The Truth about the Soviet Union

[ladislav]

So Russian language and unspoken cultural preeminence was the reason I considered the USSR to be the Russian Empire. With your input in mind, I would call it "a" Russian empire cloaked under the guise of ideological equality of Soviet nationalities.

In that sense you are right although it was not so legally. And the Russian hegemony happened more by default then by intent. I do not think Lenin got together with a bunch of Russian nationalists and said- "I have a plan, let's change the name of the country and then we would keep the Empire". No patriotic Russian would ever do that. But what language would they use? Make all people speak Georgian? Impractical. It is like making all people in the British Empire speak Hindi or Urdu. Teach all science and engineering and medical courses at higher institutions in local languages? How would all these nationalities communicate this knowledge, read directives, use technology if it was all in local languages? How could they go and work in other parts of the USSR and what common language would they use?
So, sure after that the Russian majority came up on top plus they were better prepared, better educated and with more industrial experience. But still.
Look at who was at the helm, though, at least in the beginning. Many Jews and other non Russians /non Slavs. It was not allowed when the country was called Russian Empire.

Also, where would one put the capital? In Kazakhstan? Would make sense geographically except that the infrastructure was not there. The money was not there to build a capital, either.

I can also say that I consider the British Commonwealth of Nations or Great Britain itself as basically, the English Empire. And even the US falls into that. The English language, the foundation of the country is based on English values, English common sense. That is why it is called the Anglosphere, not a Brito-sphere.

The English people as a rule do not bother to learn Gaelic languages when they move to Wales or Scotland or to fit into the local cultures and even learn the brogue or let alone learn Singhalese, Chinese or Malay if they move to Sri Lanka, HK or Malaysia. They still think they own the place.

So, yes, all the Anglosphere may seem to be an English Empire, too. Not all will agree with it, though.

Come to think of it, we all have a right to our opinion and what we consider things to be, people to be or places to be. And we may be right factually and from our perspective. What things, places or people are legally on their territory and according to their laws is a whole different thing. And what they call themselves is another story , as well.

[ladislav]

"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?

I think the case in point would be similar to the Catholic Church/religion. The teachings on paper and at the church that are presented from the pulpit are good, what the Bible teaches is to forgive, to be good, to be humble, to act like Jesus Christ. A good Catholic should confess his sins, be respectful to parents, build a strong family, love his neighbors. etc. A priest should serve the people, reject marriage and family and devote himself to working for society and common good.

And then you have the Crusades, the corruption, the Holy Inquisition, the colonization and forced conversion, killings of Protestants, molestations of boys and homosexual abuse of the same. Horrid sh1t!

Did Jesus mandate all those things or did the apostles imagine that all this would happen? Did the founders of the Church ever plan on this happening? Of course not. The teachings of Jesus and his Church did and do promote goodness.

What happens in real life when power falls into the hands of monsters, is a whole different story.

The original teachings of Soviet ideologists appeared good on paper and promoted goodness. What happened in real life when monstrous people came to power is what you are talking about. An average child in the country was not growing up being taught to send people to Gulags, to deport nationalities, to come at night in a Black Mariah and take away one third of the population of the country. He was not taught to annex lands and incorporate them. But there was a big gap between what was taught in the Soviet culture and what the KGB, the NKVD, the Cheka and Stalin were doing.

So, you have ideologists that start out with teaching good things and are sincerely devoted to doing good and teaching good and then you have a##holes who hijack these ideologies and corrupt them either to feed their greed or their madness.

[tradcom]

FOR THE LAST TIME, what both of you, globetrotter and ladislav fail to realize is that in the very first post in this topic, I clearly referred to the POST-STALIN PERIOD ONLY! Goodness and kindness were actually promoted extremely heavily during this period in all forms of media, including books, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, movies, and cartoons. Moreover, Soviet culture, i.e. the culture of the masses, emphasized these values heavily, so they were further reinforced.

Yes, I admit that people were killed by Stalin, and that these were horrible acts. Happy, globetrotter? That does not mean that you can ignore the monumental achievements of the USSR or shame the citizens of that country, past or present, because of that.

[ladislav]

Last year I went to Russia- had to pay $380 to get my tourist visa in a week as opposed to one month. Had to fill out a pretty grueling questionnaire. Was only granted one month.

Had USSR been "Russia" or "Russian Empire", I would not have had this problem.

Arguably. But it gets worse.

When in Orel, some 3 hours south of Moscow I decided to go to a local law firm and find out if I could in fact claim Russian citizenship- after all I was born in the USSR.

Well, guess what?

The law firm were good people but at first they were clueless. They asked me for $300 to find out. I paid them. The main attorney went to the Immigration with me, pushed his way through the lines and talked with the key people while I was sitting there and listened in on the conversation. The top Immigration officials in uniform with chicken guts, shoulder boards and all, quoted the law to him and to me.

And on various bulletin boards there were various legal pamphlets hanging, as well, so I read them, too.

Here are the answers:

No, I could not get the Russian citizenship and/or have it restored because I never had it! I had been a citizen of a State/Country/Nation( political, not ethnic nation) that no longer existed. USSR that is. Furthermore, I was foreign born- I was born in Ukraine. Had I been born on the territory of the RSFSR- the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, I would have been eligible to have Russian citizenship by jus solis immediately. All I had to do was to apply to have it restored. Regardless of the fact that RSFSR was not an independent country then. So, it was a big nyet! They told me, though, that I would have no problem applying for temporary residence- one year and then getting a permanent one and then applying for citizenship after a couple of more years.

Just like what African students do.

As I walked out, the lawyer told me that I was the first foreigner who he had ever had as a client.

I then had a Ukrainian lawyer contacted by a friend and was told that I was not eligible for that, either. The reason is, even though I was born there, it was before the independence and thus, I was not a citizen. Ukraine does not have the same laws as Russia.

Then a few months later, I was sitting in a neighborhood in Angeles City and watched kids run by, say "Hi, Joe" to me and point me out to other kids and whisper: "Amerikano! Amerikano!"

And I smiled.

[globetrotter]

Duplicate

[globetrotter]

FOR THE LAST TIME, what both of you, globetrotter and ladislav fail to realize is that in the very first post in this topic, I clearly referred to the POST-STALIN PERIOD ONLY! Goodness and kindness were actually promoted extremely heavily during this period in all forms of media, including books, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, movies, and cartoons. Moreover, Soviet culture, i.e. the culture of the masses, emphasized these values heavily, so they were further reinforced.

Yes, I admit that people were killed by Stalin, and that these were horrible acts. Happy, globetrotter? That does not mean that you can ignore the monumental achievements of the USSR or shame the citizens of that country, past or present, because of that.

It is amazing the lengths one must go to, to get an honest admission from a European, Russian, Ukrainian or (former)citizen of the FSU.

If the USA is flawed because the Indians were murdered, then The Soviet Union was flawed because Stalin killed tens of millions.

[tradcom]

Every country is "flawed", globetrotter. Surely you know that.

Yet I detect a (very) strong pro-American bias from you. If that is the case, why are you here?

[ladislav]

Gentlemen, me thinks you are arguing at cross purposes. What Mr. youngagegroup says is basically, in the Soviet and post-Stalin educational and state TV/ Movie industry, there was a very strong emphasis on teaching good social ethics. It was very much like in Islam- Islam teaches a great deal of ethics- how to treat guests/strangers, how to treat your fellow man, how to be a good father, a good son, a good wife. In most Islamic states, religion is not separated from the educational system. So, children are taught how to treat people well.
In the Philippines, even though there is a separation of church and state, there is an ethics course in school. How to treat friends, how to be a good member of the community, etc.
Now, you may argue that there are Islamic terrorists and that the Philippines is very corrupt and full of liars and cheats and thieves and all that. But as far as the 'average person' in Islamic countries, the Philippines and the former USSR goes, that person would normally be well behaved, polite, hospitable to strangers, helpful, modest and just a pleasant person to deal with. I have lived in all those places, and for example, an 'average Saudi' is a very clean, hospitable, modest and well behaved person as a result of such ethics. The students behave well in class, respect teachers, respect elders, have very healthy families and are generally nice to foreigners who go there. A##holes with inflated egos and full of themselves are a very rare occurrence and are hated, but Anglo countries are rife with them. And if you try and be a humble and friendly person, you may be thought of as weird or weak or gay. And if you are intelligent you will not be respected or admired for that. Having a special technical skill will get you admiration in the US and being a hard worker will, too, but not being an intellectual.

There, otoh, such people are held in great esteem.

Also, if you live with your mother in the US and take care of her, local girls will shrink away from you whereas Filipina girls will see you as a good person and a family man and will want to join you in the same house so that they could help you take care of your mother. Because when young they were taught such good ethics.

Now, there are those who admittedly do not follow the ethics and they can screw things up because humans have many negative qualities. But that does not go for the garden variety person you meet and at least not in the daily interactions with others.

In the US and other Anglosphere countries there does not seem to be an ethics course and no government effort to teach good ethics coming from the TV, newsreels etc. This is supposedly the responsibility of the church. But while in many Islamic countries you are obligated to pray and listen to lectures by law or at least by family/community, there is no strong condemnation of people who do not pray, and such laws in the US. It is seen as a violation of privacy and the freedom of choice. The US ideals are good if people were all fundamentally good, but if people are a##holes, they will be allowed to further expand their a##holism until they clash with other a##holes and all hell breaks loose.

In the US states where the church is active, people generally act very nice. I was now recently in GA and AL and the average people both Blacks and Whites were very pleasant to talk to.

They mostly seemed humble, polite, well behaved, and hospitable. They spoke softly, gave directions properly and smiled at strangers and said "Hi". And it was the first time I saw so many Black Americans who did not have the same chip on their shoulder as the people up North where you rarely see relaxed smiling African Americans who want to strike a conversation with you. Or smile and say " Hi". Yes, it may be superficial but it is better than seeing a nasty grin and hearing" Whatcha doin' here white boy, get the f**k out, yo honkey mother##er! " As you often hear in NY.

All that seems to be the result of the religious upbringing that is so prevalent in the South. Community, church, etc have a huge positive effect on people's behavior. At least in the outward way they deal with others.

Admittedly, none of it emanates from school courses but it is there because many people are regular church goers and are taught to be nice to others there. And you can also observe the behaviour of people in Utah. I had coworkers who were Mormons and Southern Baptists and they were very good people at least in the way they treated an average person.

Now, imagine countries where people are taught to be nice and humble and polite and to have strong families on TV and in schools. Definitely, you will see a marked improvement in the behavior of the bulk of the population.

I think that the US would do well if it had ethics courses in elementary school and maybe we could push for that. It would reduce the number of nasty a##holes and swelled heads that are in such abundance.

[ALIBABA]

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.

i'm assuming coz stalin didnt kill millions of people ruthlesslly. how come americans dont see 0bama as a villain or hate him? do they really admire evil sociopaths and murderers? if so why? dont they know the difference between good and evil?

[ALIBABA]

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.

the difference between the nanny state in europe vs the u.s is that in europe it mostly benefits the corporations, whereas in the u.s it mostly benefits the corporations

[ALIBABA]

"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?

sounds like fiction. fiction that needs to be reinforced by rent-a-trolls like yourself

[ALIBABA]

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.

all he has are excuses, whereas all you are armed with an entire encyclopedia of disinformation

[ALIBABA]

"The Chinese still adore Mao and think of him as the national hero."

Actually many prefer Deng Xiaoping and consider his reforms to be the reason why China is rapidly becoming a wealthy nation. Mao? Just so-so.

"So what if he killed counterrevolutionaries? He killed traitors and punished them for their provocations and subversive activities. He did it all for us to eradicate these enemies among us so that we would all have a happy life."

Killing 20-40 million of your fellow citizens so that you can have a better life?

Unacceptable anywhere, in any time, in any nation or any culture.

To hold such an opinion when one says things such as "Soviet culture promoted goodness and kindness in all its forms as much as possible." is impossible unless you lie to yourself.

Since Russians hold themselves up as paragons and exemplars of education and intellectualism they cannot hold have the former opinion without being hypocrites that lie to themselves, each
other and the world. They have an excellent education and they are intellectuals, so it is not possible that they are stupid - the other possible explanation.

Next time someone such as theyoungagegroup logs on here and immediately begins a campaign of apologizing for Russian atrocities, he might think twice as he will encounter someone such as myself who knows as much, or more, than he, and who will not tolerate his bullshit, lies and excuses.

His posts, frankly, have the same tone as pro-Russian comments on YouTube videos and other fora. I suspect that he could be an employee of the state, on a disinformation campaign.

however it's 100% acceptable when u.s/nato troops murder millions of vietnamese, koreans, Iraqis, Afgans, Libyans.

[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.

'm assuming coz stalin didnt kill millions of people ruthlesslly. how come americans dont see 0bama as a villain or hate him? do they really admire evil sociopaths and murderers? if so why? dont they know the difference between good and evil?

How do you know what Stalin did or didn't do?

This reminds me though: Why is it that Hitler is considered an evil sociopathic and madman for killing millions, yet when US leaders do it, such as Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, or George W. Bush, then they are simply considered "incompetent" by the media? Why aren't they considered evil murderers too? Where's the consistency?

Can you believe the puppet leaders who started the Vietnam War are considered by history to just be "well meaning men who made a mistake"? How can you start an unnecessary war that kills millions, and call it an honest mistake? That doesn't make sense. They must have known what they were doing.

[ladislav]

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?

Well, it is not all Russians that do. The ones that admire him do so because it was not THEM or their families who had been purged. He made the USSR a great world
power. Mongolians see Ghengiz Khan as their national hero, as well but he would purge those Mongols that disobeyed him. Still he made them a great Empire.

Also, are Russians a pure race or mixed race?

Thanks.

Are the Russians a pure or a mixed race? Well, all races are mixed so I think you mean in relative terms and possibly American terms.

I guess most are Slavic + Finnish with a bit of Oriental admixture- 10% or so of the latter. The thing is Russians very easily see who is Russian and who is not by facial features. Some foreigners can pass for Russians and some cannot.