Should East Europe countries be thankful to Soviet Union?

[DanS]

Both worth fighting against. In order.

We wouldn't want Vagabond to feel his $750 this year went to waste, now would we?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DanS
We wouldn't want Vagabond to feel his $750 this year went to waste, now would we?

I wouldn't like to feel the whole life of my ancestors went to waste, would I?

[Serb]

Vagabond: Post sdal.
Serb: Post prinal.

[notyoueither]

Why are people equating the Soviet Union with Russians? True, Russia was a very important element of the USSR, but the biggest issue of debate in this thread, Stalin, was not a Russian. Or do Russians want to claim him?

Stalin was a blood thirsty, paranoid, mass murdering, thug. No, there was not much to choose between him and Hitler. Stalin murdered far more of his own 'people' than Hitler ever dreamed of doing.

Oh, and the Russians and the Ukrainians (those that were left after Stalin murdered millions of them) and the rest of the citizens of the Soviet Union (after Stalin murdered millions of them) defeated the Nazis despite him and the cruel regime of oppression he instituted.

Should people from the EE hate Russians? No. Should they, and most other people, have massive dislike for Stalin and the system that spawned him? Hell yes!

[Seeker]

"the period when the USSR became a more civilized country."

When was this?

Is this the same country that was described as 'Upper Volta with rockets'?

[notyoueither]

It was right near the end. You know... that Gorbachev fellow.

[Ned]

AH, The West did not "understand and accept" Soviet occupation of EE. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to it because they had no choice. But Churchill really didn't like it - he delivered that famous "Iron Curtain" speech shortly after the war. We had 45 years of cold war over the Soviet occupation. There was a constant threat of war in Europe and an arms buildup on both sides of the curtain. This was expensive for both parties, and may have contributed a great deal to the financial collapse of the USSR.

Had Stalin simply pulled back into the USSR at the end of the war, history would have been significantly different. There would have been no cold war. No Korean conflict. No Vietnam. No Afghanistan. The USSR might still be there, a prosperous communist state - somewhat like today's China. It would have been loved and admired by all for WWII, even those in EE. But best of all, EE would today be as prosperous as France and Germany - or at least close.

Viewed this was, Soviet occupation was a mistake even for the USSR.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why are people equating the Soviet Union with Russians? True, Russia was a very important element of the USSR, but the biggest issue of debate in this thread, Stalin, was not a Russian. Or do Russians want to claim him?

Stalin was a blood thirsty, paranoid, mass murdering, thug. No, there was not much to choose between him and Hitler. Stalin murdered far more of his own 'people' than Hitler ever dreamed of doing.

Oh, and the Russians and the Ukrainians (those that were left after Stalin murdered millions of them) and the rest of the citizens of the Soviet Union (after Stalin murdered millions of them) defeated the Nazis despite him and the cruel regime of oppression he instituted.

Should people from the EE hate Russians? No. Should they, and most other people, have massive dislike for Stalin and the system that spawned him? Hell yes!

On the subject of Stalin, no, we do not want to 'claim' him, but we do respect him. Of course not because of his purges or pograms, but because of the same system you condemn, which he put in place. It might be hard to understand to someone who has lived comfortably in the West, but it is a much different case if you lived life within Russia in those years, and even now. To explain, the entire economic picture of the USSR during the 1920s needs to be visualized. This was the time when the NEP was in full bloom. During this time, a period of "capitalization" was in effect. Peasantry were comfortable in private kibutzes, while urban workers worked on state-owned factories, which were of small-industry type. We had little heavy industry projects, because we did not have the capital to fund these projects. Because of this, we had very little to offer in the area of trade. If we had no heavy industry, we could not sell products, and capitalute capital. Thusly, the economy was in a rut. Workers could not be paid their wages, and many were hungry, lacked medical care, had poor housing, etc.. So, after Lenin's death, Stalin decided on a system of beaurocratic collectivization, which would put all industrial and agricultural property into State hands, with which they could control the means of production, and eventually, produce the capital to fund different projects, in areas of agriculture, goods, health, education, etc. Also, by doing this, Stalin could guarantee wages, proper housing, education and medical care, and also, a cut in prices on various different things, which would make them affordable to the workers. This encouraged workers to work harder(which is why Stakhovites/shock workers were common those days) because with the more produced, the more the benefits. The system had a sort of an effect among the people; it united us in a way which we have never been. Many elders look back at those days as the best, eventhough those were times of hardship and war(which we won, because of [the system and of course, our will to fight and defend our country])

If you ask any Russian or Ukranian about Stalin's crimes, we immediately condemn them. We look at those as a dark spot in our history. But we also have a profound respect for Stalin because he had won the war, and united us, eventhough it was loss through the blood of many Russian and Ukranian people(which I am one of), may they rest in peace.

I hope you can understand, albeit I doubt you will.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Ned
AH, The West did not "understand and accept" Soviet occupation of EE. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to it because they had no choice. But Churchill really didn't like it - he delivered that famous "Iron Curtain" speech shortly after the war. We had 45 years of cold war over the Soviet occupation. There was a constant threat of war in Europe and an arms buildup on both sides of the curtain. This was expensive for both parties, and may have contributed a great deal to the financial collapse of the USSR.

Had Stalin simply pulled back into the USSR at the end of the war, history would have been significantly different. There would have been no cold war. No Korean conflict. No Vietnam. No Afghanistan. The USSR might still be there, a prosperous communist state - somewhat like today's China. It would have been loved and admired by all for WWII, even those in EE. But best of all, EE would today be as prosperous as France and Germany - or at least close.

Viewed this was, Soviet occupation was a mistake even for the USSR.

I definately agree with this. As evil as Stalin can be viewed, he was also somewhat generous. In that, he spent much resources to not just rebuild Russia, but parts of ravaged Eastern Europe. This trend continued after Stalin's death, which saw Khruschev, and Breznhev send economic aid, in various forms, to Eastern Europe.

[Propaganda]

Sorry.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Propaganda


On the subject of Stalin, no, we do not want to 'claim' him, but we do respect him. Of course not because of his purges or pograms, but because of the same system you condemn, which he put in place. It might be hard to understand to someone who has lived comfortably in the West, but it is a much different case if you lived life within Russia in those years, and even now. To explain, the entire economic picture of the USSR during the 1920s needs to be visualized. This was the time when the NEP was in full bloom. During this time, a period of "capitalization" was in effect. Peasantry were comfortable in private kibutzes, while urban workers worked on state-owned factories, which were of small-industry type. We had little heavy industry projects, because we did not have the capital to fund these projects. Because of this, we had very little to offer in the area of trade. If we had no heavy industry, we could not sell products, and capitalute capital. Thusly, the economy was in a rut. Workers could not be paid their wages, and many were hungry, lacked medical care, had poor housing, etc.. So, after Lenin's death, Stalin decided on a system of beaurocratic collectivization, which would put all industrial and agricultural property into State hands, with which they could control the means of production, and eventually, produce the capital to fund different projects, in areas of agriculture, goods, health, education, etc. Also, by doing this, Stalin could guarantee wages, proper housing, education and medical care, and also, a cut in prices on various different things, which would make them affordable to the workers. This encouraged workers to work harder(which is why Stakhovites/shock workers were common those days) because with the more produced, the more the benefits. The system had a sort of an effect among the people; it united us in a way which we have never been. Many elders look back at those days as the best, eventhough those were times of hardship and war(which we won, because of [the system and of course, our will to fight and defend our country])

If you ask any Russian or Ukranian about Stalin's crimes, we immediately condemn them. We look at those as a dark spot in our history. But we also have a profound respect for Stalin because he had won the war, and united us, eventhough it was loss through the blood of many Russian and Ukranian people(which I am one of), may they rest in peace.

I hope you can understand, albeit I doubt you will.

How many the price? I'd really like to hear this from someone who is not a zealot for the system, BTW.

http://report.ca/classics/10311983/p28i831031.html

[notyoueither]

Here's another good one.

http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/info/book_reviews/vossler_review.html

The book not only give locations of exiles, of labor camps, of "special settlements," within the vast Soviet Empire, but also offers year by year accounts of the numbers of Soviet citizens sentenced to the Gulag, peaking in 1953 with over 5 millions, with near twenty per cent of that number executed.

and

Koreans, and Khemshils, many of whom were deported to regions where it was known a high percentage would perish. It was according to Pohl's figures, these minorities which bore much of the brunt of Stalin's repression, and, in some cases, as with the peoples of the North Caucasus, Crimean peninsula, and Kalmyk steppe, during WW11, their deportation, or as Pohl calls it, an "ethnic cleansing" amounted to "one of the greatest crimes against humanity in the 20th century."

Now, go peddle your apologia elsewhere. I'm not buying, and I'm not gonna let you sell unmolested.

[Propaganda]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/peoplescentury/episodes/redflag/fedorovatranscript.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/peoplescentury/episodes/redflag/chernitzkytranscript.html

For you.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by Serb
Vagabond: Post sdal.
Serb: Post prinal.

Propaganda: Post zabral.

[Propaganda]

Originally posted by notyoueither


How many the price? I'd really like to hear this from someone who is not a zealot for the system, BTW.

http://report.ca/classics/10311983/p28i831031.html

A zealot for the system, eh? Thanks for mis-understanding. I guess I typed all that out for nothing.