| Author |
Message |
Mogsfan
WayToRussified
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 490
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
That is true, Vic, by all documented accounts that I have read, Russia was in no state to fight a war at that time. But, I am not debating whether Russia was prepared or did the moral thing or what not. I am not disagreeing with you stating that the Russian people were fighting for their family and lives. But, I have repeatedly stated as fact that Russians didn't receive true freedom unless your definition is different than mine. Furthermore, you are wrong, the ultimate fighting was done for Stalin. If you didn't agree with his methods and philosophy, you were not heard from again. You can't seriously continue to debate me on this, can you? Give me evidence that Russians were free? Don't just tell me they were free to visit their relatives or something. They weren't free in a political sense at all.
Russians were oppressed far longer than 10 years. Where did this 10 year period come from?
| Quote: | | by choosing Stalin, you get opressed for 10 years and have a chance of getting executed, by choosing Hitler, you die. I don't know about you, but I think that pretty much constitutes 'saved'. Keep in mind, at the time there were NO OTHER OPTIONS. So what would you have propose? Go with Hitler and die? Keep in mind, you have no other options. |
Obviously, they didn't have a choice. I didn't dispute that. You are the one that excused Stalin. Not me. You are the one with nationalistic pride. I don't think that constitutes 'saved' at all. Look up the word 'saved' in the dictionary. If you are in a position of possibly getting executed, there is no "saving" in that. So, you go from one possible position (definite execution) to another (possibility of execution). Okay. So, the Nazis meant absolute death. That is your reasoning to disregard what happened in Russia and for celebrating the result of WW2?
I will say it again. I would like to hear from other Russians. I wonder why more don't feel betrayed, deceived and angered from what was done to them for the last 60 years. I don't think the victory and holding off the Nazis is enough to tolerate and accept Stalin's or any of the other Russian rulers' actions towards their people. Perhaps, it's psychological? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mogsfan
WayToRussified
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 490
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm deleting this post.. I just don't understand certain Russians' mentality. I agree with Eryk.
I don't think it should be perceived as one situation better than another so that the party securing the better situation is celebrated. Sorry, it seems plainly wrong to me.
Last edited by Mogsfan on Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:27 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eryk
Frequent Guest
Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
>>Now, I am going to tell you this one more time since you obviously not >>noticed it the previous 3 times that I posted this: The soldiers were >>fighting for their people, not Stalin, not the party Got it? I even >>made the text bold so you would notice.
Of course I noticed it, that is why I mentioned the Latvian Legion who were ALSO FIGHTING FOR THEIR PEOPLE ...not Hitler and certainly not Nazi ideology. In case you don't know the facts, here are a few salient dates:
1) 23rd August 1939. Latvia placed in the Soviet sphere of influence by the Bolshevik-Nazi pact.
2) August 1940. Soviet troops in full military occupation of Latvia. NKVD start rounding up 'class enemies' and so forth for either summary execution of deportation.
4) 22nd June 1941. Operation Barbarossa launched and liberation of Latvia from Bolshevik murderers commences. At least 35,000 Latvians either killed, deported or 'vanished' at this point - ALL VICTIMS OF SOVIET AGGRESSION.
Fast forward to 1944 and the Red Army are closing in on Latvia once again with the NKVD death squads following close behind. Of course some Latvians signed on with the Waffen SS. It doesn't mean they were Nazis ideologically, it just means that they had no other options available to resist soviet re-occupation.
Now, if you are prepared to drop your objections to Waffen SS parades in Riga then I will accept that your position is at least internally consistent but as it stands it is utterly hypocritical. Do you think a murdered civilian is any less dead just because it is an NKVD bullet rather than an SS one in his skull?
The life vs. death argument is invalid also. The return of the Soviets lead to a great many Latvians who survived a German occupation ending up very much 'dead' under the Soviet one.
Eryk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaked
Lounge Lizard
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 180
Location: Moscow
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Vic"] | Jutrzenkapolska wrote: |
Mogsfan and Eryk - You obviously have trouble understanding that nobody is brainwashed into believing that Stalin did NOT murder millions. You also seem to have trouble understanding that Victory over the Reich did not DOOM eastern europe, but SAVED it. Think about it, under S.Chancellor Adolf Hitler's doctrine, most of the people of eastern europe would have t be killed off because they were 'lesser species'. I have no clue where you get the figure of '6 million' about the ammount that Hitler killed. The Reich gassed and executed a little under 6 million JEWS ALONE, not to speak of Gypsies, Poles, political prisoners, Soviet CIVILIANS (that were captured in occupied territory - women and children) There were NO LESS than 7 Million if you count that. So, in 4 years Adolf Hitler killed more than 7 million, keep in mind, he did not 'run out' of people to kill, he was stopped. Stalin killed 20 million in 30+ years, so Hitler wins out on this. (Not that it matters really, I just want to prove that you have no clue what you are talking about)
Stalin is not the reason that Russia became great but without him the war would have been lost...and you would not be sitting in front of your computer writting complete bull right now. |
Nobody here is arguing that Hitler was a good guy, but you have to ask yourself if he would have killed all the slavs in Eastern Europe, and more importantly, if his own beloved Germany would have let him last. Historically, much of Eastern Europe was dominated by German businesses. I was reading the history of Riga before my visit there, and apparently the German population controlled commerce in that area. Germans (and Jews) dominated city life, whereas the Latvians (or Silesians or Pomeranians or Slovenians, Czechs, Magyars, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Croats, etc) were at the till in the country side. During industrialization this started to change, and when war broke out all over Europe in 1848 it was the German-speaking Hapsburgs that were on the defensive (ironically, it was Czarist Russia that stepped in to defend monarchy in places like Hungary.) At that time, German was the language of business and languages such as Czech, Magyar and Latvian were frowned upon.
In the eyes of the German people, the slavs were peasants trying to wrest control from the wealthy, elite German population that had dominated commerce in places like Prague for over 500 years. Nazism was just too aggressive to survive in the world - the Germans wouldn't have killed off all of the slavs; at worst within 10 years the slavs would have been treated like the Russians are treated in Latvian and Estonia. If you remember your WWI history, it was a series of revolutions in Germany that foiled the Kaiser's designs on Europe; Lenin had essentially granted the Germans modern Poland and the 'Polish' parts of Ukraine and Belarus. For Eastern Europe the choice was between apartheid-style tyranny and Soviet tyranny. However; one thing can't be argued: the buildings constructed in the Soviet era in all of those countries are complete eyesores and the Germans could have done far, far better.
Eryk - of course the Lutheran/Catholic nordic Latvians were treated well by the Lutheran/Catholic nordic Germans. There were accounts of how nice and pleasant the Germans were to the ordinary people of these ethnically white countries. So were the Belarussians and the Dutch before the Germans started to lose. Belarussians were the only slavs that were believed to be pure by Nazi phrenologists (they were the only ones that could join the SS) because the hordes of Mongol horsemen were unable to penetrate Belarus'es swamps.
Why were the Germans so much more hell-bent on killing the Jews than the Roma? (this question is directed people who have had personal experiences - usually theft - with the dirty Roma.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vic
Talk Show Host
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Moscow, Russian Federation
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blaked - Hitler made a habit of carrying out his promises, other than the ones that were impossible to carry out. He did a pretty good job of wiping out the Jews and he also wasn't that bad at wiping out the Slavs that he got his hands on. So I am willing to make a bet that he would have wiped out most of the Slavs.
Mogsfan - Well, I think that out of 100 people in Russia asked if they feel betrayed or angered about the victory, 90 would say "no way" 9 would say that they didn't care because the victory was long before their time and 1 would say that he is angered. And that person would probably be a skinhead that is angered because he thinks that Russia and Germany should have been allies to the grave. NOTE: I DID NOT CONDUCT ANY STUDY, THIS IS WRITTEN FROM THE ATTITUDES OF PEOPLE THAT I KNOW.
By using your logic, we can say that the United States should not celebrate their 4th of July "Independence Day" because now they have caused so much evil in the world. (And not to mention the fact that 200 years ago they had the understanding that they had a God Given Right to ALL OF North America, so they invaded Canada in 1812...and lost.) So you want to go back into the past and start making "what if" statements to every national holiday of every single nation? You must be a philosopher.
Now,
Save - to stop someone or something from being killed, injured or destroyed.
You might have been killed by Stalin if you were fighting against him, plotting against him, were in a position to plot against him. If you laid low you would not have been touched by him. If you laid low under Hitler, you would still die. So we went from 'certain death' to 'death if you spoke up'. I am not saying that it is right, its not, but consider the 240+ MILLION people that were SAVED from dying under Hitler.
The figure 10 years is a bit incorrect, it would be more like 25 (The period where Stalin was the head of state). Also, I guess I was not exactly clear about the whole 'freedom' issue. Yes, during the USSR (AFTER Stalin) you were not completely free. There was no freedom of press and you were not free to leave the country whenever you wanted. However, the people lived well, were happy about it, they had everything they needed to live a good, normal, happy life. I don't see a point of going out and DEMANDING freedom of press if you have what almost all countries in the world (at that time) did not have. I would prefer the nice happy life to the poor 'free' life. (Alot of people in the former Soviet Union agree with me on this one...ofcourse not the ones that made a fortune off of this freedom.) I guess it took over 50 years for us to get our FREEDOM in your political terms...but think about it, maybe people in the RF are better off with this freedom, but what about people in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Latvia, Lithuania where most of the population lived better off in Soviet times? Go to those countries and talk to ordinary people there, ask them what they think about this great freedom.
Eryk - I know that. So what? The Waffen SS FOUGHT FOR Hitler, maybe now they say that they did not agree with his idealology, but they still did a good job of wiping out THEIR OWN Latvian Jews. The Waffen SS stands for exactly the same things that the Third Reich stands for. They recieved orders from Berlin, they followed them. So even if they 'did not want' to kill civilians in their concentration camps and their own citizens that were Jewish, they still did it. End of story.
Vic
Vorteks - What good is the fact that the Nazi's couldn't add Romanians, Norwegians and Finns and several other nations to their bandwagon if the Red Army was in NO SHAPE to take on the Nazi's (alone) anyways? We were barely able to crush the Japaneese in Mongolia in 1940. I am also not sure that the Romanians and Finns would sit around seeing Russia under attack, there is a good chance that they would have joined in the fun (against the Soviet Union) anyways. The Germans were in perfect shape to have two fronts, they demonstrated this pretty well. Also, consider the fact that from 1940 and on the Reich sent alot of their troops on active duty to man concentration camps and occupied territories instead of fighting us. They would not have had this worry in 1938-39. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mogsfan
WayToRussified
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 490
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Mogsfan - Well, I think that out of 100 people in Russia asked if they feel betrayed or angered about the victory, 90 would say "no way" 9 would say that they didn't care because the victory was long before their time and 1 would say that he is angered. And that person would probably be a skinhead that is angered because he thinks that Russia and Germany should have been allies to the grave. NOTE: I DID NOT CONDUCT ANY STUDY, THIS IS WRITTEN FROM THE ATTITUDES OF PEOPLE THAT I KNOW.
By using your logic, we can say that the United States should not celebrate their 4th of July "Independence Day" because now they have caused so much evil in the world. |
Still, you misunderstand! Ugh! I'll try once more and rephrase where I feel it might help. If you read the beginning of this thread and my responses throughout, you will realize that I meant the betrayal is regarding the ENTIRE result and the past governments or rulers of Russia since and prior to Stalin (starting with Lenin, I guess?). This is a simplification but can be supported: when you add up years of oppression and loyalty (wrong word but you know what I mean) to totalitarian and authoritarian rulers, the system and society will collapse under its own unstable and flawed core. I was saying Russians should be angered that they fought for the Soviet (i.e. for Stalin) in WW2 but for what? To continue to be oppressed and for creating a system that eventually collapsed into what is now modern Russia. You can blame current and recent governments, the capitalist system, the Americans, the ignorance and confusion in democracy and capitalism or any combination of these, but a great influence and determinant of modern day Russia rests with the oppression and control of Russia via Stalin (and his subsequent communist cronies). The fact that Russians are oblivious to that and continue to deny Stalin's harm on Russia is a telling picture about Russians, imho. The fact they had to struggle and fight Nazis doesn't erase Stalin's betrayal and damage to Russians.
Your analogy to the Americans' wartime battles is flawed and not comparable. The Americans are now considered to be the lone superpower. Throughout history, they have citizens that have gone against the government. I know you are not ignorant so you must know about the history of anti-government movements and protests. There is much division and disagreement of American policies from both past and present unlike the contrast with Russia. You cannot compare American oppression (from any of the American battles in history) to Russians' complacency with Soviet Russia and Stalin. Especially when you consider your own admission that Russians are complacent and tolerant with the result of WW2 and the times that followed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mogsfan
WayToRussified
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 490
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The figure 10 years is a bit incorrect, it would be more like 25 (The period where Stalin was the head of state). Also, I guess I was not exactly clear about the whole 'freedom' issue. Yes, during the USSR (AFTER Stalin) you were not completely free. There was no freedom of press and you were not free to leave the country whenever you wanted. However, the people lived well, were happy about it, they had everything they needed to live a good, normal, happy life. |
LOL. First, it was 10 years. Now, 25. Try 60+. No, not through Stalin but the oppression and totalitarian hold was linear. Which means it continued to the next generation of Communist leaders. Not so bad compared to Stalin but the modification in control was insignificant relatively speaking. You sound like a Communist apologist.
Just because times for some are bad now and there's freedom to be poor (I think I can guess how your logic works) doesn't mean there was freedom back then or that it was better. Certainly, it felt better back then and there was nothing else to compare it to. It sure beats war-time and being in fear of going to a Gulag. But, it was not freedom. You can't compare it to present times, in my view, because the same mentality that existed then, exists now. You are one example. I really doubt that the people were 'happy' per se back then. Probably complacent or content in comparison to how it was previously. But, that was the dynamics of the Communists and it allowed them to maintain their system.
If you ask me about current states, I think Russia still needs major reforms of system structures and in particular, mentality. To have too many people who feel and think as you do (for e.g.), no progress will be made. The gap between the rich and poor will continue to widen and most Russians will continue blaming "Western capitalism and influence" without any thought to the Soviet influence and the major contribution it had over time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vic
Talk Show Host
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Moscow, Russian Federation
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, you are right, we do need social (mentality) and economic reforms in the modern-day Russia if anything is going to change. However you are mistaken that people were 'unhappy' and 'afraid to be sent to the gulags' during Soviet times. This was true with Stalin, but after his death there was no such fear. Nobody got sent anywhere for being innocent during Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko. People were pleased with their lives and the general situation. The only problem that people had (anywhere but Moscow and the far north) was the poor distribution of resources to the regions. (i.e. only one type of cheese or meat in the stores) But none of it was life-threatening! Only inconvenient. They can compare it to the system all of the former USSR countries have now. I do not exactly understand what you mean by 'the same mentality that excisted then excists now', please explain this to me if you can.
Vic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yuliya
Just Starting
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 3
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vic wrote: | Ok, now I am just offended by this. My great-granfather fought and died in the battle for Moscow so that I and all of Russia (and also most civilised countries) can live in freedom. It is rather unfortunate that now we take this freedom for granted (this can be clearly seen by just looking at this post).
Most of you have never lived in a 'communist' country but you seem to have a good idea of what it was like - bad, opression, filthy, evil, ect. Thus I (and in my opinion, Comrade) see that you have no idea what you are talking about. This is the brainwashing that you recieve, just from the other side. Please take the time to ask people that actually lived through Soviet years. Ask them what they prefer and ask them if they thought it was bad, opressing and evil. 95% will disagree. There were problems, I agree, but to say that it is WORSE THAN NAZISM? You must be out of your mind! In many aspects it was better than the 'capitalism' that was in the west. So think before you say something outright stupid.
Clearly, most of you have a dilluted understanding of Nazism and Communism, please stop reading propaganda and take the time to ask someone that actually lived through it before making disgracefull comments. (Especially Agatha - you are clearly a very intelligent person and I respect you. But please, try to find an objective view of the situation.)
Vic |
I agree with both sides. Both Stalin and Hitler were murderers of the worst kind who didn't care for people of any country before or after the war. However, as far as the pure and simple result of WWII goes, Russia did have a HUGE role in defeating Hitler. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mogsfan
WayToRussified
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 490
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Yes, you are right, we do need social (mentality) and economic reforms in the modern-day Russia if anything is going to change. However you are mistaken that people were 'unhappy' and 'afraid to be sent to the gulags' during Soviet times. This was true with Stalin, but after his death there was no such fear. Nobody got sent anywhere for being innocent during Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko. People were pleased with their lives and the general situation. The only problem that people had (anywhere but Moscow and the far north) was the poor distribution of resources to the regions. (i.e. only one type of cheese or meat in the stores) But none of it was life-threatening! Only inconvenient. They can compare it to the system all of the former USSR countries have now. I do not exactly understand what you mean by 'the same mentality that excisted then excists now', please explain this to me if you can. |
Okay. If Russians disagreed with certain laws or policies and spoke out publicly against them, what would happen? Would they not be arrested? Possible prison time? Fined?
I was exaggerating a bit when I mentioned the gulag (for that time period). My point is that the same type of concern or danger persisted.
Only one type of meat and cheese in the stores? Hmmm... not life threatening? That doesn't sound like Russia's healthcare system was in good shape or that in general, Russians had decent health. What was the health situation like during those times and the life expectancy? Not only do I get the impression that the system was inefficient and devoid of choices, it doesn't sound like Russians really benefited from it even in comparison to now. I understand there are complaints in recent years by many Russians that now there is an abundancy of choice but now it is just too expensive. Perhaps, that has changed somewhat now? My point is, there is a major problem or obstacle to improvement but overall, it is a step in the right direction if you compare it directly to the Stalin and recent post-Stalin period. It is just my opinion that Russians must be more demanding of current politicians in achieving these improvements instead of being nostalgic or being obsessed with comparing current situations to the more tolerable but restricted conditions of the past.
By 'the same mentality that existed then exists now,' I mean that Russians considered their situation and conditions a “normal” state (of things) and I suspect the mentality is similar now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vorteks
VIP
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 571
Location: European Union
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vic wrote: | | Vorteks - What good is the fact that the Nazi's couldn't add Romanians, Norwegians and Finns and several other nations to their bandwagon if the Red Army was in NO SHAPE to take on the Nazi's (alone) anyways? We were barely able to crush the Japaneese in Mongolia in 1940. I am also not sure that the Romanians and Finns would sit around seeing Russia under attack, there is a good chance that they would have joined in the fun (against the Soviet Union) anyways. The Germans were in perfect shape to have two fronts, they demonstrated this pretty well. Also, consider the fact that from 1940 and on the Reich sent alot of their troops on active duty to man concentration camps and occupied territories instead of fighting us. They would not have had this worry in 1938-39. |
The reasons for the efficiency of a treatee with the alliance were given in the previous post. But the motives of bolcheviks were not to fight nazism but to share their influence with nazis, so the other alternative was "counter productive" in Staline s mind. For this reason, it can t be called a victory on nazism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutrzenkapolska
VIP
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, good as in the opposite of evil.If anyone else want s to look up the orgin of their name here's one of the best etymology sites:
www.behindthename.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutrzenkapolska
VIP
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The people of Leningrad were heroic during the seige, no? At one point they even constructed a railroad across the ice, out of all the scrap metal left in the city, to sneak behind enemy lines and look for food.
Individuals showed alot of personal bravery and heroism during the war. Their governments, for the most part, did the exact opposite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vic
Talk Show Host
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Moscow, Russian Federation
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mogsfan - I do agree with you here. We are not demanding enough of our government. Although it is productive, the rate at which they perform could be a little faster. It takes them too long to do anything and after they end up actually making some radical change (i.e. cancell subsidies), it ends up that the law that took them over a year to pass ends up being counter-productive so they end up re-doing it in 3 WEEKS to please everyone! Now why couldn't they have done that in the first place? That is only one example. You are right, it does have alot to do with Soviet mentallity. This is changing, but again, slowly. The problem with the Soviet system was that there was nobody to stop stuipid decisions (i.e. Khruschev's agricultural reforms - where all of a sudden they decided to grow corn everywhere possible) ofcourse, Khruschev did get impeached, but that was only several years later, after the damage was done. So you have one leadership mess up, the next one comes and cleans up the mess while making one of it's own and the cycle repeats itself. The solution, in my opinion would be by implimenting Gorbachev's Perestroika much earlier. The reason it failed was not because the idea was bad, but because the system was damaged beyond repair at that time, he could have done nothing to save it, but he could have made the collapse much softer, which he failed. Right now people are learning to use demonstrations and meetings to get their messege across, and the government does listen (we see this in the example of the subsidies), you have a bunch of pensioneers going out and causing hell, the government listens and passes corrections to the law in record time. This could be done more often though. Personally, I want to see ALL of the oligarhs that avoided taxes and commited fraud in the 90's to answer for it, not only Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, but Abromovich, Chubais and the whole gang. I also would like to see funding in education and healthcare increase, this is happening, but a little too slowly.
Regarding the "distribution of resources" in the Soviet Union, there were no healthcare problems because of it, the life expectancy was higher than what it was in Russia in the 90's, there were no problems with health because of the distribution. Everything that you NEEDED was given, but comforts or some "wants", not "needs" were not available in some cities. For example, when my grandparents/parents went to Moscow, Leningrad or the north (from Omsk, where they all lived) for business, they STUFFED their bags things that could not be bought in Omsk (fancy imported women's shoes, coats and other clothing or some food products that you would rarely find in Omsk) The only regions that did not suffer from this were: Moscow, Leningrad and the North. The latter because they had priority for everything. The healthcare was very good back in the day and I would not say that it is bad today either. The only problem is that the pay isn't that high for doctors and that the system is still standing because of the Soviet Union. (This is why they need to increase funding for it not to start degrading)
Agatha - I'm still pretty amazed at how the city could have held out such a siege! I can't understand how it was possible  . But if the Nazis would have taken the city - we wouldn't have Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin now  (For the record - I support Putin...so that was not sarcasm  )
Vic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mogsfan
WayToRussified
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 490
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vic, if you want to continue our discussion, I prefer email because of what has happened recently in the forums. Well, it was occurring for a while but I guess it has gotten to me just recently.
Anyway, I will reply here once and then subsequently, I prefer via email until things shape up here.
I asked you about the system there post-Stalin because I can't profess to have much knowledge on it without reading some sources. But, I took a Russian political course a while ago but it covered mostly the post-Communist era or what is known as that. So, late 80s, early 90s and late 90s Russia.
I agree with your opinion on Perestroika. It had to be either earlier or if later, it had to be more methodical and slower. Russian politicians were both not ready and prepared to accept the reforms. As you know, the economic reforms happened more quickly than the political and that is a MAJOR MAJOR reason why the changes were so consequential and negative. The politicians, to this day, as I understand it, are resisting reforms and changes to their system (so that they can maintain their creature comforts). I don't mean to insult any Russians here but if you allow my opinion, Russian (politicians) don't quite grasp "serve the people" but rather have the mentality of 'serves the people' means serving themselves and so they think it will filter down to the people somehow.
Could you explain (or show me where on the web) the benefits to cash payments controversy? I've read that is one of the issues in which Putin is having the most trouble politically. I guess Russians received a "ticket" for benefits but now they are just given cash and told to be on their way (i.e. they have to use the money they have to help themselves)?
The reason I asked about healthcare is that it is often debated over what is the most efficient (or best) way to provide healthcare, public or private. I think it's a combination of both but public, to me, sounds like the most honest and altruistic way. However, within the confines of the communist system in Russia, I wondered if the inefficiencies and poor nutrition of Russians would have contributed to a problematic healthcare situation. However, you claim otherwise. Interesting.
What do you think of the MOSNEWS site that is quoted by this website (WTR)? I read it for Russian news among a few others. I was just wondering where the best site is to read for Russian news.
I am undecided regarding my thoughts on Putin. Instinctively, I am not much of a fan. He was in the KGB and a former Soviet (he's still from the olden days) and so, I would be leery of him if I was in Russia or a Russian in Russia. Also, I don't know yet if he is a willing part of this global elite. However, imho, most politicians are corrupt and crappy individuals so it would be a shock if he was any different. My bets are that he is not.
Poka. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
