Neo-Stalinism in Russia today

[Profileid]

Stalin's mass murders were 'entirely rational' says new Russian textbook praising tyrant


Stalin acted ‘entirely rationally’ in executing and imprisoning millions of people in the Gulags, a controversial new Russian teaching manual claims.
Fifty-five years after the Soviet dictator died, the latest guide for teachers to promote patriotism among the Russian young said he did what he did to ensure the country’s modernisation.
The manual, titled A History of Russia, 1900-1945, will form the basis of a new state-approved text book for use in schools next year.
It seems to follow an attempt backed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to re-evaluate Stalin’s record in a more positive light.
Critics have taken exception, however, to numerous excerpts, which they say are essentially attempts to whitewash Stalin’s crimes.
In the West, it has been widely accepted that in the 1920s millions were shot, exiled to Siberia, or died of starvation after their land, homes and meagre possessions, were taken to fulfil Stalin’s vision of massive ‘factory farms.’
In the 1930s millions more whom he considered or suspected a threat to the USSR were executed or exiled to Gulag labour camps in remote areas of Siberia or Central Asia, where many also died of disease, malnutrition and exposure.
Historians believe up to 20 million people perished as a result of his actions - more than the six million killed during Hitler’s genocide of the Jews.


Now the new teaching manual is attempting to tell a generation of Russian schoolchildren that Stalin acted rationally.
One of the authors, Anatoly Utkin, is keener to promote another statistic about Stalin, stressing some 10,000 books in his library had his personal jottings and marks in them.
‘Can you tell me of any other leader, an American president, for example, who read 10,000 books?
The manual informs teachers that the Great Terror of the 1930s came about because Stalin ‘did not know who would deal the next blow, and for that reason he attacked every known group and movement, as well as those who were not his allies or of his mindset.’
It stresses to teachers that ‘it is important to show that Stalin acted in a concrete historical situation’ and that he acted ‘entirely rationally - as the guardian of a system, as a consistent supporter of reshaping the country into an industrialised state.’
Editor Alexander Danilov said: ‘We are not defending Stalin. We are just exploring his personality, explaining his motives and showing what he really achieved

The controversial manual is produced by the country’s leading school book publishers Prosveshenije, a state-supported company that was a monopoly supplier of classroom texts in the Soviet era, and appears to be returning to that role.
The company boasts: ‘We are proud that we brought up generations of Soviet people - and today we keep on improving our textbooks.’
With close links to the Kremlin, the company’s website states: ‘Prosveshenije remains one of the few effective instruments of national consolidation, a centre of forming and distributing Russian educational values.’
The teaching manual could not have been produced without the support and approval of the Russian government.
Prominent Russian historian Roy Medvedev dubbed the manual ‘a falsification. Stalin by no means acted rationally all of the time, and many of his actions damaged the country.’


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/02/article-1051871-0065F19800000258-462_468x325.jpg
Worked to death: Although millions perished in Siberian Labour camps like this
one, the textbook says that Stalin only did this to push through modernisation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051871/Stalins-mass-murders-entirely-rational-says-new-Russian-textbook-praising-tyrant.html

[Mingle]

Stalin literally killed 150,000 Soviet troops (15 whole battalions) after WW2 was over. Some "thanks" he gave to people that saved him from the Germans. Two years before WW2, he also did a mass slaughter of around a million people in which he culled a lot of his military's officers (especially high ranking individuals). He also killed hardcore Stalinist loyalists. His policies resulted in famines killing millions. When the Germans invaded Russia in WW2, millions of Russians welcomed them as liberators from the tyrannical Stalin before they started to hate the Germans when they saw what the Germans were up to. His policies set Russia back decades and he wasn't even an ethnic Russian. Why would any Russian idolize someone who tortured Russia even more than the Mongols arguably did?

Btw, this seems to be from 2013.

[Profileid]

Stalin literally killed 150,000 Soviet troops (15 whole battalions) after WW2 was over. Some "thanks" he gave to people that saved him from the Germans. Two years before WW2, he also did a mass slaughter of around a million people in which he culled a lot of his military's officers (especially high ranking individuals). He also killed hardcore Stalinist loyalists. His policies resulted in famines killing millions. When the Germans invaded Russia in WW2, millions of Russians welcomed them as liberators from the tyrannical Stalin before they started to hate the Germans when they saw what the Germans were up to. His policies set Russia back decades and he wasn't even an ethnic Russian. Why would any Russian idolize someone who tortured Russia even more than the Mongols arguably did?
Most of the Russian "nationalists" on here are Stalin apologists. It's part of the new "patriotism" Putin has been pushing since he got to office. It gets even more fucking insane the more you look into it.


Btw, this seems to be from 2013.

Yea. Trying to put together all of the rehabilitation of Stalin stuff in one place.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

This is what the kids today would say 'owning' their history. I think they look at countries like the US and how taking a fair view or some would say an overly critical view of American history only breeds the self hatred we see today. Most countries don't dwell on the shady sides of their nation's history or mention it at all. Japanese schools don't talk about the crimes of Japanese soldiers during WW2 against Chinese, Filipino, Korean, etc. civilians at all. You can clearly see that at this forum where 'my country is really good and never did anything wrong' mentality rules the day. I think a balance is more healthy to keep people from being tools.

[Methuselah]

Stalin literally killed 150,000 Soviet troops (15 whole battalions) after WW2 was over. Some "thanks" he gave to people that saved him from the Germans. Two years before WW2, he also did a mass slaughter of around a million people in which he culled a lot of his military's officers (especially high ranking individuals). He also killed hardcore Stalinist loyalists. His policies resulted in famines killing millions. When the Germans invaded Russia in WW2, millions of Russians welcomed them as liberators from the tyrannical Stalin before they started to hate the Germans when they saw what the Germans were up to. His policies set Russia back decades and he wasn't even an ethnic Russian. Why would any Russian idolize someone who tortured Russia even more than the Mongols arguably did?

Btw, this seems to be from 2013.

Indeed man! Freaking crazy. Communism should be as hated as Nazism, but is not, since it is based on "nice theories".

But i still wonder why so many Russians and Chinese glorify their brutal history. Communists murdered "their own people" which makes it probably trickier for modern Russians and Chinese. People in the East might observe brutality in the different way. Life has always been gloomy there. (Which is of course not a good excuse for worshiping a mass murderer). Russians are told so many lies like "Stalin saved Russia because he was a genius" when he obviously was not.

By the way, Stalin did nothing while Germans were destroying Warsaw. He could have reacted and saved many lives but was holding his forces instead, probably waiting for the future occupation of Poland.

[Mingle]

But i still wonder why so many Russians and Chinese glorify their brutal history. Communists murdered "their own people" which makes it probably trickier for modern Russians and Chinese. People in the East might observe brutality in the different way. Life has always been gloomy there. (Which is of course not a good excuse for worshiping a mass murderer). Russians are told so many lies like "Stalin saved Russia because he was a genius" when he obviously was not.

He is part of their group. They defend him because of ingroup mentality. They themselves may have a lot of bad stuff to say about those people, but when they see outsiders say that stuff, they see it as an attack on their nation I guess, as if their nation's history is being judged based off that person.


By the way, Stalin did nothing while Germans were destroying Warsaw. He could have reacted and saved many lives but was holding his forces instead, probably waiting for the future occupation of Poland.

Stalin committed the 'Great Purge' (or 'Great Terror') two years before WW2 began. In that, he killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and several thousands of Soviet soldiers (all high ranking ones) & government officials. This severely weakened the military so he wasn't prepared for WW2. Before Germany broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin anticipated Germany to invade the Soviet Union so he made a deal with the Germans to buy time. Stalin was initially brokering a deal with France and Britain to stop a German invasion but only made the deal with Germany to buy time in the mean time since France and Britain weren't meeting his demands. He was very unprepared for war after the Great Purge and a bit desperate. But at the time that he made the deal with Germany, he was probably secretly supporting the Allies hoping they'd win or team up sith them later if they were on the ropes. If he had invaded Poland with his crippled military, Germany would have smashed the SU.

[Profileid]

Modern Russia is a dystopian,authoritarian nightmare.
God, Stalin and Patriotism — Meet Russia's New Education Chief

For Olga Vasilyeva, it wasn’t the breadlines and high crime rates that made early post-Soviet life a daily trial. It was the public reassessment of the country’s recent, and bloodied, history.

“[The goal was] to blacken the past, to remove from the social consciousness the value of tradition, pride for the greatness of one’s country, culture and language,” she told an audience of teenagers at a seminar on patriotism in late June.

“Astonishing myths” abounded in the 1990s, she said, as she singled out the Ogonyok news magazine that was symbolic of the glasnost era. “If you look at the number of deaths and those repressed [under Soviet rule] cited in Ogonyok, it becomes completely unclear who was left alive at all!” she added, hinting that the figures were greatly exaggerated.

Statements such as these have alarmed some Russians after Vasilyeva, a woman in her 50s with cropped blonde hair and gold-rimmed glasses, was installed as education and science minister on Aug. 19.

While some in the academic community expect her appointment to usher in a new era of dialogue, critics stumble over Vasilyeva’s allegedly positive references to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and her ties to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Is the blend of religious conservatism and patriotism that has accompanied President Vladimir Putin’s third term in power about to come knocking at schools’ doors? they ask.

Moscow history teacher Tamara Eidelman thinks it might. “Vasilyeva’s appointment is a sign of the general atmosphere in the country toward faux patriotism and Stalinism,” she says. “And that, sadly, will of course also impact schools.”

The removal of Vasilyeva’s predecessor, Dmitry Livanov, did not come as a surprise: There have been calls for his resignation for almost as long as he was education minister.

Appointed in 2012, Livanov made few friends by pushing through far-reaching reform to reduce state dependence and improve efficiency in education. Among his most controversial moves was an overhaul of the Russian Academy of Sciences by merging research institutes and cutting funding. He also enforced the implementation of a unified state exam.

It gained him the reputation of an uncompromising technocrat and made him widely unpopular with a sector accustomed to Soviet-era support.

In popularity surveys, Livanov has consistently placed near the bottom. A recent survey of government ministers by the state-run VTsIOM pollster ranked Livanov the Kremlin’s most unpopular staff member, with his lowest score in years.

With parliamentary elections less than a month away, on Sept. 18, Livanov’s sacking fits a tradition of throwing a bone to voters by purging unpopular government officials. Compared to Livanov, Vasilyeva is “a new leaf,” head of VTsIOM Valery Fyodorov told the Vesti news program.

Russia’s academic elite embraced the news. “We hope that reform from now on will be more balanced, rational,” Vladimir Fortov, the head of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told the state-run RIA Novosti agency.

The Kremlin has presented the choice of Vasilyeva as inspired by gender equality issues. “I would propose appointing a woman,” a serene Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told Putin in a staged meeting broadcast on state television.

More likely, however, is that Vasilyeva’s history, not her gender, snagged Russia’s first female education minister the job.

Vasilyeva, who declined a request for comment for this article, grew up in a Russian Orthodox household in the 1960s. It was a time when “any information on a baptism, christening, religious wedding or funeral was passed on to the executive committee,” she told the religious Pravoslavie.ru website in an interview.

“Nevertheless, my father, who had a certain position, wanted his children to be baptized,” she said. After graduating early at the age of 14, she studied choir directing and later history, going into teaching and then academia.

As a prominent religious scholar, Vasilyeva focused on the relationship between the state and the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century, publishing more than 90 papers on the topic. At a religious seminar, she met then-Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov, a Russian Orthodox priest rumored to be Putin’s spiritual adviser. Many believe that relationship has played a crucial role in her dealings with the Kremlin.

Her ties to the church are such that upon her appointment, Patriarch Kirill, the head of Russian Orthodoxy, congratulated her in a statement on the church’s official website. “The Lord has generously endowed you with talent, which you have successfully made use of in the many stages of your service,” it said.

Those links have alienated Kremlin critics such as Alexei Venediktov, editor-in-chief of the Ekho Moskvy radio station, who promptly announced his resignation from a ministry advisory body. “She believes the church should be close to schools, and the state to the church,” he said. “Nothing good can come of this appointment.”

Others argue Vasilyeva’s views on history, not her religious zeal, are more cause for concern.

In a closed lecture given to Kremlin officials in 2013, Vasilyeva reportedly praised Stalin for uniting the country on the eve of World War II, according to an unnamed source cited by the Kommersant newspaper at the time.

Reports of ambiguous statements on Stalin abound and, upon her appointment as minister, Russian liberal media have rehashed them to decry her political leanings. Vasilyeva’s supporters have dismissed the allegations as based on misquotations and defend her public statements on Stalin as historical appraisals based on fact, rather than value judgments.

Less unequivocal is Vasilyeva’s championing of patriotic values. Previously, Vasilyeva was deputy head of the presidential administration’s “social projects” body, tasked with advising the government on issues of patriotism. The group was overseen by Vyacheslav Volodin, the deputy head of the presidential administration and brain behind domestic policy.

In her work in the presidential administration, Vasilyeva played a key role in preparing new teaching material on Russian history and literature. There, she took a firm line, according to a source who had crossover with Vasilyeva at the time and asked to remain anonymous. “She very sharply, almost rudely, tried to push through a line of ideology on the one hand, while reducing plurality on the other,” says the source. “She sees history as the study of truth, rather than an ideological debate.”

Her appointment, the source adds, is the result of a tug-of-war within the Kremlin. “When faced with an opportunity to put his own person in the position, Volodin went for it,” the source says. “Medvedev was presented a done conclusion.”

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/god-stalin-patriotism--meet-russias-new-education-minister-55090

[Yaglakar]

Indeed man! Freaking crazy. Communism should be as hated as Nazism, but is not, since it is based on "nice theories".

But i still wonder why so many Russians and Chinese glorify their brutal history. Communists murdered "their own people" which makes it probably trickier for modern Russians and Chinese. People in the East might observe brutality in the different way. Life has always been gloomy there. (Which is of course not a good excuse for worshiping a mass murderer). Russians are told so many lies like "Stalin saved Russia because he was a genius" when he obviously was not.

By the way, Stalin did nothing while Germans were destroying Warsaw. He could have reacted and saved many lives but was holding his forces instead, probably waiting for the future occupation of Poland.

Invasion of Poland was a joint Soviet-German venture. Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland simultaneously. Division of Poland was followed by Soviet occupation of Baltic states, parts of Romania and invasion of Finland. The non-aggression pact gave Nazi Germans green light to invade Western Europe. To my knowledge Stalin is largely perceived as 'necessary evil' in Russia. The majority of Russians live in fairy tale where their grandparents died defending the country, even though the majority have no idea where or when their grandparents served or died. Ones granddad could have died invading Poland, or being shot as an invader by Finnish sniper, or captured by Germans, send as meat to front lines and killed by his own kinsmen.

[Methuselah]

He is part of their group. They defend him because of ingroup mentality. They themselves may have a lot of bad stuff to say about those people, but when they see outsiders say that stuff, they see it as an attack on their nation I guess, as if their nation's history is being judged based off that person.



Stalin committed the 'Great Purge' (or 'Great Terror') two years before WW2 began. In that, he killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and several thousands of Soviet soldiers (all high ranking ones) & government officials. This severely weakened the military so he wasn't prepared for WW2. Before Germany broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin anticipated Germany to invade the Soviet Union so he made a deal with the Germans to buy time. Stalin was initially brokering a deal with France and Britain to stop a German invasion but only made the deal with Germany to buy time in the mean time since France and Britain weren't meeting his demands. He was very unprepared for war after the Great Purge and a bit desperate. But at the time that he made the deal with Germany, he was probably secretly supporting the Allies hoping they'd win or team up sith them later if they were on the ropes. If he had invaded Poland with his crippled military, Germany would have smashed the SU.

Right. People were afraid (and still are) of being different. There was only one party anyway... Some people get offended because their identity is strongly connected to their country.
They feel you are criticizing them as well, not only their country.

Yeah, he killed a lot of talented people, it's pretty absurd. He saw smart people as a threat.

Germany would have smashed SU, but i mean after the war was already over, he was maybe expecting Poles to surrender easier that way. Could be those logistic issues/shitty, tired army as well.
(the reason he didn't go after Germans in Warsaw) Anyway he obviously didn't care about saving human lives.

[Mingle]

Right. People were afraid (and still are) of being different. There was only one party anyway... Some people get offended because their identity is strongly connected to their country.
They feel you are criticizing them as well, not only their country.

Yeah, he killed a lot of talented people, it's pretty absurd. He saw smart people as a threat.

Germany would have smashed SU, but i mean after the war was already over, he was maybe expecting Poles to surrender easier that way. Could be those logistic issues/shitty, tired army as well.
(the reason he didn't go after Germans in Warsaw) Anyway he obviously didn't care about saving human lives.

When Germany first attacked the SU. he was surprised they attacked so soon and even got a bit nervous since he didn't see the SU as prepared for WW2 yet. If he thought that Germany attacked too soon, there is no way he would send his military to break the pact and attack Germany. He saw his own countrymen as disposable garbage so I doubt he cared about Poles dying.

After the war was over, the SU made all of Eastern Europe and East Germany part of it's sphere of influence. I don't get what you mean by "after the war was already over".

[Austrvegr]

Stalin's mass murders were 'entirely rational' says new Russian textbook praising tyrant

Why is it worse than praising genocidal Anglo capitalism?

[Methuselah]

When Germany first attacked the SU. he was surprised they attacked so soon and even got a bit nervous since he didn't see the SU as prepared for WW2 yet. If he thought that Germany attacked too soon, there is no way he would send his military to break the pact and attack Germany. He saw his own countrymen as disposable garbage so I doubt he cared about Poles dying.

After the war was over, the SU made all of Eastern Europe and East Germany part of it's sphere of influence. I don't get what you mean by "after the war was already over".

No he did not care about Poles dying or about Jews dying in Warsaw.

By "after the war was already over" i meant that there must be a reason why Stalin didn't help Poles in Warsaw. He was holding his forces during the Warsaw Uprising, despite his army being so close.
I believe one theory suggests he wanted Germans to destroy Poles and pave the way for him. Could be i got it all wrong...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

[Finnish Swede]

No he did not care about Poles dying or about Jews dying in Warsaw.

By "after the war was already over" i meant that there must be a reason why Stalin didn't help Poles in Warsaw. He was holding his forces during the Warsaw Uprising, despite his army being so close.
I believe one theory suggests he wanted Germans to destroy Poles and pave the way for him. Could be i got it all wrong...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising


http://www.pic4ever.com/images/89.gif Why he would have cared those? He did't even cared about his own people...

Yup. Some believes: country is existing for its people; others believes people are existing for the country.

[Profileid]

Why is it worse than praising genocidal Anglo capitalism?

Russia is capitalist.

[Profileid]

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/89.gif Why he would have cared those? He did't even cared about his own people...

Yup. Some believes: country is existing for it's people; others believes people are existing for the country.

There is no such thing as a "country" in Bolshevism even. That's being too generous.
The revolutionaries were internationalists and sure as fuck weren't fighting for Russia.

[glass]

Stalin didn't help Poles in Warsaw.
Should he?
You did not help african children that died when you were writing this post, should you be ashamed?

[Norka]

Fuck Stalin and the Soviet Union. Deportation, prejudice and imprisonment upon my family is all thanks to dirty commies and stalin.

[Finnish Swede]

There is no such thing as a "country" in Bolshevism even. That's being too generous.
The revolutionaries were internationalists and sure as fuck weren't fighting for Russia.

So you call those guys (Red army)....who attacked to Finland (November 30th 1939) as Bolshevicks?

Finns? Hardly. We call Bolshevicks those forces which tried to influence Finland at 1918 (Finland's civil war time).

[Bornoz]

Greetings to Russian comrads.

[glass]

Speaking about neo-stalinism we need to look down through history of Russia.
300 years ago Russia already had 'Stalin' he is now called Peter the Great. Peter was viewed as vulgar and rude tyrant by people who knew him and those who lived shortly afterwards. His image was extremely negative untill Catherine 2 campaign of whitewashing of him started. In 19 century Peter became not tyrant but 'controversial' tsar, who may had some shortcomings but so does great achievements. In 20 centrury bolsheviks, who were too geniune supporters of tough decisions and permanent solutions, evolved Peter into 'greatest' tsar ever lived (prio to bolshevik take over ofc:rolleyes:)

Stalin may follow the same way. Firstly he was all round winner, he did not lose anything nor ever backed down. Secondly current regime is struggling with economical crisis and drop of public support, so advocating 'tough' policies combined with achievements in the past contribute to justification of current regime's breakdown of public freedom and democracy.

[Methuselah]

Should he?
You did not help african children that died when you were writing this post, should you be ashamed?

I thought Stalin was supposed to fight Nazis, not to be hiding behind the river? Stalinists should be ashamed of being proud of a person who is just as bad as Hitler.

I actually donate some money to a christian organization. That money goes to Africa and Eastern Europe (Romani children). But i agree my monthly 50 euros will not save the planet and only get them couple of schoolbooks.
https://www.fida.info/lahjoita/

I got your point but your logic is still pretty bad. I am personally not responsible of those African lives. Stalin was responsible of many lives. He killed a lot of people. He was a "nazi murderer" and a man who made deals with Hitler. I don't glorify nazi c*nts like Hitler or Stalin so i have "nothing" to be ashamed of. And yes, he should have helped Poles if his job was to defeat Nazis. Don't you think so? Or fighting Nazis was not his job after all?

[Finnish Swede]

Speaking about neo-stalinism we need to look down through history of Russia.
300 years ago Russia already had 'Stalin' he is now called Peter the Great. Peter was viewed as vulgar and rude tyrant by people who knew him and those who lived shortly afterwards. His image was extremely negative untill Catherine 2 campaign of whitewashing of him started. In 19 century Peter became not tyrant but 'controversial' tsar, who may had some shortcomings but so does great achievements. In 20 centrury bolsheviks, who were too geniune supporters of tough decisions and permanent solutions, evolved Peter into 'greatest' tsar ever lived (prio to bolshevik take over ofc:rolleyes:)

Stalin may follow the same way. Firstly he was all round winner, he did not lose anything nor ever backed down. Secondly current regime is struggling with economical crisis and drop of public support, so advocating 'tough' policies combined with achievements in the past contribute to justification of current regime's breakdown of public freedom and democracy.

Stain was brutal lunatic from the beginning. Even Lenin did't like him because of that and supported Trotsky. How Stalin took over the power after death of Lenin....was a ''show'' of cold calculated bastard.

http://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Leon-Trotsky-3.jpg

[Methuselah]

Speaking about neo-stalinism we need to look down through history of Russia.
300 years ago Russia already had 'Stalin' he is now called Peter the Great. Peter was viewed as vulgar and rude tyrant by people who knew him and those who lived shortly afterwards. His image was extremely negative untill Catherine 2 campaign of whitewashing of him started. In 19 century Peter became not tyrant but 'controversial' tsar, who may had some shortcomings but so does great achievements. In 20 centrury bolsheviks, who were too geniune supporters of tough decisions and permanent solutions, evolved Peter into 'greatest' tsar ever lived (prio to bolshevik take over ofc:rolleyes:)

Stalin may follow the same way. Firstly he was all round winner, he did not lose anything nor ever backed down. Secondly current regime is struggling with economical crisis and drop of public support, so advocating 'tough' policies combined with achievements in the past contribute to justification of current regime's breakdown of public freedom and democracy.

Well, at least Russian Tsars didn't murder millions like soviets did.

"Firstly he was all round winner, he did not lose anything nor ever backed down." Are you serious? How many lives Soviet Union lost because of his shitty leadership? Russia is still undeveloped country because of the communism. A lot of nature turned into crap during Stalin's industrialization. Open your eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT2z0nrsQ8o

[Laberia]

Stalin literally killed 150,000 Soviet troops (15 whole battalions) after WW2 was over. Some "thanks" he gave to people that saved him from the Germans. Two years before WW2, he also did a mass slaughter of around a million people in which he culled a lot of his military's officers (especially high ranking individuals). He also killed hardcore Stalinist loyalists. His policies resulted in famines killing millions. When the Germans invaded Russia in WW2, millions of Russians welcomed them as liberators from the tyrannical Stalin before they started to hate the Germans when they saw what the Germans were up to. His policies set Russia back decades and he wasn't even an ethnic Russian. Why would any Russian idolize someone who tortured Russia even more than the Mongols arguably did?

Btw, this seems to be from 2013.

And let me add to your list a couple of other things. Stalin was the biggest anticomunist in History. Nobody killed so many communists as he did. He destroyed his family. He was the personification of the devil. But exactly, let me make the advocate of the devil.
An historian, Paul Johnson has said that history is not only what happens but also what did not happen. What was going to happen with Russia if the Communists and Stalin did not win the power?

[Finnish Swede]

An historian, Paul Johnson has said that history is not only what happens but also what did not happen. What was going to happen with Russia if the Communists and Stalin did not win the power?

As putting it that way...I would like to hear your thoughts/estimations.

[Profileid]

Speaking about neo-stalinism we need to look down through history of Russia.
300 years ago Russia already had 'Stalin' he is now called Peter the Great. Peter was viewed as vulgar and rude tyrant by people who knew him and those who lived shortly afterwards. His image was extremely negative untill Catherine 2 campaign of whitewashing of him started. In 19 century Peter became not tyrant but 'controversial' tsar, who may had some shortcomings but so does great achievements. In 20 centrury bolsheviks, who were too geniune supporters of tough decisions and permanent solutions, evolved Peter into 'greatest' tsar ever lived (prio to bolshevik take over ofc:rolleyes:)

Stalin may follow the same way. Firstly he was all round winner, he did not lose anything nor ever backed down. Secondly current regime is struggling with economical crisis and drop of public support, so advocating 'tough' policies combined with achievements in the past contribute to justification of current regime's breakdown of public freedom and democracy.

So you're saying Putin needs to continue pushing Stalinism to justify the way things are going now?

[Laberia]

As putting it that way...I would like to hear your thoughts/estimations.

Well, to put it simple, i think that the subhuman Slavs, Russians first of all were going to be slaughter like sheeps by the Germans. Sorry for the rude mode.

[Finnish Swede]

Well, to put it simple, i think that the subhuman Slavs, Russians first of all were going to be slaughter like sheeps by the Germans. Sorry for the rude mode.

As they started a war against Finland...they would have deserved all that (my opinion).

[Laberia]

.........

[Laberia]

As they started a war against Finland...they would have deserved all that (my opinion).

This is an other topic. I am an anticomunist as family origine and as intellectual formation. Also i am Albanian and my nation has suffered more than your nation from the Russians and their puppets in Balkans. But here we are talking about history.

[Methuselah]

Well, to put it simple, i think that the subhuman Slavs, Russians first of all were going to be slaughter like sheeps by the Germans. Sorry for the rude mode.

You sound like a Russian. It is not true that Germans would be ruling over everything if the Revolution they sponsored as well didn't happen. Like everything depended on Soviet Union... Nazis would still be defeated by other countries with or without Russia, assuming the last Tsar would give up on fighting everyone.

The reason natural sciences were on top level in Soviet Union was simply because of the countless of countries involved. The reason Soviet Basketball team did well in Olympics was
simply because of countless non-Russian players from Ukraine and Baltic States. Those are obvious facts. But those facts are not telling us Soviet Union was super developed country going into the right direction.

The reason Russia is doing so bad right now is not because of the fall of Soviet Union but because of the Communism itself in the first place. I wonder how Russian leaders think Russians will ever learn to respect human rights/ each other if brutal murderers are still being glorified. Russia will never develop properly without having good moral values because societies can't function without them. There are of course many other countries lacking proper human rights and democracy, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc. They need same things in order to thrive.

I understand you might be angry but calling other people subhumans is not a clever thing to do. You are not any better than them.

[Finnish Swede]

This is an other topic.

You speculated about a history and I simply answered (sharing my opinion).
And nope; those are linked together plus even more...linked to Stalin (thread's topic).

[glass]

I got your point but your logic is still pretty bad. I am personally not responsible of those African lives. Stalin was responsible of many lives. He killed a lot of people. He was a "nazi murderer" and a man who made deals with Hitler. I don't glorify nazi c*nts like Hitler or Stalin so i have "nothing" to be ashamed of. And yes, he should have helped Poles if his job was to defeat Nazis. Don't you think so? Or fighting Nazis was not his job after all?
And neither Stalin nor Soviet Army were repsonsible for Warsaw uprising. It was polak own movement nad polak own business to handle any possible consequences.
Stalin's job was not 'fighting' nazis' per se, but winning the war. War was won as you know. If Stalin's was taking 'fighting nazi' as you suggest, he might had to be much harder with your country, which was nazi ally, right?


Stain was brutal lunatic from the beginning. Even Lenin did't like him because of that and supported Trotsky. How Stalin took over the power after death of Lenin....was a ''show'' of cold calculated bastard.

You and many others judge historical figures according to your own modern moral point of view. Which is not correct. For example punching wife is viewd negatively in civilized countries. But not long ago it was just a part of daily routine, in many places still is. From todays person it is and was bad, but it was not as bad in the past. People judge Stalin the way it fits thier moral ground and believes. Current regime in Russia is becoming more and more totalitarian, so it is really very natural for Putin's croonies to justify and whitewash totalitarism of the past.
While i agree with Etain sentiments about Stalin and even support them, i do understand current policies in Russia. Because Etain and Putin's gang view on this from entirely different positions.

Well, at least Russian Tsars didn't murder millions like soviets did.
Efficiency is another topic, there are 2 different scales, One is win-lose and another one high-low efficiency.

So you're saying Putin needs to continue pushing Stalinism to justify the way things are going now?
Exactly

[Gold-Shekel]

Why wouldn't the killings be rational? Just because he did something evil doesn't mean he was irrational.

There was a logic behind the killings:

Stalin in Power
Some people may be a risk to his power
Stalin kills those people
His power is stable

[Methuselah]

glass Stalin had high hopes on Hanko, but got schooled badly in the Winter War. He did not want any more troubles with Finland later, until the second war. Remember, Finland did not sympathize with Nazi ideology until the second war. Nazis helped to supply an army, which was badly needed under a soviet threat.

You see winning a war is not enough, you got to get things together as well. Russia is in a deep trouble, there is clearly a lack of abstract thinking ("things are the way they are and nothing can't be done"), lack of moral values, millions of homes that should be renovated, highest HIV-rates in the whole Europe/ Central Asia etc. And the modern head of your country is not doing anything about it. Only swimming in that swamp of corruption.
All they do is blame on others for their problems. That nihilistic, analytical thinking is pretty childish ("life is unfair, all people are selfish, moral values don't exist..."). Well, if they don't want to be a part of the civilized world but want to fight instead, they don't deserve any success...

[Laberia]

You speculated about a history and I simply answered (sharing my opinion).
And nope; those are linked together plus even more...linked to Stalin (thread's topic).

OK, but i talking from the perspective of an Albanian i can expand the range and i can start from Tsarina Catherine the Great until to our days with Putin. The main responsabile for the tragedy of my nation is the russian expansionism. I have much more reasons than you. But i want to repeat, i want to stay on topic.

[Laberia]

You sound like a Russian.
No, i am not a russian. Simply i have no emotion when i discuss about this things.

It is not true that Germans would be ruling over everything if the Revolution they sponsored as well didn't happen. Like everything depended on Soviet Union... Nazis would still be defeated by other countries with or without Russia, assuming the last Tsar would give up on fighting everyone.

The reason natural sciences were on top level in Soviet Union was simply because of the countless of countries involved. The reason Soviet Basketball team did well in Olympics was
simply because of countless non-Russian players from Ukraine and Baltic States. Those are obvious facts. But those facts are not telling us Soviet Union was super developed country going into the right direction.

The reason Russia is doing so bad right now is not because of the fall of Soviet Union but because of the Communism itself in the first place. I wonder how Russian leaders think Russians will ever learn to respect human rights/ each other if brutal murderers are still being glorified. Russia will never develop properly without having good moral values because societies can't function without them. There are of course many other countries lacking proper human rights and democracy, like Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc. They need same things in order to thrive.

I understand you might be angry but calling other people subhumans is not a clever thing to do. You are not any better than them.
Now let me explain a couple of things. Stalin was one of the most terrible ruler in the human history. No need to start to post statistics, evidences, etc. I invite you to read this short parts from Wikipedia:
Kato Svanidze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kato_Svanidze)

Ketevan "Kato" Svanidze (Georgian: ეკატერინა სვიმონის ასული სვანიძე, Ketevan Svimonis asuli Svanidze; Russian: Екатери́на Семёновна Свани́дзе, Yekaterina Semyonovna Svanidze; 2 April 1885 – 5 December 1907) was the first wife of Joseph Stalin and the mother of his eldest son, Iakob.
Svanidze and Stalin were married for just 18 months before she died of an illness in 1907. Her death sent Stalin into a deep grief, and he reportedly said "with her died my last warm feelings for humanity." Years later, several of her family members were executed during Stalin's purges.
At her church funeral, as Montefiore claims, Stalin said, "This creature softened my heart of stone. She died and with her died my last warm feelings for humanity."

Nadezhda Alliluyeva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadezhda_Alliluyeva)


Nadezhda Sergeevna Alliluyeva (Russian: Наде́жда Серге́евна Аллилу́ева; 22 September 1901[1] – 9 November 1932) was the second wife of Joseph Stalin.
On 9 November 1932, after a public spat with Stalin at a party dinner over the effects of the government's collectivization policies on the peasantry, Nadezhda shot herself in her bedroom.[3] The official announcement was that Nadezhda died from appendicitis.[4]

Accounts of contemporaries and Stalin's letters indicate that he was much disturbed by the event.[5][6]

Svetlana, Nadezhda's daughter, defected to the US in 1967, where she eventually published her autobiography, which included recollections of her parents and their relationship. Svetlana became a British citizen in 1992, and died at the age of 85 in 2011.
In popular culture

Alliluyeva was portrayed by Julia Ormond in the 1992 television film Stalin.[7]

If you watch the movie based on the book of his daughter, the responsabile for the suicide of Nadezhda was Stalin.
Yakov Dzhugashvili (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Dzhugashvili)


Yakov Iosifovich Jugashvili (Georgian: იაკობ იოსების ძე ჯუღაშვილი, Iakob Iosebis dze Jugashvili, Russian: Я́ков Ио́сифович Джугашви́ли; 18 March 1907 – 14 April 1943) was the eldest of Joseph Stalin's three children, the son of Stalin's first wife, Kato Svanidze.
Dzhugashvili and his father, Stalin, never got along. Allegedly once Stalin referred to Dzhugashvili as a "mere cobbler". Their tense relationship was exacerbated when Dzhugashvili and his Jewish[citation needed] fiancée, Zoya Gunina, attempted to inform Stalin of their engagement. According to Dzhugashvili's stepmother Nadezhda Alliluyeva, she saw a young woman running away from the family's Moscow dacha in tears. When Alliluyeva entered the house, she saw a despairing Dzhugashvili, who immediately retreated to his bedroom. It was revealed that when Dzhugashvili and Gunina told Stalin of their engagement, he became enraged.[citation needed] Stalin's rage caused Gunina's flight from the dacha, and Dzhugashvili to attempt suicide in his room via firearm. He missed his heart and hit his lung instead; while his stepmother Alliluyeva tended to his wound and called the doctor, his father is quoted as saying, "He can't even shoot straight".[3]
Dzhugashvili served as an artillery officer in the Red Army and was captured on 16 July 1941[6] in the early stages of the German invasion of USSR at the Battle of Smolensk. The Germans later offered to exchange Yakov for Friedrich Paulus, the German Field Marshal captured by the Soviets after the Battle of Stalingrad, but Stalin turned the offer down, allegedly saying, "I will not trade a Marshal for a Lieutenant."[7] According to some sources, there was another proposition as well, that Hitler wanted to exchange Yakov for Hitler's nephew Leo Raubal; this proposition was not accepted either.[8] While Soviet propaganda always asserted that Dzhugashvili was captured[citation needed], Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva, wrote in her memoirs that her father believed his son deliberately surrendered to the Germans after being encouraged to do so by his wife. Stalin, she wrote, had Yulia imprisoned and interrogated as a result. In February 2013 Der Spiegel printed evidence that it interpreted as indicating that Yakov surrendered. A letter written by Dzhugashvili's brigade commissar to the Red Army’s political director, quoted by Der Spiegel, states that after Dzhugashvili's battery had been bombed by the Germans, he and another soldier named Popuride initially put on civilian clothing and escaped, but then at some point Dzhugashvili stayed behind, saying that he wanted to stay and rest.[2]

Vasily Stalin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Stalin)

The death of Vasily's mother in 1932 (eight years after his father ascended to General Secretary) represented a major change in Vasily's life. Starting from this moment, Joseph Stalin ceased to visit his children; only the nursemaid and head of Stalin's security guards looked after Vasily and his sister, Svetlana. One officer, Sergei Efimov, was charged with continuously looking after the two children.
Now, i posted all this info from the private life of Stalin in order to avoid useless data about how many people died as result of the harsh dictatorship of Stalin. To him is adressed the sentence, the death of a person is a tragedy, the death of millions is just statistic. This was Stalin.
Stalin become the leader of a country who was still in middle age. Tsarist Russia was 300 years behind the Western Europe. If you want to describe Stalin with a single sentence, i would say:
Stalin took the son of a russian muzhik, who was born and raised as a serf in a medievale village, in a hut in the middle of the shit and mud and send this russian in the space, among the stars.
Now, if you want to realise such an achivement, there are two ways:
300 years of evolution, as the model of west suggest.
30 years of bloody revolution as Stalin did.
There is no third way.
If Russia continued after the WWI to be under the Tsar, you have to be sure that for Hitler the invasion of Russia was only a jaunt. Even after 20 years of forced industrialisation of Soviet Union, Germany was far more advanced than SU. The WWII was the last war when quantity won against quality. After the WWII nukes changed all the scenario. Against a perfect killing machine like the german army, Stalin send a human river of soviets, sometimes even unarmed.
But only one ideology like communism and a person like Stalin can mobilise an entire people like happened with soviets during the WWII.
Do you understand now why they continue to have simpathy for Stalin?
Why Russia is doing bad today has nothing to do with communism as a ideology. Communism is an ideology and like other ideologies or religions, it`s used to cover the economic interests. It has to do with the policy of Russian expansionism started almost 250 years ago and that continue in our days. Stalin was a terrible Tsar. This is the reality, nudo e crudo.

[Methuselah]

No, i am not a russian. Simply i have no emotion when i discuss about this things.

Now let me explain a couple of things. Stalin was one of the most terrible ruler in the human history. No need to start to post statistics, evidences, etc. I invite you to read this short parts from Wikipedia:
Kato Svanidze (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kato_Svanidze)

Nadezhda Alliluyeva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadezhda_Alliluyeva)

If you watch the movie based on the book of his daughter, the responsabile for the suicide of Nadezhda was Stalin.
Yakov Dzhugashvili (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Dzhugashvili)

Vasily Stalin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Stalin)

Now, i posted all this info from the private life of Stalin in order to avoid useless data about how many people died as result of the harsh dictatorship of Stalin. To him is adressed the sentence, the death of a person is a tragedy, the death of millions is just statistic. This was Stalin.
Stalin become the leader of a country who was still in middle age. Tsarist Russia was 300 years behind the Western Europe. If you want to describe Stalin with a single sentence, i would say:
Stalin took the son of a russian muzhik, who was born and raised as a serf in a medievale village, in a hut in the middle of the shit and mud and send this russian in the space, among the stars.
Now, if you want to realise such an achivement, there are two ways:
300 years of evolution, as the model of west suggest.
30 years of bloody revolution as Stalin did.
There is no third way.
If Russia continued after the WWI to be under the Tsar, you have to be sure that for Hitler the invasion of Russia was only a jaunt. Even after 20 years of forced industrialisation of Soviet Union, Germany was far more advanced than SU. The WWII was the last war when quantity won against quality. After the WWII nukes changed all the scenario. Against a perfect killing machine like the german army, Stalin send a human river of soviets, sometimes even unarmed.
But only one ideology like communism and a person like Stalin can mobilise an entire people like happened with soviets during the WWII.
Do you understand now why they continue to have simpathy for Stalin?
Why Russia is doing bad today has nothing to do with communism as a ideology. Communism is an ideology and like other ideologies or religions, it`s used to cover the economic interests. It has to do with the policy of Russian expansionism started almost 250 years ago and that continue in our days. Stalin was a terrible Tsar. This is the reality, nudo e crudo.

I know you are not Russian. I just said you sounded a bit like one. Many Russians feel their Communism was the only way to be. And many historians agree with you on this, that Russia needed it in order to fight Germany.

I posted a lot of information just to make it sure people will get my point.

Becoming a huge Soviet Union helped "Russia" to develop but like i said, my point is that you need to develop in the right way. Romanovs did a lot of good things to Russia despite couple of Tsars being a bit dumb. Russian Empire was not super shitty when it came to natural sciences. It was doing quite well and was communicating with other European scientific communities. Or do you think Soviet science came out of nothing? Russia would have developed slower, but better. Not every Tsar is mentally ill, but every communist seems to be a blood thirsty vampire.

Nazis would lose sooner or later anyway, since German tanks got nothing on an atomic bomb. It wasn't about Stalin putting Russia on steroids.

Russian problems are super much influenced by their Communism, i wonder why you even say they are not related. Are you seriously trying to say 100 years of dictatorship is not gonna affect anything? Remember, Russian Empire was not a democracy but again they didn't kill millions of people or completely turned their country into a sh*thole like communists did. Being backward is not the same thing as having nuclear waste all over your country.

[glass]

glass Stalin had high hopes on Hanko, but got schooled badly in the Winter War.
How is winning the war and getting Hanko can be called 'got schooled badly'?


So you're saying Putin needs to continue pushing Stalinism to justify the way things are going now?
Exactly
Finland was lapdog of nazi and ally to nazi. No matter what kind of 'nice' words you put here. War with nazi is world wide percieved as war of good versus evil. You were on evil side, remember that.

You see winning a war is not enough, you got to get things together as well.
Winning is what matter most. You lost war to Soviet Union and still butthurt about that. Soviet Union won war versus Finland and so do russians give zero fucks about Finland.

Russia is in a deep trouble, there is clearly a lack of abstract thinking ("things are the way they are and nothing can't be done"), lack of moral values, millions of homes that should be renovated, highest HIV-rates in the whole Europe/ Central Asia etc. And the modern head of your country is not doing anything about it. Only swimming in that swamp of corruption.
All they do is blame on others for their problems. That nihilistic, analytical thinking is pretty childish ("life is unfair, all people are selfish, moral values don't exist..."). Well, if they don't want to be a part of the civilized world but want to fight instead, they don't deserve any success...
https://image.ibb.co/jn7Zj6/butthurt_cream.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

[Laberia]

How is winning the war and getting Hanko can be called 'got schooled badly'?

Finland was lapdog of nazi and ally to nazi. No matter what kind of 'nice' words you put here. War with nazi is world wide percieved as war of good versus evil. You were on evil side, remember that.

Winning is what matter most. You lost war to Soviet Union and still butthurt about that. Soviet Union won war versus Finland and so do russians give zero fucks about Finland.

https://image.ibb.co/jn7Zj6/butthurt_cream.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

Come on, stop playing the strong guy with Finns. Finland fought with bravery against you putting you in embarrassing situation in front of all the world.
There is no good or bad side when you defend your country. Stop with propaganda. I will ally with the devil himself if this is the only way to save my country.

[Methuselah]

How is winning the war and getting Hanko can be called 'got schooled badly'?

Finland was lapdog of nazi and ally to nazi. No matter what kind of 'nice' words you put here. War with nazi is world wide percieved as war of good versus evil. You were on evil side, remember that.

Winning is what matter most. You lost war to Soviet Union and still butthurt about that. Soviet Union won war versus Finland and so do russians give zero fucks about Finland.

https://image.ibb.co/jn7Zj6/butthurt_cream.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

Well, actually i literally meant that Stalin wanted Hanko, but it was only rented to Soviet Union for a while. Stalin wanted to steal much more from Finland than just a slice of Karelia.

An example of getting schooled badly here. 71737

Finns don't feel like they lost. They successfully defended their independency and became a wealthy state. Hardships motivated Finland to rise up. You can see the difference between a wealthy democracy and a dictatorship by visiting Finland.

Yes, Soviet Union won the the war together with USA, Britain and France. Don't think you are too special just because Soviet troops got there (Germany) first and helped to defeat Nazis.

Finland was on evil side after getting bullied by a bloody dictator, Stalin. Sometimes some help from other Nazis is not that bad after all, at least if it helps you to defend your country. Finns did overreact however later, trying to invade some Soviet Union together with Germans. But this was only after Stalin attacked Finland first. Simple facts, can be "nice words" as well if you wish.

You seem to be too young to understand those things. I am not "butthurt" about anything and the Finns who are super "butthurt" are mostly those who had ties to Karelia. They have a reason to be bitter.
"Winning is what matter most." Winning with dignity matters the most in my opinion. If you look at France or England, they kept their dignity. They didn't rape German women, they didn't bully anyone. They took bullets in Normandia in order to help other people. Things like this matter the most. Having a justice in your society, keeping your children off the streets, taking care of the people. This matters the most. You will understand when you grow older.

I'm not looking at this world like you and some other people do. For me people are people. I'm not enjoying seeing homeless Russian kids on the television, i wish they were safe. But since your leaders are not really interested investing money in the right things (like building proper hospitals etc) it is what it is.

It seems like you don't have any empathy towards the victims of the Soviet terror. Tells something about you... Soviet soldiers did horrible things in Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and the list goes on. You should learn your history. "We just had to invade them because of Hitler" is a bad excuse for murdering people, just don't forget this.

[Mingle]

So you call those guys (Red army)....who attacked to Finland (November 30th 1939) as Bolshevicks?

Finns? Hardly. We call Bolshevicks those forces which tried to influence Finland at 1918 (Finland's civil war time).

Both were Bolsheviks.

[Finnish Swede]

Both were Bolsheviks.

Stalin modified it alot as he has gotten in power; before WW 2 started. I call them communists.

[Mingle]

Speaking about neo-stalinism we need to look down through history of Russia.
300 years ago Russia already had 'Stalin' he is now called Peter the Great. Peter was viewed as vulgar and rude tyrant by people who knew him and those who lived shortly afterwards. His image was extremely negative untill Catherine 2 campaign of whitewashing of him started. In 19 century Peter became not tyrant but 'controversial' tsar, who may had some shortcomings but so does great achievements. In 20 centrury bolsheviks, who were too geniune supporters of tough decisions and permanent solutions, evolved Peter into 'greatest' tsar ever lived (prio to bolshevik take over ofc:rolleyes:)

Stalin may follow the same way. Firstly he was all round winner, he did not lose anything nor ever backed down. Secondly current regime is struggling with economical crisis and drop of public support, so advocating 'tough' policies combined with achievements in the past contribute to justification of current regime's breakdown of public freedom and democracy.

Did Peter the Great either directly or indeirectly slaughter millions of Russians? No.

I consider Nicholas II's regime to be be very oppressive and harmful. It was during his reign that Bolsheviks came to power. He killed many civilians, plunged Russia into a stupid war with Japan (that Russia lost), ignored the peasantry's concerns, tightened his grip on authoritarianism, etc. But I still wouldn't compare him to Stalin. Ivan the Terrible was said to be very cruel. In front of Stalin, he looks like a mouse.

When Khrushchev first came to power, he said only a few things about Stalin to try to get otger Soviet officials to understand what communism leads to. This shocked most Russians, but it wasn't the full picture. Slowly, later on more information about Stalin was revealed. So he went from being disliked to hated, different to Peter the Great. Peter the Great built St. Petersburg and westernized Russia. Stalin OTOH set back Russia several decades in development and killed almost everyone regardless of what they did. He makes North Korea's leaders look like angels from heaven. When the Germans initially invaded the SU, millions of Russians initially welcomed them as liberators. Would the same have happened if Russia was invaded by outsiders during Peter the Great'a rule (or any czar's rule)?

[Sandman]

In Russia, the authorities are respected on condition that they hold this in their hands.
https://2.allegroimg.com/s512/015fd2/6f9597cb4bdc932d527a1cc5a612
The Russian empire is traditionally based on lies, manipulation, deception and violence. 700 years of building an empire on Mongolian patterns gave such results.

[Mingle]

Stalin modified it alot as he has gotten in power; before WW 2 started. I call them communists.Stalin wasn't that different than Lenin in his core ideas. He just took Lenin's ideas to an extreme. For example, the gulags were established under Lenin but he put political opponents there and there were only a few. Stalin massively expanded that number and used the gulags to try to industrialize Russia. And he put in anyone there, not just political opponents. Lenin also explicitly stated that he would use mass terror to make Russia into his bolshevik dreamland. He ordered the deaths of many innocents in the Tambov Rebellion. Stalin's collectivization policy in regards to the peasantry was also just an extreme version of what Lenin was doing earlier (which is what caused the Tambov Rebellion). He also expelled any communist within his circle that questioned his policies trying to keep a hivemind at the top without being exposed to any different ideas. This is one of the stuff (in addition to many others) that kept Stalin in power. At least Lenin was open to changing things up a bit and even installed a few capitalist economic policies for a while after seeing what bolshevism did to the SU.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Finnish Swede]

In Russia, the authorities are respected on condition that they hold this in their hands.
https://2.allegroimg.com/s512/015fd2/6f9597cb4bdc932d527a1cc5a612
The Russian empire is traditionally based on lies, manipulation, deception and violence. 700 years of building an empire on Mongolian patterns gave such results.

Very true.

It's amaizing that some nationalists today (in western countries) keeps it as a dream country.

[glass]

An example of getting schooled badly here. 71737

How many times should i ask? How is getting owned in war can be called 'we scholled opponent badly'? I am not consume that amount of vodka and snus to get into this state of delusion i am afraid.

Finns don't feel like they lost. They successfully defended their independency and became a wealthy state. Hardships motivated Finland to rise up. You can see the difference between a wealthy democracy and a dictatorship by visiting Finland.
That is your problem, dude. Instead of admitinig that you lost and move on, you nurture your butthurt inventing reasons why lost war, which could have been prevented, is not lost war. If you do not want to learn your own history then it may repeat itself again.

Yes, Soviet Union won the the war together with USA, Britain and France. Don't think you are too special just because Soviet troops got there (Germany) first and helped to defeat Nazis.
No matter what new or old brainfart you would bring here. Soviet Union was by good side and Finland by evil. Learn your history instead of inventing one that suits your butthurt mind better.

But this was only after Stalin attacked Finland first.
Another lie. Finland attacked Soviet Union twice in early 1920s, despite pretty firendly approach to Finland. Second time after 'official' border agreement in which SU ceased some territories.

You seem to be too young to understand those things. I am not "butthurt" about anything and the Finns who are super "butthurt" are mostly those who had ties to Karelia. They have a reason to be bitter.
You are extremely butthurt and delusional, that why you bring polaks, georgians and 'horribly things' russians did into this thread. All of this is offtopic. Why would you start flood thread with offtopic if u do not care about what you are writing?

For example, the gulags were established under Lenin but he put political opponents there and there were only a few.
Gulag is continution of tsarist katorga. It is not invention of sort, it is regular penal colony, and invention of it usually attributed to english.

Slowly, later on more information about Stalin was revealed. So he went from being disliked to hated, different to Peter the Great. Peter the Great built St. Petersburg and westernized Russia. Stalin OTOH set back Russia several decades in development and killed almost everyone regardless of what they did. He makes North Korea's leaders look like angels from heaven. When the Germans initially invaded the SU, millions of Russians initially welcomed them as liberators. Would the same have happened if Russia was invaded by outsiders during Peter the Great'a rule (or any czar's rule)?
It is common myth of 'westernization' of Russia. I don't wanna go too deep into this, but Peter 'westernized' only army, but 'de-westernized' civil administration and management. Inintially he was viewd as typical asian tyrant, Karamzin, Dashkova and other figures of russian enlightment had consesus on this. Great good tsar Peter is mostly myth created by propagandists. Stalin may become another myth of 'tough but efficient' leader.
Germans were not welocomed as liberators, don't lie. Stalinist regime was quite unpopular and many soldiers were not even trusted holding weapons because of this. So Army either flee east or just surrendered to germans without much of fighting. But collaborationism was quite low among ethnic russians.

[Rumata]

The majority of Russians live in fairy tale where their grandparents died defending the country, even though the majority have no idea where or when their grandparents served or died. Ones granddad could have died invading Poland, or being shot as an invader by Finnish sniper, or captured by Germans, send as meat to front lines and killed by his own kinsmen.

Why such a stupid assumption??? There're archive and other documents for that. There're even sites with statistics.
https://pamyat-naroda.ru

[Profileid]

Invasion of Poland was a joint Soviet-German venture. Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland simultaneously. Division of Poland was followed by Soviet occupation of Baltic states, parts of Romania and invasion of Finland. The non-aggression pact gave Nazi Germans green light to invade Western Europe. To my knowledge Stalin is largely perceived as 'necessary evil' in Russia. The majority of Russians live in fairy tale where their grandparents died defending the country, even though the majority have no idea where or when their grandparents served or died. Ones granddad could have died invading Poland, or being shot as an invader by Finnish sniper, or captured by Germans, send as meat to front lines and killed by his own kinsmen.

Saying that is illegal in Russia. It's apparently Nazism.

The public discussion of WW2 history has also been curbed by a controversial 2014 law against the rehabilitation of Nazism.

Under this law, Vladimir Luzgin, a blogger from Perm region in the Urals, was fined 200,000 roubles ($3,200; £2,500) for reposting an article about the war on the Russian social network VK (VKontakte), the daily Kommersant reported in July.

The court ruled that Luzgin posted an article with knowingly false information about a joint invasion of Poland by German and Soviet forces on 1 September 1939.

According to the prosecutors, Luzgin realised that the text might instil in many people "a firm conviction about negative actions of the USSR" in the war.

The court said Luzgin had falsified history by stating "that the communists and Germany jointly attacked Poland, unleashing World War Two, or in other words, that Communism and Nazism co-operated honestly".

In September, Russia's Supreme Court ruled that the punishment of Luzgin was justified.

Nazi Germany and the USSR signed a non-aggression pact in August 1939 - the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In a secret protocol, they agreed to carve up Poland between them.

Nazi troops invaded Poland on 1 September and Soviet troops, from the east, on 17 September.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37595972

[Finnish Swede]

Another lie. Finland attacked Soviet Union twice in early 1920s, despite pretty firendly approach to Finland. Second time after 'official' border agreement in which SU ceased some territories.

I would like to see official Finnish historians texts on those....and not only Russians.

And friendly you said? Oh well, you just tried to make/change Finland communist country via Finland's civil war 1918. Yup, very friendly indeed!

And before you answer...yes....we can go furthern back to history ...let me say all the way into 13th and 14th centuries...and start to list all the things. Any idea what will be outcome? Yes, you know pretty well who has caused much more sorrow to another part. Time after time.


Soviet Union was by good side and Finland by evil. You're still believing that nonsense?
Good guys fighting in evil side and bad guys fighting in good side? Very interesting.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bx2F8yk-XWY/UAEW6tNhBPI/AAAAAAAAAVg/QqAJXkdVgSk/s640/german-women-raped-1945-ww2.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4d/3a/13/4d3a13e504484ba70e3e0319f4fcaf45.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CceeTNcW4AA1G4z.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e6/13/b9/e613b9dd675949ed860f40ffa5ce6806.jpg

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Why wouldn't the killings be rational? Just because he did something evil doesn't mean he was irrational.

There was a logic behind the killings:

Stalin in Power
Some people may be a risk to his power
Stalin kills those people
His power is stable

There is no logic behind paranoid behavior. Stalin had nothing to fear from his top ranking Soviet military officers. The Germans cleverly put out false information that Soviet intelligence picked up and caused Stalin to react instead of investigating these men and looking for actual evidence that they were disloyal to him.

His paranoia almost ruined him. Fortunately for Stalin Hitler thought of himself as a military genius and his incompetence lost Germany the war.

[Profileid]

There is no logic behind paranoid behavior. Stalin had nothing to fear from his top ranking Soviet military officers. The Germans cleverly put out false information that Soviet intelligence picked up and caused Stalin to react instead of investigating these men and looking for actual evidence that they were disloyal to him.

His paranoia almost ruined him. Fortunately for Stalin Hitler thought of himself as a military genius and his incompetence lost Germany the war.

Hitler went full retard and decided it would be a good idea to ignore the advice of his more experienced generals. Which is exactly what happened in Stalingrad.

[Methuselah]

How many times should i ask? How is getting owned in war can be called 'we scholled opponent badly'? I am not consume that amount of vodka and snus to get into this state of delusion i am afraid.

That is your problem, dude. Instead of admitinig that you lost and move on, you nurture your butthurt inventing reasons why lost war, which could have been prevented, is not lost war. If you do not want to learn your own history then it may repeat itself again.

No matter what new or old brainfart you would bring here. Soviet Union was by good side and Finland by evil. Learn your history instead of inventing one that suits your butthurt mind better.

Another lie. Finland attacked Soviet Union twice in early 1920s, despite pretty firendly approach to Finland. Second time after 'official' border agreement in which SU ceased some territories.

You are extremely butthurt and delusional, that why you bring polaks, georgians and 'horribly things' russians did into this thread. All of this is offtopic. Why would you start flood thread with offtopic if u do not care about what you are writing?

Gulag is continution of tsarist katorga. It is not invention of sort, it is regular penal colony, and invention of it usually attributed to english.

It is common myth of 'westernization' of Russia. I don't wanna go to deep into this, but Peter 'westernized' only army, but 'de-westernized' civil administration and management. Inintially he was viewd as typical asian tyrant, Karamzin, Dashkova and other figures of russian enlightment had consesus on this. Great good tsar Peter is mostly myth created by propagandists. Stalin may become another myth of 'tough but efficient' leader.
Germans were not welocomed as liberators, don't lie. Stalinist regime was quite unpopular and many soldiers were not even trusted holding weapons because of this. So Army either flee east or just surrendered to germans without much of fighting. But collaborationism was quite low among ethnic russians.

Why do you think i am "butthurt"? Don't be childish. I just pointed out Soviets got owned in the Winter war, despite winning the whole thing. Even Stalin himself was impressed and "respected" Finns so much he didn't attack anymore. Finns of course were still afraid of him, just like any other people, including Russians. Finns prayed really hard at that time and tried to keep hope alive against the Russian bear. They succeeded to defend their homeland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila Here you go. If you can't read, you can't read. Why would a small nation start a war with a huge nation? Finland has never started a war. You sound super dumb, uneducated.

I'm not hating on Russians, i have Russian blood in me as well, just like i have Finnish, Scandinavian, German, Ukrainian, Asian too. For me all people are equal. However, i think some individuals have super shitty moral codes and it seems like this nihilistic sickness spreads well in Russia. Please learn about your Russian history and don't make your nation look stupid. Your country is suffering because of your shitty moral values, trust me.

If you think i'm trying to pull you down you are wrong. You can be proud of your country, but just to let you know Russia's greatest achievements are not linked to communism. You can be proud of Gagarin, but a Soviet space program was invented by an Ukrainian. Read about Ukrainian Sergei Kovolev, Polish Tsiolkovsky and German Werner von Braun. They are behind your space program. The greatest scientists of the Soviet era were mostly Jewish or Armenian. Google Zhores Alferov. I'm not saying you can't be proud of them, but knowing how patriotic and antisemitic Russians are it sounds strange they are not able to be proud of their "more European" Tsarist era, which gave them Tchaikovsky, Russian ballet and scientists like Mendeleev. You would not have any of those things without Romanovs, Peter the Great and connections to Europe. I know you don't know much about European science/ culture but i just wanted to point this out and upgrade your "Tetris logic" a lil bit.

The reason i spoke about those horrible things Russians did is the moral value issues you guys seem to have over there. I just wanted to see how emotionally incapable you are of feeling any shame for bad things your country did. Those are war crimes, but i know your thinking. "Everybody commits war crimes" seems to be a good song to sing. Finns are ashamed of their Nazi links, Germans are ashamed of their Nazi past but you glorify that tyrant who raped your country and attacked many innocent countries as well murdering a lot of people.

Please don't talk too much about Nazis. We all know how Russian youth is obsessed with Germany. We know about this as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army.
And we know Nazis are bad, and they had to be defeated. But we know just as well that any other autocratic regime is just as bad, not only Nazism.
You pointed out Finland being on the evil side while being evil yourself. You pointed out as well that "everybody knows Nazis are bad and you lost the war".
Let me tell you something. Your country is under sanctions right now (we exist right now, not in the past). All developed/ civilized countries are on the Ukrainian side. They think Russia is behaving like an autistic, bloodthirsty slave.

You are a military superpower, but are you exporting any technology? All the goodies you have out there are there because of the developed countries. But you are too blind too see this probably.
You are probably too blind to see that your communist past didn't give you any chances to turn inventions into the business and bring wealth to your country. You are too blind to see any correlation between a democracy, human rights and the economical stability. You always have an excuse for you shitty corruption, and think putting all the bad guys to jail will solve all of your problems. You don't even realize that your whole system has to be changed.

You are completely brainwashed. I'm trying to help you to "see" but being elastic and humble is not an option for you it seems. You have that typical Soviet mentality, black and white type of thinking. It will never bring you any success. But it seems like Russia does not deserve it anyway. Who the hell want's Russian phones (do they even have them) then you guys send your children to Ukraine, to kill and to be killed. You are not in good terms with Europeans. Are even friends with Arabs? China is on your friend list only because of your wood. Well you have some Iranian friends at least i guess...

Anyway man good luck waiting for a dictatorship to turn into a developed country! See you in Pyeongchang!

[Profileid]

Stalin in Russia is not just ''more than Stalin'' but more than any other subject of historical debate about the future. Next to it there can be, perhaps, only the controversy surrounding Ivan the Terrible. The reason is clear. It was Stalin and Ivan IV who dared to destroy the ''progressive'' elite. Lenin and Trotsky destroyed the elite ''reactionary'', and along with them ordinary people. Peter the Great was also not very fond of ordinary people. They, in intuition of our liberals, can be hurt as well as ''reactionaries''. But the ''enlightened'', ''intelligent'', ''better'' people — no way. Some just cannot forgive this, unlike the death of millions of social ''aliens'', by definition. In the first place, because they know that the people's confidence in the layer of ''enlightened'' jerks is zero, and the thirst for justice in the society is very high. Any ''Kirov's assassination'', even symbolic, can lead to a repeat of the scenario of 80 years ago.

That is why they try to defame Stalin with their last bit of strength with Trotskyist boot or Zinovievsky boot. And most of all they attack, perhaps, the achievement of the Stalin era — the victory in the Great Patriotic War, after which Moscow regained almost all lost territory and controlled half of Europe.


The more that there is no documentary evidence that the leader repented of his godlessness, persecution of the faith and the Church, of the death of innocent people (however, the red executioners definitely cannot be called innocent as well as those who betrayed the tsar and destroyed the Empire). If there was no repentance, the soul of Stalin is in hell. However, some of the memories have been preserved, supposing repentance. So, the officer in Stalin's guard Yury Solovyev stated that the leader was praying in one of Kremlin churches. That Stalin confessed to the Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) was said by the grandson of the Soviet leader Alexander Burdonsky and trusted person of Metropolitan Lyubov Peterson (the bishop told her about it shortly before the death).
-Vsevolod Chaplin
https://realnoevremya.com/uploads/article/00/d3/c928910da7a1c22c.jpg
Source : https://realnoevremya.com/articles/1698-vsevolod-chaplin-about-controversial-figure-of-stalin

But he outdid himself on Aug. 15, when he turned a question on a new statue dedicated to Ivan the Terrible into an ode to Stalin – dodging the question to declare both his support for the Soviet leader and the brutal purges in which millions of Russians were killed.

“He [Stalin] did a lot. At the end of it all, what's so bad about destroying some of [Russia's] internal enemies?,” said Chaplin on the Echo Moskvy radio station.

“There are some people you should kill. Even God, if we read the Old and New Testaments, directly authorized the destruction of a large number of people as a message to others. Not as a punishment or revenge, but as edification. Sometimes societies need the destruction of those who are worthy of destruction," he said.

Chaplin's words sent shockwaves across the Russian media, with many rushing to condemn him. Echo Moskvy has since pledged that Chaplin will no longer appear as a guest on their station, and a transcript of the interview was only released after a considerable social media debate by staff at the station.

Yet Chaplin is far from the only cleric to support the Soviet leader and his regime. Although he is now a fringe figure in the church, he previously held the high-ranking position of Chairman of the Synodal Department for the Cooperation of Church and Society, and remains a recognizable voice. His pro-Stalin position is one which many Russian religious figures share.

Most of the church's official statements on the matter are measured and neutral, unoffensive to either side. Even the head of the church, Patriarch Kirill, has been forced to address Stalin's legacy. Speaking in November last year, he said that while Stalin was responsible for Russia's revival and modernization, the leader had also done great wrongs.

“It is for the judgment of God,” said the Patriarch. “Just because a person has done bad things, it should never give us the right to exclude the positive things which that person achieved.”
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/there-are-some-people-you-should-kill-the-russian-priests-supporting-stalin-55006

[Gold-Shekel]

There is no logic behind paranoid behavior. Stalin had nothing to fear from his top ranking Soviet military officers. The Germans cleverly put out false information that Soviet intelligence picked up and caused Stalin to react instead of investigating these men and looking for actual evidence that they were disloyal to him.

His paranoia almost ruined him. Fortunately for Stalin Hitler thought of himself as a military genius and his incompetence lost Germany the war.

There is a logic, he got to where he was by fucking people over so he would know a thing or two about "opportunism". Once you fuck everyone who trusted you over, you don't believe in anyone else. Plus the Soviet leadership was something new, it wasn't well established so he had no reason to believe anyone.

[Mingle]

Gulag is continution of tsarist katorga. It is not invention of sort, it is regular penal colony, and invention of it usually attributed to english.

Thanks for the correction. I guess Lenin maybe just changed the name to Gulag.


It is common myth of 'westernization' of Russia. I don't wanna go too deep into this, but Peter 'westernized' only army, but 'de-westernized' civil administration and management. Inintially he was viewd as typical asian tyrant, Karamzin, Dashkova and other figures of russian enlightment had consesus on this. Great good tsar Peter is mostly myth created by propagandists. Stalin may become another myth of 'tough but efficient' leader.
Germans were not welocomed as liberators, don't lie. Stalinist regime was quite unpopular and many soldiers were not even trusted holding weapons because of this. So Army either flee east or just surrendered to germans without much of fighting. But collaborationism was quite low among ethnic russians.

This is not true. Two people in Russian history are called 'westernizers'. They are Peter the Great and Katherine the Great. Katherine didn't do much westernizing besides hiring Western Europeans to build Western-style architecture, so she probably gets some unfair credit in that regard.

Peter the Great however did do some westernizing. He introduced Western-style administration by dividing the Russian Empire into 8 (later 12 and then more later) guberniyas which were divided into uyezds, replaced the prizak with collegia based on the Swedish government structure, and brought about the senate to replace the boyar duma. He also allowed peasants to be able to rise in ranking to nobelman.

He promoted western social customs by doing stuff such as the beard tax, replacing the Russian calendar with the Julian one, encouraging western clothing, importing Western European architects (though not to the extent Katherine did), etc.

He also put the church fully under the state's control and stripped it of any remaining autonomy it had left. Then he began secularizing the institutions and trying to downplay the role of Orthodoxy in Russia (this was all undone by Nicholas II). He also promoted education and built a few huge universities/schools with foreign Western European instructors mainly for stuff like the navy, engineering, etc. At this time, it was just noblemen and their children that could go to school obviously.

If I'm not mistaken, the Streltsy Uprising was done in reaction to Peter's westernization policies.

The non-western and bad things that Peter the Great did was his strong commitment to autocracy and oppressing the peasants even more by introducing the 'soul tax' to try to get funds for Russia's military.

Maybe he had a bit of a bad side to him, but overall he seemed like a reasonable person by the standards back then at least. He can't be put in the same box as Stalin who was a genocidal maniac. Under Peter the Great, Russia was one of the largest grain exporting nations out there. Under Stalin, millions died of hunger and Russia was one of the biggest grain importing nations out there which lasted up until at least Yeltsin's era. To compare Peter the Great (whatever flaws he may have had ) to a mass murdering psychopath is very disrespectful to Peter.

I may have misread somewhere and confused Russians with Soviets. The number of Russians that welcomed the Germans would have been low, but they did exist. If Ukraine and Poland weren't part of the Soviet Union and the initial invasion on the SU was in ethnic Russian territory though, I'm sure many Russians (especially peasants) would have welcomed the Germans.

[glass]

Thanks for the correction. I guess Lenin maybe just changed the name to Gulag.

Gulag is not really a word, but abbreviation.

This is not true. Two people in Russian history are called 'westernizers'. They are Peter the Great and Katherine the Great. Katherine didn't do much westernizing besides hiring Western Europeans to build Western-style architecture, so she probably gets some unfair credit in that regard.
Yes you think so, because you repeat whitewashening 'propaganda'. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Karamzin is very pro-western person, but how he describe 'westernizer' Peter? You can read here https://books.google.ru/books?id=i2olhdqD3IAC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=karamzin+peter+the+great&source=bl&ots=aEAXONg0LA&sig=-GRhC8gPC07h0FCg_PuDeoPy5b0&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPirra-eXYAhXD_SwKHYMzCwEQ6AEINzAB#v=onepage&q=karamzin%20peter%20the%20great&f=false. As you may see he was not aware yet about great westernizaition done by Peter :rolleyes:
May be 200 years nowadays neo-stalinist point of view would become mainstream.

Peter the Great however did do some westernizing. He introduced Western-style administration by dividing the Russian Empire into 8 (later 12 and then more later) guberniyas which were divided into uyezds, replaced the prizak with collegia based on the Swedish government structure, and brought about the senate to replace the boyar duma. He also allowed peasants to be able to rise in ranking to nobelman.
If Ivan renames himself with John, will he become more western?:rolleyes:

He also put the church fully under the state's control and stripped it of any remaining autonomy it had left. Then he began secularizing the institutions and trying to downplay the role of Orthodoxy in Russia (this was all undone by Nicholas II).
Yes he vigourously was destroying other centers of power in Russia. So authoritarism is now western?:rolleyes:

He also promoted education and built a few huge universities/schools with foreign Western European instructors mainly for stuff like the navy, engineering, etc. At this time, it was just noblemen and their children that could go to school obviously.
First university in Russia is Moscow University founded in 1755. :rolleyes:

The non-western and bad things that Peter the Great did was his strong commitment to autocracy and oppressing the peasants even more by introducing the 'soul tax' to try to get funds for Russia's military.
For some time Russia was situated between 2 backwards tatars to south-east and lithuanians/polaks to south west. Eventhough Russia was not really progressive state, its army was more than enough to fight those two. Rise of Sweden brought new vastly superior player into region. Utter failures in battles versus swedes in a middle of 17 century triggered reforms, mostly military ones, process began long before future Peter the Great was even born. He just finished it. Despite modernization of military which was necessity to survive as state (look where tatars and polaks, who failed to adjust ended), civilian administration remained mostly the same. Peter just renamed many existing institutes or changed them into more "controlable" form. PEter did not made Russia western, he just introduced some western technologies.

Maybe he had a bit of a bad side to him, but overall he seemed like a reasonable person by the standards back then at least. He can't be put in the same box as Stalin who was a genocidal maniac. Under Peter the Great, Russia was one of the largest grain exporting nations out there. Under Stalin, millions died of hunger and Russia was one of the biggest grain importing nations out there which lasted up until at least Yeltsin's era. To compare Peter the Great (whatever flaws he may have had ) to a mass murdering psychopath is very disrespectful to Peter.
I am not equalizing them, i just point out that perception of historical figures may change in time. Peter viewed much better now than he was in the past. On the other side Ivan the Terrible was quite popular among common folk, but got reduced to worst tsar ever with time. Different perception of Stalin is based on moral ground and moral views, both subjective and tend to change. So pretty much i returned to first 2 posts in this thread. You can go back and see them, no point to copy paste them again.

[Austrvegr]

Genocide of the Irish people by Anglo capitalists

https://s10.postimg.org/yapigkmg9/ireland.png

[Methuselah]

Genocide of the Irish people by Anglo capitalists

https://s10.postimg.org/yapigkmg9/ireland.png

Did you know that the great famine was caused by a fungus? Things you say are strange anyway. Are Germans proud of Hitler? Are Brits proud of causing pain and sorrow in other countries?
No, and actually Brits did some good things as well in some countries. You however seem to be a little bit disturbed for some reason. What are you trying to prove mister?

[Art23]

Stalin has probably been the greatest criminal of XX century, killing millions of people.

Stalinism is very popular in Russia. 9 May is he day when you can see many Stalin portraits in Russian cities. There has been an initiative to rename Volgograd to Stalingrad.

[Finnish Swede]

Stalin has probably been the greatest criminal of XX century, killing millions of people.

Stalinism is very popular in Russia. 9 May is he day when you can see many Stalin portraits in Russian cities. There has been an initiative to rename Volgograd to Stalingrad.

Russians are comic to change the names of their own cities...St. Petersburg => Leningrad => Stalingrad => St. Petersburg.
Their men have too small balls...

[Vlatko Vukovic]

Russians are comic to change the names of their own cities...St. Petersburg => Leningrad => Stalingrad => St. Petersburg.
Their men have too small balls...

Stalingrad is different town :) It's modern Volgograd.

The change was just St.Petersburg => Leningrad => St. Petersburg :)

[Methuselah]

Stalin has probably been the greatest criminal of XX century, killing millions of people.

Stalinism is very popular in Russia. 9 May is he day when you can see many Stalin portraits in Russian cities. There has been an initiative to rename Volgograd to Stalingrad.

Yes. This is terrible. Many feel like they owe him (Stalin) something.
Communism killed almost 100 millions, while capitalism made western countries wealthy and healthy. It is not a perfect thing, but it is natural and it works.
Capitalism existed in the ancient times as well and it worked pretty well. It seems like some people never get this. They should just take a drive from North Korea to the South and see the difference...

[glass]

Russians are comic to change the names of their own cities...St. Petersburg => Leningrad => Stalingrad => St. Petersburg.
Their men have too small balls...
You wrongly put Stalingrad in here and forgot Petrograd:rolleyes:
Btw what do you think worse, having no balls like russian men, or having no brains like finnish swede's women?

St.Petersburg => Leningrad => St. Petersburg
The city was called Petrograd (Петроград) from 1914 to 1924

[Vlatko Vukovic]

You wrongly put Stalingrad in here and forgot Petrograd:rolleyes:
Btw what do you think worse, having no balls like russian men, or having no brains like finnish swede's women?

The city was called Petrograd (Петроград) from 1914 to 1924

But Petrograd is just the St. Petersburg in the Russian language version?

[glass]

But Petrograd is just the St. Petersburg in the Russian language version?
Technically yes, but it is still different names with different aura around them.

[Finnish Swede]

You wrongly put Stalingrad in here and forgot Petrograd:rolleyes:
Btw what do you think worse, having no balls like russian men, or having no brains like finnish swede's women?

The city was called Petrograd (Петроград) from 1914 to 1924

Well, I'll turn that upside down. Which is better. Sorry.

Yes...much better is that Russian men will not have balls. As that means that numbers of Russians are going down (as curves shows).
Us? Njah...we are so small group that we do't mean much.

And comic still...no matter what... those names of cities.

[Slavic Italian]

People are unfair to Stalin. The Germans had been preparing for war for almost a decade since 1933. They were tactically and strategically well ahead of everybody else. The USSR was not fully prepared. Of course the Soviets were going to suffer more casualties to a superior opponent. I bet things were much more evened out from 1943 onward once the Soviets had mastered the art of modern warfare.

[Finnish Swede]

People are unfair to Stalin. The Germans had been preparing for war for almost a decade since 1933. They were tactically and strategically well ahead of everybody else. The USSR was not fully prepared. Of course the Soviets were going to suffer more casualties to a superior opponent. I bet things were much more evened out from 1943 onward once the Soviets had mastered the art of modern warfare.

Stalin killed lots of his own people (incl. generals before WW2). That was partly Finns luck (nothing taken from Finns; so small country).

For example Mannerheim had served as a general in Tsar's time Russian army (Japan war, WW 1)... and had gotten his military trainings/education/knowledge exactly in Russia.

Plus Stalin killed lots of people also after WW2....transporting them to Siberia etc. Maybe not ethnic Russians so much but other ethnics who lived in Sovjet Union. Perhaps that's reason why Russian nationalists loves him so much.

[Slavic Italian]

He killed lots of his own people (incl. generals before WW2). That was partly Finns lucky (nothing taken from Finns, so small country).

Mannerheim was a general in Tsar's time Russia (Japan war, WW 1)... and got his military trainings/education exactly in Russia.

Plus Stalin killed lots of people also after WW2....transporting them to Siberia etc. Maybe not ethnic Russians so much but other ethnics who lived in Sovjet Union. Perhaps that's reason why Russian nationalists loves him so much.

It's my understanding he killed those who he felt was a threat to communism.

[Finnish Swede]

It's my understanding he killed those who he felt was a threat to communism.

And he valued/decided that alone (possible ''threats''); a mad paranoid person...no wonder the list became long.

[Art23]

Russians are comic to change the names of their own cities...St. Petersburg => Leningrad => Stalingrad => St. Petersburg.
Their men have too small balls...

I think we need to clarify that all name changes are the same. Taking away communist names is a step in right direction. And destroying monuments of Lenin and other communists could only be met with congratulations, like it happens in Ukraine. In Russia, it is a different story. They still have Lenin monuments, streets, city districts. That is terrible.

[Art23]

People are unfair to Stalin.

Read some history books. Coming from Italy, you know probably almost nothing about Stalin's atrocities.

[Slavic Italian]

Read some history books. Coming from Italy, you know probably almost nothing about Stalin's atrocities.

I'm not from Italy "super" Ukrainian. What a oxymoron.

[Art23]

You are very ignorant about Stalin in any case.

When strangers are coming
They come to your house
They kill you all
And say
We’re not guilty
Not guilty

When strangers are coming
They come to your house
They kill you all
And say
We’re not guilty
Not guilty

Where is your mind?
Humanity cries
You think you are gods
But everyone dies
Don't swallow my soul
Our souls...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNECV2h-y58

[Finnish Swede]

I think we need to clarify that all name changes are the same. Taking away communist names is a step in right direction. And destroying monuments of Lenin and other communists could only be met with congratulations, like it happens in Ukraine. In Russia, it is a different story. They still have Lenin monuments, streets, city districts. That is terrible.

I know. And I admit, I have difficulties to separate Russians and Ukrainians from each others. Of course now (after crises) but culturelly etc.

What I meant; I think this is partly a culture thing. To dote someone very/so highly at one point...(even unhealthy ways...I could say as being Scandinavian)...and after his time?....those attitudes can change a lot. Yes, I'm against all kind of personal cults.

Yes...there are some statues in Finland and in Sweden as well. But it would be very odd to think that those would be taken away one day...no matter who is a leader/president. Or that some of the cities woud be started to rename by a person. Vasa is one of those...but Sweden's king Kustaa Vasa founded that city 14th century. And it is still Vasa. Our statues takes time and stands daylights too...no matter what. Those have originally based on real things....and not some ''cults''.

[Slavic Italian]

You are very ignorant about Stalin in any case.

When strangers are coming
They come to your house
They kill you all
And say
We’re not guilty
Not guilty

When strangers are coming
They come to your house
They kill you all
And say
We’re not guilty
Not guilty

Where is your mind?
Humanity cries
You think you are gods
But everyone dies
Don't swallow my soul
Our souls...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNECV2h-y58

Yeah. You are some expert Ukruck.

[Art23]

What I meant; I think this is partly a culture thing. To dote someone very/so highly at one point...(even unhealthy ways...I could say as being Scandinavian)...and after his time?....those attitudes can change a lot. Yes, I'm against all kind of personal cults.

In fact, most Russians still dote Stalin, Lenin and other communists very high. The attitudes do not change. The thing which appear to you as an attitude change is not an attitude change at all, these are the oppressed voices which you are finally hearing. Finally, many Eastern Europeans can say what they really think about the Soviet period and all the oppressed opposition is coming to light. But those who are commies are still commies and they have not changed their attitude by a single millimetre.


Yes...there are some statues in Finland and in Sweden as well.

Statues will eventually be replaced. The process may seem very abrupt in Eastern Europe, but actually the same is happening in Western Europe but slower. Where are the "statues" of Vikings ? Yes, there are some, but most are gone, lost and forgotten.

[Finnish Swede]

In fact, most Russians still dote Stalin, Lenin and other communists very high. The attitudes do not change. The thing which appear to you as an attitude change is not an attitude change at all, these are the oppressed voices which you are finally hearing. Finally, many Eastern Europeans can say what they really think about the Soviet period and all the oppressed opposition is coming to light. But those who are commies are still commies and they have not changed their attitude by a single millimetre.

Perhaps, but hardly only communists adore Stalin today? I have understand that communists are minority in Russia, a group which Putin can handle quite easily (keep in control). They tried it (get back to the power) at 1991, and lost it badly.
Anyway; still today Victory Day (without any critisms.... whatsoever...to their own actions) seems to be whole nation's celibration.



Statues will eventually be replaced. The process may seem very abrupt in Eastern Europe, but actually the same is happening in Western Europe but slower. Where are the "statues" of Vikings ? Yes, there are some, but most are gone, lost and forgotten.

I would not used ''replaced'' if those simply have become destroyed by time (like some Easter Islands statues or Egypt's Faraoes).
I have not hear that Scandinavians would have destroyd any Viking statues/monuments or earlier kings monuments by purpose. Or moved them away.

[Art23]

I would agree with you that not only those formally communists adore Stalin. The key word is formally. In my opinions, most Russians still have the communist mentality regardless if they are or are not members of the Communist party.

Regardless monuments, I wish to add that not all monuments are "holly cows". Communists themselves destroyed thousands of monuments, churches and so on which not suited their ideology. Now, speaking that their communist monuments deserve respect is something with which I will never agree. No respect to those who do not respect others. No freedom to the enemies of freedom.

[Methuselah]

People are unfair to Stalin. The Germans had been preparing for war for almost a decade since 1933. They were tactically and strategically well ahead of everybody else. The USSR was not fully prepared. Of course the Soviets were going to suffer more casualties to a superior opponent. I bet things were much more evened out from 1943 onward once the Soviets had mastered the art of modern warfare.

You are probably not getting this. This thread is not about Germany being more developed than Soviet Union, it is more about strange values modern Russians have.

Two tyrants slicing and dicing the whole Europe is not something most of us really wanted. Most of the Russians on this thread are not "men enough" to admit their country did a lot of dirty things.

One dude was blaming Brits for the Irish famine, not knowing it was a fungus that did it. He thought it was all "Capitalism's fault".

Those things however are not caused by a fungus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333

Communists literally killed millions, including millions of Ukrainians. What kind of human beings can defend this? I hope those boys are not over 16, teenage dumbness might still be fixable. But not in the Russian hospital. :Bondage1:

[Slavic Italian]

You are probably not getting this. This thread is not about Germany being more developed than Soviet Union, it is more about strange values modern Russians have.

Two tyrants slicing and dicing the whole Europe is not something most of us really wanted. Most of the Russians on this thread are not "men enough" to admit their country did a lot of dirty things.

One dude was blaming Brits for the Irish famine, not knowing it was a fungus that did it. He thought it was all "Capitalism's fault".

Those things however are not caused by a fungus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333

Communists literally killed millions, including millions of Ukrainians. What kind of human beings can defend this? I hope those boys are not over 16, teenage dumbness might still be fixable. But not in the Russian hospital. :Bondage1:

I'm aware. I have ancestors who fought the communists. Some were Finnish.

[Mingle]

Gulag is not really a word, but abbreviation.

You know what I meant.


Yes you think so, because you repeat whitewashening 'propaganda'. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Karamzin is very pro-western person, but how he describe 'westernizer' Peter? You can read here https://books.google.ru/books?id=i2olhdqD3IAC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=karamzin+peter+the+great&source=bl&ots=aEAXONg0LA&sig=-GRhC8gPC07h0FCg_PuDeoPy5b0&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPirra-eXYAhXD_SwKHYMzCwEQ6AEINzAB#v=onepage&q=karamzin%20peter%20the%20great&f=false. As you may see he was not aware yet about great westernizaition done by Peter :rolleyes:

He seemed to have criticism for Peter, but he didn't deny any western influences that Peter brought about. He even criticized Peter for being a 'Western wannabe'.

Here is a quote from there:

The reformer abolished glorious and revered old titles and institutions replacing them with foreign ones, which made no sense to his people.


May be 200 years nowadays neo-stalinist point of view would become mainstream.

If someone objectively analyzes Peter the Great, one can see he wasn't perfect but that he was a good leader that strengthened Russia overall.

If someone objectively analyzes Stalin, they will see a mass murdering psychopathic tyrant.

Just because it may have happened with Peter doesn't mean it will happen with Stalin.


If Ivan renames himself with John, will he become more western?:rolleyes:

A little bit, yes. He didn't simply just rename places though, their organizational structure changed a bit too, although it probably wasn't that huge a change overall, but still a change. As far as I know, Russia didn't have any proper subdivisions before the guberniyas were introduced.

Allowing peasants to rise up was a policy not a renaming thing.


Yes he vigourously was destroying other centers of power in Russia. So authoritarism is now western?:rolleyes:

I mentioned that to show that he was secularizing Russia. Secularism was associated with Western Europe.

I already admitted that his authoritarian and anti-peasant attitudes were two non-Western views that he had. That doesn't change the fact that he did some Westernizing. He also increased Western mercantilism.


First university in Russia is Moscow University founded in 1755. :rolleyes:

Okay, I put /schools there cause I wasn't sure. Either way, I assume that you know what I was talking about (the multiple academies he set up for engineering, etc).


I am not equalizing them, i just point out that perception of historical figures may change in time. Peter viewed much better now than he was in the past. On the other side Ivan the Terrible was quite popular among common folk, but got reduced to worst tsar ever with time. Different perception of Stalin is based on moral ground and moral views, both subjective and tend to change. So pretty much i returned to first 2 posts in this thread. You can go back and see them, no point to copy paste them again.

As I stated above, if one were to objectively analyze Peter the Great, then it is possible to view him in a possible light. The same is not true of Stalin.

[Mingle]

You are probably not getting this. This thread is not about Germany being more developed than Soviet Union, it is more about strange values modern Russians have.

Two tyrants slicing and dicing the whole Europe is not something most of us really wanted. Most of the Russians on this thread are not "men enough" to admit their country did a lot of dirty things.

One dude was blaming Brits for the Irish famine, not knowing it was a fungus that did it. He thought it was all "Capitalism's fault".

Those things however are not caused by a fungus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333

Communists literally killed millions, including millions of Ukrainians. What kind of human beings can defend this? I hope those boys are not over 16, teenage dumbness might still be fixable. But not in the Russian hospital. :Bondage1:

The biggest victims of his reign were Russians, it's a strange attitude for them to have.

[Methuselah]

The biggest victims of his reign were Russians, it's a strange attitude for them to have.

Amen! The biggest victims of his reign were Russians indeed, i would actually say "Russians" including Ukrainians, Lithuanians etc. All surrounding nations. Humanity itself is the biggest victim.
I just don't get, like did that brutal life really turn most of the Russians into zombies or what the heck is going on? I bet Russians realize they have no place to go anyway, they rather embrace everything that can give a boost to their life. They are under the pressure to obey as well. Life is pretty damn hectic over there, not sure if the older generation even questions their leaders. 100 years of brainwashing is a long time. Let's hope future young fellas will be able to live with dignity and compete without that communist nostalgia steroid thing.

[glass]

Yes...much better is that Russian men will not have balls. As that means that numbers of Russians are going down (as curves shows).

It seems you have more in common with comrade Stalin than you think:rolleyes:


He seemed to have criticism for Peter, but he didn't deny any western influences that Peter brought about. He even criticized Peter for being a 'Western wannabe'.

Exactly, as you may see he does not value Peter very hight, like, for example, you do. He even points at isolationistic Ivan 3 as example of how adopting foreign stuff should be managed.

If someone objectively analyzes Stalin, they will see a mass murdering psychopathic tyrant.
Well, sane opinion on Stalin these days is 'his regime had very low efficiency and everything stalinist regime achieved could have been achieved other better way'. Very similar to Karamzin opinion of Peter as you may see. Also Peter was called Antichrist, he also was very prone of torturing and executing personally, while Stalin did not have anything sadistic inside him.

Allowing peasants to rise up was a policy not a renaming thing.
Serfdom was introduced in Russia in 1648 by Peter's father. Peter strengthened it. Less freedom for majority of population, worse social lifts. Actually army was only social lift available for peasant at the end of Peter's reign. Worst period if serfdom is reign of another 'westernizer' Catherine the Great.

I already admitted that his authoritarian and anti-peasant attitudes were two non-Western views that he had. That doesn't change the fact that he did some Westernizing. He also increased Western mercantilism.
Exactly what i am trying to say. THere was nothing western neither in him nor in his policies. He just needed western technologies to wage his wars, he adopted technologies, renamed some stuff, but state itself did not change as much

[Methuselah]

Also Peter was calling Antichrist, he also was very prone of torturing and executing personally, while Stalin did not have anything sadistic inside him.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a bipolar disorder. So Peter was sadistic but Stalin was not? Stalin's daughter's Jewish boyfriend was sent to the gulag. Stalin's wife Nadezhda Alliluyeva commited a suicide just like his own son Yakov did. Also, killing a lot of people sounds pretty sadistic as well. Mass murderers tend to be really neurotic, sadistic and paranoid if you didn't know.

[Böri]

TA is an anthro forum so let's look at the subject from this perspective.
Stalinist historical revisionism pushed many hypotheses which are now overwhelmingly accepted as reality.

Stalinist anthro school taught that Rus' wasn't German-Viking but Balto-Slavic!
Stalin was Ossetian; Stalinist USSR historiography declared old steppe Scythians as 'all Iranic' (just as Ossets)!

In most cases and for over half of people, reality doesn't reality matter. They want to believe in what fits and pleases their minds and souls best. So, pushing lies or wishes as facts and getting people believe into them isn't so big deal.

[glass]

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a bipolar disorder. So Peter was sadistic but Stalin was not? Stalin's daughter's Jewish boyfriend was sent to the gulag. Stalin's wife Nadezhda Alliluyeva commited a suicide just like his own son Yakov did. Also, killing a lot of people sounds pretty sadistic as well. Mass murderers tend to be really neurotic, sadistic and paranoid if you didn't know.
So between copy pasting some bullcrap, you decided to conjure something on your own?
You had chance to educate yourself now. Find what sadism is! Once you did you would know that signing death sentence is not sadism, neither sending daughter's boyfriend to gulag. Killing people itself is not sadistic either.

[Methuselah]

So between copy pasting some bullcrap, you decided to conjure something on your own?
You had chance to educate yourself now. Find what sadism is! Once you did you would know that signing death sentence is not sadism, neither sending daughter's boyfriend to gulag. Killing people itself is not sadistic either.

Oi, i can hear Russian nerves cracking :) Don't get disturbed. We don't hate on you guys. Even when you blame capitalism for the Irish famine (a fungus caused it) and defend a mass murderer who is hated in every developed country. You see, mass murderers tend to have often sadistic features, even if they are not born as psychopaths, sadistic features will develop by doing specific things. Is it really hard to understand this?

"A sadistic behaviour" is not some kind of diagnosis, it is just a specific feature, a tendency. What comes to the sadistic personality disorder it is really hard to know for sure if he had any of it.
Putin was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome by some American experts, but again it is really hard to say just by looking at another person. It would require years of study to do so.
However, it is not that hard to say if mass murderers tend to become sadistic. By the way, if you want to bring a good argument cut that "butthurt/bullshit crap" thing. It makes you sound paranoid and angry. Next time you say i copy pasted something, please prove it first as well. Maybe you got upset cos i partly quoted you?