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.
Oh, come on! It's a known fact that Stalin deported masses of Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians after WWII. One could argue it was justified, since they sided with the Germans during the war, in a desperate attempt to regain/maintain their independence, but of course, those peoples don't see it that way. And I wonder how much they would hate the Russians among them if the Russians were willing to learn the official state language. What's the big deal about learning the language? It's not too much to ask, in exchange for voting rights/rights of citizenship.
An explanation (?) of what occurred in the Baltic States just before WWII may be in order. What the Soviets did was a brutal necessity in the situation. If you're going to conquer a country and control it you take anybody that can possibly give you trouble somewhere else in some manner. You don't want the ruling class of said country to have any power or influence what so ever so it's bye bye.
An example of the result of not occupying/conquering a country correctly can be observed in US policy in Iraq. America disbanded the ruling class of the country and tried to be nice about it. It didn't work out well.
As for the Balkan States I couldn't care less what the Soviets did to the ruling class. They were just petty lords serving themselves for the most part fearing only for their salaries and power not for their countries.
When the ruling elite of one country offs the ruling elite of another it's a good thing.
Just another day in Siberia. In Russia the dogs run free, bears go for walks on leashes.
Very cute. But what will happen to them when they get too big to live in the apartment?
BTW, scientists have isolated the substance in bear bile that has healing properties, and it's now being manufactured synthetically. I forget where I came across that bit of info, but it sounds like quite a scientific breakthrough. I think it was in a youtube vid on the Saami relationship with bears. Now if only the Chinese could be convinced to use it in place of real bear bile...
I really doubt it will make a difference Ruth. Sad. Russians do have a wider taste in house pets than most. I couldn't imagine some of these in an aprtment.
I don't think that you just can go and purchase a bear cub in a pet store in Russia.
What it looks like ( from what I see on Youtube at least,) is that bears are quite a prominent part of a picture in Russia's country-side, and not only in Siberia. And it looks like quite a few of them are killed by poachers, and that's how the orphaned cubs end up in villages ( or probably even cities,) looking for food.
I see quite a few reports here -
So my guess is, people keep them only while they are little and cute, but then they find different arrangements where to place them, even though they are saying that it's a problem, because once the cubs are raised by people, when they are set free in the wild, they always return to people.
That is not to say that SOME Russians do not have wild animals as pets. But grown-up bears in apartments? I don't think you'll see it too often)))
So it looks like poaching is a root of a problem here.
You are wrong. You are either a fool or a provocateur. Anyone can become a Communist. Nazis - not. Communists do not burn people in the ovens on a national basis.
I see it that way, the National-Socialists killed machine-like on an industrial scale, even keeping books, which was new in human history, but they were calculable.
The Communists on the other hand killed randomly, unpredictable, like rapid, savage animals.
The red Khmer killed people only because they weared glasses, so both were utterly evil but it's difficult to tell which ideology is more terrifying. It is like the Terminator vs. Michael Myers.
I really doubt it will make a difference Ruth. Sad. Russians do have a wider taste in house pets than most. I couldn't imagine some of these in an aprtment.
Well, it's not like the US has a strong supply of sables to peddle to the pet market. Or bears, for that matter. But people in the US have been known to try to raise tigers and pythons at home. It never works out, once they get past the cute juvenile stage.
I see it that way, the National-Socialists killed machine-like on an industrial scale, even keeping books, which was new in human history, but they were calculable.
The Communists on the other hand killed randomly, unpredictable, like rapid, savage animals.
The red Khmer killed people only because they weared glasses, so both were utterly evil but it's difficult to tell which ideology is more terrifying. It is like the Terminator vs. Michael Myers.
Err.. well.. no. Allow me to disagree with you.
When Russians think of "the communists," they think first of all about the events in their own country, not some "Khmer rouge." Why? Because they understand for the most part that all these "theories" are one thing, but practice includes such understanding as "national character." And so in case of "Khmer rouge" you'll have to argue how much here is the influence of the "theory" and what part of it is a "national character." Some nations practice females "genital mutilation," some keep on producing gazillion of children, even when they have nothing to eat while living in the slums, and some don't have enough of children. It's just an example. Another good example would be to say that if Socialism would have won in Germany instead of Fascism, then most likely it would have been quite different comparably to Russian version. Likewise, Italian fascism was different from German fascism, (even though originally it CAME from Italy.) So "theory" itself is not enough, what country/nation/culture is all about, plays the significant role. That's why for example I don't know much about "Khmer Rouge" - what were the plans of the "Communist party of Cambodia," what were they thinking about the industrialization of their country, whether they even had such abilities, or what was their idea of the "end result" of all these atrocities. I simply don't know much about Asian countries ( Cambodia in this instance) except for that I understand that Cambodia is not Russia, and therefore it doesn't make much sense to put in one sentence "communism in Russia" and "communism in Cambodia."
It makes much more sense to speak of Germany ( and Fascism) and Russia ( and Communism.)
So speaking about Russia, the Communists (their ideas and actions) were not as "unpredictable" as you might think. Once the initial craziness of the post-revolutionary phase subsided, quite a few communists were of very practical mind, thinking how to change the society in practical terms (which was quite possible in Russia's case.) There was nothing "crazy" about the ideas of social changes in the society per se, (simply other European nations did it gradually during the change of formations, and particularly during the Age of Enlightenment, while Russia really never did, with its nobility hindering the process.) So Russians HAD to do it later in more drastic ways as the result of it, and that's what brought such hardship. So the killings for the most part were not as "random" as you might think - they were quite predictable, targeting the former "upper class" AND those that deemed not trustworthy by the new authorities. That's for the most part, but not all of course. Here comes the "reflection of national character" mentioned above. SOME representatives of the new authorities were using their power on local levels to run their regions as fiefdoms, using their position of authority to "do away" with people they personally disliked, or in some cases you'd get those that were too eager to please Kremlin, and in some cases you'd have plain psychopaths in charge. And THIS accounted for additional number of deaths big time, that were indeed "random and unpredictable." Not to mention Stalin's persona itself, highly suspicious and unpredictable, using "supportive services" of NKVD, as his predecessors were using Oprichnina back in the day.
So the question here, how much are we talking in terms of the "national character," and how much - "communism" per se?
Because as far as the practical ideas of communists - they were quite attainable as I've already said, quite doable, which they proved at the end to be with rapid industrialization, 98 % rate of literacy in the country, the victory in WWII, and so on. ( Of course at the end Russians as usual displayed their stubbornness refusing to adjust their system to realities of life, and thus of course they ultimately failed,) but overall Communism in Russia was not as savage and "unpredictable" as you portrayed it here, because it simply dealt with the change of social formation of the society.
Now with Germany and Fascism however, there was something far more sinister at play.
Since I know that you are interested in theology, I'll speak here in theological terms.
So if Russians were challenging the "social aspect" of Christianity, that the world is divided into the rich and poor for a reason, and thus it should be accepted as God's ways, the Germans challenged different aspect of Christianity (and probably the concept of the WHOLE Bible all together) dealing with RACIAL aspect of it, i.e. deeming some "branches of the tree" not worthy of taking space at least on European continent, and some worthy of replacing them. Jews of course became one of the major targets of these ideas, and Jews as we know it play the vital role in the Bible. Now THIS of course required the whole "new way of thinking," "machine-like industrial way of killing" ( as you've put it,) and the whole host of other things - like challenging the human psyche I would think ( I mean how do you kill on "industrial level" bunch of children on a regular basis in a broad daylight, without addressing the psychological aspect of it? ) Was this goal of tinkering with racial composition of Europe more realistic than the goal of Russians with their communism? Right now it's hard to say, knowing how deadly that war was, and how "luck" changed hands back and forth. So challenging the "racial aspect" of the Bible was ( in my eyes) a more sinister thing, but then, again, Stalin never claimed to be a "Messiah," while Hitler made quite a few references to God. However no matter what it was, this challenge on Germans part only fulfilled the prophesy at the end, since these events ultimately led to rebirth of Israel as a state.
Last edited by erasure; 06-12-2016 at 02:04 PM..
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.
