Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where were the leaders of the Soviet Union headquartered?
I doubt it was in Poland !
Oh boy....
It's not a question whether Russia was part of the Soviet Union, it's a question of specific political system that Soviet Union was. So in times of that *specific political system* the citizens of that country were not allowed to freely leave the country - yes, it's true.
I know people will say "oh other countries have been violent too!" but think about it, Russia has always been known for being extremely violent/manipulative/cruel/etc, and even with the likes of nazi Germany it was right up there in violence, cruelty, sadism etc. And even with the fall of the Soviet Union hasn't gotten much better.
Russia even today doesn't have the least bit of a problem assassinating those it doesn't like or oppressing or acting otherwise brutal and inhumane towards those it doesn't like.
Why has Russia had such a hard time getting a moral/ethical compass so to speak?
Only difference is Russians do it to their people within their territory. British and its English tribe do it to others all over the world .
NEVER has anyone said inexperienced troops were put on the front lines and experienced troops behind with order to shoot any front troops who retreated.
It was common with the Russians.
That you are offering anecdotal evidence of assorted outrages suggests to me that you did not grasp the point I wished to make.
That point was.....no nation has a guilt free past. Property has always been a matter of power rather than morality. To single out Russia as especially cruel requires ignoring the past cruelty of other nations, including our own. The US history contains all of the good things and accomplishments associated with the nation, but it also contains the stories of native displacement and black slavery.
So, no, lets not have the "I'll see your horror and raise you....." approach to history.
Well "KKK" and "Trail of tears" is all true and shouldn't be ignored either, ...
Of course, and the History forum is the perfect place for a discussion of those topics. Just not in a thread about Russian history, in my opinion.
Quote:
Well that was not the part of initial OP question, but I don't mind conversation turning this way, therefore you obviously can share your thoughts on this particular subject.
I can't look at a question about Russian history without thinking how it effects us, today. Russia is who they are because of their history, and if you just glance at the national news you'll see that they do effect us.
I think Russian geographical isolation has a lot to do with their history and why they are so "different" from us in the West. They were isolated from the Renaissance that happened in Western and Southern Europe. Their church split from the Catholic church 1,000 years ago (the Protestants only split 500 years ago, while the Renaissance was in full swing). They use not only a different language but a different alphabet. They used a different calendar until about 100 years ago. When Napoleon invaded, the Russians scorched their own earth to prevent the French army from finding food or shelter as the winter closed in. They came late to the Industrial Revolution because the Tsars were well taken care of by the traditional agrarian economy. When they did get rail service their trains didn't even use the same gauge as the rest of Europe which caused interruptions in travel which underscored the "otherness" of the place. Their warm-water ports are bottled up on the Black Sea. Even Communism failed because that system was geared toward an industrialized economy, not an agrarian one, and the Soviets could force their scientists to make nuclear bombs but they couldn't force the peasants to catch up with the West at the point of a bayonet. When something makes international news in Russia, it's usually bad: Chernobyl, the Beslan school massacre, the collapse of communism.
So what does all this mean? In my untrained opinion I think the historical lack of political power for most people, the harsh winters, the geographical isolation, and the general backwardness of the commodity-based economy, the 17 million dead in World War II, all comes together to harden people and give them the sense that they don't have all that much to lose or that if they obtained success, it would be snatched away arbitrarily (we see this in our own violent inner cities today, and in the violent "hillbilly" societies of the past).
It's the other way around.
Since lower classes were exploited mercilessly in Russia non-stop, ( with refusal of the upper classes to follow the ideas of the "Age of Enlightenment,") there was nothing left for the lower classes to do but to drink in desperation, since no matter what they'd make - everything was taken away by their "superiors" and channeled for their lavish lives somewhere in Nice.
You are not familiar with the Russian literature/art enough, that testified about it over and over, until the big revolt happened called "Revolution."
Yes I know. But you also know that I don't have really the most neutral view on Russia.
I recently watched a BBC TV series adaptation of 'War and Peace'. I loved it! We also watched 'Crime and Punishment' with my mom. But I still have so many zapad classics unread, so it will take quite some time to get to Russia.
So long as I'm in war-waging age I have to keep my hatred towards Russia so I can be able to kill them when they some day - once again - decide to cross the border.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
In spite of the fact that Russia had serfdom and absolute monarchy, (or rather BECAUSE of it,) Russia was a hotbed of the most progressive ideas of those times, that shared a lot of them with their Western counterparts, starting from the Decembrists, including the long list of the Socialists, that were all rooted in Europe, and ending with Lenin, (whose roots are going yet again all the way to Europe - because that's where the majority of Russian intelligentsia - philosophers and thinkers have been educated.)
Didn't stop the Grand Duchy to implement universal suffrage, an unicameral parliament and a 8-hour work day. Isn't it quite ironic that a country which was officially under Russia was the first one to give the vote to women in Europe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
And while it's true that one brutal dictatorship has been replaced by the other, one needs to remember that Russians initially sacrificed the democracy for the security of state, that has been attacked and tested many times throughout history.
So did many countries in Europe, take comfort in that.
But even when we were punched in the face by Nikolay II, allied with Hitler and then pressured by Stalin and Khruschev, we never dropped our democratic ideals, because we knew that if we lose that, we will lose everything.
England? Not Britain? What murder, genocide and eradication are you talking about exactly? Why is 'England' any worse than Spain or anywhere else for that matter? Worse than what Stalin did across Eastern Europe? Or the Nazis? Worse than the Japanese in WW2? Worse than the Belgians in Africa or the Tutsis and Hutus? Worse than what the Serbs and Croats were doing to each other? Worse than the Americans and their eradication of the North American Natives?Just because Britain (not England) had the most successful Empire in that period does it mean they were the cruellest? Why do you say that? Or is it that you don't actually know?
Central and South America still have substantial native populations. In many cases the natives are still the majority. English colonies like the US and Canada systematically wiped out the natives. When the US gained independence from England, it continued English policies. Compare the results with Spanish colonization, which enslaved the natives, but allowed them to survive.
True, Stalin killed 20 million people in his purges, but many of them were Russians. Native peoples on the fringes of the empire were almost untouched.
I know people will say "oh other countries have been violent too!" but think about it, Russia has always been known for being extremely violent/manipulative/cruel/etc, and even with the likes of nazi Germany it was right up there in violence, cruelty, sadism etc. And even with the fall of the Soviet Union hasn't gotten much better.
Russia even today doesn't have the least bit of a problem assassinating those it doesn't like or oppressing or acting otherwise brutal and inhumane towards those it doesn't like.
Why has Russia had such a hard time getting a moral/ethical compass so to speak?
For over the past 1000 years. Russia has been the gateway between the Eastern and Western Worlds. Plenty of invasions from tribes such as the Germanic tribes, Huns, Slavs, Mongols have come through the Area of Russia. Russia history of violence seems to stem from its Viking raiding, and Mongol invasion origins. Also the Russian people are always at a state of war and on the defensive. This is why Russia is so large and vast with natural borders. Russia in its infancy fought off the Mongols and became free from the Mongol Yolk. The growing Russia encountered three enemies. To the North was the Swedes, to the South was the Ottoman Turks and to the west was the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom. Russia fought all three and expanded into their territories. In the East Russia also made war with declining Mongol states and expanded into Central Asia, as well as war with the Persian Empire. Russia expanded so far east, that it will soon put them in conflict with the Japanese peoples, and expanded so far south, that Russia bordered the British Empire which controlled India. Russia expanded on to so much countries, it resulted in conflicts with many nations across the known world except in Africa.
19th century Russia fought Napoleonic France, Persia, Ottoman Turks, and also fought the British during the Great Game. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia fought Japan over East Asia which Russia lost the conflict and secured Japans position as the power in East Asia. Russia fought Germany to back and forth game in the Eastern theater, but made advances on weaker Austrian, Bulgarian and Turkish forces. But the cost of the conflict and warn out Russian people turned inwards and fought each other for Civil War in which the Communist won. Looking back. Russia seems to have a bloody history. But Russia is not the only civilization that is not like this. Other civilizations too have a bloody and violent history. Look at Spain for example with 700 years of fighting Muslims, than forced their attention on killing Native Americans, enslaving Africans and than later trying to conquer Europe. Or look at the British history and see how bloody that is. Or even Chinese history. Or history of the Greek people and how bloody that was over the past three thousand years except for being subjects under Roman and Turkish rule which seem to be peaceful.
Last. America is the primier dominant of the Anglo Saxon race. Historically Britain and Russia butt heads with one another over Empire. Britain controlled the Atlantic system and barred Russia from trading through the oceans. The decline of the British Empire, saw its child colonial reject, the United States take over the Atlantic system. The same way how Britain treated Russia, is the same way America treats Russia today. Russia can be easily blocked from access through the trade ocean going networks via Japan, the Danes and Turkey under the American allied system. Russia is the mortal enemy of the Anglo Saxon race. Latin race or the Roman speaking people lost their chances under Spanish, Portuguese and Franco Napoleonic ambitions. Germany lost its chances on both world wars. Greeks had their chances twice. Greeks need the control of Italy and Anatolia in order to produce anything. Scandanvians had their chances with the Vikings, but got too involved in local European politics during the Middle Ages. This leaves two tribes who are not exhausted. The Anglo Saxon Race USA , vs the Slavic Race dominated by Russia. If the US gets exhausted. Maybe Australia and NZ will pick up the fight?
Last edited by Bronxguyanese; 03-31-2017 at 06:09 PM..
I asked for your evidence that Grant was some sort of butcher.....that what happened was the product of a deliberate plan. Do you have any evidence of that? None of the links you provided offers any connection between a policy by President Grant and the extermination of native tribes. They all address what happened, none address the planning stages.
You have wasted my time with false links which do not support your position regarding Grant's individual guilt. Do you have anything to present which does address this?
I have trouble with your characterization of Grant as an ignorant stumblebum. True, he was a drunk, but he had also commanded the Union Army during the Civil War. To imagine that he did not issue orders to the officers he appointed or require detailed reports of their actions beggars belief. He knew exactly what was going on in the West.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
