The Truth about the Soviet Union

[tradcom]

I'm tired of all the myths and Western propaganda surrounding the Soviet Union, so here's a dose of reality about life in the post-Stalin period.

The overwhemingly excellent aspect of the Soviet Union was the education system. Essentially preserved but enhanced in some ways from the Russian Empire, it was second to none in the world. Also, the importance of education was greatly emphasized in society. This is why people who were education in the FSU countries often end up quite high on the corporate ladder in the Western world, despite all of the obstacles such as the language barrier and the non-acceptance of degrees from those countries in the West.

Another important truth is the fact that the Soviet culture promoted goodness and kindness in all its forms as much as possible. For example, watch any Soviet cartoon vs. any American cartoon (even from the same time period) and the difference is extremely obvious. Movies and especially books (although many of the latter were also from the Russian Empire) promoted the idea of classical romance and true friendships.

On a related note, the importance of money was greatly de-emphasized. Essentially, nobody was truly rich or truly poor. (At one time, the very leader of the Soviet Union was even frowned upon in society for having a number of cars in his possession, despite having an avid interest in cars. This was the extent of riches that belonged to one person. Imagine that in the West, then or now!) Moreover, almost all goods and services were free (like sports) or available for a very modest fee (like books and even vacations).

It is true that material possessions were more limited in quantity than they were in the West, and that there were shortages in stores sometimes, but those that people did have were of significantly higher quality than all but the rich in the West could afford at the time. For instance, my family continues to use Soviet cutlery because nothing even remotely comparable exists in the West even today.

These points are just points about the Soviet regime and what aspects of life it promoted. When you add that to points about society, including the emphasis on traditional gender roles (but with very high levels of education being promoted for both genders), as well as social cohesion due to the importance of what is now known as the nuclear family, the picture of life in the Soviet Union becomes vastly different from what has been and still is portrayed in the West.

In case anyone is wondering, I have numerous sources for this information, including every single one of my relatives and a large number of friends.

[Winston]

I have a question for you and Ladislav.

How come even though Stalin killed millions of people ruthlessly, the Russians today do not see him as a villain or hate him? Do they really admire evil sociopaths and murderers? If so, why? Don't they know the difference between good and evil?

Also, are Russians a pure race or mixed race?

Thanks.

[MrPeabody]

I have a question for you and Ladislav.

How come even though Stalin killed millions of people ruthlessly, the Russians today do not see him as a villain or hate him? Do they really admire evil sociopaths and murderers? I
Thanks.

I wonder if it's the same reason that F.D.R. and Winston Churchill had.

[tradcom]

I have a question for you and Ladislav.

How come even though Stalin killed millions of people ruthlessly, the Russians today do not see him as a villain or hate him? Do they really admire evil sociopaths and murderers? If so, why? Don't they know the difference between good and evil?

Also, are Russians a pure race or mixed race?

Thanks.

It is important to see historical events not in a modern context, but in the context of the other events at the time. Stalin made the Soviet Union the superpower that it was. It is quite possible that if it were not for Stalin, the Allies would have lost World War II, as the USSR's contribution to the war effort was so much greater than all of the other Allies combined (including casualties), it's not even comparable. In this context, how could any leader in Stalin's position not become unhinged? Also, as the poster above me notes, similar mass killings occurred worldwide in that time period.

As for the race question, I answered that already in this post.

[ladislav]

How come even though Stalin killed millions of people ruthlessly, the Russians today do not see him as a villain or hate him? Do they really admire evil sociopaths and murderers? If so, why? Don't they know the difference between good and evil?

The smart ones know he was a murderer. The less informed only see the good things he did- such as he made the country powerful and feared. Also, the ones that he did not kill had jobs when he was in the office. And he slave-drove the people into building a mighty country that people would be afraid of.

Why do the Mongolians see Ghengiz Khan as their hero? He was a horrible murderer that brought nothing but blood and suffering to many nations across Eurasia.

They have no one else to be proud of. Any scientists? Any economic/technological achievements?

Also, are Russians a pure race or mixed race?

You can answer that question better than me. You were there. Did the people look mixed to you?

Also, all races are 'mixed', the difference is how far apart the mixtures are. I am sure in Korea,too, people are a mixture of a tribe A with a tribe B, too, but the differences between these tribes are minimal through our eyes, although the locals may tell.

Your question is probably from the American perspective of race- White Black Asian Amerindian, etc, am I right? In that case, Russians would be mainly Finish and Slavic Mixture, in the American sense- white. The slight Mongolian look in some is the same as it is in Norwegians and Finns- they too mixed with Asians. I mean Oriental Asians/Eskimos/Lapps.

I would say some 10% would be Oriental blood with Russians, but it is the same with many Scandinavians, as well. It is not necessarily because of Ghengiz Khan but because old Finno Ugric tribes mixed with Laplanders and other Eskimo-like people in the far North.

When I was growing up there, the word white was not used. Caucasian was also not used except to designate people from Caucasus like this:



Racial classifications are arbitrary and depend on the consensus of the people in the region where they are made.

[gsjackson]

I just got an email from a Russian former student who says she really likes Stalin, contrary to the conventional wisdom in Russia. She's a very thoughtful girl (her American classmates at Tulane weren't even close in terms of trying to think beneath the surface), though with decided reactionary tendencies. I'll ask her why, and dig up this thread if I learn anything interesting.

[Enishi]

I wouldn't doubt that many aspects of life in the Soviet Union were better than they are now in America. Although it could be nostalgia, the parents of the Russian lady I went to visit thought that life was better under the Soviet government.

Ultimately though I do think the collapse of the Soviet Union was pretty much inevitable in part due to a lack of innovation and flexibility in their economic practices. That's not to say that the America which exists right now is any better though, their demise shall come soon.

The political practices which I most detest right now is the draconian cultural marxism, misandry, bankster bailout and nanny state bullshit of America. I'm sick of living in a deteriorating culture wherein good men are demonized and barbaric thugs are venerated and showered with tax dollars under the assumption that it will somehow make the ghetto culture into which they were born magically dissapear.

[tradcom]

Of course life was far better in the Soviet Union than it is in the FSU countries today; the situations are not even comparable.

I do not think the Soviet Union lacked innovation and flexibility. It produced world champions in almost every aspect of life, from science to sports, and the country was incredibly rich in terms of cultural aspects.

I also disagree about the use of the term "nanny state" in that context. The real "nanny state", as it exists in Europe, is a vital social safety net that prevents people from falling into the cracks and therefore creates a better society.

[ladislav]

The difference between the nanny state in Europe vs the US is that in Europe it mostly benefits the citizen, whereas in the US it mostly benefits the State. It is very hard to live on disability, unemployment and Social Security in the US- the social services are there but they are subpar and are there to support a gigantic bureacratic apparatus more that the citizen. In Europe retirement offers greater income, better benefits, better healthcare, etc. The US nanny is not really a nanny, more like a corrections officer policing your every move with all these tiny laws and rules and regulations. You can't burp now without breaking yet some other rule and ending up fined or jailed or otherwise punished. Nannies do not do that. They protect and help you.

[globetrotter]

"Another important truth is the fact that the Soviet culture promoted goodness and kindness in all its forms as much as possible."

So the starvation in Ukraine and the gulags and forced relocations, starvation, imprisonment, were all accidents? Or fiction? Or was that the goodness and kindness you refer to?

[globetrotter]

"The less informed only see the good things he did..."

Excuse me. LESS INFORMED?

The only way to not know about Stalin is to be illiterate, deaf, dumb and blind.

It is impossible to reconcile an intellectually rigorous society that highly values education and creates people who excel in other cultures, and at the same time say that many of them are not informed on Stalin.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

It does not take a PhD. to assimilate this sentence:

"Yeah, Stalin created a great deal of good but he killed about 30 million of us to do it."

This is not a difficult concept.

[tradcom]

So the starvation in Ukraine and the gulags and forced relocations, starvation, imprisonment, were all accidents? Or fiction? Or was that the goodness and kindness you refer to?

I knew that someone would write this eventually. Should I mention the fact that I specifically referred to the post-Stalin era? Or that during the Stalin era, this kind of treatment was commonplace, including in the so-called "democratic" countries?

[globetrotter]

So the starvation in Ukraine and the gulags and forced relocations, starvation, imprisonment, were all accidents? Or fiction? Or was that the goodness and kindness you refer to?

I knew that someone would write this eventually. Should I mention the fact that I specifically referred to the post-Stalin era? Or that during the Stalin era, this kind of treatment was commonplace, including in the so-called "democratic" countries?

The treatment that occurred during the Stalin era was NOT commonplace, in the 'so-called "democratic" countries'.

To claim so means that you are either a liar or an indoctrinated (useful) idiot.

There is no evidence that 20 million Americans were herded into prisons in -40 C temps and worked to death in 18 months or less. There was no forced collectivism in the Democratic Countries that killed tens of millions. Absolutely none. Britain, France did not do this. South America did not do this. Mexico, Central America, did not do this. Australia, New Zealand, did not do this.

The list of some very numerous Mass Murders in the 20th Century are as follows:

WW II 60 - 100 million
Mao 1958-1962 27-45 million
Stalin 1924-53 20+/- million
Holodomor Ukraine 2.5 - 10 million
Russian Civil War 1917-1922 9 million

Congo Free State 1886-1908 8 million
Chinese Nationalist War 1928-1937 5 million
Indochine War 1960-1975 4 million
Korean War & NK 1948-1953 3 million
Chinese Civil War 1945-1949 2.5 million
Pol Pot Cambodia 1975-1979 2 million

There are many other mass murders/wars in the past 150 years but only a few are greater than 2 million. Armenia. The Congo Free state (8m) but that was from 1886-1908. The Chinese and Korean and Mexican Civil Wars (1-3m each). Numerous conflicts that took 100k to 500k lives.

Nothing on the scale of Stalin, Lenin, Mao or Hitler. Not even close.

[tradcom]

Because every country in the world had a population as large as that of the Soviet Union. Obviously.

Moreover, you need to educate yourself as to what went on right here in North America at the same time.

I should also add that such statistics are almost always significantly inflated to portray the West in a better light.

[globetrotter]

Because every country in the world had a population as large as that of the Soviet Union. Obviously.

Moreover, you need to educate yourself as to what went on right here in North America at the same time.

I should also add that such statistics are almost always significantly inflated to portray the West in a better light.

All you have are excuses. You lost, so then you bring up irrelevant points outside of the debate.

I know what went on in North America. It's typical of you to assume that Americans do not know something.

There were about 50 million native indigenous in 1600 in the entire Western Hemisphere. 15 million Aztecs, 5 million Incas, and perhaps as many as 5 million more in SA, the rest, about 20 to 25 million, in North America. By 1616 they were decimated by small pox and other diseases (From the Roman term. When armies lost, 1/10th were killed.), reducing the population of natives in North America to less than 20% of pre-1600 figures.

So before the Mayflower landed in 1621, and due to very early contact pre-settlement, the population of the Western Hemisphere was already plummeting.

By 1650 less than 20% of the 50 million remained, and only about 1 or 2 million in what is now the USA and Canada. The current population in the USA is about 1.9 million of those in the top tribes. Clearly not that much difference in population. Did many thousands die in wars as the Europeans colonized North America? You bet. Were tens of millions or even millions slaughtered? Nope. Never happened.

The Indians were already figuratively dead, before there were any wars at all. Before 1650, in fact.

This massive death toll was responsible for massive social instability. The introduction of the horse from Spanish settlements around the Rio Grande ca. 1600, and the introduction of the gun by Spain, France, England and the Americans, destabilized what was left of Indian culture. The tribe that had the horses and guns gained a sudden competitive advantage over the other tribes that did not. Massive inter-tribal warfare claimed even more lives.

You cannot really blame someone for understanding the epidemiology of small pox in 1600 - no one knew about viruses then.