Putin to Make Equating Stalin, USSR to Hitler, Nazi Germany Illegal

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

If you, ".....will not comment this incident anymore" and believe "The moderator is always right.", why raise it in the first place?

I was not talking about Moscow, but about citizens ruled by Moscow. Even today nearly 20% of Russia's population are non-Russia, Of course the number is probably higher. For instance, in Siberia up to a third of the immigrants brought in by Imperial Russia to settle the area were actually Ukrainians, who have now been assimilated.

You post, "In 1926 there were 6.51% of Jews in Moscow." What happened to them?

The Chechens may be the most militant case, but they don't seem to be the only case of a territorial minority wanting out of Russia. The Dagestanis and what is left of the Crimean Tartars seem unenthusiastic, as well.

I posted, "The parallels between the USSR and Nazi Germany are obvious to outsiders (as are the differences) .....the Eastern Front essentially looks like a struggle between two often quite similar Totalitarian powers with their four/five year plans, official leadership personality cults, state propaganda, mass compulsory youth movements, mass women's organizations, state-sponsored trades unions, secret and political police, mass concentration/Gulag/extermination camps, disregard for the rule of law, sham or non-existent elections, one-party states, denial of even loyal opposition, lack of a free press, etc., etc.." I could add other similarities like political commissars and National Socialist Guidance Officers. The fact that you may not want to address these similarities doesn't mean they didn't exist.

To a dispassionate observer, some of the similarities between the USSR and Nazi Germany are striking.

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

I was not talking about Moscow, but about citizens ruled by Moscow. Even today nearly 20% of Russia's population are non-Russia, Of course the number is probably higher. Foe instance, in Siberia up to a third of the immigrants brought in by Imperial Russia to settle Siberia were actually Ukrainians, who have now been assimilated.

Yes, a lot of people was assimilated. It is quite natural process exactly as in the UK or the USA.

You post, "In 1926 there were 6.51% of Jews in Moscow." What happened to them?

Most of them emigrated in the last quater of the 20th century including people whom I knew personally.

The Chechens may be the most militant case, but they don't seem to be the only case of a territorial minority wanting out of Russia. The Dagestanis and what is left of the Crimean Tartars seem unenthusiastic, as well.

The population of Dagestan (3 mln.) is a composition of quite different ethnical groups with different mutually not intelligible languages. For this reason Russian is widely being used in Dagestan.
As I'm aware some ethnical groups are wanting out of the UK. Irish Catholics in NI for example or the Scots despite the fact that Great Britain is a democracy.

I posted, "The parallels between the USSR and Nazi Germany are obvious to outsiders (as are the differences) .....the Eastern Front essentially looks like a struggle between two often quite similar Totalitarian powers with their four/five year plans, official leadership personality cults, state propaganda, mass compulsory youth movements, mass women's organizations, state-sponsored trades unions, secret and political police, mass concentration/Gulag/extermination camps, disregard for the rule of law, sham or non-existent elections, one-party states, denial of even loyal opposition, lack of a free press, etc., etc.." I could add other similarities like political commissars and National Socialist Guidance Officers. The fact that you may not want to address these similarities doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Let's divide similarities between the Soviet union and Nazi Germany in two groups.
1) Similarities that are seen because both states were totalitarian ones.
2) Other similarities.
Let's compare you and me. Both of us have 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head, 2 eyes and so one and so forth. Ther is a lot of similarities due to the fact that we both are human beings.
But we have different native languages, different education, mentality, way of life, habits, different views. In this context it would not be right to equate us just because we both are humans. Similarities between us are on the surface, while differences being not so apparent are much more important.
The features that you have mentioned are features of any totalitarian state. Any totalitarian state has personality cult, state agitprop, state sponsored youth, women movements, puppet trade unions, secret police, absence of democracy, free mass media, sham elections.
Look at N.Korea as a typical example. But it is not right to equate N.Korea to Nazi Germany because of different nature of the regimes. Cuba was and in many respects remains a totalitarian state but again it is not right to equate Cuba with N.Korea and moreover with Nazi Germany. China until 80's was a totalitarian state but it was too far from Nazi Germany from many points of view.

To a dispassionate observer, some of the similarities between the USSR and Nazi Germany are striking.

From my point of view the differences, especially in ideology were much more important.
You mentioned Crimean Tatars. The Crimean Khante had remarkable economic model. In fact whole male population was a mobile army. Crimean horsemen conducted raids, robbery, captured slaves mostly in slavic lands (modern Russia and Ukraine). It lasted for centuries with support of Ottoman empire.
There is a clear parallel with Nazi Germany. Hitler intended to live by sword - to capture lands, to rob other countries, to enslave people. Btw, Crimean Khanate has many features typical for totalitarian state.
However it is not right to equate Nazi Germany and Crimean Khanate.

[snpol]

But here's a good piece to introduce the methods used to determine numbers: https://epa.oszk.hu/00600/00617/00003/t ... andrea.htm

Az elsõ, a nemi erõszakkal kapcsolatos tanulmányok azt tekintették legfontosabb feladatuknak, hogy megállapítsák az esetek számát, azt, hogy fellebbentsék a fátylat az addig elhallgatott tényekrõl. Magyarországon éppen úgy, mint Ausztriában, ez szinte lehetetlennek tûnik, mivel hiányoznak az adatok. Közvetett forrásokból lehet csak bizonyos következtetéseket levonni. Mindazonáltal a megdöbbentõ németországi adatok már beépültek történeti tudatunkba. Magyarországon a számok 50 000 és 200 000 között mozognak: a becsléseket a kutatók a nemibeteg-gondozók és a helyi tisztiorvosok megbízhatónak tekinthetõ, de részleges adataira alapozzák.

According to online translator 50,000 - 200,000 were raped in whole Hungary (not only in Budapest). Correct me please if the translation is not right.
There is a table in the source with data about birth rate in Budapest for 1946
January 961
February 1096
March 1373
April 2439
May 1480
June 1494
And what does it table prove or demonstrate?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

Yup, assimilation "is quite natural process" and has similarities with the UK. In the UK and Eire there are probably no people, apart from some of post-war immigrant origin, who do not have some English, Scots, Welsh or Irish ancestry. The only difference is the proportions of each.

On to your "Whataboutism" segment, which seems to based on misunderstandings about the situation in the UK.

You post, "As I'm aware some ethnical groups are wanting out of the UK." No, the claim, at least, is that the Celtic nationalisms are not based on ethnicity but on current territorial residence. If they were based on ethnic background, more people in England would be able to vote in any independence referendums in Scotland, Ireland and Wales because there are far more people of Scots, Irish and Welsh descent in England than in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Likewise, Scottish-domiciled Asians, Welsh-domiciled West Indians and Northern Irish-domiciled Chinese would be excluded, which they are not.

If Irish nationalists become a majority in Northern Ireland, then a referendum might well lead to the political unification of the island of Ireland for the first time ever, (except under British rule). Whether this would be fair to Ulster Unionists living in consolidated majority areas is another matter.

The Scots recently had a referendum on independence and rejected it, so democracy was served. If they change their minds in future referenda then democracy will also be served. As the Scottish Nationalists argued in front of the electorate that the referendum was a "once in a generation" matter, they have effectively already timetabled the next one no sooner than in about 20 years. I can't see anybody standing in the way of that.

You post, "The features that you have mentioned are features of any totalitarian state. Any totalitarian state has personality cult, state agitprop, state sponsored youth, women movements, puppet trade unions, secret police, absence of democracy, free mass media, sham elections." Yup, and both Nazi Germany and the USSR shared these features. To forbid their comparison in appropriate areas for the period of 1941-45 is purely arbitrary in timing and is arguably a denial of some of the facts.

I think we need to clarify what is meant by "equate". In some slack English usage this is sometimes used the same as "compare". (You can compare apples and oranges, but you can't accurately equate them).

Does the new legislation say that one cannot "equate" the two, or "compare" the two?

Either way, I think it foolish to stifle debate, because unless the argument is able to be conducted in public, future generations will have neither the skills nor knowledge to defend the USSR against such a proposition.

It also opens the field up to conspiracy theorists of the "No smoke without fire" school. (i.e., If Russia restricts debate, what has it got to hide?)

I think such legislation is a mistake.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. By way of alight amusement, rather than making a point of substance here, have you viewed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcYo0xNveXo

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

Yup, assimilation "is quite natural process" and has similarities with the UK. In the UK and Eire there are probably no people, apart from some of post-war immigrant origin, who do not have some English, Scots, Welsh or Irish ancestry. The only difference is the proportions of each.

On to your "Whataboutism" segment, which seems to based on misunderstandings about the situation in the UK.

I would like to assure you that I'm well aware about realities in the UK and anyway I know about them much better than you about realities in Russia.

You post, "As I'm aware some ethnical groups are wanting out of the UK." No, the independence claims are not based on ethnicity, but on territorial residence. If they were based on ethnic background, more people in England would be able to vote in any independence referendums in Scotland, Ireland and Wales because there are far more people of Scots, Irish and Welsh descent in England than in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Likewise, Scottish-domiciled Asians, Welsh-domiciled West Indians and Northern Irish-domiciled Chinese would be excluded, which they are not.

There is about 700 thousands of Scots in England and almost 4.5 mln. in Scotland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_people
Being abroad many Scots prefer to call themselves namely Scottish not British underling the fact thay they are separate people. Though, you know it pretty well because the history of Scotland is in fact history of wars with England. It is quite possible that Scotland with be independent one day.
NI Catholics being in minority mostly don't regard themselves British but namely Irish.

If Irish nationalists become a majority in Northern Ireland, then a referendum might well lead to the political unification of the island of Ireland for the first time ever, (except under British rule). Whether this would be fair to Ulster Unionists living in consolidated majority areas is another matter.

It is a very important detail. And the devil is in the details. The Irish republic is a democratic state and the unionists in theory have nothing to fear... or not?

The Scots recently had a referendum on independence and rejected it, so democracy was served. If they change their minds in future referenda then democracy will also be served. As the Scottish Nationalists argued in front of the electorate that the referendum was a "once in a generation" matter, they have effectively already timetabled the next one no sooner than in about 20 years. I can't see anybody standing in the way of that.

The result of Scottish independence referendum is interesting. Most of counties and cities were for independence with exception of just 4:
Glasgow
Dundee
West Dunbartonshire
North Lanarkshire
There is a lot of outsiders who came to big cities in Scottlad from other parts of the UK and from abroad. They are mostly natural unionists and overwhelmingly voted against independence.
Btw, Spanish government apparently stimulates migration to Barcelona, to Catalonia from other Spanish regions to change ethnical balance.

You post, "The features that you have mentioned are features of any totalitarian state. Any totalitarian state has personality cult, state agitprop, state sponsored youth, women movements, puppet trade unions, secret police, absence of democracy, free mass media, sham elections." Yup, and both Nazi Germany and the USSR shared these features. To forbid their comparison in appropriate areas for the period of 1941-45 is purely arbitrary in timing and is a denial of the facts.

To forbid to compare and to forbid to equate are different terms. It is not forbidden to compare but it is forbidden to equate.

I think we need to clarify what is meant by "equate". In some slack English usage this is sometimes used the same as "compare". (You can compare apples and oranges, but you can't accurately equate them).

Yes, any term should be properly defined. I understand it this way - it is forbidden to claim publicly that roles of Nazi Germany and the Soviet union in WW2 were equal. While it is not forbidden to scrutinise any events, facts, similar features.

Does the new legislation say that one cannot "equate" the two, or "compare" the two?
Either way, I think it foolish to stifle debate, because unless the argument is able to be conducted in public, future generations will have neither the skills nor knowledge to defend the USSR against such a proposition.
It also opens the field up to conspiracy theorists of the "No smoke without fire" school. (i.e., If Russia restricts debate, what has it got to hide?)
I think such legislation is a mistake.

Personally I doubt that the law is urgent. It was passed just for political reasons and in fact the previous law is sufficient and doesn't need any amendments
It is the full text of the law

Запрещается в публичном выступлении, публично демонстрирующемся произведении, средствах массовой информации либо при размещении информации с использованием информационно-телекоммуникационных сетей, включая сеть «Интернет», отождествление целей, решений и действий руководства СССР, командования и военнослужащих СССР с целями, решениями и действиями руководства нацистской Германии, командования и военнослужащих нацистской Германии и европейских стран оси, установленными приговором Международного военного трибунала для суда и наказания главных военных преступников европейских стран оси (Нюрнбергского трибунала) либо приговорами национальных, военных или оккупационных трибуналов, основанными на приговоре Международного военного трибунала для суда и наказания главных военных преступников европейских стран оси (Нюрнбергского трибунала) либо вынесенными в период Великой Отечественной войны, Второй мировой войны, а также отрицание решающей роли советского народа в разгроме нацистской Германии и гуманитарной миссии СССР при освобождении стран Европы.

It is forbidden in a public speech, in a publicly displayed work, in the media or when posting information using information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, identifying the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the USSR, the command and military personnel of the USSR with the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the Nazi Germany, the command and military personnel of Nazi Germany and the Axis European countries, established by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the trial and punishment of the main war criminals of the European Axis countries (Nuremberg Tribunal) or by the sentences of the national, military or occupation tribunals based on the judgment of the International Military Tribunal to try and punish the main war criminals of the European Axis countries Nuremberg Tribunal) or passed during the Great Patriotic War, World War II, as well as denial of the decisive role of the Soviet people in the defeat of Nazi Germany and the humanitarian mission of the USSR in the liberation of Europe.

You may see the term 'identifying' (in Russian отождествление).
And note that it is forbidden to identify only goals, decisions and actions that were recognised as criminal ones by Nuremberg tribunal and other lawfull respective bodies.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

Thanks for supplying the text of the new law.

You post, "To forbid to compare and to forbid to equate are different terms. It is not forbidden to compare but it is forbidden to equate." So what would happen if a comparison were to find out that there is an equation? What wins? The facts, or the law? The mere fact that this question has to be asked tells us that it is rotten legislation. The truth and the law should never be exposed to possible conflict in this way.

You post, "I understand it this way - it is forbidden to claim publicly that roles of Nazi Germany and the Soviet union in WW2 were equal." Has anyone ever done this? If it is obviously untrue, it should not be difficult to disprove by the evidence, without recourse to law. This just looks like groundless patriotic virtue-signalling by the Putin regime. I agree with your, "Personally I doubt that the law is urgent. It was passed just for political reasons and in fact the previous law is sufficient and doesn't need any amendments"

In short, the new law seems to forbid anyone, in any medium, accusing the USSR of any of the crimes for which the Nazis were convicted by the International Military Tribunal or at Nuremburg, but only over the period of 22 June 1941 to 8 May 1945.

It therefore excludes, for example, the Katyn Massacre of Poles in 1940 or the 1945 mass killing without trial of Soviet citizens who had served in German uniform.

What would my situation be inside Russia under this law for suggesting what I did above about the Soviet culpability for the extraordinarily high death rates of German POWs taken at Stalingrad, given that the Nazis were held responsible by the IMT for the extraordinarily high death rates of Soviet POWs in 1941-42? Could I advance such an opinion inside Russia without fear of prosecution under the new law?

I also wonder about this "humanitarian mission" of the USSR in the liberation of Europe, given that the only reason why the USSR was in the war against Germany, rather than being a benevolent neutral towards it, was that Germany attacked it. "Great Patriotic War" seems to more accurately describe the essentially self interested nature of the USSR at the time than does "humanitarian mission".

Imposing Totalitarianism on unwilling peoples doesn't look much like a "humanitarian mission" to me.

===================================================================================================

Whataboutism Section.

You aren't addressing what I wrote. Certainly there were just over 700,000 people born in Scotland living in England at the last census. However, that is just one generation of migration, which has been going on for several hundred years. Virtually everyone in England who is not of post-war immigrant stock probably has some Scottish ancestry. A survey of surnames some thirty years ago revealed more people with Mac- as the prefix of their surname in the London telephone directories than there were in the Glasgow telephone directory! If statistically representative, that would make London the UK's biggest population centre for people of Scottish descent. Yet none can vote in a Scottish referendum.

You post, "Being abroad many Scots prefer to call themselves namely Scottish not British underling the fact thay they are separate people." Yup, but the two are not mutually exclusive. The Union has had little or no impact on a distinct Scottish identity. Indeed, in education, law and banking, it has preserved it. None of this was a problem for the Union.

(I should note than this phenomenon also exists in the USA. You can find hyphenated-Americans of almost any variety except English-Americans, who seem to just think of themselves as "Americans".)

You post, "Though, you know it pretty well because the history of Scotland is in fact history of wars with England." Actually, the history of the two countries is one of periods of peace interrupted by occasional wars. Indeed, under the Union there has been no such conflict for approaching nearly 300 years.

You post, "It is quite possible that Scotland with be independent one day." Yup. Scotland joined the Union by consent and it can withdraw by consent. Again, not a problem.

You post, "The Irish republic is a democratic state and the unionists in theory have nothing to fear... or not?" Well, if you look at the history of Eire until about 1990, the Protestants had a lot to fear. In 1923 there were approaching half a million of them in Eire, but that number fell by half after independence. The IRA also tried to ethnically cleanse some border farming areas of the North during the "Troubles". Furthermore, the Catholic Church had a tight, illiberal and damaging hold on Eire's society until very recently, which was hardly likely to endear it to the Ulster Protestants. Memories of this are still fresh. Only in the last 30 years has Eire evolved into a more recognizable, secular, liberal democracy. In some areas, such as abortion, it is now Northern Ireland that is the more conservative.

Yes, "The result of Scottish independence referendum is interesting." It showed a clear majority in favour of the Union.

I am not sure that "There is a lot of outsiders who came to big cities in Scottlad from other parts of the UK and from abroad." Scotland's migration is mostly outwards. The Irish migrated to Glasgow in large numbers, and they are hardly likely to be in favour of the Union.

You post, "Btw, Spanish government apparently stiulates migration to Barcelona, to Catalonia from other Spanish regions to change ethnical balance." You mean like the USSR's state-sponsored migration of Russian-speakers to the Donbas, Baltic States, Moldova, Siberia, Kaliningrad, etc., etc.? Or Imperial Russia's more distant colonization of the Crimea and Siberia?

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

You post, "To forbid to compare and to forbid to equate are different terms. It is not forbidden to compare but it is forbidden to equate." So what would happen if a comparison were to find out that there is an equation? What wins? The facts, or the law? The mere fact that this question has to be asked tells us that it is rotten legislation. The truth and the law should never be exposed to possible conflict in this way.

You post, "I understand it this way - it is forbidden to claim publicly that roles of Nazi Germany and the Soviet union in WW2 were equal." Has anyone ever done this? If it is obviously untrue, it should not be difficult to disprove by the evidence, without recourse to law. This just looks like groundless patriotic virtue-signalling by the Putin regime. I agree with your, "Personally I doubt that the law is urgent. It was passed just for political reasons and in fact the previous law is sufficient and doesn't need any amendments"

In short, the new law seems to forbid anyone, in any medium, accusing the USSR of any of the crimes for which the Nazis were convicted by the International Military Tribunal or at Nuremburg, but only over the period of 22 June 1941 to 8 May 1945.

Exactly.

It therefore excludes, for example, the Katyn Massacre of Poles in 1940 or the 1945 mass killing without trial of Soviet citizens who had served in German uniform.

Yes the Katyn massacre is infamous page in Russian history and responsibility for it was recognised.

What would my situation be inside Russia under this law for suggesting what I did above about the Soviet culpability for the extraordinarily high death rates of German POWs taken at Stalingrad, given that the Nazis were held responsible by the IMT for the extraordinarily high death rates of Soviet POWs in 1941-42? Could I advance such an opinion inside Russia without fear of prosecution under the new law?

:
As the the Nuremberg Tribunal recognised treatment of Soviet POWs as criminal then one must prove that high death rate among captured German POWs in Stalingrad happened due to intentional negligence of Moscow.

I also wonder about this "humanitarian mission" of the USSR in the liberation of Europe, given that the only reason why the USSR was in the war against Germany, rather than being a benevolent neutral towards it, was that Germany attacked it. "Great Patriotic War" seems to more accurately describe the essentially self interested nature of the USSR at the time than does "humanitarian mission".

Imposing Totalitarianism on unwilling peoples doesn't look much like a "humanitarian mission" to me.

As for the humanitarian mission then I don't understand why respective point was mentioned in the law. However there is a lot of Holocaust survivors liberated from extermination camps. So it would be wrong to claim that there was no any humanitarian mission. Apparently hundred thousands if not millions were saved from imminent death.

You aren't addressing what I wrote. Certainly there were just over 700,000 people born in Scotland living in England at the last census. However, that is just one generation of migration, which has been going on for several hundred years. Virtually everyone in England who is not of post-war immigrant stock probably has some Scottish ancestry. A survey of surnames some thirty years ago revealed more people with Mac- as the prefix of their surname in the London telephone directories than there were in the Glasgow telephone directory! If statistically representative, that would make London the UK's biggest population centre for people of Scottish descent. Yet none can vote in a Scottish referendum.

Now you are ready to understand something important about Russian realities. There are millions if not tens millions of Russians with typical Ukrainian surnames, me for example. I suppose that descendants of Scots in England are in about the same situation. They are really British who have Scottish surnames.

You post, "Being abroad many Scots prefer to call themselves namely Scottish not British underling the fact thay they are separate people." Yup, but the two are not mutually exclusive. The Union has had little or no impact on a distinct Scottish identity. Indeed, in education, law and banking, it has preserved it. None of this was a problem for the Union.

However, there is a strong desire for independence in Scotland.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

You haven't answered one of my questions regarding the new law: "What would my situation be inside Russia under this law for suggesting what I did above about the Soviet culpability for the extraordinarily high death rates of German POWs taken at Stalingrad, given that the Nazis were held responsible by the IMT for the extraordinarily high death rates of Soviet POWs in 1941-42? Could I advance such an opinion inside Russia without fear of prosecution under the new law?" Suppose (1) I had no evidence and (2) that I did have such evidence. Would I be subject to prosecution under this law in both cases?

It is certainly true that there were some significant incidental humanitarian results of the Red Army's advance into eastern Europe, such as the premature ending of the so-called "Holocaust". However my question was about its "humanitarian mission", given that the only reason why the USSR was in the war against Germany, rather than being a benevolent neutral towards it, was that Germany attacked it. Imposing Totalitarianism on unwilling peoples doesn't look much like a "humanitarian mission" to me.

There is a fundamental difference between the assimilation of Scots in England and Ukrainians in the USSR. There was no English colonization in Scotland. By contrast, Moscow has for centuries used colonization and assimilation as a means of extending Russian-speaking territory at the expense of its immediate neighbours. Siberia and Crimea were Czarist colonization projects, in which up to a third of settlers were Ukrainians whose own cultural and linguistic differences were lost in the process.

If you look at maps compiled from the USSR's 1926 census, (for example, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... s_1926.jpg) you will see that not only the Donbas but several oblasts inside the Russian RSFSR were majority Ukrainian speaking. The USSR used the settlement of Soviet citizens from elsewhere (whose lingua franca was Russian, even where they were not Russian) to change the ethnic and linguistic composition of these areas so that today there are no longer any Ukrainian-speaking majority oblasts in Russia and the Donbas now has a majority of Russian speakers. Putin's immediate aim in the Donbas appears to be to try to consolidate Soviet colonization of the area with a view to later annexation. Nor, if successful, is he likely to stop there, I would suggest.

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

You haven't answered one of my questions regarding the new law: "What would my situation be inside Russia under this law for suggesting what I did above about the Soviet culpability for the extraordinarily high death rates of German POWs taken at Stalingrad, given that the Nazis were held responsible by the IMT for the extraordinarily high death rates of Soviet POWs in 1941-42? Could I advance such an opinion inside Russia without fear of prosecution under the new law?" Suppose (1) I had no evidence and (2) that I did have such evidence. Would I be subject to prosecution under this law in both cases?

There is a principle - innocent until proven guilty. Attitude of the Germans toward Soviet POWs was recognised as criminal by the Nuremberg tribunal. So (as I understand it) equating of Nazi Germany and the Soviet union in treatment of POWs is forbidden just because there was no respective decision made by lawful Court or Tribunal. Strictly speaking absence of the court verdict make 'equation' incomplete. So publicly made statements that the attitude to POWs was equally criminal is unlawful in Russia. While I don't see any obstacles for researchers to find facts that back point about intentional negligence of Soviet authorities in respect to POWs in Stalingrad.

It is certainly true that there were some significant incidental humanitarian results of the Red Army's advance into eastern Europe, such as the premature ending of the so-called "Holocaust". However my question was about its "humanitarian mission", given that the only reason why the USSR was in the war against Germany, rather than being a benevolent neutral towards it, was that Germany attacked it. Imposing Totalitarianism on unwilling peoples doesn't look much like a "humanitarian mission" to me.

In my opinion the point about "humanitarian mission" in the law looks strange but I understand why it appeared. It is directed against those who claim that the only goal of Moscow was ideological enslavement of East European countries.

There is a fundamental difference between the assimilation of Scots in England and Ukrainians in the USSR. There was no English colonization in Scotland. By contrast, Moscow has for centuries used colonization and assimilation as a means of extending Russian-speaking territory at the expense of its immediate neighbours. Siberia and Crimea were Czarist colonization projects, in which up to a third of settlers were Ukrainians whose own cultural and linguistic differences were lost in the process.

There is another fundamental difference. Modern Russians and Ukrainians have common ancestry, several centuries ago they have common state with capital in Kiev.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians

Ethnic Ukrainians have historically been known as Ruthenians until the early 20th century, referring to the medieval land of Ruthenia, which was the Latin term for Kyivan Rus, a medieval East Slavic state with the capital in Kyiv.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

The modern nations of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus' as their cultural ancestors,[6] with Belarus and Russia deriving their names from it. The Rurik dynasty would continue to rule parts of Rus' until the 16th century with the Tsardom of Russia.

So unlike the Scots and the English that are quite different peoples, the Russians and the Ukrainians are much more close to each other from many points of view. I'm able to watch Ukrainian TV without any problem because Ukrainian is very close to Russian while Gaelic (hardly spoken even by many Scots) is quite different language.
In 18, 19 centuries the Ukrainians were regarded as just Russians who lived on the territory of modern Ukraine with own dialect of Russian.
During expansion of Russian empire ancestors of modern Ukrainians colonised new lands along with ancestors of modern Russians. Within 2-3 generation (even 1 generation) new settlers switched to Russian language and in fact became Russians from all points of view.

If you look at maps compiled from the USSR's 1926 census, (for example, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... s_1926.jpg) you will see that not only the Donbas but several oblasts inside the Russian RSFSR were majority Ukrainian speaking. The USSR used the settlement of Soviet citizens from elsewhere (whose lingua franca was Russian, even where they were not Russian) to change the ethnic and linguistic composition of these areas so that today there are no longer any Ukrainian-speaking majority oblasts in Russia and the Donbas now has a majority of Russian speakers. Putin's immediate aim in the Donbas appears to be to try to consolidate Soviet colonization of the area with a view to later annexation. Nor, if successful, is he likely to stop there, I would suggest.

The Southern parts of modern Ukraine and modern Russia were voided any Slavic population and were settled by people from different parts of Russian empire.
There are parallels with Scottish and English settlers in Ireland. Their descendants are mainly unionists in NI.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

You post, "..... publicly made statements that the attitude to POWs was equally criminal is unlawful in Russia. While I don't see any obstacles for researchers to find facts that back point about intentional negligence of Soviet authorities in respect to POWs in Stalingrad." Supposing researchers do find such evidence, how can they air it without risk of prosecution?

You post, "It is directed against those who claim that the only goal of Moscow was ideological enslavement of East European countries." It seems to me that that was certainly the result. whatever the intent. None of the peoples of Eastern Europe seem to have wanted an extended Soviet presence, or the imposition of a Totalitarian system from abroad. Indeed, 1991 seems to show that 14 out of 15 FSRs in the USSR didn't want it either.

You post, "There is another fundamental difference. Modern Russians and Ukrainians have common ancestry....." Yes, but so did Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians and numerous other Slavic groups without national states. Slavdom has been splintering for two thousand years and forming new national entities. Russia is today trying to resist that tendency and turn it back. Extreme Russian nationalists (who are among Putin's supporters) appear not to even recognize that Ukrainians and Belarusians are not Russians. That is why it is impossible to predict how far west Russia might try to push and why everyone needs to physically and psychologically prepare themselves for possible war.

The word "Ruthenian" today (at least in English) refers to those Ukrainians living in a western border district of Ukraine opposite Slovakia and to their relatives in Slovakia and part of the Carpathians of southern Poland. They are a good case of a Slavic people who arguably have come close to a national identity separate from their neighbours but failed (apart from one day in March 1939) to create their own state.

You post, ".....the Scots and the English that are quite different peoples....." Not so much today. The Scots have the same essential genetic mix as the English, though in different proportions. The same is true of the Irish and Welsh. This is because of much mixing of populations, initially due to English invasions and latterly due to Scottish, Irish and Welsh economic migration to England. All are considerably mixed and far more closely related to each other than to any continental Europeans, (except possibly the Bretons in the case of the native Cornish?).

The Scottish national language is "Scots" - which is either a West Germanic language in its own right, or a dialect of English, depending on one's academic perspective. Gaelic was only ever spoken in the lowly populated highlands and islands and itself displaced the native Pictish language.

I think nationalism is essentially a state of mind, although it cites language and genetics as justification. It is a cultural matter and culture changes. The culture and values of the UK today are vastly different from those of the UK two hundred years ago. "The past", as they say, "is a foreign country". If a group of people think they are a national entity with sufficient commonalities, then they essentially are. Their problem then is persuading others, particularly their closest relatives and immediate neighbours.

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

You post, "..... publicly made statements that the attitude to POWs was equally criminal is unlawful in Russia. While I don't see any obstacles for researchers to find facts that back point about intentional negligence of Soviet authorities in respect to POWs in Stalingrad." Supposing researchers do find such evidence, how can they air it without risk of prosecution?

I don't see any problem with publication of respective documents, facts.

You post, "There is another fundamental difference. Modern Russians and Ukrainians have common ancestry....." Yes, but so did Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians and numerous other Slavic groups without national states. Slavdom has been splintering for two thousand years and forming new national entities. Russia is today trying to resist that tendency and turn it back. Extreme Russian nationalists (who are among Putin's supporters) appear not to even recognize that Ukrainians and Belarusians are not Russians. That is why it is impossible to predict how far west Russia might try to push and why everyone needs to physically and psychologically prepare themselves for possible war.

The Saxons that moved to British isles and the Saxons that remained on the territory of modern Germany were centuries ago parts of the same people. But later the Saxons, the Anglos, the Utes with the Danes and the Normans formed modern English people. Different tribes could form solid people and some tribes could split on 2, 3 or more different ones. They are natural historical processes. As for East Slavic tribes then there are concurrent processes of convergence and divergence. It is hard to predict how it will end. Anyway - never say never.

The word "Ruthenian" today (at least in English) refers to those Ukrainians living in a western border district of Ukraine opposite Slovakia and to their relatives in Slovakia and part of the Carpathians of southern Poland. They are a good case of a Slavic people who arguably have come close to a national identity separate from their neighbours but failed (apart from one day in March 1939) to create their own state.

Indeed, now the word 'Rusin' or 'Ruthenian' is being used toward representative of Slavic people who live in some European countries but mostly in Ukraine. I know one lad (in Moscow) whose Father is Rusin (Ruthenian).

You post, ".....the Scots and the English that are quite different peoples....." Not so much today. The Scots have the same essential genetic mix as the English, though in different proportions. The same is true of the Irish and Welsh. This is because of much mixing of populations, initially due to English invasions and latterly due to Scottish, Irish and Welsh economic migration to England. All are considerably mixed and far more closely related to each other than to any continental Europeans, (except possibly the Bretons in the case of the native Cornish?).

I would like to say that Russians and Ukrainians are mixed even in much more substantial way. As for NI then you may argue that both communities here are parts of the same people but walls inside Belfast that outlived the Berlin wall for decades show that the division is much more profound than you try to present.

The Scottish national language is "Scots" - which is either a West Germanic language in its own right, or a dialect of English, depending on one's academic perspective. Gaelic was only ever spoken in the lowly populated highlands and islands and itself displaced the native Pictish language.

I know about it. Ethnogenesis of Scottish people is complex and it included not only celtic tribes but also Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Vikings (Danes and Norwegians). Scottish lowlanders became English speakers long ago while Highlanders switched from Gaelic much later. There is a lot of Scots (or descendants of Scots) in the USA, Canada, Australia.
At the same time a big number of the Scots (at least in Scotland) regard themselves as separate people and wish to be independent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland
It appears that only about 83% in Scotland were born there. And 17% came to Scotland from outside. I suggest that they are natural unionists.
So to win in referendum no less than 60% of those who was born in Scotland should vote FOR independence.

I think nationalism is essentially a state of mind, although it cites language and genetics as justification. It is a cultural matter and culture changes. The culture and values of the UK today are vastly different from those of the UK two hundred years ago. "The past", as they say, "is a foreign country". If a group of people think they are a national entity with sufficient commonalities, then they essentially are. Their problem then is persuading others, particularly their closest relatives and immediate neighbours.

Agreed. In our global World nationalism in the form of separatism became something obsolete, senseless. However it exists and hardly anytime soon the Scots in Scotland would call themselves just the British of Scottish descent.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

But what if the facts do identify, "the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the USSR, the command and military personnel of the USSR with the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the Nazi Germany.....?"

How can anyone inside Russia air this without risk of prosecution under the new law?

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

But what if the facts do identify, "the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the USSR, the command and military personnel of the USSR with the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the Nazi Germany.....?"

How can anyone inside Russia air this without risk of prosecution under the new law?

There is an important detail that you have missed. The law doesn't mention ALL goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of Nazi Germany but only those that were recognized as criminal ones by Nuremberg Tribunal. As no one goal, decision or action of Soviet leadership was recognised as criminal by Nuremberg Tribunal (or another court) then at least from formal point of view the identification is impossible.
At the same time researchers are free to publish documents, refer to established facts that could hint to some criminal sides of the goals, decisions, actions but (as I have said previously) innocent until proven guilty.
Historians may discuss facts, make allegations, suppositions but they don't have authority of the Court.

[gebhk]

Hi guys,
Snpol - thanks for the actual text. Although my grandmother taught me Russian it was on the pre-revolutionary alphabet and I haven't used it for so long that even if it were otherwise, all has sadly long been forgotten through lack of use. Alas in translation, the first part of this lengthy sentence makes no grammatical sense nor does it say WHAT is forbidden (I have shortened it below for clarity).

It is forbidden in a public speech (etc), identifying the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the USSR, (etc) with the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the Nazi Germany, (etc) established by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal (etc) or passed during the Great Patriotic War, World War II,

I can only assume that a correct translation would be:
It is forbidden in a public speech (etc), to identify the goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the USSR, (etc) asthe goals, decisions and actions of the leadership of the Nazi Germany, (etc) established by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal (etc) or passed during the Great Patriotic War, World War II,

while the rest should probably read:

and also to deny the decisive role of the Soviet people in the defeat of Nazi Germany and the humanitarian mission of the USSR in the liberation of Europe.

I have a number of problems with both of these sub-sentences:

1) The word 'identify'. As it stands in this translation, if I identify that a private Ivan Ivanov (of the military personnel of the USSR) stole a goat and it can be shown that private Hans Muller (of the military personnel of Nazi Germany) - (or even private Luigi Rossi of the 'other European Axis Countries' - but strangely not private Haruto Sato) was tried for and/or convicted of stealing a goat by any Allied military tribunal, I will be falling foul of this law. Perhaps a more accurate translation would be the words 'equate' or 'compare'?

2) As the translation stands, there are no temporal boundaries on the goals decisions and actions of the Soviets that are forbidden to be identified; the boundaries only apply to the tribunals, courts etc that define those goals, decisions and actions. In other words any goal, aim or action at any time by the Soviet personnel mentioned cannot be compared to a goal, aim or action by the Nazis stipulated by a court or tribunal that sat during WW2 or the GPW. This, I assume, cannot be a correct translation because the text then goes on to name a number of courts and tribunals that sat after WW2 and the GPW had finished.

3) As the translation stands ANY goal, aim or action (not just a criminal one) attributed by ANY allied court or tribunal to personnel of any European Axis Country cannot be identified (or perhaps compared/equated) to the USSR. If any such court identified that, say, AH kept a dog, if I identify that comrade Stalin also kept a dog, I would fall foul of the law.

4) What is 'denying'? It would be very easy to demonstrate that someone who provides evidence that refutes the 'decisive' role of the USSR or its 'humanitarian mission in the liberation of Europe' is, in fact, denying those. Ironically, of course, a reasonable defence of the latter would be that there was no liberation, merely a change of subjugator and. since you cannot deny something that never happened, the law does not apply.

Any clarification welcome.

[gebhk]

only those that were recognized as criminal ones by Nuremberg Tribunal.

I have to point out there is nothing in the text you have quoted to say that the law applies only to goals, aims and actions that were recognised as criminal. It covers all goals, aims and actions that were recognised. So if i say that, like Nazi Germany, the USSR built tanks during the war, I would be falling foul of the law.