Printable View
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr...ebook-20120406
Do Russians have some warped culture where they're willing to embrace a man as "great" who killed millions under his rule?
Or perhaps more generally, are there reasons why Stalin is not viewed as a total monster as Hitler is, besides the lack of Soviet records and the fact that the Soviets didn't start WW2?
I thought Poland started World War 2 in 1920?
I can't even begin to describe how warped the culture is, but then perhaps I shouldn't, as I'm Estonian and very biased.
"History is written by the winners"Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
Cue Eki and his Bush comments...
:uhoh:
I'd guess Eki likes Stalin even less than Bush.. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
It does make you wonder how bad things must be for some people in Russia today that they look back at Stalin's regime as a better time. There's usually a nostalgia for one's youth, though; no matter how bad things actually were at least you could still move all your joints.
There are two underlying cultural factors for Stalin's cult in Russia (and Belarus, to some extent). One is a pretty low value attached to the human life. Another is Russia's permanent want of "greatness". On the balance it means that if somebody expanded the borders of the country, he is regarded as a great, no matter how many human lives he screwed in the process.
If Hitler had won the World War 2, he now likely would have been voted for the greatest German ever. He lost, so he's now just a big pathetic loser in the eyes of the Germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
No vote would have been held. The propaganda machine would have made him the greatest German ever by default.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Which, in part, explains the historical “greatness” of some of Stalins predecessors, notably Nicholas II, Catherine the Great (although she was moderate by comparison), and even previously, Ivan IV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Hitler people killed people next door.
Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe etc. kill their own people and the world is sort of alright with that. Pol Pot especially probably killed about 3 million people and his his punishment was to be put under house arrest and watch Corrie and eat scones and jam with nice cup of Earl Grey tea.
Thankfully, I don't think that's the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
There's a campaign in Russia to put dear papa-Stalin also on buses, to commemorate the victory in the "Great Fatherland War" (aka WW2). In early May, these are supposed to appear in about a dozen Russian cities, as well as Kiev, Minsk, Riga, and Tallinn. Well, I dare say they won't appear in Riga and Tallinn. :)
http://g3.nh.ee/images/pix/900x585/5...1_88eab960.jpg
I think you're spot on. It's very sad, almost laughable, to see how a lot of Russians are apparently impressed by the likes of Putin's attempts at miltary muscle-flexing, when in fact the Russian military is in an appalling state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiruwiru
Great comment. It is very sad that so many people value "greatness" more than the human life and dignity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Don't forget that russians still think Soviets freed Europe from facists, when in fact it was like saving someone from rape only to rape that person again. When russian textbooks still make little mention of the crimes committed by Stalin and give an otherwise warped picture of WW2, then it is no surprise. Of course, blame lies on western countries as well. Communism should be condemned and equalled with nazism. As for starting WW2, USSR was at least as much to blame for it as Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
Ah, think I will use that picture of Stalin as a target the next time I go shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiruwiru
Appalling might the state of it be, but it is still a danger. No reason to underrate the strength of their army.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
But then why mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt didn't take these into account at Yalta conference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
In what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Why? I think they are more a danger to their own people and those of former Soviet states than they are the West.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
It is an interesting fact — not opinion — that some of the most vehement anti-Communists in the UK after the war were socialists, such as members of Clement Attlee's first post-war Labour administration, something a lot of right-wingers find hard to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
The political spectrum is a circle so when you go too far to the perceived left you tend to end up returning via the right.
It works the other way, too.
History lesson. Stalin wanted Hitler to go to war with other major european countries, drain the resources, then come in and "free" the whole europe from nazis. That was the whole point of MRP for Stalin. He was a smart man and knew well enough what that pact would result in - whole out war in europe, not just the dividing of the baltic states and Poland. That is exactly what he wanted. In fact, according to MRP, Stalin was supposed to attack Poland on 1st september as well, but he said he wasn't ready, so their attack was delayed until 17th september. It is weird how France and UK didn't declare war on USSR, but did on Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Thankfully Hitler did europe a favour by attacking USSR first and forcing such huge losses on them that come 1945, Soviets couldn't go any further.
Aren't former Soviet states european countries? Could you not, based on their economic developments, classify them under western countries?Quote:
Why? I think they are more a danger to their own people and those of former Soviet states than they are the West.
When the war in europe was less than 2 months from the finish? To be honest, I have zero respect for both of them for siding with USSR in WW2 (nor should they have sided with Germany), but I guess they feared Hitler more than Stalin.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
Even the rabied communists that are still in existence these days (as sad as that fact might be that some people are so insane) are full of hate towards your average liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Er... no, because the terms 'eastern' and 'western' are geographical, not economic. You couldn't call Japan a western country, would you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Western world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
If you want geographical terminology, then Germany is not a western country, as it is in the eastern hemisphere.
Anyway, any comments on MRP or who started the world war 2?
No, because not having myself read about what you describe, I have no way of coming to my own view on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
The way I perceive the facts is a bit different. By Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in 1939 Hitler and Stalin divided their sphere of their influence in Eastern Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Then, in 1945, at Yalta, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill played again with the destiny of millions of people in the east.
For me all these guys are guilty. I know things are more complicated in politics and national interest is always what it counts ( they say that even Lenin was brought to Russia by german secret services), but still...
I don't care if today my country is classified as western ( now don't make me laugh.....) or eastern. Economic development is relative but the psychic trauma we have suffered for about 50 years will follow us for a very long period of time.
Can I just say that I am wiruwiru and I approve Garry Walker's messages on this thread. :up:
Ben, where would you draw the line between East and West? Still along the Iron Curtain? I don't think the distinction is so much geographical as it is cultural. As Samuel Huntington would probably say, it's a matter of civilizations. Here is his map of civilizations from 1996.
http://i1059.photobucket.com/albums/...diose1/civ.jpg
I take it purely as a geographical term. This doesn't disguise the fact that it is now outdated.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiruwiru
Interesting that japanese are on their own like some sort of ET-s.
Bosnia is Orthodox? (oh dear what may I be starting?)Quote:
Originally Posted by wiruwiru
I’m not sure I understand what that map is trying to achieve.
It's a mix of national boundaries, cultural and religious demarcations.
Why are some countries grouped as, for example, “orthodox” or “Buddhist” whereas others are purely national, e.g. Japanese. Japan could just as easily be grouped as “Buddhist”.
Or, one could throw in “Catholic” and completely change the map :mark: .
It is one political scientist's view on the major civilizations of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
What a truly bizarre set of divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiruwiru
What truly simplistic and frankly bizarre assertions of history.
Studlie-ousus, I know you are no fan of what the Soviets did to Estonia, but it smells an awful like what the guy "Walker' is if fact saying is an veiled support for that which the Germans did...or, at best, equivocation... the "they all the same thing" argument.
tsk tsk tsk.....
I see no support for what the Germans did in Garry Walker's posts. And would you prefer one murderous dictator to another, especially given that Stalin's death toll was higher than Hitler's, and they essentially started the war together?Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Yes, "they all the same thing".
I read his book clash of civilisations and its pretty poorly thought out. As for the map, its nonsensical and ignores political alignments. There have been more wars between states in a particular civilisation area than there are between them, just look at Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiruwiru
Any map that classifies, say, Turkey (which is still closely tied to Israel) with the Arab states and Iran as one monolithic bloc is worthless, even a cursory look at the history of the last 200 years in that area would show you that.
As for the assertion that the USSR was looking to get involved in WW2 Stalin certainly had an odd way of getting ready by purging his armed forces of its best officers and keeping units deliberately short of ammunition so they wouldn't cause much damage if/when they rebelled. Stalin agreed to take Eastern Poland as part of the RMP as it was a 'freebie'. Why shouldn't he have taken it if he was offered it in return for a guarantee that the Soviets would not intervene in Poland?
That's a curious morality you're arguing under... Why not? :rolleyes: Because Poland was a sovereign nation, as were Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, which Stalin attacked in late 1939.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Yes, the USSR was not ready to fight a major power in 1939. (It was hardly ready in 1941..) But the fact remains that the war started 7 days after the signing of the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, and within a few months the USSR had annexed Eastern Poland, the Baltics and several other territories, as well as starting a war against Finland.
They seemed to be involved pretty damned quickly..
Stalin was looking for low hanging fruit (though Finland proved tougher than expected) and Poland with it's forces fighting Germany was not only the easiest grab but also the largest potential threat and the most bitter memory in the minds of Russians. Poland had attacked the Soviet Union in 1920, took Vilnius for its own in the same year, then took a piece of Czechoslovakia in league with Germany in 1938 so there wasn't as much sympathy for them in the USSR.
What do you think, which kind of map would be a good one then? As far as I am concerned, as dividing a world into parts is subjective, it is open to interpreration, depends on the goal and is easily debatable.
I'm not arguing morality, after all I think that was an alien concept to Stalin anyway. All those countries you mention are in the USSR and in particular Russia's sphere of influence. It is one thing to suggest that Stalin wanted to reassert Soviet power in its sphere of influence and quite another to say that he wanted to expand into areas where Russia had never before extended like Eastern and Central Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiruwiru
Likewise China since the revolution has been extremely aggressive in its assertion of power in its own local sphere of influence but until recently was completely absent outside it. It is possible to behave completely differently inside and outside your sphere of influence, and that is what Stalin did.