Should East Europe countries be thankful to Soviet Union?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But the point is, the level of personal freedom is probably quite a bit higher in Japan for a Palestinian than it is in Israel.

Can't tell. Need a resident Israeli.

Originally posted by David Floyd
If you mean Japan is occupying a few rocks that don't mean ****, give it a rest. But even if you don't, it isn't that significant, and certainly not on the scale of what we're talking about.

Ah, that means you don't know there's oil under those rocks. Why else do you think Japan wants it?

Originally posted by David Floyd
But while we're on the subject, weren't you aware of the Chinese occupation of Tibet?

I am sure we have gone through this before. So far, your side has failed to provide necessary evidence.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Hurm.

Have you counted countries in North Africa, the Balkins, Asia-Pacific?

Most of these countries don't seem to be very rich.

They didn't have anything to begin with? Comparison to East Europe is here way off. So is this thread oh well

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The downsides were the same as those for Soviet rule in Russia - a lack of personal freedom, a lower standard of living and slower rate of economic growth than in the West and, most of all, foreign occupation and Stalinist repression.

But it was much much better than what went before under German domination. Most of the countries rebuilt their societies and waited patiently for the Russians to go home and Soviet rule to pass into history. The degree of acceptance of Russian dominance varied from country to country.

That's the same argument used to compare the Jim Crow laws in the American South with slavery. Well at least your not slaves. It doesn't mean much to the people who actually went through it. It's kind of strange how the EE posters are less excitied about Soviet occupation than people from other places.

[Alexander's Horse]

Well it wasn't perfect, far from it - but it was better than what went before. Would you prefer nazis running Eastern Europe?

[TheStinger]

They get less worked up because they have to admit that it was dreadful and thr only reason it didn't happen to them was the US

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by TheStinger
They get less worked up because they have to admit that it was dreadful and thr only reason it didn't happen to them was the US

In many cases Eastern European countries also have their own dirty little secret, which is they enthusiastically participated in the attack on the Soviet Union and the holocaust through recruitment to the SS.

I think some of those countries got off lightly from the Sovs.

[TheStinger]

The Sovs killed as many as the nazis, under stalin they were no better. Future communist regimes were far better than the Nazi's, I wouldn't have wanted to live there though

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The Sovs killed as many as the nazis, under stalin they were no better. Future communist regimes were far better than the Nazi's, I wouldn't have wanted to live there though

Oh no I wouldn't have wanted to live in the Eastern Bloc either

[Sonic]

OK Serb...

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.

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

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?

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.

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. 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.

As for all the differences of treatment of Russians in Baltic States, here is a bit of history...
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. 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.
In Lithuania it was exact opposite - ther were only about 12% of Russians (and 76% of Lithuanians) in a country. Russians weren't hated that much and most of hate dissappeared in later years. Government decided to give citizenship to every Russian, some however didn't taken it and left immidietly (those who weren't living in Lithuania and just were appointed to here for some job by Soviet government), some left later, but most of Russians who were here at independence are still living here.
Estonia was somewhere in the middle between Lithuania and Latvia (they granted citizenship to Russians but not everybody was able to get it, etc.)
I am quite sure none of your mentioned events happened in Lithuania. We aren't nazis, we do not harm someone because of their language/nationality.

Yet again, you shouldn't use that word "Baltic States". Lithuania is different from Latvia and Latvia is different from Estonia. I also by the way talked here about Russians living in Lithuania, not about Russian ofcial polictics. Again, many of these living in Lithuania thinks Russia should still rule. 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.

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

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.

Sorry, I wanted to say why not shy. ANyway, you still didn't answered to that question.

As for Chechnya, Russian army does very same and worse what Dudayev did. People have to give bribes to be not tortued and killed calm, otherwise they are horribly tortued, hot oil is being pured on them, etc. I've read several interviews with Chechnyans who asked for political assylum here in Lithuania (by the way, they all jumped from trains to Kaliningrad...)

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.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You've been made to look stupid so many times you're arguing by proxy now?

WTF?

If the US took out Hitler, it could have reached a peace agreement. If it took out Hitler with an atomic bomb, it could have reached a favorable peace agreement. That sounds like winning to me.

Let's see you are offering to remove Hitler, reach the peace agreement, but let nazi in chargre and let them continue their atrocities, anything, but prevent strengthening Soviet influence in the region?
Because, without destruction of their war machine nazi would never gone, even if you assasinated their leader.

Well no ****, Sherlock. I don't advocate this in reality, I'm simply saying that the US didn't really need the Soviet Union to win the war.

Then again, what you were waiting for? He declared war on you in 1941. Why you have start to fight only in 1944, if you didn't really need Soviets, you could easily crush nazi without millions casualties from your side (as you beleive) why you let Soviets to crush nazi major forces. You could done it yourselves, sure you were so strong.

And then let's look at what the Soviets advocate. "Hey, guys, we're gonna kick the Nazis out, but guess what? Now you get to be a satellite puppet government for the Soviet Union. Oh, and if you have a different idea, we'll roll in the tanks! Whuppee!"

Soviet influence in those countries last 46 years. Nuclear waste affect people who live there for centuries. And only in single such nuclear blow, you advocate for, would die much more civilians then died because of Soviets.

Yes, we should act more like the Soviet Union, and invade a defenseless country (Poland), along with your loyal ally, Nazi Germany.

Poland wasn't ally of SU. In fact in 30s it considered as more probable enemy for Soviets. Because at early 20s those peacefull people attacked Soviets and torn a part of territory belonged to Ukraine and Byelorussia, exact the same territories which Stalin returned to Ukraine and Byelorussia in 1939 after division of Poland. And btw, he presented nice part of those territories to Lithuania.

I would have preferred to live under Hitler than Stalin, though.

Then you have no idea about nazi occupation.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Serb


Poland wasn't ally of SU. In fact in 30s it considered as more probable enemy for Soviets. Because at early 20s those peacefull people attacked Soviets and torn a part of territory belonged to Ukraine and Byelorussia, exact the same territories which Stalin returned to Ukraine and Byelorussia in 1939 after division of Poland. And btw, he presented nice part of those territories to Lithuania.

How did Stalin return territories to the Ukraine, the Ukraine wasn't independant.

[Alexander's Horse]

Returned the land to those Soviet Republics

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Returned the land to those Soviet Republics

and they could have left the Su at any time

[Serb]

The Soviet Union consisted of 15 national republics. Ukraine was one of them. And btw one of the 4 national republics- Russia, Ukraine, Beylorussia and Caucasus republic, who were co-foundres of Soviet Union.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TheStinger


and they could have left the Su at any time

Don't be silly.
..well thoereticaly they could, practicaly no... at least untill they done it in 1991.