I simply am flabbergasted that anyone would look upon stalin as anything but the mass murderer he was. He KILLED far more than ANY adolph hitler. In fact stalin qualifies as the preminent mass murderer of the 20th century hands down !.
Any politician can talk a good game...it's the one's that can talk the talk to get their visions created without murder,genocide,slave labor, political camps etc etc whom would qualify as great statesmen.
A dictator like STALIN whom had people exterminated on a whim , ruling ruthlessly simply to keep himself in power. Cloaking his ego and aims in some national socialisitic hogwash all the while living high on the hog while the "working class" slaved on in pitifull conditions , and god forbid they complained.
EVERYTHING he did that allegedly made the soviet union great has been undone...simply because most of it was smoke and mirrors propaganda. But that's the true nature of communism , that's undeniable.
The education "reforms" and anything like it he put in place were designed as arms of the state machine. Indoctrination of the masses to an "education of communist ideology/thought. No deviation tolerated nor accepted. "Russian" People were expected to vomit out communist slogans like parrots , to accept centralised control like never before.
It took time , but human nature finally triumphed over the rotten structure adolph tried so vainly to kick in collapsed of it's own hollow house of lies and abuses.
That's facts - and real history.
Stalin: "The good guy" or just a murderer?
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
You mind to back it up with something? And please do not quote Rummel or Black Book of Communism... as for the rest of your post ... as the old soviet saying wentI simply am flabbergasted that anyone would look upon stalin as anything but the mass murderer he was. He KILLED far more than ANY adolph hitler. In fact stalin qualifies as the preminent mass murderer of the 20th century hands down !.
"“Lets argue about taste of Mango with those who actually ate them “... - you do realise that considerable number of members in this section are former Soveit citezens?
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
-
gewehrdork
- Member
- Posts: 512
- Joined: 28 Jan 2004, 04:32
- Location: Rural Abode, USA
Dave ; Sorry - When I get a quiet weekend I'll dig through massive amounts of books to detail the massive communist atrocities visited upon the eastern eurpeans by the former soviet state. Oleg ; I don't know "Rummel" to quote him. Why would someone being formerly under the rule of soviet communism be in any way "offended" as you infer.
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
Because the picture you have painted have very little to do with the country I’ lived ingewehrdork wrote:Dave ; Sorry - When I get a quiet weekend I'll dig through massive amounts of books to detail the massive communist atrocities visited upon the eastern eurpeans by the former soviet state. Oleg ; I don't know "Rummel" to quote him. Why would someone being formerly under the rule of soviet communism be in any way "offended" as you infer.
Been neglecting this post for a while.
karman wrote
Whether Russification was worse under communist rule than under tsarist rule is hard to debate, but communism at least too had the seed for encouraging russificatíon. I am well aware that in principle there was no lingua franca in USSR, but unofficially russian served as such.
It is true that Stalin prior to the revolution encouraged a state where every nation kept their own language traditions and such. But just as the declaration on land that was to be a vehicle for winning over the majority to the bolshevik side. At heart national diversity is a threat to communism since nationalism by nature encourages diversity and thus is a threat to the unilateral apporach of communism? Lenin forbade fractionalism. Belarus for example was subject to a number of russificational initiatives such as the take over by ethnic russians in the administration after WWII. The belarussian language was unofficially banned. And to highlight the claim that russification through language was a part of the day kruschev in 1959 said 'the sooner we all speak russian, the sooner we will have communism'. No doubt contributing to this russification, under communist rule the spread of ethnic russians to the other republics encreased.
karman wrote
If this is true then explain to me why Azerbaijan was forced to adopt cyrillic in 1939 and thus discarding latin on Stalins order?5. About other languages this is not all true. This is true for those nations, peoples and tribes that did not have their autonomous or other state institutions on the territory of Soviet Union. But this is not true for those nations that made Soviet Republics.
Whether Russification was worse under communist rule than under tsarist rule is hard to debate, but communism at least too had the seed for encouraging russificatíon. I am well aware that in principle there was no lingua franca in USSR, but unofficially russian served as such.
It is true that Stalin prior to the revolution encouraged a state where every nation kept their own language traditions and such. But just as the declaration on land that was to be a vehicle for winning over the majority to the bolshevik side. At heart national diversity is a threat to communism since nationalism by nature encourages diversity and thus is a threat to the unilateral apporach of communism? Lenin forbade fractionalism. Belarus for example was subject to a number of russificational initiatives such as the take over by ethnic russians in the administration after WWII. The belarussian language was unofficially banned. And to highlight the claim that russification through language was a part of the day kruschev in 1959 said 'the sooner we all speak russian, the sooner we will have communism'. No doubt contributing to this russification, under communist rule the spread of ethnic russians to the other republics encreased.
As a former citizen of Soviet block country, I can say that is a broad generalisation.You can't put all people from that zone into one basket.Some are members of a group that was put above other conquered nations in regards to respect, culture, history etc.Others are members of conquered nations.- you do realise that considerable number of members in this section are former Soveit citezens?
And I can say that there is nothing insulting in saying that Stalin was a cold-blooded cynical murderer.We can question the numbers of milions he put to death, but it won't change the fact that milions died.
Some groups had priviliaged status in USSR compared to others and their longterm interested were better realised under that system, then now.Thus it is likely they view USSR differently then groups that were exploited and discriminated.Why would someone being formerly under the rule of soviet communism be in any way "offended" as you infer.
Could you please clarify what particular grups you mean and bring some proves.Molobo wrote: Some groups had priviliaged status in USSR compared to others and their longterm interested were better realised under that system, then now.Thus it is likely they view USSR differently then groups that were exploited and discriminated.
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
1. I was no talking about "the zone" - I was talking about USSR.Molobo wrote:As a former citizen of Soviet block country, I can say that is a broad generalisation.You can't put all people from that zone into one basket.Some are members of a group that was put above other conquered nations in regards to respect, culture, history etc.Others are members of conquered nations.- you do realise that considerable number of members in this section are former Soveit citezens?
And I can say that there is nothing insulting in saying that Stalin was a cold-blooded cynical murderer.We can question the numbers of milions he put to death, but it won't change the fact that milions died.
Some groups had priviliaged status in USSR compared to others and their longterm interested were better realised under that system, then now.Thus it is likely they view USSR differently then groups that were exploited and discriminated.Why would someone being formerly under the rule of soviet communism be in any way "offended" as you infer.
2. I would like to hear from you how me being Russian put me above someone else in USSR -because try as hard as I might - I cannot recall any instances of these.
3. we are not questioning the fact that he was a murder -but I would definitely question a fact that he is responsible for the largest body count
4, the group to which you repeatedly refer as privileged constituted the majority of GULAG population – one of the privileges I guess.
And who are they? Those misterious people?Molobo wrote:For instance those who hadn't their language or faith persecuted or those who weren't classified as Nazi collaborators and deported from their homeland.Those whos culture and language was promoted as superior to others.Could you please clarify what particular grups you mean and bring some proves.
May be interesting to somebody:
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/introduction.shtml
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/izhorians.shtml
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/veps.shtml
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/introduction.shtml
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/izhorians.shtml
In 1937 Russian chauvinists closed Izhorian schools and similarly, the end was signalled for Izhorian cultural and social life.
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/veps.shtml
As a result of a tenacious struggle on the part of intellectuals and parents, the Veps language was adopted also, but here it only lasted two months. This happy period was short-lived. The policy of violent oppression begun in 1937, aimed at all minorities in the Soviet Union, struck the Veps too. All national cultural activities were stopped. The assimilation of Veps by "accelerated methods" began. Veps schools were closed, textbooks were burned, teachers were put in prison, and some ethnic intellectuals even lost their lives as a result of their nationality (among them a Veps ethnographer, Stepan Makaryev).
Reigo, btw do you have statistics of the growth of the scools in Estonian for the period of 1918 till 1940 and during the period of 1940 - 1991.Reigo wrote:May be interesting to somebody:
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/introduction.shtml
http://www.eki.ee/books/redbook/izhorians.shtml
In 1937 Russian chauvinists closed Izhorian schools and similarly, the end was signalled for Izhorian cultural and social life.
Also the number od people who spoke Estonian either increased or decreased during the Soviet Era? Also, what percentage of ethnic Estonians do you believe was assimilated i.e. russified under Soviets?
And also could you please name the list of "Russian chauvinists" who ruled the Soviet Union in 1937? and why do you call them Russian chauvinists?
MAy have. So what?Reigo, btw do you have statistics of the growth of the scools in Estonian for the period of 1918 till 1940 and during the period of 1940 - 1991.
So what? We are talking about Izhorians and Veps.Also the number od people who spoke Estonian either increased or decreased during the Soviet Era? Also, what percentage of ethnic Estonians do you believe was assimilated i.e. russified under Soviets?
If you pay attention, you will discover that I quoted somebody else. Russian "chauvinists" or "internationalists" -- what's the difference in the Izhorian case?And also could you please name the list of "Russian chauvinists" who ruled the Soviet Union in 1937? and why do you call them Russian chauvinists?
Last edited by Reigo on 09 Sep 2005, 12:17, edited 2 times in total.
Well that only shows if the efforts were succesfull or if the persecuted nation managed to resist it.For example during Prussian attempts to settle Germans in Poznan, the number of Poles actually increased in that area.So it will only show us the effectivness of persecution.Also the number od people who spoke Estonian either increased or decreased during the Soviet Era? Also, what percentage of ethnic Estonians do you believe was assimilated i.e. russified under Soviets?