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.
Really I wish they got back up on the 'ramparts'.....might put some realism into some in the West who bend over backwards to accommodate arguably a 'gangsta' state...
Hello erasure.....nice to see you come back and chat after your vacation in the Crimea perhaps???...;-)...I'd go too but I'm not to sure this touristski would get a nice reception. Who knows that they'd say about me? But I wouldn't want to put anybody else in hot water by simply talking to me. I have the feeling it would be like going back to the old 'cold war' feeling again over there in 'dem dere parts' where everything takes place in ice buckets..;-)....
Hello Travric, if I were on vacation for real, I'd rather be here for a day or two, not Crimea ; they honor a *birthday* of my former neighbor ( and friend) in Moscow who would have turned 50 today, if he were still alive. It has been declared *his year.*
Anyway, in talking about Stalin I think Russians compartmentalize their thinking on the old boy. They love and feared and no doubt still fear his ghost which prowls the inner sanctums of the Kremlin and onto the streets and to the houses, families and lands of mother Russia.
It depends. Younger generation idolizes him I think; their understanding of Stalin seems to be very idealistic. The older generation is still very much divided on this matter; some think that he was a plague, some think that he was the greatest man alive and only certain part is looking at things in more objective manner.
Quote:
Of course he did much to protect them from the Hitlerian sickness. For sure they look up to him for that.
No, not only for that, ( that's only part of it,) but for his ability to think globally, to understand what steps needed to be taken in order to secure the might of the state and with it to assure the future of the nation.
Quote:
But Russians also seem to practice some sort of lobotomy on themselves when it comes to thinking about the millions destroyed in the Russian heartland not by Hitler but by Russians themselves doing Stalin's bidding by pulling the trigger themselves on their citizens and shuttling them off to the utterly dismal gulags. What a rapacious time it was to live in Russia. It would seem all that is deeply buried in the Russian soul. Perhaps that behavior is the only way to heal from Stalin's attack on the Russian people. And further that that 'love' given to him is given out of deep repression. This 'father' of Russia arguably presents much suffering to its children as the country grows.
It were ( objectively speaking) very difficult times for Russia - not just because of Stalin alone. It were post-revolutionary times, (not to mention the devastating civil war that destroyed the country,) then the drought years followed and the list goes on. Stalin had to deal with the consequences of the inequities of tzarist Russia - the predecessor, that left a lot of mess and left the country in a very vulnerable position, taking in consideration Western appetites. So not EVERYTHING can be blamed on him, as the West usually likes to do it.
It were ( objectively speaking) very difficult times for Russia - not just because of Stalin alone. It were post-revolutionary times, (not to mention the devastating civil war that destroyed the country,) then the drought years followed and the list goes on. Stalin had to deal with the consequences of the inequities of tzarist Russia - the predecessor, that left a lot of mess and left the country in a very vulnerable position, taking in consideration Western appetites. So not EVERYTHING can be blamed on him, as the West usually likes to do it.
I'm no fan of Stalin but he (and his people) made the hard decisions necessary to keep the country from complete disaster. Abe Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves, he went to war to keep the United States together and to do that he had to subjugate the southern states in a bloody war. Leaders the world over throughout history have done the same thing in various ways.
I have seen soldiers on the streets of Seattle, Rome, Athens, Mombasa and Kisauni where these soldiers robbed me and a friend. I have seen what a government is capable of. I know that the people who are part of the governments in ANY country will do ANYTHING to stay in their positions of power.
Say what you will about Stalin but where the rubber meets the road the end does justify the means.
I'm no fan of Stalin but he (and his people) made the hard decisions necessary to keep the country from complete disaster. Abe Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves, he went to war to keep the United States together and to do that he had to subjugate the southern states in a bloody war. Leaders the world over throughout history have done the same thing in various ways.
I have seen soldiers on the streets of Seattle, Rome, Athens, Mombasa and Kisauni where these soldiers robbed me and a friend. I have seen what a government is capable of. I know that the people who are part of the governments in ANY country will do ANYTHING to stay in their positions of power.
Say what you will about Stalin but where the rubber meets the road the end does justify the means.
But Abe Lincoln waged a war against an Army, he did not commit a genocide. Stalin killed millions in Ukraine to Russianize it in the 30s, and put anyone who disagreed with him in a gulag in Siberia to die, and the Result, A country that didn't last 40 years after his death.
It sort of Reminds me of Andrew Jackson someone who was immensely popular for leading a nation into a new Era, but once people look into it, he was a genocidal psychopath who no one would like to lead today.
Last edited by btownboss4; 03-26-2015 at 04:56 AM..
But Abe Lincoln waged a war against an Army, he did not commit a genocide. Stalin killed millions in Ukraine to Russianize it in the 30s, and put anyone who disagreed with him in a gulag in Siberia to die, and the Result, A country that didn't last 40 years after his death.
.
Westerners need to stop reading west made books about Stalin: it seems these books have at most 50% real facts and the rest is author's fantasies. There were plenty of people who argued with Stalin yet lived long and happy lives - Mikhail Bulgakov one of the best world class modern writers ever existed as one good example.
No-one specifically killed Ukrainians to "Russianze" them (what a BS!!) - it was a natural disaster in a post-civil war country.
Or may be folks here don't even read books, just saw some brainwash BS on BBC and base their world views solely on that kind of stuff?
I'm not denying what Stalin did, documentation even though twisted and distorted as it is is readily available and aspects of it are undeniable. I am merely stating the fact that any government would do it if it was needed.
I don't agree that Lincoln waged a war against an army, he waged a war with another group of frat boys who wanted to have things their own way. It just so happens they also had a herd of willing dupes that for whichever reasons marched off to war and died in droves. Some people say Shermans (remember the saying "war is hell"?) march to the sea was a means to an end and it is said the means justified the end. Sadly the common people of cities like Atlanta who were starved to death and died of related diseases were a result of that means.
People should not make the mistake that when a politician stands on a podium and says so and so did this to so and so the suit has good intentions. That's the thing people miss, the suit lecturing them does not have the best intentions in mind, he's saving himself while sending other gullible idiots to die usually.
They all do it in one form or another. Stalin, Hitler, Netanyahu, Cortez, Lincoln, George Washington, King Ricahrd the Lion Hearted.
No side in this conflict is good. What is happening in Ukraine now is not about helping anyone, it's about POWER. It's one group of oligarchs and frat boys using people for their own ends against another group of frat boys. Believe me they'll throw as many bodies into the fight as they need to in order to get their way, they'll fight until the last Ukrainian child is bleeding out on the street in order to get what they want so long as their children are somewhere else. The one thing you will NEVER see is Porkochunko, Yaksukyuk, Pootie Put General Breedlove, Merkel, Obama, McInsane, Cheney or any of their family or friends anywhere near a weapons pit when there's artillery shells and bullets flying around.
What Stalin did was done. What Andrew Jackson did is done. And now the beat goes on. It's not changing anytime soon.
I'm not denying what Stalin did, documentation even though twisted and distorted as it is is readily available and aspects of it are undeniable. I am merely stating the fact that any government would do it if it was needed.
Exactly. Somehow the topic about Ukraine turned out to be just another Russia bashing by pulling out anything negative one can find about the country.
Stalin was bad. Yes.
Was Kennedy good? Yes.
Did he live long and happy life then in the "best and most free country in the world"? Nope. Why?? Plainly because the "best and most free country in the world" has been in fact ruled by Jewish financial mafia in form of 5 major private banks and ruthless corrupted military commanders. Once the good guy Kennedy announced his banking and military reforms he didn't survive 3 months.
So here's why US did not need its Stalin - because no one since Kennedy death EVER tried to do any major system reform, they just scared, so there's no need to do any oppression. The herd just obeys the master.
Very good. They are rockers! A nice homage to your friend. I like that Sgt. Pepper pix in there too...;-)..I see how perhaps we could agree that music (as well as lit and art) provides a touchstone between different cultures. Let us rock on!
And back to Uncle Joe. Points taken. The thing I'd say that is most impressive with Stalin is the fact that he knew where everything ran from and that was from the the 'state'. It was the state that held power. And it had to be very strong . And he had to be as its head. So in that it appears that has been consistently handed down to his successors and it seems that they way they like it. It has its positives and negatives like all political structures. I'd say when things go 'good', when bad it can be 'very very bad' as we've seen in Stalin's stewardship of the Russian state.
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.
; they honor a *birthday* of my former neighbor ( and friend) in Moscow who would have turned 50 today, if he were still alive. It has been declared *his year.*
