What are the most powerful and influential countries?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Serb





Oh, man. I've never laugh so hard. 'founded by the Vikings 1100 years ago'?
You think that we are decendance of Vikings?

OK, Serb. Enlighten me. Ned

[David Floyd]

Those people died, because of Stalin's regime, not because of genocide. And btw, Russians suffered the most of all from this regime.

Well let's see, the Ukrainians wisely rejected collectivization, so Stalin starved them until they came around. I guess if they hadn't "come around" it would of been genocide - this was just mass murder

Genocide as I see it, is something different, something like what your brillant, advanced democratic country done with Native Americans.

Encroaching on their land, sure - genocide, no. Stalin killed more Ukrainians than we killed Indians by a HUGE margin.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Serb
Those people died, because of Stalin's regime, not because of genocide.

Considering the fact that they engineered the Ukrainian famine, I don't see how it could be called anything other than genocide.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well let's see, the Ukrainians wisely rejected collectivization, so Stalin starved them until they came around. I guess if they hadn't "come around" it would of been genocide - this was just mass murder

Do think only Ukranians rejected collectivization? And, btw do have any idea how many Russians lived/live now in Ukraine? As I said Russia and Ukraine was one country during 337 years.
Many people died in other parts of SU during Stalin's collectivization. If someone has right to say about genocide under Stalin's rule, it is Russians. Stalin killed much more Russians during his atrocities then representatives of any other nationality of SU.

Encroaching on their land, sure - genocide, no.

Oh, really?
You just took their land, killed millions of them and put the rest in preservations. Sure it was not genocide.

Stalin killed more Ukrainians than we killed Indians by a HUGE margin.

HUGE?
You are so sure about nombers. If so then why today Ukraine is a country, but Indians has no country.
Perhaps, because you eradicated majority of them? Few millions of people in 20 century when World's population is about 6 billions it's not the same as few millions of people in 18 or 19 century when World's population was less then 1 billion.

[David Floyd]

Do think only Ukranians rejected collectivization? And, btw do have any idea how many Russians lived/live now in Ukraine? As I said Russia and Ukraine was one country during 337 years.
Many people died in other parts of SU during Stalin's collectivization. If someone has right to say about genocide under Stalin's rule, it is Russians. Stalin killed much more Russians during his atrocities then representatives of any other nationality of SU.

I find it hard to understand why you are seemingly justifying what happened in Ukraine.

You just took their land, killed millions of them and put the rest in preservations. Sure it was not genocide.

The Spanish might have killed millions, the US did not. Smallpox - blame the Brits.

You are so sure about nombers. If so then why today Ukraine is a country, but Indians has no country.
Perhaps, because you eradicated majority of them? Few millions of people in 20 century when World's population is about 6 billions it's not the same as few millions of people in 18 or 19 century when World's population was less then 1 billion.

The Indians were already very few in number before the US came into being.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well let's see, the Ukrainians wisely rejected collectivization, so Stalin starved them until they came around. I guess if they hadn't "come around" it would of been genocide - this was just mass murder



Encroaching on their land, sure - genocide, no. Stalin killed more Ukrainians than we killed Indians by a HUGE margin.

David, I am getting quite tired of Americans agreeing that we committed "genocide" against the Native Americans. Have you ever read de Tocquiville's Democracy in America?

Ned

[David Floyd]

When did I say we committed genocide? I said quite the opposite.

[Spiffor]

Ned :
I didn't. What does he say about this ?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
OK, Serb. Enlighten me. Ned

We are (Ukranians and Russians) both slavs people. On the beggining of our existance Slavs lived in one country called Kiev's Rus. There was no Russians or Ukranians or Belorussians only Eastern Slavs, western Slavs etc. This country desintegrated on minor states later. Then Mongols invaded and ocupated majority of separated Eastern Slav's (Russians) feodal states for period of time about 300 years. And only when separated Russian states created a unite army they defeated Mongols in Kulikovo's battle in 1380 years. Then ther was a gathering of Russian lands in one country.

As for Vikings,
I don't know how to explain it properly, but some of those early medival states indeed asked for Vikings to be their rulers. And Viking's princes agreed to rule those states, but Vikings didn't found those states (cities) they already existed during centuries.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I find it hard to understand why you are seemingly justifying what happened in Ukraine.

WTF?
I'm justifying Stalin's action?
I have very close relatives killed during Stalin's atrocities. I'm the last man who will justify his actions. But again, as I understand the meaning of word "genocide' it is attempt of one nation to exterminate other nation. What Stalin done during collectivization is absolutely different, for him there was absolutely no difference who are you Russian, Ukanian, Uzbeck or someone else, if you are not obbey to his orders you are an enemy then, the enemy of Soviets, the enemy of working class, and you must be destroyed then.

[Ned]

Serb, I hardly think the "rule" bit was voluntary. What the Vikings did is conquer and take over, founding both Kiev and Rus. Obviously, they did not eliminate that native Slavs.

Something similar happend to the English who for 1000 years have been ruled by the Vikings (Normans).

Ned

[OzzyKP]

To be fair we did more than just encroach on the Indians' land a bit. I'd say what we did was borderline genocide, probably to the degree of the Ukranian famine, but certainly not to the degree of the Holocaust.

We have to look beyond just tactics employed in genocide and look to the net effect and aim of genocide. Genocide is destroying a race of people, an entire culture. This can happen without sending people to death camps. So if you want to compare the Ukranian famine and the conquering of America then the ultimate question to ask is how much of each of these cultures is still around today. I would guess Ukranian society (whatever that is) is more intact than Native American culture.

If Stalin forced all of the Ukranians onto an unforgiving scrap of land (a small chunk of Siberia perhaps) then perhaps we'd be equal. I am an American patriot to the end, but I am unforgiving for what we did to the Natives.

[Ned]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
To be fair we did more than just encroach on the Indians' land a bit. I'd say what we did was borderline genocide, probably to the degree of the Ukranian famine, but certainly not to the degree of the Holocaust.

We have to look beyond just tactics employed in genocide and look to the net effect and aim of genocide. Genocide is destroying a race of people, an entire culture. This can happen without sending people to death camps. So if you want to compare the Ukranian famine and the conquering of America then the ultimate question to ask is how much of each of these cultures is still around today. I would guess Ukranian society (whatever that is) is more intact than Native American culture.

If Stalin forced all of the Ukranians onto an unforgiving scrap of land (a small chunk of Siberia perhaps) then perhaps we'd be equal. I am an American patriot to the end, but I am unforgiving for what we did to the Natives.

This is really tiresome. Obviously noone here has actually read de TocQueville's Democracy in America.

Written in 1830, de TocQueville, a Frenchman, described America. He summarized the "Indian" situation as follows:

Europeaners were farmers and manufacturers, not hunters. They depended upon a real estate system founded on written deeds, fences and "no trespassing."

The Indians were hunters and had no concept of real property. To them, the land was "free" and open to all.

However, the Indians wanted to trade with the Europeaners. They traded two things: pelts and land.

The effort to hunt, not only for food, but for trade, depleted the land of game. The starving Indians usually sold their land to the Whites and moved West. But at times, they would hunt on the land they had just sold. They would cross fence boundaries and kill cattle and other domestic animals. At times, the farmer would object. The Indian would counter. One thing usually lead to another until full scale war broke out. The Indians would lose and move Westward.

The process, when de TocQueville saw it, had been in progress for a couple of hundred years. He predicted it would continue because the Indian would not give up his hunting lifestyle, nor would he learn to read and write.

In the end, after countless wars, the U.S. created lands upon which the Indian would stay. In turn, the U.S. government agreed to provide enough food, etc., for the Indian to survive on these "reservations."

This brought peace and preserved the Indians from extinction.

Ned

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ned
Serb, I hardly think the "rule" bit was voluntary. What the Vikings did is conquer and take over, founding both Kiev and Rus. Obviously, they did not eliminate that native Slavs.

Something similar happend to the English who for 1000 years have been ruled by the Vikings (Normans).

Ned

Kiev was not founded by Vikings. Rus was not founded by Vikings, it's really strange claim, considering that we always speak on Russian language but not on language of Vikings.
Kiev's Rus was an independant and very powerful state. It was never conquered by Vikings. Kiev's princes used Vikings as mercenaries often, they hired Vikings (Normans, Varyags) for their armies. Only once Kiev was took by an army consisted of Vikings who were lead by one of the Slav's princes. But they took it for a very short time. But Kiev's Rus it is not just a one city Kiev, but a name of country. The city of Kiev is often called as "the mother of Russian cities". It was the most powerfull city, but of course not a single city of slav's state. You said that it was founded by Vikings 1100 years ago. It is not correct. It was founded much earlier (If I'm not mistaken in VII century) by Slavs. IX-XII centuries is the pick of power of Kiev's Rus. In XII century it was desintegrated to minor states because of continious wars between feodals. Before IX centuries Kiev's princes made few successfull campaigns against Byzanty, few times slavs armies knocked at Constantinopol's doors. The Byzanty was forced to sign a peace treaty very profitable for slavs. So Kiev's Rus made a lot of noise even before it's pick of power in IX.

[Serb]

This brought peace and preserved the Indians from extinction.

This sounds very funny. As long as I'm not an Indian. I'm sure that remaining Native Americans have absolutely differrent vision of your story.