Should East Europe countries be thankful to Soviet Union?

[David Floyd]

Regarding internment of American citizens (I'm not even gonna call them Japanese-Americans, because that gets away from the point that their rights as Americans were violated, and the people who ordered it should have had horrible things happen to them), even Earl Warren considered it one of his worst mistakes, and as governor of California he was one of its biggest supporters.

Looks like everyone was duped into hating Japanese because of Pearl Harbor and all that. Maybe you can begin to understand why I hate notions of patriotism so much.

As to Stalin, serb, yes, he may have deported mainly those who were "traitors" during WW2. But let's look at why these people were traitors. Could it be because of Stalin's crimes against them and their relatives before the war? I think that's a distinct possibility, don't you?

So, Stalin was responsible for the "treason", which I would actually call self defense against a murderous regime. They thought the Nazis would be better - they were wrong, to be sure, but then again Stalin didn't help with that attitude either, seeing as how Soviet propaganda showed Germany as a positive thing during the pact between the Nazis and Soviets and the carving up of Poland.

Maybe that's one reason I hate propaganda, too.

[Sprayber]

There seems to be a disturbing contridiction about Stalin among the Russian people. Or at least the posters here. They condemn his actions yet they respect him If a German said that about Hitler, he would be called a Nazi. Something Serb likes to throw around


Also some here are saying that since the Nazies were so bad, the Russian occupation, and domination were not only justified but the people there should actually thank them. The Soviet Union lost all pretenses of being owed anything by their actions that lasted for decades. Russians, Australians, Americans, Brits, French, W Germans have no right what so ever to say that Eastern Europeans owe the Soviet Union anything. It is up to those that actually lived there. Ask the Chezchs, Poles, East Germans, Hungarians, Liths, Estonians, Latvians and other East Europeans.

[Serb]

Originally posted by panasonic

Serb, at least you've admitted that you are incapable to argue to me .

To argue with nazi, it’s the same as argue with stinking pile of sh*t- both unpleasant and useless.
I’ll replay your post for the last time and only because I’ve already said that I’ll reply it.
Btw, why in your post you didn’t put quotes of what I said? Perhaps in that case your excuses would look ridiculous?

I said that some of Lithuanians did killed children as a counter to your possible arguement if I would say "no one did that". That arguement would be something about criminals. It is the fact criminals in every country killed children.

So, those criminals (nazi criminals) weren’t Lithuanians? Oh…let me guess, they were good people but were forced to kill by those evil nazi. They weren’t nazi themselves, but just were forced to be some of them. They were crying every time when were forced to throw alive child into fire. Right?
Or perhaps you are trying to say that after WW2, Soviets forced you to do SUCH things?

As for blacks or Asians, probably if they would live in our territory Hitler would have them harmed. But yet again, I doubt any more Lithuanians would have participated. There were probably like 10 to 50 Lithuanians who harmed Jews under Hitler, most of them (if not all) were forced to do so.

10-50 nazi in Lithuania during nazi occupation? What a bullsh*t. You gladly helped them in holocaust against Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Poles and other ‘inferior’ races. What do you think all those SS legions created in Baltic States with all their “zonder-commands” were doing in Russia? Took care about flowers in gardens?

However, even more people helped Jews to escape from nazis.

As I said before, I don’t believe that all your population was on nazi side. I believe that there were a lot of honest and brave people who didn’t sell their soul to nazi, who didn’t become nazi monsters.

As for graves, all of them are remaining. however, as you talked also about monuments, some of these were tore down. But those weren't monuments for soldiers, they were monuments for Soviet regime and various statues of Soviet leaders. But even these weren't destroyed, just moved away. They now stands in park of Grutas where everybody could look to them if they wants to. I think this is right what we have done - why we should keep all the statues - symbols of oppression and occupation - in places they stood? Will anyone for example keep for example Saddam statues after his death?

In your previous post you said, “most of them”, now you are saying that “all of them”. When you were lying, then or now?

Leaving the monuments dedicated to Soviet leaders aside, are you trying to convince me that there were no acts of vandalism against GRAVES of Soviet soldiers (soldiers who were killed in battles for liberation of Baltic States from nazi), about ten years ago right after the Baltic States gained independence from SU?

I don't say Jews are parasites. In school we were teached vice-versa, about how bad was nazi regime and holocaust. I don't however support Israeli position on Palestine, but this is a different story and I don't think all Jews are bad because of that.

Especially for ‘gifted’ guys like you are I’ll repeat what I’ve posted:

You said:
No, WE ARE NOT teached in schools that Russians are bandits, we see that ourselves.

I replied:
Nazi: no, we are not teached in schools that Jews and Slavs are parasites, we see that ourselves.

You weren’t unable to see parallels between those two statements? You was unable to understand why I consider you a nazi?
I’ll give you a hint: because you speak like nazi and think like nazi.

This is quite true about these crimes. This is not just blaming, most of these people are captured at the scene. I am now talking mostly about small thugs, etc. As for real mafiamen, Russian mafia hasn't such a big influence in Lithuania as in other Eastern European countries, but you can't say there is no such thing as Russian mafia. All I am saying about Russians being criminals isn't a prejustice or made-up facts, this is what I've seen after observations done. And I am not saying all Russians are such - some are quite assimilated and they are now in parliament, etc.

First of all, I still think that blaming 8% of your population in half of total crimes is no more then bullsh*t and nazionalistic (yep, nazionalistic, not nationalistic) propaganda. Next, Vagabond is already tried to explain it for you, you seem to do not understand him. I’ll do it again.
So, in case when one national group is persecuted by majority of population and by government, when this group is put in unfair conditions in compare with rest of population, when representatives of this group don’t have civil rights and often don’t have citizenship, in those circumstances only a moron wouldn’t expect an increase of crime rate among this group. Because to feed your family, you should have a work, to have a work you should by anybody but not Russian. The only other way to feed your family is to commit crime.
Or perhaps you are trying to convince me that Russians could find work in Baltic States with the same success as Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians could find it?
I realize that in Lithuania Russians live in better conditions then in Latvia and Estonia, but still things far from normal imRo.

I think the main trouble with Russians being criminals is because some of them still thinks Russia should rule and that they can break laws of independent Lithuania.

Oh, great…lets see, I don’t have a work, but have family to feed. I’m going to steal some bread, but I need motivation for this…hmmm…. got it!!!…I’ll steal it because I think Russia should rule over Baltic States.
Great logic!!!

In Latvia there were the most of Russians percentally (only about 50% of Latvian people were Latvians at a time of declaring independence. In Riga there was like 25% of Latvians and in Daugavpils, second largest city - 9%), thus they were the most disliked there. Latvian government didn't gave citizenship for most of them simply because that would destroy the nation. They fought for independence not because they wanted to be Russianised after that.

They fought for independence! The fought for independence!!!
It smells pretty bad if what you are saying is true. Because:
1) How could they won the war for independence (you said they fought) if, there were so little amount of them? Especially consider that only no more then 1/4 population of their capital and no more then 9% in their largest cities (which is very important) fought for this independence.
2) Why this huge % of Russian population didn’t stop them in this fight for independence? If this part of population really wanted to “Russianise” Latvia, it weren’t in their interests to be independent.
I see only 3 logical explanations:
1) Your data is incorrect (Which I doubt)
2) They didn’t “fought” for independence, but were awarded by it.
3) Those Russians who lived there (close to half of population in accordance with your data) consider Latvia as their home and didn’t stop Latvian fought for independence, because considered themselves as citizens of Latvia and didn’t want to “Russianise” it at all.
Perhaps you have another versions why civil war between equal parts of population wasn’t started?

Maybe you think that is nazi (which it isn't), but they didn't wanted to destroy their nation and language (which was already being used not frequently in major cities). Government though that not giving citizenship would force more Russians to leave, which it certainly did.

Typical nazism. Old, good nazi formula- “The country of ‘X’, for people of ‘X’ nationality.”

It’s really interesting for me why NATO didn’t bombard you? They call such things an ethnical cleansing and humanitarian catastrophe. Last time it was in Kosovo and in Macedonia. Kosovo is an ancient Serbian ground, a holy place for any Serb, the birthplace of Serbian state. They lived there for thousand years. Later they gave shelter for Albanian refuges and when those refuges start to attack Serbs and make proclamations that its their place, because there live more Albanians then Serbs, Serbs made measures and started too push those unwelcome Albanian guests from Kosvo which is Serbian ground, back to Albania (absolutely like you done in Baltic States with exception that Russians didn’t took arms and didn’t started a war) NATO propaganda called this a humanitarian catastrophe and start to kill Serbs, killed much more civilians during months of humanitarian bombardments then Serbs ever killed during entire war, forced Serbs to surrender and grant Serbian land Kosovo to Albanians, who were so grateful to their masters that killed/pushed away all remaining Serbs in region, attacked nearby Macedonia and after a short campaign, with help of their masters they were granted by changes in Macedonian constitution by which Albanian become the second official language of Macedonia.
WHAT? Russians should take arms like Albanians to be noticed by world society? To start the war, instead of silently running away from nazi regimes of Baltic States?

So, why NATO didn’t called situation in Baltic States a humanitarian catastrophe? MUCH more Russian refuges were pushed out of Baltic States then Albanians out of Kosovo?

I know one man who was mugged because he isn't Russian. If something like that would happen in USA those muggers would be immidietly deported.

Really?
Like in Baltic States never were pogroms against Russians right after gain of independence.

In 1939 Lithuania was actually annexed, in 1940 just officially. In 1939 the ultimatum was made and communists went to power.

Then we have different definitions of annexation.

Soviet structures were used for extermination of many, many cultural groups. Krimean could be a good example - whole nation was massacred or exiled. And there were more such massacres, Soviets probably targetted much more nations than Hitler.

Crimean couldn’t be a good example. They were deported during WW2 because they fought on nazi side, deported to prevent their further cooperation with enemy. If you think that it’s a proof of soviet evilness, then the same goes for USA and Great Britain who done the same things during WW2.

For the third time, I did just said that third reich was better than Soviet Union, not that third reich is very good. I've said tons of examples why Hitleristic Germany was better than Soviet Union, you did retalled to none of them. You can't argue back, just call me neo-nazi (which I am not) in fact.

I couldn’t say better about this topic then AH did. Read his explanation, I’m agree with everything he said about this subject and don’t want to waste my time repeating the same basic differences between communism and nazism for such nazi as you are.
You wouldn’t understand them anyway, because you are ****ing nazi who prefer to live under nazi regime and be one of the nazi, to be a murder and butcher, but be in safety as long as you kill others, and be worshiper of such nice basic goals of nazism as supremacy of your race and extermination of ‘inferior races’, then to live in society where you have probability to be arrested for nothing, only because of crazy will of one crazy dictator, but which society don’t force you to burn people of different nationalities alive to save your own skin, and which society has such basic principles as equality of all peoples and all nationalities.

You are nazi Panasonic, typical neo-nazi peace of crap who regrets that Soviets crushed nazism. You have lost so many opportunities; you should have been born in Hitler’s times.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sprayber
There seems to be a disturbing contridiction about Stalin among the Russian people. Or at least the posters here. They condemn his actions yet they respect him If a German said that about Hitler, he would be called a Nazi. Something Serb likes to throw around

WTF? When I said that I respect Stalin?

[Serb]

No one should be thankful of something bad if there could have been something even worse, it's a very bad argument. If somebody kicks your ass, oh boy, atleast the someone didn't kill you, and you should be thankful for that!

Ah...what an example! You are real poet.
What about this version?

Once upon a time, an old guy “G” gathered a gang of teenagers around himself (some by force, some by their own will) and backstabbed other old guy “S” with intention to kill him and robber him. Unfortunately to gang, mr. “S” was a pretty tough guy and didn’t felt unconscious, but strike back. There was a long fight and gang badly wounded guy “S”, but finally “S” won the fight. After the fight, guy “S” start to think what should be done with teenagers who participated in attack on him. Should he punish them and send them in jail? Perhaps, he should demand compensation? Perhaps, just let them go? While thinking about this, he noticed that guy “U” and guy “B” looking very strange in his direction, whisper about something and gather a band teenagers too.
Mr. “S” decided that if he will release teenagers who participated in attack on him, some of them could join growing gang of “U” and “B” and attack him again. Next surprise attack could be the last. He already was badly injured during first.
And finally, he decided to don’t punish teenagers (well, they were responsible, but they still were just kids), to don’t demand compensation, but let them live with him. He created his own gang, created it from teenagers who kicked him not so long ago. He doesn’t want to be backstabbed again.

[Arrian]

he decided to don’t punish teenagers (well, they were responsible, but they still were just kids), to don’t demand compensation, but let them live with him. He created his own gang, created it from teenagers who kicked him not so long ago. He doesn’t want to be backstabbed again.

Serb, that isn't a very good analogy. In your example, "S" is the USSR, and "G" is Nazi Germany, and I assume that the "teenagers" are the Eastern European states occupied by the USSR after the war. The way you write it, the kindly old USSR allowed the nasty teenagers to "live with him" and didn't even punish them or demand compensation. Sorry, but that just isn't analogous to real life.

I do understand the "buffer zone" argument (I think we've discussed that before). I just don't think it excuses what the USSR did. Nor do I think that the Cold War excuses the excesses of US actions during that time (CIA monkey business, Vietnam, etc).

Finally, "U" and "B" may have gathered a "gang" (NATO, I assume you mean), but they didn't coerce the gang via military force.

-Arrian

[Ming]

ENOUGH WITH THE NAME CALLING... especially you SERB. One more personal insult and somebody is going to get restricted.

NOW DISCUSS THIS LIKE ADULTS!

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Serb


Ah...what an example! You are real poet.
What about this version?

Once upon a time, an old guy “G” gathered a gang of teenagers around himself (some by force, some by their own will) and backstabbed other old guy “S” with intention to kill him and robber him. Unfortunately to gang, mr. “S” was a pretty tough guy and didn’t felt unconscious, but strike back. There was a long fight and gang badly wounded guy “S”, but finally “S” won the fight. After the fight, guy “S” start to think what should be done with teenagers who participated in attack on him. Should he punish them and send them in jail? Perhaps, he should demand compensation? Perhaps, just let them go? While thinking about this, he noticed that guy “U” and guy “B” looking very strange in his direction, whisper about something and gather a band teenagers too.
Mr. “S” decided that if he will release teenagers who participated in attack on him, some of them could join growing gang of “U” and “B” and attack him again. Next surprise attack could be the last. He already was badly injured during first.
And finally, he decided to don’t punish teenagers (well, they were responsible, but they still were just kids), to don’t demand compensation, but let them live with him. He created his own gang, created it from teenagers who kicked him not so long ago. He doesn’t want to be backstabbed again.

The old guy could have thought of a more reasonable punishment.

[Felch]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, that's hardly possible, for it would contradict to the greed principle. The classical empires pumped out more resources than they invested into infrastructure. But of course this doesn't want to say that they didn't contribute to the development of their colonies.

Dude, seriously, "contradicting the greed principle," is not a reasonable response to historical fact. The colonial empires were greedy, that's true. But the resources they were plundering were simply not profitable to plunder overall. There were cases of economically viable colonies, with plantations or productive mines, but for the most part having garrisons exploiting impoverished people isn't a good money making scheme. There's a great deal of money involved in putting an administration together an ocean away in a place with no infrastructure, and you can't squeeze too much revenue out of people who have nothing. The colonial empires overall invested more than they got out. That does not make them a Good Thing anymore than Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe was a Good Thing.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Isn't this whole thread a bit like asking if you'd rather be shot in the foot or hand?

More like the choice between someone cutting off your left or right testicle. Which one was it that Hitler lacked?

[axi]

Furthermore, the US was just as complicit in handing over Eastern Europe to the USSR. Far from the myth of a weak Roosevelt, the US and UK felt that being saddled with Eastern Europe would slow Soviet recovery from the Nazi invasion. Instead of merely taking care of themselves, the USSR would also have to take care of Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe was a posion pill.

Now, this doesn't make any sense to me. They are imperialist powers and they wanted markets for their products. The more markets, the better. Plus, the military aspect of it shows clearly that they did not wan the creation of an eastern bloc.

[axi]

Dude, seriously, "contradicting the greed principle," is not a reasonable response to historical fact. The colonial empires were greedy, that's true. But the resources they were plundering were simply not profitable to plunder overall. There were cases of economically viable colonies, with plantations or productive mines, but for the most part having garrisons exploiting impoverished people isn't a good money making scheme. There's a great deal of money involved in putting an administration together an ocean away in a place with no infrastructure, and you can't squeeze too much revenue out of people who have nothing. The colonial empires overall invested more than they got out. That does not make them a Good Thing anymore than Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe was a Good Thing.

The imperialist powers invested in their colonies or protectorates only because there was a higher profit for an investment there than in the homeland. But there always was a profit and the imperialist powers became as a whole ritcher and ritcher all the time. They invested in the colonies beause they didn't know what to do with their profits. Big money cannot afford to sit and do nothing: it has to strive for the most profitable investment.

[Sonic]

Serb,

I don't know why you claimed again that in Lithuania Russians have no citizenship, etc. Please re-read my posts were I said that all Russians in Lithuania were allowed to get Lithuanian passports. And it is the same easy to get a job in Lithuania to Russians and Lithuanians - no one looks to nationality, just to qualifications. There is however one exception - it won't be easy to get a good job if you don't know Lithuanian language. However it wouldn't be easy to get a good job in Russia if you don't know Russian, just Lithuanian, also.
Graves are ALL standing, I answred to your question about "graves and monuments" as most of them are standing. All graves and monuments under which soldiers are buried are standing.
As for vandalism, there were of course some cases of vandalism against graves of red army soldiers, but not more than on other graves. People are mostly doing this because of metallic plates on gravestones which they wants to sell to junkyard.
There were no/close to none (no pogroms I would know)Russian "pogroms" in Lithuania after independence. Don't know where you got such an info from.
Yup, Latvia didn't actually fought for independence like for example Chechenya does. However they (Latvians) wanted independence, this is what I wanted to say, sorry. Also, Latvia would be automatically Russianised over a time despite of will of the people (including Russians). SImply there would be more mixed marrieges, Russian language would overrule Latvian in such families, after more tan half of people learned Russian radio/TV/newspapers would probably also start use Russian. Everybody would later use Russian everywhere. Same happened in Belarus for example.
As for Crimeans... Again, you can't kill whole nation because some of them were forced by nazis to do something. Wasn't it you by the way who said Soviets are better than nazis because they didn't killed whole nations which fought for other side? Well, USSR did that as we see. Lithuania however didn't fought for nazi side (just few people did), so it couldn't be used as an example here.

BTW, as I know understood, you are a nazi yourself. You just can't understand what I say and simply keep your prejustice against the Baltic States and some other countries, like Caucassian ones.

PS you are able not to reply to ths obviously if you want but that just would show your inability to discuss with me - your arguements already starts to repeat each other...

[Alexander's Horse]

And let's not forget the Ruskies showed the people of Eastern Europe how to march really well and paint their military vehicles in cool ways for parades and how to get crowds at opening ceremonies of sporting events to do exciting mass flash card displays, and how to write snappy socialist slogans and how to make make huge bronze statutes of Lenin and Stalin, and how to make a half a pound of mince last for a week and a hundred ways cook cabbage, and how to build really ugly buildings and how to poison the air, rivers and forests with toxic industrial pollution, and how to queue at government shops, and how to wear really daggy clothes (especially the swimming costumes!!! - yucko!!) and listen to really nerdy music and read terrible socialist propaganda and how to silence political dissidents and non conformists and build nice big jails and how to have lots of secret police to keep everyone in line.

They should be thankful for that

Ah those were the days..............

[Felch]

Originally posted by axi
The imperialist powers invested in their colonies or protectorates only because there was a higher profit for an investment there than in the homeland. But there always was a profit and the imperialist powers became as a whole ritcher and ritcher all the time. They invested in the colonies beause they didn't know what to do with their profits. Big money cannot afford to sit and do nothing: it has to strive for the most profitable investment.

The imperialist powers invested out of pride, and the mistaken belief that colonies were a sure source of wealth. The ones that did make money covered over the ones that didn't in the court of public opinion. Eventually European powers got colonies just for the prestige. It started with greed, and ended with pride.