Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russia sets up commission to prevent falsification of history

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Shamil View Post
    The USSR occupied the whole Eastern Europe and did not do the same with the Western one only because of the Western allies' troops that arrived there.
    The US occupied whole Western Europe in the same time. So what?

    The course of Marxism-Leninism was taught in higher educational establishments and not in secondary schools. Evidentally you never cared to read anything on Marxism-Leninism yourself.
    We studied its basics on history lessons and in pioneer organization.

    Again unbased statements. In order to publish books with critical view on Stalin's regime and its policy one doesn't need to have masters at least outside Russia.
    what he did is impossible to do with his own abilities in the conditions in which he was.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Andrey View Post
      The US occupied whole Western Europe in the same time. So what?
      And how did it happen that during the Cold War "occupied" France quitted the military structures of NATO without American intervention anological to the Soviet ones in Hungary and Czeckoslovakia and even built its own nuclear arsenal?

      We studied its basics on history lessons and in pioneer organization.
      You haven't studied why the Marxist-Leninist USSR had intervened in the affairs of foreign states giving versatile financial and military support to foreign Marxist political groups across the world for decades?


      what he did is impossible to do with his own abilities in the conditions in which he was.
      What was impossible? To write books and find those who publish them?
      Last edited by Shamil; 28 May 09, 07:16.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Shamil View Post
        Before the arrival of Americans, the Nazi Germany had been the only more or less adequate military counterpoise to the Soviets in Europe for almost a decade. No Nazis in that period and the whole Europe would have been occupied by the Soviets.
        I think this is highly speculative. There are a number of scenarios of what could've happened without Nazis. Finland succesfully fought Stalin to a standstill in winter war when Hitler was allied to Stalin and basically blocked Finland from receiving any significant aid.

        Hitler's and Stalin's alliance was critical in removing all Baltic states (as the term was understood at the time, i.e. including Poland and Finland), except Finland from play. And Finns managed it only barely. The existence of Hitler and need to fight Hitler prompted the western allies to pretty much forget their previous alliances in the region - they simply didn't have the resources to fight both Stalin and Hitler at the same time and naturally chose a threat closer to home to tackle first.

        A democratic Germany would most likely mean less economic isolation and more prosperous Europe. Lack of Hitler's model would also mean more democracies in the whole region.

        Hitler made it politically easy for Stalin to invade and occupy a number of countries, because either Hitler provided cover for Stalin's aggression (coup in Tallinn was done when all the world was looking at Hitler's blitz in the west and nobody had a mind to care about what was happening here). Attacking countries just out of the blue would have likely created a much quicker organized resistance. US would probably have found it also much more easier to intervene sooner. Frankly I think Stalin launching an all out attack against a number of states simultaneously to be unlikely. Stalin was more careful than Hitler - I've no doubt though that he would've tried his best to pick off neighbouring states one by one.

        Thus, given that Hitler created a lot of the conditions that allowed Stalin to conquer half of Europe, it is highly dubious to claim that Hitler saved Europe. Also using the word save implies that somehow Hitler was intentionally trying to save the half of Europe that didn't get overrun by Stalin -which is obviously not the case. It also implies that what Hitler was offering was somehow better than Stalin - which is also not the case.

        Originally posted by Shamil View Post
        If it had happened the USSR would have likely existed in its worst Stalinist form till today.
        I find that highly unlikely. I do agree however that had Stalin conquered more of Europe, more of Europe would have been in as miserable state as we were. I think however it most likely that that unless Stalin by some miracle could've conquered or instigated communist coup in all of Germany, France, UK and USA, the communist system would in any case had both mellowed and eventually folded. I think the same would've happened to third reich had it survived. The only option to folding would've been the china model, but I cannot see how you could make it work without a horde of cheap labourers/slaves.

        Originally posted by Shamil View Post
        All the European states would have become new republics of the USSR as there was no need to keep up appearances and make concessions to the West.
        There would've still been national pride and legitimacy issues. There are only so many Russian troops available. Without Hitler's cover Stalin would've probably been inclined to keep more states formally existing, to reduce the likelihood of revolts and to soothe states next on Stalin's chopping block. I think Stalin would've had very difficult time trying to contain UK as part of USSR and trying to force Brits to change into Russians.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Andrey View Post
          The US occupied whole Western Europe in the same time.
          you and i have a very different view of "occupation".
          Fit Via Vi

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by jackl View Post
            you and i have a very different view of "occupation".
            why?

            1. US and Britain provided anti-Communist governments in the areas that had been liberated by Western Allies in 1943-45.

            2. US troops stayed in Western Europe after the end of WWII.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Andrey View Post
              why?

              1. US and Britain provided anti-Communist governments in the areas that had been liberated by Western Allies in 1943-45.

              2. US troops stayed in Western Europe after the end of WWII.
              1. US and Britain did not provide any governments. It restored recognized governments in exile. Something Soviet Union specifically refused to do. In Germany, Germans were allowed to draft their own constitution and establish their own state relatively quickly.

              2. US liberated these territories as soon as possible after occupation by restoring sovereignty and allowing the respective people to choose their own governments and rule according to their own laws. Hence it is correct to describe US activities as liberation while Soviet activities can be described as liberation only with respect to Soviet territory prior to 1939.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                why?
                I'm not sure how to respond. The means to an end I suppose. The people of Western Europe were free, the East were not.
                Last edited by jackl; 29 May 09, 18:53.
                Fit Via Vi

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by jackl View Post
                  I'm not sure how to respond. The means to an end I suppose. The people of Western Europe were free, the East were not.
                  We don't speak about freedom. We speak about what you call "occupation" of Eastern/Western europe after the end of WWII.

                  The Soviets supported local communists in the countries which had been liberated by Red Army in 1944-45.

                  The Western Allies supported local anti-communists in the countries which had been liberated by them.

                  Both sides interferred in interanal policy of the countries in their sphere of influence.

                  To the point, THINK about the following:
                  - 1956, Soviet troops entered Hungary.
                  - 1968, Warsaw Pact troops (mainly Soviet) entered Czechoslovakia.

                  so the fact that they entered in those countries means that BEFORE that Soviet troops HAD NOT BEEN there.

                  So do you see my point?

                  Before 1956 there was no Soviet troops in Hungary.

                  Before 1968 there were no Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia.

                  Is it understabale?
                  Last edited by Andrey; 31 May 09, 11:04.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Andrey, what are you smoking? There is massive difference how the US handled a relatively short occupation vs. how Soviets handled 50 years of occupation and btw many of the so-called anti-communist governments contained communists. There would've been much more had they been elected, but in the end communism isn't all that appealing to most people.

                    No Soviet troops in Hungary before the intervention? Where did you get that idea? The invasion was necessary because the troops already in Hungary needed reinforcements as the Hungarians own army were joining the revolution.

                    In Czech, before the intervention, while there was no permanent garrison, Soviet troops moved in and out at will and without interference from the Czech. To show this Soviets orchestrated massive exercises near Prague without notifying or consulting the Czech leadership during the spring just before the intervention - the very definition of lack of sovereignty and continued occupation.

                    Soviets did lose control over Yugoslavia - where they actually never got control in the first place. The strained relationship between Stalin and Tito and Tito's intelligence services claims that Stalin was planning an invasion is well known. Likewise the Soviets lost control over Albania and finally Romania in the course of late fifties (the Soviet troops left Romania in 58) and sixties. The latter case is probably the most interesting. Probably the reason why the Soviets did not intervene there was because the change in Romania did not involve efforts to democratize, the wresting of control was also very gradual, unlike the Hungarian and Czech efforts.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      http://www.russiatoday.ru/About_Us/B...009-05-26.html
                      “For there is nothing more serious than a lunatic when he comes to the central point of his lunacy.”

                      Max Sterner

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                        We don't speak about freedom.
                        So do you see my point? Is it understabale?
                        First and foremost, I am not trying to be confrontational. Neither are you as best I can judge. Second, your points are understandable. Both sides interferred and do today as best they can.

                        But I do speak about freedom. It is something I hold precious, before my own life and that of my family. After all, here we are, Russian and American having this discussion. In my childhood, such a thing was not possible.

                        The Bear and the Eagle coexist.
                        Fit Via Vi

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Erkki, another bit of demagoguery, and not very good one at that.

                          a. how on earth is a politically appointed and manned history commission going to combat the view of the vast majority of people whom Soviet Union supposedly liberated that they were not liberated, but instead

                          b. The new Russian ideology mixes well with the ideas of neo-nazis. Suddenly countries which were occupied, which legal governments were overthrown and which no longer had any control over their territory are co-perpetrators or worse in atrocities occurred in their territory instigated by the Nazis (or Soviets). Somehow the act of collaborators, generally reviled by the local populations become the acts of the nation itself. And by extension then, since they are now co-perpetrators, they should forget any atrocity performed on them. To simplify, if I walk into a bank to rob it, and if I get some people from the bank to assist me, then the bank itself has become a co-perpetrator and loses its right to point fingers at me.


                          c. Benefit of Soviet rule? LOL Are we really supposed to believe that in Poland, those who wanted to toe the Moscow line had equal amount of support to those who wanted freedom? Really? If so, then how can it be explained that the one-third who possessed all the weapons, all the power and all the security apparatuses lost all their power? Sure, we too have people who sometimes suffer bouts of nostalgia - but the vast majority of them wouldn't ever want the occupation back. The fact that somebody might've liked a particular ice cream made back then, isn't a benefit of Soviet rule.

                          d. Another irony - the lamentation that somebody's identities are crafted by the idea how much they've been wronged. The only country to make this type of high profile political commission regarding history is Russia. Sure, we, like some others, had a history commission - but it was decidedly neutral in that it didn't contain any Ests and it mostly contained historians. And the commission scrutinized the actions of Ests during the war in great detail uncovering many unflattering details. Looking through this forum I think the people identifying themselves through being wronged are not on this side of the fence. The very notion of vast western information war speaks for itself.

                          e. a minor niggle - the 27 million figure apparently includes people from territories the Soviet Union occupied in the beginning of the war, in fact it includes people who were the victims of Soviet regime.

                          f. the final irony is this - the supposed fighting of fascism is part of the regime that resembles the fascist regimes of the 20th century the most. And the good fight is fought in true fascist nation - by closing archives and subordinating historians to party line.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            hell, I'm not ready to die. an old man's lament.
                            Fit Via Vi

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by jackl View Post
                              First and foremost, I am not trying to be confrontational. Neither are you as best I can judge. Second, your points are understandable. Both sides interferred and do today as best they can.

                              But I do speak about freedom. It is something I hold precious, before my own life and that of my family. After all, here we are, Russian and American having this discussion. In my childhood, such a thing was not possible.

                              The Bear and the Eagle coexist.
                              you wrote the following:

                              you and i have a very different view of "occupation".
                              so it was about "occupation".

                              1. If you meant life conditions so life conditions in pro-Communist Cuba were much worse than in pro-Communist countries of Warsaw Pact. But noone can say that the uSSR occupied Cuba. So if a country had a pro-communist regime it is wrong to speak it was occupied by the Soviet Union.

                              2. Life conditions... Everything is relative. For example, I doubt that life conditions of wide public in Communist Cuba were worse than in the time where Cuba had had dictatorship regime of Batista who was a US puppet. The same was about freedom.

                              3. Good life conditions in after-war Western Europe were provided by Marshall Plan. That plan was done as a part of US large game to force Western Europe to become pro-American and to prevent their turning into pro-Soviet due bad life conditions. So Western Europe should be thankful for the USSR, because the existence USSR provided their quick restoration after the war.

                              4. Your knowledge about life in the USSR and in Eastern Europe are based on what you read and saw in your mass media and movies.

                              I remember that the 80th.

                              Yes, there were bad things. But there were very many things which were better than in current life. I think the amount of happy people in the USSR was much more than in former republics of the USSR after the collapse of the USSR.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Bla-bla-bla..

                                As usual, when pp(est) and Shamil meets we can see "occupation" and dramaticall change of any topic totheir favorite ones..


                                To resume:

                                Vlasov and his soldiers were traitors by any means.
                                You can't fight for liberty of your own country together with those, whose aim had been declared to annihilate your nation.
                                It's fact which is not for discussion...
                                History teaches that it teaches nothing. Unfortunately some Ukrainan and Baltic politics as well as neo-Nazis still learnt nothing from the history of WWII

                                As for the post-war events.
                                I had talk with some Germans. They were much angry with the style of American occupation of their territory. I mean after-war one. I heard stories of crimes of American soldiers, which never were punished for those ones (the same we can observe now when GI which made crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan are never punished (at least seriously))

                                As for CZ and Hungarian events. Well, I won't say there were no garrisons of soviet troops prior to those. But they were quite a few ones and they lived as isolated communities, like you can see almost every military bases abroad for quite many countries worldwide. Hungarian events had another background than CZ ones, but had the same basis.
                                Logic of that time couldn't resolve that deep problems which caused that events by any other means than military ones. Sorry, but sometimes such things do occur. Later you can beat yourself by head and cry how bad the decision was. But we have what we have and that time our government couldn't make another decision. If you have something to argue about, plese, invent peaceful ways to solve Balkan problems which were tried (westerners thought that succesfully) in 1990s, Kosovo problem (the same illusions), Iraq (ask Iraqies, much better they lived now, or not), Afganistan (Many thanks from Talibs for such "well-organised" intervention. Soon their army will return control over the country and probably over a part of Pakistan)..what else, .. Aha, how we can forget about Israel...
                                Of course - the most peace-loving country, surrounded by the same kind of neighbors... Constant "peace-making" raids of armed forces following by rocket launches from both sides (land - Arabians, air - Israels). Had those military actions resolve any problems?
                                If your answer is - yes - Nobel prize is waiting for you!
                                If no - why do you blame the USSR for the same kind of attempt to stop trends, which were anti-Soviet?
                                (Saddam, Talibs, Arabs... they were also khm...not much pro-American to test American and Israel power on their own...)

                                Afer this my long monologue I suggest to close the dispute.
                                I have no wish to spend summer writing endless replies in forum topics

                                Regards
                                Alex
                                If you fire a rifle at the past, the future will fire a cannon at you.....

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X