like this result, who should be blamed? Jews? Or their oppressors over the centuries?


The "Democraty" means the power of the whole people any race ( according the its persentage in society) not the just the power of the some of groups ( whatever ethnical or - in contrast with the "aristocracy"( the power of the bests).

No, in the modern Western world it means little more than one person, one vote, and all the equalities that flow from such a concept.

There is no proportional representation requirement, by race or anything else. Otherwise 51% of American presidents would have been women, and a black or Hispanic could never be president because there is no foreseeable prospect of a majority of blacks or Hispanics in America. But black (if not satisfactorily black to many American blacks) Barack Obama is running against the woman Hillary Clinton with the possibility that either could be the next President of the largest well-functioning democracy in the world. Or a Jew could be, too (Or already has been, according one view of Roosevelt.). Or a Muslim. They’ve already had a Catholic and various brands of other Christians.

It doesn’t mean that America or any other democracy exists in perpetual harmony or that there isn’t discrimination on religious, racial or other grounds, but at least modern democracies don’t overtly discriminate against or oppress minorities on religious or racial grounds (covertly is a different issue, as is the not too distant past).

Cojimar 1945
05-29-2007, 05:26 PM
The cold war seems odd. Why would the US be more hostile towards the USSR than to other countries? The USSR was not the only dictatorship in the world.

Egorka
05-30-2007, 02:45 AM
The cold war seems odd. Why would the US be more hostile towards the USSR than to other countries? The USSR was not the only dictatorship in the world.

It was the only one that could chalenge USA.

Chevan
06-01-2007, 04:08 AM
There is just so much in there that is wrong and illogical.

If your opinion reflects the opinion of many in Russia, it demonstrates that the East still doesn’t understand the West on some issues, either.

Sorry Rising Sun but your attempts to direct the problem to the East Vs West relation is ....ridiculous;)
Coz the problem that we are discussing is not "exclusively Eastern" but international....
In fact the "jewish question" was under forbid in the East for the long time of Communist ideology and the peoples who try to study this theme were puirsuted by the soviet law.
For the 20 Centure this them developed mostly in the west, BTW i've knew a lot of interesting from the American site http://www.jewwatch.com/ :)
So i think your claims for the East is just the way to change the topic:)
Becouse I know for the sure in the West are the manies peoples, who know what's going on, and who asked the simular question for themself - why it heppend that some of the Ethnical groups have the adventage for the success.


Rather than dealing with each of your points individually, which would take a few weeks, I’ll pose a few questions.

1. Given that America was founded by Christian religious refugees from England and that America has always been a strongly Christian nation, how do you explain the supposed prominence and influence of Jews in America as being the supposedly dominant religious group in the nation?

Sorry , but you do not hear me....
I've told you the reason of jewish success is the strong assistence between them.
And i repeat i/m not against the jewish help for each other - this is their right- but i think thet we , who have no the strong ethnical community assistence inside our states , losed the competition.
To understang how they jews do it - is the other interesting matter.
In fact today they dominated in the a lot of the USA fields , the social and state
Look for instance here
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-jewishsupremacyassociationsmovements-folder.html
The list where the jews played the dominated role.
I/m repeat im not against the participation of the jews- they could be a great good peoples, but ..... if they fully controlled something .... i willl not sure that all will OK.
Just wath to the Bolshevick leaders - 80-90% of them were the jews . And what this was mean for the native peoles of USSR ( russian ukrainian and belorussians) - the destruction of their relogion, mass murders, famine and GULAG.
Another "interesting" example - the Israel where the jews are 100% of gov - the palestinian ethnical minority are the "second- sort" peoples in there.


2. Especially when you say that Jews remain separate from the rest of all the nations they inhabit. How can a group which remains separate and won’t participate in national life be so strongly involved at the highest levels of the nation?

No No Risin Sun i never told the jews do not participate in national life . To the contrast - they played an extremaly active role in the manies fields.Some of them really a great peoples. But when they acted like a Ethncal group that according their religion are the "highest race" in the world - this could be danger for all us.


3. You say that the Jewish lobby in America is responsible for involvement in Iraq etc, as if that is the whole story about Iraq and completely unrelated to oil and other American grand strategy.

The fact that the jewish lobby wanted the USA army in the Near East is determined not only oil interests (where the jews also dominated) but and political aslo - to help the Israel to "survive" among the hostitle environment - Syria , Iran ,Iraq.
And the american jews do not note that the USA lost its world authority of the attack of Iraq - they ONLY one more time demonstrated the fact that their ethnical community feelings has won the patriotic feelings of the state where they lives.i/e/ they demonstrate the interest of their nation is more importain than the interests of the state where they lives.
(exactly this situation were in the USSR in the 1949-52 when manies of soviet jews who were sympatised for the anti-soviet Israel, proved that the interests of their nation is higher then their sobiet patriotism).Certainly this is their right , but... could they be the our patiots in this case?


If the Jewish lobby matters, what about the crucial political significance in America of the votes of fundamentalist Christian groups which believe that Israel must be preserved to ensure the second coming of Christ

Why the Christ must come in second time in Isreal - for the jews could kill him one more time:)?
If serious it was a Palestine where the Christ lived and has died.
BTW this is not a single stopid mythical-religious explanation of creation and supportion the Israel - the jewish religion demand the right of the jews for own land in the Palestine- this is quite amazing case in the inernational law - the creation state according the religious prejudices.


, and of how they are the constituency to which Bush and Co owe more electoral allegiance than to numerically insignificant Jewish voters?

becouse yo know why...

in the modern Western world it means little more than one person, one vote, and all the equalities that flow from such a concept
As we know the first duty of the USA president ( i.e. Bush and Co) to serve for the USA i.e for the rulling financial elite and corporation. Coz the what is good for them - that good for the Americans, right?
And if the jewish community played the main role in the financial elite of the USA - thus this was not difficult to "justify" the entering in the Nearest East.( for the oil and ets)
As far as i know the congress recently voted for the withdrawal from Iraq - does it help for the voters to stop the Bush and Co ?


4. You are concerned that Jews allegedly dominate various areas in business, science and so on.

Its not me who concerned that the jews dominated in the West but the some of the americans who study this question.
I know just about Russia.- i show you the figures that proved ABSOLUTE DOMINATION of the jews in the 1918-1939 in the soviet gov ( the figures that even do not disputable by the jewish authors).


At an evolutionary level, is it possible that a couple of thousand years of unreasoning persecution and mass executions have selected people who are more adept in many areas than the groups which never had such experiences?

I'm not sure about rest Europe ,but i think you could not blame all the european nations for the "unreasoning persecution" if you do not know enought this theme.
And BTW does the "couple of thousand years of unreasoning persecution" is justify the murders of the millions of the native population of the former russian Imperia by the jewish-bolshevic gov of the Soviet Russia during ONLY 20 years?


How good would Russia be now if the various Soviet regimes had crushed and killed all the drones instead of those with the drive, ability, intelligence and independence to challenge the dictatorial regimes?

I/m not sure that understand you righ here.
I just wish to notice you who created those "various dictators regimes" , who created the first theroetical-communists basis for those regimes.
If you wath for the ethnical origin of those people - you will understand much more.


At a cultural level, is it possible that the rigors of Jewish education produce people who learn to learn better than many other people from more relaxed cultures?

And why the culture level of those other peoples has relaxed ?
May be becouse the native cultural activists has changed bu the jewish cultural activists due to its power international-ethnic supporting?


Is it possible that after a couple of thousand years of persecution the Jews have learned that their best hope of survival is to get themselves into positions where they can influence the decisions which previously led to their persecution?

Perhaps it right form the egoistic jewish point- but who do you say dear friend we need to get this point as right for all us?
AND if you think ( or the jews think) that the contemporaty generation of the Europeans is guilt for the "thousand years of persecution the Jews" in the Europe- does it mean the East Europeans must blame the all the contemporary jews for the mass crimes of their ethnical relatives in the Russia when the bolshevick took the power?
if according your ligic - yes, the jews guilf for the henocide of the native population.
But i do not think so coz i do not think your logic is true


Is it possible that a couple of thousand years of relentless persecution of a downtrodden people for no good reason has in fact succeeded in producing a strong and proud people who have determined that never again will they allow something like the Holocaust or any other persecution to harm them?

But it is absolute possible that the "educated , high-culture and proud " peoples sunctioned the blood therror of native population.
It was possible that some of them take active participation in the famine in Ukraine and Russia. Look for instance for the Lasaz Kaganovich - the jewish-bolshevic commander who created the this famine.
Does the Holocaus ( where were killed a disputable figure of 6 million) is REASON why we have to keep the silence about the mass murdering of christians by the jewish-bolshevic ( about 10-15 millions at all)?

Chevan
06-01-2007, 04:56 AM
Well if our friend Rising Sun like to ask a question- i have a few ones too.
How could you explain the next publical expressions of diffent jewish leaders and religious activists:


" the chosen by the god, scattered throughout the whole world Jewish nation possesses the special mission".
Ahad Haam

"Jews, undoubtedly, are the cleanest race of all civilized nations of peace".
Naum Sokolov

"Jews possess larger enterprise and large abilities, than average European, to say nothing of all these inert Asiatics or Africans".
Max Nordau.

"History awarded us by rare ethnic and intellectual qualities, and this gives to us right and responsibility to be light-than among other nations"
Ben -Gurion.

"Our longings and our ideal are differed from longing and ideals of entire peace. Therefore we - others. And I solemnly declare, that we are higher than all nations of peace and none can be compared with us."
rabbi Gaster.

"Jewish people - this is unique historical phenomenon. This simultaneously nation, religious whole, race and the world carrier of specific civilization. Not one concept in the Jewish people and the religion is capable of clearly expressing unique historical phenomenon - Jewish people... We are the world nation, connected with durable bonds with Israel, being incomprehensible society in the history of humanity".
Naum Goldman.

""Kindness -it is applied to the superman or to the super-Nation, which has the force in order to extend and to supplement its life and which has a will to become master of the universe, without considering with the fact that this can dearly manage to the masses of the lowest essences and lowest peoples, without considering the calamities, by which they they can because of this undergo. Since one only over the men and only one super-Nation is a color and the purpose of mankind: rest were created in order to serve this purpose in order to serve as the stairs, on which it would be possible to rise to the apex".
Ahad Haam.
Source: "Palestina in the loop of zionism" F.Alestin.. M.1988

As you could see gentlemens this is a different conclusiona of the peoples ( from a different) who belong to the one ethnical group.Shortly speaking this is public declaration for the moral and intellect race superiority toward the other nations in the world.
Could we ignore those ( in its sense) race-superiority claims of ONE ethhnic group just becouse the "other peoples are guilt in the thousands years discriminations of rules" of this ethnical group?

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 06:01 AM
Chevan

I've read your post #120 carefully.

Rather than respond to each point, which will pretty much cover what we've already covered, I'll say only this.

Your post and comments about Jews in the Bolshevik regime etc confirms my view that there are still deep feelings and beliefs in Russia, and elsewhere in Europe, because of perceptions about Jews. It also confirms my view that an understanding of these issues is critical to an understanding of an important aspect of Soviet history, and wider European history including the Holocaust. The difficulty for me is that I don't understand it because it's just not part of the Australian experience or my heritage or national history.

As for jewwatch.com, I've seen that site before and it's a vicious joke run by a rabid anti-Semite who'd blame a Jewish conspiracy if his undies got half as twisted as he is. I'd put a smilie here except that I'm serious with that fruitcake.

How about taking the same approach to others in Soviet history as you do to the Jews?

What were the religious affiliations of other people prominent in Soviet history? What about atheists?

If that's not important, why not? Apart from allegations about Jewish unity against the common good etc.

Chevan
06-01-2007, 06:17 AM
Chevan

I've read your post #120 carefully.

Rather than respond to each point, which will pretty much cover what we've already covered, I'll say only this.

Your post and comments about Jews in the Bolshevik regime etc confirms my view that there are still deep feelings and beliefs in Russia, and elsewhere in Europe, because of perceptions about Jews. It also confirms my view that an understanding of these issues is critical to an understanding of an important aspect of Soviet history, and wider European history including the Holocaust. The difficulty for me is that I don't understand it because it's just not part of the Australian experience or my heritage or national history.

Thank you Rising Sun for attempt to understand.
Yes this question still actual for my state coz afert downfall of communism we have learn a much that were frorbidden early. There a lot of the world historical researches devoted for wide participation of jews in the bolshevic gov.
I/m repeat - my point not againt the jews at all.
And i understand the sensless the anti-semitism and danger it for the society, but i do not think the dual-standarts and silence about the bad think that some of the jews made is a good too.


As for jewwatch.com, I've seen that site before and it's a vicious joke run by a rabid anti-Semite who'd blame a Jewish conspiracy if his undies got half as twisted as he is. I'd put a smilie here except that I'm serious with that fruitcake.

Honestly speaking i don't like this site too. Becouse its rusofobian.
But there a some interesting infor about ethnic origin of owner of the American and world madia , cinama and ets biggest corporations. THAT nobody could reject - instead we hear only blaiming as "rabid anti-semitism".
But could you really refute this matter?
I/m not agree with the conclusions of authors of this site , but nevertheless...;)


How about taking the same approach to others in Soviet history as you do to the Jews?

There is no problem. Anything that you wish.


What were the religious affiliations of other people prominent in Soviet history? What about atheists?

If that's not important, why not? Apart from allegations about Jewish unity against the common good etc.

What do you mean about ateists?

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 08:27 AM
Thank you Rising Sun for attempt to understand.
Yes this question still actual for my state coz afert downfall of communism we have learn a much that were frorbidden early. There a lot of the world historical researches devoted for wide participation of jews in the bolshevic gov.

I'm trying to understand.

I'd like to know more about what knowledge was forbidden to Soviet citizens about Jews, and what the new knowledge says.

I doubt that you can understand my perspective, any more than I can understand yours. Our national and personal histories are probably just too far apart to have any experience in common.

To try to understand why this is so, it might be useful to compare your history and personal experience with mine.

Here is mine.

Despite our early and often brutal convict origins, which are generally misunderstood as there was a lot more to our early settlement, Australia had a very gentle development compared with anywhere else in the New World, let alone European experience over the past 220 odd years since England colonised the land. We’ve had nothing even vaguely like the American experience with the War of Independence which occurred about the time the first convicts landed here, or the Civil War. Even our conflicts with our indigenous people never reached anything like the scale of the American experience. We’ve never experienced war on our mainland apart from some, by the rest of the world’s experience (excluding America, which got off much more lightly), trivial attacks during WWII. We’ve never experienced famine or forced relocation or any of the forms of oppression and even sheer terror and unbridled brutality which were common during various eras in various parts of Europe during the same period. After WWII we had a lot of migrants from all parts of Europe, from all sides in the war. We had a lot of post-war migrants working side by side who had been on opposite sides in the war, or in local conflicts, e.g. Serbs and Croats; Germans and Poles. After the war a lot of Australian farmers sponsored as migrants Italian POW’s who had worked for them during the war, because they respected their industriousness, skills and character. I knew one farmer who did this. In the sixties I worked with a German who was a Stalingrad veteran; in the seventies with a Pole who was a Nazi concentration camp survivor; and in the eighties with the Australian-born son of another Staligrad veteran. I’ve worked with Lithuanians, Latvians (no Estonians from memory), Ukranians, Turks, Greeks, Italians, Maltese, Lebanese and so on. My experience is common for Australians of my generation (born 1949) and since. Generally the migrants left their enmities behind. If they didn’t, they got this message from Australians: If you want to fight old wars, then piss off back to wherever you came from and do it there, because we don’t want your shit here. It ain’t all been sweetness and light, but generally we’ve absorbed an awful lot of people from a huge range of countries with very little conflict, including over the past 30 years or so refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Argentina, Somalia, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan along with voluntary migrants from India, Pakistan, China (PRC, Taiwan and Hong Kong) and just about everywhere else.

You might like to offer your personal perspective on your and Russia's experiences over the same period.

I hope you'll understand that I, and maybe some others, might mistake some of your views for anti-Semitism, not least because we're not used to such views in public discussion in the West. So maybe we respond to what we think has been said, rather than what has actually been said, or intended. - I have a feeling that this comment is going to start a separate debate on censorship or political correctness or Jewish influence in the West. :D


I/m repeat - my point not againt the jews at all.
And i understand the sensless the anti-semitism and danger it for the society, but i do not think the dual-standarts and silence about the bad think that some of the jews made is a good too.

Good.

I don't like anti-Semitism, or any other form of prejudice against an ethnic or religious or social group which types all members of the group as the same. Every person is entitled to be judged on their own beliefs and behaviour, not what people think they believe and how they are supposed to behave because of their involuntarily inherited links to groups when they might not share whatever views that group is supposed to have. I don't have a problem with, for example, saying that Nazi Party members subscribed to a perverted philosophy on many issues, but it's not reasonable to assume that a Party member's wife, children, parents, siblings and other relatives shared the same views. But that's what happens if we say that "all Jews (or Muslims or Catholics or Russians or Americans etc) are ..."

I'm interested in your comment about the wide participation of the Jews in the Bolshevik government.

I'm rusty on this area, and have only a superficial knowledge, but my recollection is that many of the leaders in the Revolution and in the next few years of internal turmoil in Russia were Jewish.

But my recollection also is that many of their opponents and victims were also Jews, although from memory I can't give specific examples.

Be that as it may, the history of Jews in the West is that they have been prominent on both sides of the political spectrum, and at all points between, in all countries. On one side as successful capitalists. On the other side as committed socialists and communists. I doubt it was any different under the Tsar leading up to the 1917 Revolution.


Honestly speaking i don't like this site too. Becouse its rusofobian.
But there a some interesting infor about ethnic origin of owner of the American and world madia , cinama and ets biggest corporations. THAT nobody could reject - instead we hear only blaiming as "rabid anti-semitism".
But could you really refute this matter?
I/m not agree with the conclusions of authors of this site , but nevertheless..

I'm not that concerned about people's backgrounds.

I generally judge them by their opinions.

Like all good propaganda, there is an element of truth in what he says on most things, but apart from that his opinions are just stupid.


What do you mean about ateists?

You mean there weren't any atheists in the USSR! :D

My God! ;) And we were told all during the Cold War that the USSR was full of godless atheists whose first task on taking us over would be to tear down all our churches! Seriously. You should have been in a Catholic school here in the 1950’s. We were taught that in Germany the Jews were the first target and the Catholics second, and that the order would be reversed under the communists.

I suppose Mr Putin's Orthodox faith, which apparently didn't hold him back in the KGB, is an example of just how much religion was at the heart of the USSR. ;)

Seriously, what I was getting at was: If Jews' actions from 1917 onwards are to be judged by their religious affiliation, then shouldn't we look at how people with other religious affiliations, or none, also behaved?

I'd be very surprised if Jews had a monopoly on any form of bad behaviour.

royal744
06-01-2007, 09:00 AM
I don't really like discussions that deal with religion, especially those that aim to cast any single religion in either a good or a bad light. I admit it makes me uncomfortable, because we are discussing what should be closely held and private beliefs. And. lest we forget, religions are beliefs - they are not required to be rational because they are based on faith - faith that something is a miracle, faith in a virgin birth, faith that angels appeared on a mountaintop and led the way - you get the idea.
But this is a discussion forum so what the heck. The thing is Chevan, lots of things are said by lots of people belonging to religious groups including a lot of appalling things. If I were to go through the Christian Bible and mark all the violent passages, the intolerant passages, and the hundreds of contradictions, it would make all our heads spin. But it doesn't make Christians themselves bad. The sayings of one person, or a collection of persons, are not the writ of law, at least not for me, that applies to everyone.
And what, pray tell, is the Bible? Who wrote it? Is it infallible, as some believe? What about all the texts consciously left out of the Bible? Were they not "holy enough"? At the very least it was written by many, ordinary and fallible human beings who put their pants on one leg at a time just like you and I. Are those writings holy? You decide, because you can decide,
Many people write many things and some of them are straightforward and sincere; others are twisted and insincere; still others are plain evil. But that is no reason to paint an entire socio-economic group with the same brush based on those writings.
If I were to take dozens and dozens of misanthropic quotes from our President's speeches and remarks, you would be tempted to think all Americans are fools, idiots,, deceivers and liars, which we are not.

Russia, Germany, the British, Americans and France, and the rest of Europe - all Christian nations and yet they fought the bloodiest war in history. Christianity and religion had nothing to do with it. Where Germany was concerned, race hatred certainly played a huge part. Personally, I don't care what people believe so long as they don't try to impose of force their beliefs on others.

When it starts to hurt others, I start to pay attention.

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 09:21 AM
Well if our friend Rising Sun like to ask a question- i have a few ones too.
How could you explain the next publical expressions of diffent jewish leaders and religious activists:

As you could see gentlemens this is a different conclusiona of the peoples ( from a different) who belong to the one ethnical group.Shortly speaking this is public declaration for the moral and intellect race superiority toward the other nations in the world.
Could we ignore those ( in its sense) race-superiority claims of ONE ethhnic group just becouse the "other peoples are guilt in the thousands years discriminations of rules" of this ethnical group?

Mate, I could trawl through the old and new Testaments; the Q'ran; the statements of Christian missionaries from about 1500 AD onwards; the statements of sundry supremacists from the Nazis to the Japanese militarists to the Ku Klux Klan to the skinheads in Britain and Europe a decade or two ago to the current crop of Islamic boneheads, to demonstrate that there is no shortage of people who think that they're the top race and, where religion is involved, the only ones with a ticket to heaven.

None of it proves anything, except that some people think their shit don't stink.

Having dug and filled in a few shit pits, my experience is that biology, microbial activity, and atmospheric dispersion don't support such opinions. :)

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 09:26 AM
Personally, I don't care what people believe so long as they don't try to impose of force their beliefs on others.

Preeeee-cisely!

As used to be said of gentlemen fond of other gentlemen:

"I don't care what they do in private, as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses.". :D

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 10:07 AM
Chevan

If you want to see how ridiculously well Australia has coped with the European past in many instances, have a look at this video involving a satirical television program which does silly things such as provoking a Polish club with Nazi visitors.

Use sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53Q1y5EAN4E

Gen. Sandworm
06-01-2007, 10:36 AM
Chevan

If you want to see how ridiculously well Australia has coped with the European past in many instances, have a look at this video involving a satirical television program which does silly things such as provoking a Polish club with Nazi visitors.

Use sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53Q1y5EAN4E

Thats funny!

On religion thou..........I think Karl Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the people" Clever guy but I strongly have to disagree with Karl on this one. Seems to me ppl around the world will move there *** pretty quick when it comes to religious issues. Especially ones where it involves guns.

Rising Sun*
06-01-2007, 11:22 AM
Seems to me ppl around the world will move there *** pretty quick when it comes to religious issues. Especially ones where it involves guns.

Only the believers.

If we could get rid of them, there'd be a lot less conflict.

Digger
06-26-2007, 08:10 AM
The one thing this thread proves-the people of the East/West are trying to understand each other and to learn more about their histories. This is one of the greatest benefits of the internet. Millions of people can exchange views without being blocked by borders or political dogma.

Sure there has been a misunderstanding of the Soviet Union/Russia/Czarist Russia by the west, but it has hardly been one way traffic, otherwise this thread would have died long ago.

The fortunate thing is history is constantly under review and revision and as more and more people from differing nations and cultures exchange their views a lot of the old anomosities and misunderstandings will be eroded away.

I require many books for my research and two recent acquisitions have brillantly shown the flaws and misconceptions of historians in regard to the Eastern Front fighting. This proves to me that historians continue to dig for the truth and as many of us do not totally understand this, they play a powerful role in demolishing the myths of the past.

History is always evolving, thankfully.

And a huge thankyou for everyone who has participated in this interesting thread without too much in the way of fisticuffs and fireworks.

Regards digger.

Cavalry Gunner
07-17-2007, 02:51 PM
Rising Sun:

I don't think people in the west misunderstand the Russians they don't care about the east enough for it to be important to them. Look the Russians paid a terrible price in world war ll some 30 million dead and so did Germany. I spent 4 years guarding the fulda gap in Germany and oh yes the Russians got there attention all I heard from the Germans was yea but you haven't fought Ruskie. Here are some FACTS the Russians fought as hard as they did for several reasons.
1.The Germans gave them no other choice the Russians could have died with or without a gun in their hand.It was a war of extermination.
2.Stalin used penal troops in the front lines with the understanding that if they lived through the war they would be pardoned from their crimes. If they didnt' fight or ran the commisars would shoot them.

Now if Hitler would have came into Russia as a liberator from the communist he would have probably won world war ll as most Russians who after 24 years of communist rule were ready to get rid of Joseph Stalin. Stalin hid for 12 days when the German Invasion started afraid that his own people were going to revolt and overthrow him it wasn't till they understood Hitlers plans to exterminate all the Russians that they supported Stalin in the war effort.

Now there is a diffrence between the RUSSIAN PEOPLE and the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. I don't believe that the RUSSIAN PEOPLE wanted to expand the Communist domain the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT did. The RUSSIAN PEOPLE were glad that they won the war as anyone fighting Hitler should have been.

The Berlin Airlift was a good example of this FACT. But now we are getting into the Cold War so lets not go there.

We have many Russians here in the U.S. that go back to the 1800's many from the first and second world war the problem the Communists have always had is keeping people under there government. They built the Berlin wall to keep people in not to keep people out. And Stalin had that problem and Hitler knew it. He believed that if you kick the door in the whole rotten regime would fall in.And it would have if he haden't been such a believer in the racial theorys of his national socialist party.
World War ll molded the world of today and believe me the Europeans don't want to go through that again. I have no idea why anyone would think the west is evil when everyone and his brother is trying to get here. we have millions of citizens that come from there.

The results of world war ll

1. It bankrupted the British
2. It destroyed Germany
3. It killed 30 million Russians and Destroyed 1/3rd of their country
4. It took 50 years for all of them to recover

America had more money than it could spend
more food than it could eat
produced more things than it could use

Oh and we supplied RUSSIA with 7% of their war material and food.
And THATS A FACT JACK....

The communist government fell becuse it put more emphisis on building its military than feeding and caring for its people. One can't eat a tank.
Funny the parallel between the communist and the nazis. Oh and now I tell all my German friends this. We did fight the Russians when they looked across that border and saw the West Germans driving Mercedes Benz cars and living good they concluded that if communism is so good how come we don't have that? We had all those troops for all those years on the border and we took them without firing a shot or loosing one man... Now whos the smart guy..

Trudl Jung (Hitlers secratary) said it best "Once I got out of prison and saw for myself what Democracy can do i wish their will never ever be another Hitler"..

Cavalry Gunner

Egorka
07-17-2007, 05:06 PM
Stalin hid for 12 days when the German Invasion started

Crap.
Stalin met just about any one in the goverment during the next several days.
If you want I can post the list of names with timing.

Cavalry Gunner
07-22-2007, 05:13 PM
Oh Stalin was a rock after putting practicly his whole officer corp to death in the 30's Every historian in the world teaches this and Stalin trusted no one.
Stalin was a tyrant only second to Hitler. Now you leaning hard to the Russian side of world war ll lets talk about a Russian one can respect like Georgi Zukov... Probably the best General of WWll and leave Stalin where he belongs IN THE GRAVE.

An overview of Josef Stalin:

By 1928, Stalin was entrenched as supreme Soviet leader, and he wasted little time in launching a series of national campaigns
(the so-called Five-Year Plans) aimed at "collectivizing" the peasantry and turning the USSR into a powerful industrial state.
Both campaigns featured murder on a massive scale. Collectivization especially targeted Ukraine, "the breadbasket of the Soviet Union," which clung stubbornly to its own national identity and preference for village-level communal landholdings. In 1932-33, Stalin engineered a famine (by massively raising the grain quota that the peasantry had to turn over to the state); this killed between six and seven million people and broke the back of Ukrainian resistance. The Ukrainian famine has only recently been recognized as one of the most destructive genocides of the twentieth century (see Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow, and the Web resources compiled by The Ukrainian Weekly). The Five-Year Plans for industry, too, were implemented in an extraordinarily brutal fashion, leading to the deaths of millions of convict labourers, overwhelmingly men. These atrocities are described in the corvée (forced) labour case study. The millions of deaths in Stalin's "Gulag Archipelago" (the network of labour camps [gulags] scattered across the length and breath of Russia) are dealt with in the incarceration/death penalty case study.

A leader whose callous disregard for human life was matched only by his consuming paranoia, Stalin next turned his attention to the Communist Party itself. Various factions and networks opposed to his rule had managed to survive into the early 1930s; many in the party were now calling for reconciliation with the peasantry, a de-emphasizing of industrial production, and greater internal democracy.
For Stalin, these dissident viewpoints represented an unacceptable threat. Anyone not unquestioningly loyal to him -- and many hundreds of thousands who had to be "weeded out." The Communist Party would be rebuilt in the image of the "Great Leader." This was the origin of the "cult of personality" that permeated Soviet politics and culture, depicting Stalin as infallible, almost deity-like. (The cult lasted until his death in 1953) Stalin's drive for total control, and his pressing need for convict labour to fuel rapid industrialization, next spawned the series of immense internal purges -- beginning in 1935 -- that sent millions of party members and ordinary individuals to their deaths, either through summary executions or in the atrocious conditions of the "Gulag Archipelago"
By the time Stalin's wrath descended on his countrymen and women, the USSR had already suffered a devastating decline in its cohort of younger adult males. World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the subsequent civil war that pitted "Reds" against "Whites," had inflicted its "heaviest" losses "in the age group 16-49, particularly in its male contingent," writes Richard Pipes, "of which it had eradicated by August 1920 -- that is, before the famine [of 1922] had done its work -- 29 percent." The monstrous famines of the early 1920s and early 1930s were indiscriminate in their impact on the afflicted populations. But the campaign of mass executions launched against the kulaks -- designated "wealthier" peasants -- also overwhelmingly targeted males. "In Kiev jail they are reported at this time [1929-30] shooting 70-120 men a night," reports Robert Conquest; a typical story "is of the Ukrainian village of Velyki Solontsi where, after 52 men had been removed as kulaks, their women and children were taken, dumped on a sandy stretch along the Vorskla River and left there." (Excerpts from Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow.) The vast majority of "kulaks" imprisoned in the labour/death camps were also male (see the incarceration/death penalty case study). The gendered impact of the Purge period itself on Soviet society we now turn to consider.

Under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin, tens of millions of ordinary individuals were executed or imprisoned in labour camps that
were little more than death camps. Perceived political orientation was the key variable in these mass atrocities. But gender played an important role, and in many respects the Purge period of Soviet history can be considered the worst gendercide of the twentieth century.




Cavalry Gunner
Wally

Egorka
07-23-2007, 01:59 AM
Oh Stalin was a rock after putting practicly his whole officer corp to death in the 30's Hi Gunner!

What exactly do you mean by "after putting practicly his whole officer corp to death in the 30's"? Is it a figurative speach?
If you have to put a number, what would you say was the share of the prosecuted officers in the total number of officers in RKKA?

We already touched this topic on this forum: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101858&postcount=78

Every historian in the world teaches this and Stalin trusted no one.
I can assure you that not every historian teaches that. Besides, appart from historians there is also documents avaiaalbe.


Stalin was a tyrant only second to Hitler.
That is true. And the nations of USSR payed dearly for that historical experiment conducted on their soil. But I also think that what happened durin 1917 - 1985 in USSR happened also largerly due to direct and indirect support from the people. And much of it was actually inevitable considering all the mess that already existed.

Though Stalin was second to Hitler by very-very large margin. You can not compare directly the Nazism and Communism. The first one is evil aim and evil mechanism to reach it. The second one has "good" aim and evil mechanism for reaching it. That is the difference.

Cavalry Gunner
07-23-2007, 05:43 AM
The purge of the Red Army was claimed to be supported by Nazi-forged documents (said to have been correspondence between Marshal
Tukhachevsky and members of the German high command).

The claim is, however, unsupported by facts, since by the time the documents were supposedly created, two people from the eight
in the Tukhachevsky group were already imprisoned, and by the time the document was said to reach Stalin, the purging process was
already underway. However the actual evidence introduced at trial was obtained from forced confessions. The purge of the army removed
three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star
generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for
foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army
corps commissars. All told, 30,000 members of the armed forces were executed.
The chaos caused by the purge of the Soviet Army aided in their early defeat at the onset of the Nazi invasion of 1941. It has also
been observed that the aforementioned chaos may actually have encouraged Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany to launch Operation Barbarossa,
after they learned of the weakness of the Red Army.



Eventually almost all of the Bolsheviks who had played prominent roles during the Russian Revolution of 1917, or in Lenin's Soviet
government afterwards, were executed. Out of six members of the original Politburo during the 1917 October Revolution who lived until
the Great Purge, Stalin himself was the only one who survived. Four of the other five were executed. The fifth, Leon Trotsky, went
into exile in Mexico after being expelled from the Party but was assassinated by a Soviet agent in 1940. Of the seven members elected
to the Politburo between the October Revolution and Lenin's death in 1924, four were executed, one (Tomsky) committed suicide and two
(Molotov and Kalinin) lived. Of 1,966 delegates to the 17th Communist Party congress in 1934 (the last congress before the trials),
1,108 were arrested and nearly all died.

The trials and executions of the former Bolshevik leaders were, however, only a minor part of the purges:


A series of national operations of the NKVD was carried out during 1937–1940, justified by the fear of the fifth column in the
expectation of war with "the most probable adversary", i.e. Germany, as well as according to the notion of the "hostile capitalist
surrounding", which wants to destabilize the country. The Polish operation of the NKVD was the first of this kind, setting an example
of dealing with other targeted minorities. Many such operations were conducted on a quota system. NKVD local officials were mandated
to arrest and execute a specific number of "counter-revolutionaries", produced by upper officials based on various statistics


By the summer of 1938, Stalin and his circle realized that the purges had gone too far, and Yezhov was relieved from his head of NKVD
post (remaining People's Commisariat of Internal Affairs) and eventually purged. Lavrenty Beria, a fellow Georgian and Stalin confidant,
succeeded him as head of the NKVD. On November 17, 1938 a joint decree of Sovnarkom USSR and Central Committee of VKP(b) (Decree about
Arrests, Prosecutor Supervision and Course of Investigation) and the subsequent order of NKVD undersigned by Beria cancelled most of
the NKVD orders of systematic repression and suspended implementation of death sentences. The decree signaled the end of massive Soviet
purges. Nevertheless, the practice of mass arrest and exile was continued until Stalin's death in 1953. Political executions also
continued, but, with the exception of Katyn and other NKVD massacres during WWII, on a vastly smaller scale. One notorious example is
the "Night of the Murdered Poets," in which at least thirteen prominent Yiddish writers were executed on August 12, 1952.



Western Reaction

Although the trials of former Soviet leaders were widely publicized, the hundreds of thousands of other arrests and executions
were not. These became known in the west only as a few former gulag inmates reached the West with their stories. Not only did foreign
correspondents from the West fail to report on the purges, but in many Western nations, especially France, attempts were made to
silence or discredit these witnesses; Jean-Paul Sartre took the position that evidence of the camps should be ignored, in order that
the French proletariat not be discouraged. A series of legal actions ensued at which definitive evidence was presented which
established the validity of the former concentration camp inmates' testimony.

Robert Conquest wrote the book The Great Terror in 1968. According to Conquest, writing in The Great Terror, with respect to the
trials of former leaders, some Western observers were unable to see through the fraudulent nature of the charges and evidence, notably
Walter Duranty of The New York Times, a Russian speaker; the American Ambassador, Joseph Davis, who reported, "proof...beyond
reasonable doubt to justify the verdict of treason" and Beatrice and Sidney Webb, authors of Soviet Communism: A New Civilization.
According to Conquest, writing in The Great Terror, while "Communist Parties everywhere simply transmitted the Soviet line", some of
the most critical reporting also came from the left, notably The Manchester Guardian.

Despite great skepticism regarding the show trials and occasional reports of Gulag survivors, many western intellectuals retained a
favorable view of the Soviet Union. Some of them dissociated themselves from the Communist party, but not from Communist convictions,
only in 1956, when the Stalinist crimes were made public within the inner communist circles in Russia. With the beginning of the Cold
War and McCarthyism, some supporters of the USSR were persecuted, so there were personal motives for a number of intellectuals to
change their mind. Also, evidence and the results of research began to appear after Stalin's death which revealed the full enormity of
the Purges. The first of these sources were the revelations of Nikita Khrushchev, which particularly affected the American editors of
the Communist Party USA newspaper, the Daily Worker, who, following the lead of The New York Times, published the Secret Speech in
full. In 1968, Robert Conquest published The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag
Archipelago followed in 1973. By the Glasnost era of the late 1980s, Stalin was denounced openly by Mikhail Gorbachev as a criminal,
and Soviet records were opened to Western and Soviet researchers after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Finally, in France, where the
intellectual climate was most sympathetic to Soviet communism, The Black Book of Communism (1997), relying in part on revelations of
the Great Purge, compared communism unfavorably to Nazism. Nevertheless, minimization of the extent of the Great Purge continues among
revisionist scholars in the United States (see, e.g., pp. 15-17, In Denial, ISBN 1-893554-72-4) and small but passionate groups of
modern-day Stalinists.



According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot -
an average of 1,000 executions a day. Historian Michael Ellman claims the best estimate of deaths brought about by Soviet
Repression during these two years is the range 950,000 to 1.2 million - i.e. about a million – which includes deaths in detention and
those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it. He also states that this is the
estimate which should be used by historians and teachers of Russian history. According to Memorial society

On the cases investigated by the State Security Department of NKVD (GUGB NKVD):
At least 1,710,000 people were arrested
At least 1,440,000 people were sentenced
At least 724,000 were executed. Among them:
At least 436,000 people were sentenced to death by NKVD troikas as part of the Kulak operation
At least 247,000 people were sentenced to death by NKVD Dvoikas' and the Local Special Troykas as part of the Ethnic Operation
At least 41,000 people were sentenced to death by Military Courts
Among other cases in October 1936-November 1938:
At least 400,000 were sentenced to labor camps by Police Troikas as Socially Harmful Elements (социально-вредный элемент, СВЭ)
At least 200,000 were exiled or deported by Administrative procedures
At least 2 million were sentenced by courts for common crimes, among them 800,000 were sentenced to Gulag camps.
Some experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete or unreliable. For example, Robert
Conquest suggests that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half
times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims,
although this is speculation as no evidence of this cover-up has come to light.



Maybe the Russian Government shouldn't have let us westerners in to reveal there own classified archives...

Both the Nazis and the Communists kept power at the expense of their peoples.

Unfortuneately it took the German People 12 years to get rid of Hitler and the Russians took 74 years to get rid of theirs and both are better for it.



Cavalry Gunner
Wally

Egorka
07-23-2007, 08:24 AM
at Cavalry Gunner.

I am sorry, is your post #136 the answer to my post #135?

Cavalry Gunner
07-23-2007, 08:56 AM
Yes #136 is my reply to #135

Cavalry Gunner
Wally

Egorka
07-23-2007, 09:14 AM
Yes #136 is my reply to #135

Cavalry Gunner
Wally

Ok, I just wanted to make sure before I start critisising it. You did not quote a single word from my post , so it is difficult for me to follow your logic in what part of your post answers what part of my post.

You see, most of your post has little bearing with the purge in the RKKA in the 1930s. So I will not comment on it.

Regarding the purge in the RKKA the numbers are the following:





Memo

During the last 5 years (1934 - 25 Oct 1939) the following number of the officers was being dismissed:

1934: 6596 ppl. or 5,9% of the total.

a) for drinking and moral decay - 1513
b) due to illness, invalids, death - 4604
c) arrested and convicted - 479

1935: 8560 ppl. or 7,2% of the total.

a) politico-moral issues, incomepetence, volountiraly - 6719
b) due to illness, invalids, death - 1492
c) arrested and convicted - 349

1936: 4918 ppl. or 3,9% of the total.

a) or drinking and moral decay - 1942
b) due to illness, invalids, death - 1937
c) arrested and convicted - 782

1937: 18658 ppl. or 13,6% of the total.

a) for politcal reason (excluded from the party, connection to enemies of the state) - 11104
b) arrested and convicted - 4474
c) for drinking and moral decay - 1139
d) due to illness, invalids, death -1941


1938: 16362 ppl. or 11,3% of the total.

a) political motives - 3580
b) foreign nationals, bourn aboad and connected with abroad - 4138
c) arrested - 5032
d) for drinking and moral decay - 2671
b) due to illness, invalids, death - 941

1939 until 25 Oct: 1691 ppl. or 1,6% of the total.

a) political motives - 277
b) arrested - 67
c) for drinking and moral decay - 197
b) due to illness, invalids - 725
c) death - 425


The total for the 6 years period - 56785 people.
Total for 1937 - 1938 : 35020 people. Of those arrested - 9506 (27,2% of dismissed)
...
...
...
The leader of the 6th unit
Colonel Shiryaev
20 October 1939


Source: Document "РГВА. Ф.37837. Оп.19. Д.87. Л.42-52." citied as it appears in the book "Statistics of anti army terror" by N.Cherushev, 1998

I already reffered to it in an other thread (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101858&postcount=78).

As you, Cavalry Gunner, can see your statement about "All told, 30,000 members of the armed forces were executed." is WRONG.
35020 people is the number of discharged from the force for different reasons including fatal accidents. Not "executed"!
Further more several thousand of them were returned into the RKKA and restored in their ranks the following year as the result of the victims complains.

Egorka
07-29-2007, 05:22 PM
Stalin hid for 12 days when the German Invasion started afraid that his own people were going to revolt and overthrow him...

Here is the extract from the Stalin's cabinet visiters journal with the name of a visitor and enter and exit time.





21 June 1941

1. Molotov 18.27—23.00
2. Vorotsov 19.05—23.00
3. Beria 19.05—23.00
4. Voznesensky 19.05—20.15
5. Malenkov 19.05—22.20
6. Kuznetsov 19.05—20.15
7. Timoshenko 19.05—20.15
8. Safonov 19.05—20.15
9. Timoshenko 20.50—22.20
10. Zhukov 20.50—22.20
11. Budenny 20.50—22.20
12. Mehlis 21.55—22.20
13. Beria 22.40—23.00
The last visitors left at 23.00

22 June 1941

1. Molotov НКО, зам. Пред. СНК 5.45-12.05
2. Beria NKVD 5.45-9.20
3. Timoshenko НКО 5.45—8.30
4. Mehlis Нач. ГлавПУР КА 5.45-8.30
5. Zhukov НГШ КА 5.45-8.30
6. Malenkov Секр. ЦК ВКП(б) 7.30-9.20
7. Mikoyan зам. Пред. СНК 7.55—9.30
8. Kaganovich НКПС 8.00—9.35
9. Voroshilov зам. Пред. СНК 8.00—10.15
10. Vishinsky сотр. МИД 7.30—10.40
11. Kuznetsov 8.15-8.30
12. Dimitrov чл. Коминтерна 8.40—10.40
13. Manuilsky 8.40—10.40
14. Kuznetsov 9.40-10.20
15. Mikoyan 9.50-10.30
16. Molotov 12.25—16.45
17. Voroshilov 10.40-12.05
18. Beria 11.30-12.00
19. Malenkov 11.30-12.00
20. Voroshilov 12.30-16.45
21. Mikoyan 12.30-14.30
22. Vishinsky 13.05-15.25
23. Shaposhnikov зам. НКО по УР 13.15-16.00
24. Timoshenko 14.00-16.00
25. Zhukov 14.00-16.00
26. Vatutin 14.00-16.00
27. Kuznetsov 15.20-15.45
28. Kulik зам. НКО 15.30-16.00
29. Beria 16.25-16.45
The last visitors left at 16.45

23 June 1941

1. Molotov (member of the Stavka of the Suprim Comand) 3.20—6.25
2. Voroshilov (member of the Stavka of the Suprim Comand) 3.20-6.25
3. Beria чл. Ставки ТК 3.25-6.25
4. Timoshenko (member of the Stavka of the Suprim Comand) 3.30-6.10
5. Vatutin 1-й зам. НГШ 3.30-6.10
6. Kuznetsov 3.45-5.25
7. Kaganovich НКПС 4.30-5.20
8. Zhigarev команд. ВВС КА 4.35-6.10
The last visitors left at 6.25


9. Molotov 18.45-01.25
10. Zhigarev 18.25-20.45
11. Timoshenko НКО СССР 18.59-20.45
12. Merkulov NKVD 19.10-19.25
13. Voroshilov 20.00-01.25
14. Voznesensky Пред. Госпл., зам. Пред. СНК 20.50-01.25
15. Mehlis 20.55-22.40
16. Kaganovich НКПС 23.15-01.10
17. Vatutin 23.55-00.55
18. Timoshenko 23.55-00.55
19. Kuznetsov 23.55-00.50
20. Beria 24.00-01.25
21. Vlasik (Cheif of Stalin's personal guard ) 00.50-00.55
The last visitors left at 01.25 24/VI 41

24 June 1941

1. Malishev 16.20-17.00
2. Voznesensky 16.20-17.05
3. Kuznetsov 16.20-17.05
4. Кизаков (Лен.) 16.20-17.05
5. Zaltsman 16.20-17.05
6. Popov 16.20-17.05
7. Kuznetsov (Кр. м. фл.) 16.45-17.00
8. Beria 16.50-20.25
9. Molotov 17.05-21.30
10. Voroshilov 17.30-21.10
11. Timoshenko 17.30-20.55
12. Vatutin 17.30—20.55
13. Shahurin 20.00-21.15
14. Petrov 20.00-21.15
15. Zhigarev 20.00-21.15
16. Golikov 20.00-21.20
17. Scherbakov секр 1-й МГК 18.45-20.55
18. Kaganovich 19.00-20.35
19. Suprun летч.-испыт. 20.15-20.35
20. Zhdanov чл. п/бюро, секр. 20.55-21.30
The last visitors left at 21.30

25 June 1941

1. Molotov 01.00-05.50
2. Scherbakov 01.05-04.30
3. Пересыпкин НКС, зам. НКО 01.07-01.40
4. Kaganovich 01.10-02.30
5. Beria 01.15-05.25
6. Merkulov 01.35-01.40
7. Timoshenko 01.40-05.50
8. Kuznetsov НК ВМФ 01.40-05.50
9. Vatutin 01.40-05.50
10. Mikoyan 02.20—05.30
11. Mehlis 01.20-05.20
The last visitors left at 05.50


12. Molotov 19.40-01.15
13. Voroshilov 19.40—01.15
14. Malishev НК танкопром 20.05-21.10
15. Beria 20.05-21.10
16. Соколов 20.10-20.55
17. Timoshenko Пред. Ставки ГК 20.20-24.00
18. Vatutin 20.20-21.10
19. Voznesensky 20.25-21.10
20. Kuznetsov 20.30-21.40
21. Fedorenko команд. АБТВ 21.15-24.00
22. Kaganovich 21.45-24.00
23. Kuznetsov 21.05.-24.00
24. Vatutin 22.10-24.00
25. Scherbakov 23.00-23.50
26. Mehlis 20.10-24.00
27. Beria 00.25-01.15
28. Voznesensky 00.25-01.00
29. Vishinsky сотр. МИД 00.35-01.00
The last visitors left at 01.00

26 June 1941

1. Kaganovich 12.10-16.45
2. Malenkov 12.40-16.10
3. Budenny 12.40-16.10
4. Zhigarev 12.40-16.10
5. Voroshilov 12.40-16.30
6. Molotov 12.50-16.50
7. Vatutin 13.00-16.10
8. Petrov 13.15-16.10
9. Kovalev 14.00-14.10
10. Fedorenko 14.10-15.30
11. Kuznetsov 14.50-16.10
12. Zhukov НГШ 15.00-16.10
13. Beria 15.10-16.20
14. Yakovlev нач. ГАУ 15.15-16.00
15. Timoshenko 13.00-16.10
16. Voroshilov 17.45-18.25
17. Beria 17.45-19.20
18. Mikoyan зам. Пред. СНК 17.50-18.20
19. Vishinsky 18.00-18.10
20. Molotov 19.00-23.20
21. Zhukov 21.00-22.00
22. Vatutin 1-й зам. НГШ 21.00-22.00
23. Timoshenko 21.00-22.00
24. Voroshilov 21.00-22.10
25. Beria 21.00-22.30
26. Kaganovich 21.05-22.45
27. Scherbakov 1-й секр. МГК 22.00-22.10
28. Kuznetsov 22.00-22.20
The last visitors left at 23.20

27 June 1941

1. Voznesensky 16.30-16.40
2. Molotov 17.30-18.00
3. Mikoyan 17.45-18.00
4. Molotov 19.35-19.45
5. Mikoyan 19.35-19.45
6. Molotov 21.25-24.00
7. Mikoyan 21.25-02.35
8. Beria 21.25-23.10
9. Malenkov 21.30-00.47
10. Timoshenko 21.30-23.00
11. Zhukov 21.30-23.00
12. Vatutin 21.30-22.50
13. Kuznetsov 21.30-23.30
14. Zhigarev 22.05-00.45
15. Petrov 22.05-00.45
16. Skokoverov 22.05-00.45
17. Zharov 22.05-00.45
18. Nikitin ВВС КА 22.05-00.45
19. Titov 22.05-00.45
20. Voznesensky 22.15-23.40
21. Shahurin НКАП 22.30-23.10
22. Dementiev зам. НКАП 22.30-23.10
23. Scherbakov 23.25-24.00
24. Shahurin 00.40-00.50
25. Merkulov зам. NKVD 01.00-01.30
26. Kaganovich 01.10—01.35
27. Timoshenko 01.30-02.35
28. Golikov 01.30-02.35
29. Beria 01.30-02.35
30. Kuznetsov 01.30-02.35
The last visitors left at 02.40

28 June 1941

1. Molotov 19.35-00.50
2. Malenkov 19.35-23.10
3. Budenny зам. НКО 19.35-19.50
4. Merkulov 19.45-20.05
5. Bulganin зам. Пред. СНК 20.15-20.20
6. Zhigarev 20.20-22.10
7. Petrov Гл. констр. арт. 20.20-22.10
8. Bulganin 20.40-20.45
9. Timoshenko 21.30-23.10
10. Zhukov 21.30-23.10
11. Golikov 21.30-22.55
12. Kuznetsov 21.50-23.10
13. Kabanov 22.00-22.10
14. Stefanovsky летч.-испыт. 22.00-22.10
15. Suprun летч.-испыт. 22.00-22.10
16. Beria 22.40-00.50
17. Ustinov НК воор. 22.55-23.10
18. Yakovlev ГАУНКО 22.55-23.10
19. Scherbakov 22.10-23.30
20. Mikoyan 23.30-00.50
21. Merkulov 24.00-00.15
The last visitors left at 00.50


From here (http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%96%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB_%D0%BF%D0%BE% D1%81%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D 1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0/1941) and here (http://militera.lib.ru/research/gorkov2/1941.html).

Chevan
07-31-2007, 05:24 AM
Cavalry Ganner where did you get this mixture of the myths,cold war propogandas and simply lie about Stalinists period?
I suppose from the Wiki ( or something like that);)
This "source' wery like to wite the simular "statistic".


For example, Robert
Conquest suggests that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half
times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims,

Do the Robert Conquest ever know that the sach historical 'method" could get him the absolute fantastic figures of repressions?He could "prove" everything he waht in such way;)


According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot
What Soviet's archives did he mean?
As far as i know the Historian who really hve read the archives give us the figure about 800 000 of executed since 1921-1953 i.e for the 22 years of Stalins period.
The russian historian Viktor Zemkov wrote after the study of the Russian central state archive( former Soviet Archive of October Revolution)
http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_72.htm


In 1937-38 at the culmination moment of Stalin repressions, "great terror", in THE USSR were produced 2,5 mln. arrests, while in the period from 1921 through 1953 on the political motives were shot 800 000 people
Besides, we suppose that about 600 000 died in the prisons i.e the total quantity of repressions wew about 1,4 millions of peoples.
...............................
Many people perished in the period from 1937 through 1953 in the course of repressions. In the very the most severe period - 1937-38 years - there were convicted for the different sentences in prison of more than 1,3 mln. people, from whom almost 700 000 were shot. In 1951 there was convicted of almost 55 000 people, into 1952 - 29 000..



This figures nowaday gets even the western historians


Maybe the Russian Government shouldn't have let us westerners in to reveal there own classified archives
Gunner, the Centrall russian Archive and documents about repressions were opened for the western reseaches since 1992. And if they would not so lazy and would not prefer to speculate with figures in spirit of Cold war - welcome to the Moscow for the study;)
Nobody will prevent them.
By while we heread ONLY the stopid claims that "NKVD/KGB specially decrease it in several times".

Both the Nazis and the Communists kept power at the expense of their peoples
Oh really ?
I'm not sure about Nazy , but during the period 1936-1989 the population of USSR has increased since 170 mln untill 275 mln i.e in over 100 millions ( this include the decreace the 26 mln dufring the WW2).
Let me notice you that NO ONE state in the west di not reache the simular resaul for that period.
True the soviets material standards of life were less , but social guaranties, free education and free medical service ( hight and special) were one of the best in the world.
True the ald Politburoo was not able to reforme the soviet economy ( like it did the China). But i/m really do not see the reason to say that it was "expence of their people".
As we know today the China is the most dynamic economical development in the world ( they exceed even the USA and most of southern Asia states).
Soon they could be the world economic leaders - how you the sach perspective - the Communist CHina in the head of the world?
So do not do the premature conclusions when the game is not over;)


Cheers.

Kovalski
07-31-2007, 06:41 AM
True the soviets material standards of life were less , but social guaranties, free education and free medical service ( hight and special) were one of the best in the world.


It would be useful to compare the average human lifespans, for USSR and the West.
Anybody got that data?

Pozdrawiam,
Kovalski

Egorka
07-31-2007, 08:26 AM
It would be useful to compare the average human lifespans, for USSR and the West.
Anybody got that data?
I will try to get it. I have seen it once before.
So far as I remember it declined sharply since 1980s.

Cavalry Gunner
08-06-2007, 07:52 AM
Well as for resources there are many this blog isn,t big enough to post them all but here are a few...

^ The Sword and the Shield: The Mikrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, pp 86
and 87
^ Stalin's Terror: High Politics and Mass Repression in the Soviet Union by Barry McLoughlin and Kevin McDermott (eds). Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002, p. 6
^ Great Purges Spartacus Educational
^ a b N.G. Okhotin, A.B. Roginsky "Great Terror": Brief Chronolgy Memorial, 2007
^ On Leaving the Communist Party by Howard Fast, November 16, 1957
^ Another view of Stalin by Ludo Martens, Progressive Labor Party website
^ a b Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles) by Richard Pipes, pg 67
^ Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments by Michael Ellman, 2002
^ Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s by Steven Rosefielde,
1996
^ Comment on Wheatcroft by Robert Conquest, 1999
^ Gulag: A History by Anne Applebaum, pg 584
^ Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia: 1934-1941. - book reviews by Robert Conquest, 1996, National Review
^ "Pictorial essay: Death trenches bear witness to Stalin's purges" CNN, July 17, 1997
^ "Mass grave found at Ukrainian monastery", BBC, July 12, 2002
^ "Wary of its past, Russia ignores mass grave site", by Fred Weir, The Christian Science Monitor, October 10, 2002
^ Twentieth Century Atlas - Casualty Statistics - Biggest Battles and Massacres
^ "Former Killing Ground Becomes Shrine to Stalin’s Victims" by Sophia Kishkovsky, The New York Times, June 8, 2007
Rehabilitation: As It Happened. Documents of the CPSU CC Presidium and Other Materials. Vol. 2, February 1956-Early 1980s. Moscow, 2003. Compiled by A. Artizov, Yu. Sigachev, I. Shevchuk, V. Khlopov under editorship of acad. A. N. Yakovlev.
Eternal Memory: Voices From the Great Terror. 1997. 16mm feature film directed by Pultz, David. Narrated by Meryl Streep. USA.
Robert Conquest: The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties. 1968.
Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, Oxford University Press, May 1990, hardcover, ISBN 0-19-505580-2; trade paperback,
Oxford, September, 1991, ISBN 0-19-507132-8
J. Arch Getty and Oleg V. Naumov, The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, Yale University Press, 1999.
J. Arch Getty and Roberta T. Manning, Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Panne, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stephane Courtois, The Black Book of
Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 0-674-07608-7.
Chapter 10: The Great Terror, 1936-1938.
John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage, Encounter Books, September, 2003, hardcover,
312 pages, ISBN 1-893554-72-4
Barry McLoughlin and Kevin McDermott, Stalin's Terror: High Politics and Mass Repression in the Soviet Union, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon, 1940, ISBN 0-553-26595-4
Rehabilitation: Political Processes of 30-50th years, in Russian (Реабилитация. Политические процессы 30-50-х годов), editor:
Academician A.N.Yakovlev, 1991 ISBN 5-250-01429-1
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956, HarperCollins, February, 2002, paperback, 512 pages, ISBN 0-06-000776-1
Eugene Lyons, Assignment in Utopia, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1937.
Vadim Rogovin, "Two lectures: Stalin's Great Terror: Origins and Consequences Leon Trotsky and "The Fate of Marxism in the USSR"
Mehring books,ISBN 0-929087-83-6 1996
Vadim Rogovin, "1937: Stalin's Year of Terror." Mehring books, ISBN 0-929087-77-1 1996.

And as for the Chinese and my statement about at the cost of there peoples
we here in the states buy 90% of their products recalled this year is toothpaste that somhow is laden with the glychol an ingredient of anti freeze
also found in pet food produced in China. Peanut butter with ecoli bacteria and vegitables with the same problem. They have the most pollution of any country on earth and has effected the health of many Chineese people.
And here in the states we have the best halth care that money can buy.
and our congress is ready to pass a 4.9 TRILLION dollar budget for the year 2008 thank you! I do agree everyone is doing fine but just remember we here in the United States Finnce it all by buying everthing they can produce. And remember this economicly speaking when we have a cold the rest of the world has pnumonia. The buying power of the US is awesome. Immagration is our problem if anything hurts us its the muti million immagrants that illegally migrate here from all over the world now a days many from the former soviet block countrys and Russia.

Wally
Cavalry Gunner

Cavalry Gunner
08-06-2007, 08:10 AM
I will try to get it. I have seen it once before.
So far as I remember it declined sharply since 1980s.

This is from JAMA JOURNAL OF AMERICAN MEDICINE ASSN


Causes of Declining Life Expectancy in Russia
Francis C. Notzon, PhD; Yuri M. Komarov, MD; Sergei P. Ermakov, PhD; Christopher T. Sempos, PhD; James S. Marks, MD; Elena V. Sempos, MD


JAMA. 1998;279:793-800.

Context.— Russian life expectancy has fallen sharply in the 1990s, but the impact of the major causes of death on that decline has not been measured.

Objective.— To assess the contribution of selected causes of death to the dramatic decline in life expectancy in Russia in the years following the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Design.— Mortality and natality data from the vital statistics systems of Russia and the United States.

Setting.— Russia, 1990-1994.

Population.— Entire population of Russia.

Main Outcome Variables.— Mortality rates, life expectancy, and contribution to change in life expectancy.

Methods.— Application of standard life-table methods to calculate life expectancy by year, and a partitioning method to assess the contribution of specific causes of death and age groups to the overall decline in life expectancy. United States data presented for comparative purposes.

Results.— Age-adjusted mortality in Russia rose by almost 33% between 1990 and 1994. During that period, life expectancy for Russian men and women declined dramatically from 63.8 and 74.4 years to 57.7 and 71.2 years, respectively, while in the United States, life expectancy increased for both men and women from 71.8 and 78.8 years to 72.4 and 79.0 years, respectively. More than 75% of the decline in life expectancy was due to increased mortality rates for ages 25 to 64 years. Overall, cardiovascular diseases (heart disease and stroke) and injuries accounted for 65% of the decline in life expectancy while infectious diseases, including pneumonia and influenza, accounted for 5.8%, chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis for 2.4%, other alcohol-related causes for 9.6%, and cancer for 0.7%. Increases in cardiovascular mortality accounted for 41.6% of the decline in life expectancy for women and 33.4% for men, while increases in mortality from injuries (eg, falls, occupational injuries, motor vehicle crashes, suicides, and homicides) accounted for 32.8% of the decline in life expectancy for men and 21.8% for women.

Conclusion.— The striking rise in Russian mortality is beyond the peacetime experience of industrialized countries, with a 5-year decline in life expectancy in 4 years' time. Many factors appear to be operating simultaneously, including economic and social instability, high rates of tobacco and alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, depression, and deterioration of the health care system. Problems in data quality and reporting appear unable to account for these findings. These results clearly demonstrate that major declines in health and life expectancy can take place rapidly.


From the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, Hyattsville, Md (Dr Notzon); MedSocEconomInform and the Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow (Drs Komarov and Ermakov); Department of Internal Medicine and Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Dr C. Sempos); the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Marks); and the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Gaithersburg, Md (Dr E. Sempos). Dr C. Sempos is now with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.



Wally
Cavalry Gunner

Cavalry Gunner
08-06-2007, 08:27 AM
Here is the extract from the Stalin's cabinet visiters journal with the name of a visitor and enter and exit time.



From here (http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%96%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB_%D0%BF%D0%BE% D1%81%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D 1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0/1941) and here (http://militera.lib.ru/research/gorkov2/1941.html).


Wow what a list thats good Stalin saw his Closest Cabinet and Trusted Military leaders. What I ment was he didn't go out in the streets and stayed in his offices afraid of the people and of a military revolt. because of his purges of both the people and the military he had no Idea how his fate was going to turn in those days. Luckily for him the Nazis turned out to be exterminators rather than liberators This drew the Russian people to him instead of away from him, their fate was much better in his hands rather than the Nazis.


Wally
Cavalry Gunner:roll:

Cavalry Gunner
08-06-2007, 08:44 AM
Cavalry Ganner where did you get this mixture of the myths,cold war propogandas and simply lie about Stalinists period?
I suppose from the Wiki ( or something like that);)
This "source' wery like to wite the simular "statistic".

Do the Robert Conquest ever know that the sach historical 'method" could get him the absolute fantastic figures of repressions?He could "prove" everything he waht in such way;)

What Soviet's archives did he mean?
As far as i know the Historian who really hve read the archives give us the figure about 800 000 of executed since 1921-1953 i.e for the 22 years of Stalins period.
The russian historian Viktor Zemkov wrote after the study of the Russian central state archive( former Soviet Archive of October Revolution)
http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_72.htm


This figures nowaday gets even the western historians

Gunner, the Centrall russian Archive and documents about repressions were opened for the western reseaches since 1992. And if they would not so lazy and would not prefer to speculate with figures in spirit of Cold war - welcome to the Moscow for the study;)
Nobody will prevent them.
By while we heread ONLY the stopid claims that "NKVD/KGB specially decrease it in several times".

Oh really ?
I'm not sure about Nazy , but during the period 1936-1989 the population of USSR has increased since 170 mln untill 275 mln i.e in over 100 millions ( this include the decreace the 26 mln dufring the WW2).
Let me notice you that NO ONE state in the west di not reache the simular resaul for that period.
True the soviets material standards of life were less , but social guaranties, free education and free medical service ( hight and special) were one of the best in the world.
True the ald Politburoo was not able to reforme the soviet economy ( like it did the China). But i/m really do not see the reason to say that it was "expence of their people".
As we know today the China is the most dynamic economical development in the world ( they exceed even the USA and most of southern Asia states).
Soon they could be the world economic leaders - how you the sach perspective - the Communist CHina in the head of the world?
So do not do the premature conclusions when the game is not over;)


Cheers.

We also increased our popllation from 1945 to 2007 from 160 million to 300 million as of January this year. I always was under the influance that Russia had some 275 million at the outbreak of wwll but I would have never thought that today we outnumber the Russians in population by some 25 million people by your numbers Go Figure! Russia is 3 times bigger than us in land area were getting pretty crowded over here..

Wally
Cavalry Gunner

Chevan
08-06-2007, 09:52 AM
I will try to get it. I have seen it once before.
So far as I remember it declined sharply since 1980s.

Mate the life level was not declined since 1980.
As i rember we still rised untill 1989 when the economic crisys sharply come to the suface.

Chevan
08-06-2007, 09:57 AM
This is from JAMA JOURNAL OF AMERICAN MEDICINE ASSN


Causes of Declining Life Expectancy in Russia
Francis C. Notzon, PhD; Yuri M. Komarov, MD; Sergei P. Ermakov, PhD; Christopher T. Sempos, PhD; James S. Marks, MD; Elena V. Sempos, MD


JAMA. 1998;279:793-800.

Context.— Russian life expectancy has fallen sharply in the 1990s, but the impact of the major causes of death on that decline has not been measured.

Objective.— To assess the contribution of selected causes of death to the dramatic decline in life expectancy in Russia in the years following the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Design.— Mortality and natality data from the vital statistics systems of Russia and the United States.

Setting.— Russia, 1990-1994.

Population.— Entire population of Russia.

Main Outcome Variables.— Mortality rates, life expectancy, and contribution to change in life expectancy.

Methods.— Application of standard life-table methods to calculate life expectancy by year, and a partitioning method to assess the contribution of specific causes of death and age groups to the overall decline in life expectancy. United States data presented for comparative purposes.

Results.— Age-adjusted mortality in Russia rose by almost 33% between 1990 and 1994. During that period, life expectancy for Russian men and women declined dramatically from 63.8 and 74.4 years to 57.7 and 71.2 years, respectively, while in the United States, life expectancy increased for both men and women from 71.8 and 78.8 years to 72.4 and 79.0 years, respectively. More than 75% of the decline in life expectancy was due to increased mortality rates for ages 25 to 64 years. Overall, cardiovascular diseases (heart disease and stroke) and injuries accounted for 65% of the decline in life expectancy while infectious diseases, including pneumonia and influenza, accounted for 5.8%, chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis for 2.4%, other alcohol-related causes for 9.6%, and cancer for 0.7%. Increases in cardiovascular mortality accounted for 41.6% of the decline in life expectancy for women and 33.4% for men, while increases in mortality from injuries (eg, falls, occupational injuries, motor vehicle crashes, suicides, and homicides) accounted for 32.8% of the decline in life expectancy for men and 21.8% for women.

Conclusion.— The striking rise in Russian mortality is beyond the peacetime experience of industrialized countries, with a 5-year decline in life expectancy in 4 years' time. Many factors appear to be operating simultaneously, including economic and social instability, high rates of tobacco and alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, depression, and deterioration of the health care system. Problems in data quality and reporting appear unable to account for these findings. These results clearly demonstrate that major declines in health and life expectancy can take place rapidly.


From the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, Hyattsville, Md (Dr Notzon); MedSocEconomInform and the Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow (Drs Komarov and Ermakov); Department of Internal Medicine and Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Dr C. Sempos); the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Marks); and the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Gaithersburg, Md (Dr E. Sempos). Dr C. Sempos is now with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.



Wally
Cavalry Gunner

Gunner this is true about 1990-94 when the system crisys in Russian has rised till the facticaly the desintegration in the 1994 ( the war in Checnij).
I mean the period till 1985 - the soviets life was far from it was portrayed in the Western Cold war press and cinema.
Believe me i lived in USSR ;)

Chevan
08-06-2007, 10:10 AM
We also increased our popllation from 1945 to 2007 from 160 million to 300 million as of January this year. I always was under the influance that Russia had some 275 million at the outbreak of wwll but I would have never thought that today we outnumber the Russians in population by some 25 million people by your numbers Go Figure! Russia is 3 times bigger than us in land area were getting pretty crowded over here..

Wally
Cavalry Gunner

Who are We?
And where have you get the crazy figures about "275 million at the outbreak of wwll" sir ;)?

The whole Russian Impaire in the 1914 ( together with Poland and Finland) was no more the 160 of millions of peoples according the Tzar's census?
So you wish to say that since the hurd times of 1918-1941 the population "suddenly" has increased over 100 mln.?
And this is after the repressions of 1937-39 and losing of Finland and Poland?;)
Sorry Gunner what is you historical method?

Egorka
08-06-2007, 02:31 PM
Wow what a list thats good Stalin saw his Closest Cabinet and Trusted Military leaders. What I ment was he didn't go out in the streets and stayed in his offices afraid of the people and of a military revolt. because of his purges of both the people and the military he had no Idea how his fate was going to turn in those days. Luckily for him the Nazis turned out to be exterminators rather than liberators This drew the Russian people to him instead of away from him, their fate was much better in his hands rather than the Nazis.


Wally
Cavalry Gunner:roll:

Wow! That is a new fancy way to admit a mistake! So many words instead of just saying: "I did not know about this. I can see now that my veiw that Stalin hid for 12 days when the German Invasion started, was product of cold war time."

But it is OK. I know it is difficult to admit mistakes. We are humans here , we understand.

As you could see Stalin did not do much out of ordinary. He did not just wonder arround the streets before the war anyway.

Egorka
08-06-2007, 02:35 PM
Mate the life level was not declined since 1980.
As i rember we still rised untill 1989 when the economic crisys sharply come to the suface.

Chevan,

I ment the average life span decreased since 1980s during the 1990s. Or in the nineties compare to eighties. It was the consequense of the Perestroika.

Egorka
08-06-2007, 02:43 PM
Mate the life level was not declined since 1980.
As i rember we still rised untill 1989 when the economic crisys sharply come to the suface.

Chevan,

I ment the average life span decreased since 1980s during the 1990s. Or in the nineties compare to eighties. It was the consequense of the Perestroika.


So far I found only this page: ПРОДОЛЖИТЕЛЬНОСТЬ ЖИЗНИ НАСЕЛЕНИЯ (http://www.sci.aha.ru/ATL/ra8.htm)

Men's life expectancy for some countires (Russia is the lowest):
http://www.sci.aha.ru/ATL/ra82.gif

Women's life expectancy for some countires (Russia is the lowest):
http://www.sci.aha.ru/ATL/ra81.gif


Note the jump in the Russia's men life expectancy in the 1985. It is due to the Gorbachev's alcohole consumption regulations policies.

BTW, as I understand Russia in these graphs does not equal USSR.

Cavalry Gunner
08-13-2007, 07:58 AM
Who are We?
And where have you get the crazy figures about "275 million at the outbreak of wwll" sir ;)?

The whole Russian Impaire in the 1914 ( together with Poland and Finland) was no more the 160 of millions of peoples according the Tzar's census?
So you wish to say that since the hard times of 1918-1941 the population "suddenly" has increased over 100 mln.?
And this is after the repressions of 1937-39 and losing of Finland and Poland?;)
Sorry Gunner what is you historical method?

All I can go on is what I've learned in college and every documentary on the subject that I've seen over the last 40 years.That Russia very much outnumbered the Germans who had only 75 million people. And those were the numbers. Concerning your numers I can assume that if a fact, the U.S. population and the Russian popultion are pretty much on parrellel or have been very close during the last 70 years or so.
Hitler is quoted having said that concerning Russia that he could be much like the British Empire ruling the nation of India where some 70 millon people Ruled
some (at that time) 400 million people.Population is and always has been a difficult subject gathering REAL numbers is really hard Ive done this concerning our country the range of numbers often relates back to who's numers one is willing to believe. like Before this post I've tryed to get some real numbers on this subject and have read numbers from 1941 Russia that range from 111 million to 270 million and Iam not in to throwing darts to fugure it out as all of these sources are from credible establishments i.e. Universitys ,Government Agencies ECT.

Ive done this with our own civil war and the numbers are vastly diffrent from many sources.

Wally
Cavalry Gunner:confused:

Cavalry Gunner
08-13-2007, 09:02 AM
Wow! That is a new fancy way to admit a mistake! So many words instead of just saying: "I did not know about this. I can see now that my veiw that Stalin hid for 12 days when the German Invasion started, was product of cold war time."

But it is OK. I know it is difficult to admit mistakes. We are humans here , we understand.

As you could see Stalin did not do much out of ordinary. He did not just wonder arround the streets before the war anyway.

No no mistake here, you just as most times misinterperate the posts.And try to do a good job at turning the spin on the subject your way.But I don't really care! see I hold a masters degree in history and majored in modern and military history. I also was In the U.S.Army for some 10 years and served along many of your borders and in a couple of wars.
On top of that (hey Iam liking this opportunity to vent) my neighbors are from POLAND and 2 of my friends are from UKRAINE so now and then I get a little personal input on the situation over there that brought them here.
I also had my ex wifes grandfather who was from Lithuania When the Russians were about to take back the Balkins he prefered to leave his fate to the GERMANS rather to live under STALIN and he got out of there and after the war wound up in New York City.
Now that ,along with what Ive been tought over the last 40 years lead me to believe that most of your posts are posted to mislead. And just that leads to the heading of this thread. We here in the West do not understand the Russians and probably never will.. And that is a shame, but after some 45 years of propaganda from both sides bringing 2 societies to really hate each other what does one expect.

Wally
Cavalry Gunner:rolleyes:

Cavalry Gunner
08-13-2007, 10:00 AM
Here is a link to a good film on the German Invasion of Russia 35 min and if you like it you can also see part 2.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=151798573345986466

Wally
Cavalry Gunner

Cavalry Gunner
08-13-2007, 10:30 AM
Heres another link to a great short biography of Joseph Stalin For a College History Project.And a link to part 2 leading up to present day Russia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TxVgFEmPM Part 1 A short Biography

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC06yA3EhKY link to part 2

Wally
Cavalry Gunner

Chevan
08-14-2007, 01:37 AM
All I can go on is what I've learned in college and every documentary on the subject that I've seen over the last 40 years.That Russia very much outnumbered the Germans who had only 75 million people.

And did somebody in college told you about that in the 1941( in the moment of Invasion) the Germans FULLY controlled the territory with population over 150 mln of peoples ( plus 75 of GErmans).
Besides the such high-industrial states like the France and Chechoslovakia ( only chehoslovakia prodused as many wearpon as the whole Britain in that time).

And those were the numbers. Concerning your numers I can assume that if a fact, the U.S. population and the Russian popultion are pretty much on parrellel or have been very close during the last 70 years or so.

No Russian population but but Population of the USSR !!!
The Population of USSR after the war increased constantly from about 200 mln till the 275 mln if the mid of 1980 this was more the the population of the USA in this time 240 mln).
However after desintagration the USSR the pure Russian Federation population was less then 165 mln in 1993 for the moment.


Cheers.

Chevan
08-14-2007, 01:49 AM
Now that ,along with what Ive been tought over the last 40 years lead me to believe that most of your posts are posted to mislead. And just that leads to the heading of this thread. We here in the West do not understand the Russians and probably never will..
Oh really you are so great specialist of the my ( and Egorka) histroy to say him that his posts goes to mislead?
Do not make us laught sir.
My ancestors live in the Russian impare/USSR for the all time AND NO ONE has emigrated to the west . I personaly lived in USSR 14 years till the collapse. So you will tell me about the USSR's life and try teach the my history : what figures are arong and what was right?
:D

Cavalry Gunner
08-15-2007, 09:41 AM
Oh really you are so great specialist of the my ( and Egorka) histroy to say him that his posts goes to mislead?
Do not make us laught sir.
My ancestors live in the Russian impare/USSR for the all time AND NO ONE has emigrated to the west . I personaly lived in USSR 14 years till the collapse. So you will tell me about the USSR's life and try teach the my history : what figures are arong and what was right?
:D

Of Course ! your numbers are totaly wrong your statements are totaly wrong and your post suggest sympathy for the great Soviet State. When It was the Soviet Government that broke your backs not just Gorbachav he just did what he had to do to keep the Soviet Ball Rolling if he haden't done what he did the Soviets would have fallen faster.Many starved but they sure had a big army ( although by that time they wern't being paid). I have a choice listen to your misleading statements or listen to scholars who not only teach your history but are involved in forming relations with your country. I have no time for dribble or propaganda or opinions I deal in facts.
Remember this it was said by a Japaneese Officer involved in the Manchurian incident and upped to the fact that they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of manchurian chineese ( "If we don't acknowlege what we did and learn from our mistakes we can never grow as a people") Socialism never works never has and never will . Hitler was a socialist too and things were great in Germany under his rule, untill the world got tired of him sticking a gun in their faces all the time. Democracy is hard to achive it takes time and patience Germany took 40 years to become the biggest economic power in europe but they had to ride bycycles before they drove mercedes I personally watched them come out of the ashes of WWll and Ill quote another German who Adored Hitler during the war she was his secratary Trudl Jung she said in 1988
(" After the war and after I came home from prison and realized what he had done to the world and after I saw what Democracy can do I wish there will never ever be another Hitler") I'm not going to go over this discussion again Ive already posted not only my sorces but video ect if you don't believe or are more likely unwilling to take these sorces as truthful well so be it .In my view (and this is a personal view )it sounds like the propaganda machine is still rolling over there so I don't and won't believe anything from their news or statements because to me it's not credible.( Feel free to believe the same about ours)
It is said in the western news that many people are turning back to the days of Stalin in Russia as they believe those days were better than now... truth or propaganda? What I wish for Russia its people and government is to promote business and create more jobs fight the crime and keep good people safe and I would like to see them join the European Community as a full member and trade in Euros ,come join the rest of the world and prosper.
I added the video with Kruchev as he was willing to at least admit that under Stalin the purges killed millions of soviet citizens and his party chastized him for Telling the Truth.

Wally
Cavalry Gunner


Wally
Cavalry Gunner

Egorka
08-17-2007, 03:28 PM
No no mistake here, you just as most times misinterperate the posts.And try to do a good job at turning the spin on the subject your way.But I don't really care!
Hello Gunner,

You did not know about the visitor's journal. And you should have acknoledged that when I told you. But you choose instead to defend your reputation. Well, it is up to you.

Yes, I do try to spin the subject my way. But I never lie about what I know. I never twist facts and never hide facts if I know them. I do allow different interpretations, but never facts misuse.

So to get beck to the specifics about your statement ""Stalin hid for 12 days. It is an air bouble!



see I hold a masters degree in history and majored in modern and military history. I also was In the U.S.Army for some 10 years and served along many of your borders and in a couple of wars.
On top of that (hey Iam liking this opportunity to vent) my neighbors are from POLAND and 2 of my friends are from UKRAINE so now and then I get a little personal input on the situation over there that brought them here.
I also had my ex wifes grandfather who was from Lithuania When the Russians were about to take back the Balkins he prefered to leave his fate to the GERMANS rather to live under STALIN and he got out of there and after the war wound up in New York City.
Hat is off! I more that ready to allow that you as an individual have more life experiense and maybe even knowlede.

Yet I just can not see how it all turns the Stalin's visitor's journal into void!


Now that ,along with what Ive been tought over the last 40 years lead me to believe that most of your posts are posted to mislead.
Mislead? In which way? Like I invented the Stalin's visitor's journal?

Cavalry Gunner
08-20-2007, 06:34 PM
Hello Gunner,

You did not know about the visitor's journal. And you should have acknoledged that when I told you. But you choose instead to defend your reputation. Well, it is up to you.

Yes, I do try to spin the subject my way. But I never lie about what I know. I never twist facts and never hide facts if I know them. I do allow different interpretations, but never facts misuse.

So to get beck to the specifics about your statement ""Stalin hid for 12 days. It is an air bouble!



Hat is off! I more that ready to allow that you as an individual have more life experiense and maybe even knowlede.

Yet I just can not see how it all turns the Stalin's visitor's journal into void!


Mislead? In which way? Like I invented the Stalin's visitor's journal?

The names on the Journal speak for themselves It's not a very good example to prove your point. Just because he saw nothing but the very upper level communists like Molotov dosn't mean he wasn't hiding . It is like saying if Hitler was hiding saying he wasn't hiding because he saw Gobbles,Goring and Himmler. As Hard as you try you can't rewrite history.

Wally (Cavalry Gunner):roll:

Egorka
08-31-2007, 05:10 PM
As Hard as you try you can't rewrite history.


I can not rewrite the history and francly speaking I have no need for it. I am perfectly aware of the problems that my country had in the 20th century.

But I will object to the errors and misrepresentation that keep appearing over and over.


The names on the Journal speak for themselves It's not a very good example to prove your point. Just because he saw nothing but the very upper level communists like Molotov dosn't mean he wasn't hiding . It is like saying if Hitler was hiding saying he wasn't hiding because he saw Gobbles,Goring and Himmler.
The names speak for themselves? Sure, of course they do! Who do you suggest Stalin should had met during first few days of the war? The poeple responsible for defence and economy? NO way sais Cavalry Gunner. He should had met workers and peasants! He should had met simple people and spend time with them. That would be the wisest thing to do.

I am sure George Bush walkes around with no body guards around him.

So here is the question for you:
Was Stalin's behaviour during those 12 days radicaly different? Did he walked on the streets before that and then hid for 12 days? WHAT was different in those 12 days?