The most popular online travel guide to Russia, since 2001.
 

Way to Russia Community and Forum


If you have a question or want to help someone, please, go to
Way to Russia Forum on our Facebook page.
 
We also invite you to join our Facebook community, where you can meet other travelers and read interesting news on topics ranging from visa regulations to culture and music.
 

 

We are currently moving the old forum to Facebook, so what you see below functions as an archive.

If you have a question, please, post it on
Way to Russia Facebook Discussions Page


 

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   ChatChat   Log inLog in 

How Russians see their history
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Way to Russia Talk Lounge Forum Index -> Russian Contexts, Myths and Truths
Author Message
Daria
Lounge Wizard


Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 1146
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karnot wrote:
Quote:
As you see, Finland was a capitalistic and in a sense a democratic state, which beat up the totalitarian and militarized Soviet Union.

Umm...yeah, Finland "beat up" the Soviet Union, but it was the Soviet Union who recieved parts of Finland territory. So who beat up who ?


Received? They occupied it.
Back to top
RusskiCanadian23
Lounge Wizard


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1104
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada/Ванкувер, Британская Колумбия, Канада

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daria wrote:
karnot wrote:
Quote:
As you see, Finland was a capitalistic and in a sense a democratic state, which beat up the totalitarian and militarized Soviet Union.

Umm...yeah, Finland "beat up" the Soviet Union, but it was the Soviet Union who recieved parts of Finland territory. So who beat up who ?


Received? They occupied it.


They had a right to that land. As the Victorious side. I assume you are not talking about Karellia, which Russian controlled for hundreds of years before WW2.
Back to top
Daria
Lounge Wizard


Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 1146
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RusskiCanadian23 wrote:
Daria wrote:
karnot wrote:
Quote:
As you see, Finland was a capitalistic and in a sense a democratic state, which beat up the totalitarian and militarized Soviet Union.

Umm...yeah, Finland "beat up" the Soviet Union, but it was the Soviet Union who recieved parts of Finland territory. So who beat up who ?


Received? They occupied it.


They had a right to that land. As the Victorious side. I assume you are not talking about Karellia, which Russian controlled for hundreds of years before WW2.


Well, they had a right to that land just as well as Finns had a right to that land too.
Back to top
Daria
Lounge Wizard


Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 1146
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Finnish troops attacked Soviet territory with artillery fire" on November 26th 1939. This incident that happened in the small village Mainila, was made by Soviet troops and put up as a reason for the Red Army to attack Finland. Finnish frontier guards also recognized the explosions on the Soviet
side of the border. For that time being, the closest Finnish artillery guns were placed so far away from Mainila that it would have been impossible to reach the place with artillery gun fire. Finland´s government wanted to negotiate and asked for a withdrawal of the troops on both sides of the border. The soviet Foreign Minister Mr. Molotov cut off all diplomatic connections with Finland and the Red Army attacked Finland on November 30th 1939. The Soviet Union officially apologized for the provocative artillery act in 1990.

Countries like Russia, U.S.A. and few others are well known for their "provocative acts".
Back to top
Lady_Stumbletongue
Just Starting


Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Virginia, USA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wolves and sheep, sheep and wolves. Aren't things a little more complicated than that? I'm an American, by your definition, one of Russia's 'enemies' a wolf, though I have little against you. Does that mean, to me, that you are a wolf? Which of us are wolves, and which are sheep? Are we both, at the same time? Is human both wolf and sheep, both victim and perpetrator? Is human nature "good" or "bad," or somewhere in between? When will the world discover, if ever, that "we" against "them" is really "we" against "we?" We are all living creatures, trying to survive on this earth, blinded by the walls of sheep and wolves, of "we" and "them." One may say that the differences between us are an important part of who we are, and that is true. But these differences should enrich this world, not serve as reasons to attack people for their "otherness". Unity is relative. Should every person in a city be 'the same'. What about every person in a country? What about the world? Wouldn't that be a boring place! Who decided that unity be synonomous with "same-ness," anyway? Nothing changes that, on some level we are all related. Perhaps the majority of war, most especially "offensive" war, could be compared to an overblown family feud? Yes, I am commiting the very act that I have accused you of...simplifying. The world is too big and brilliant for us to understand without making it smaller in our minds. While this may be necessary, it causes many evils. It may be best to do as little of it as possible. A true thing has been said... power corrupts. An excellent point was made about the Nazi's sheep. Perhaps the world, and its people, would be better off if, instead of paying the highest allegiances to their governments, they swore them to the universal values of kindness and generosity? Loving one's country and one's government are very different things. The people of the world, most of whom I, however naievly, believe are basically decent, could act as an ethical force to keep the powers of the ruling in check. Let that be our "unity". Perhaps, if the world was this way, the Nazis would have had a harder time carrying out their atrocities, and perhaps not. We can't really know. Should we attempt, though the likelihood of failure is high, to live a life that is beautiful and improve the days of others, no matter how "different" from us they may be? Or shall we sacrifice ourselves, our beauty, empathy, individuality, and yes, global unity, to play our brother's scapegoat, till we all, all being scapegoats in eachother's eyes, slay eachother till none are left, and all the world...dreams hopes, men, women, children, babies, tigers, lambs, squirrels and deserts, forests, meadows, fish, and fowl, all the wonderful things on this planet of ours.. are dead. Yes, my views are naive. Whats more, they surely would be, coming from a 15-year old child such as myself, a girl who has been pampered and coddled all of her life, one unaccustomed to the realities and hardships of the world outside of her neighborhood. I am a hypocrite, I know that. All of us humans are. It is a fact. Yet we can fight the greed and cruelty within ourselves. I know I will fail, but I will try, to make this world a better place, and to stay as true as I can to peace and kindness. To me, that is true glory. Art, music, literature, dance, etc. are better providers of national pride than that fool's goal "power". To build and preserve instead of destroy, to care for, instead of to conquer, that, for me at least, is true greatness.
Back to top
surfguy
Lounge Wizard


Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 6979

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

go forth and conquer...that is conquer your experience in life. But know this the sad reality of our world is that while we are all dong one thing...someone else is doing another.
Back to top
lusenish
Just Starting


Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 5
Location: Moscow

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's true that Russians are pessimistic about their land and future. In my point of view the state of things didn't change a lot since the Soviet era. Although the people now have more rights and freedom they still can't do much to make things better. The today's govenment is a rough copy of the communist government. Someone mentioned in this thread that president Putin was not elected by the nation but just appointed and promoted by Yeltsin. That's right... The same situation repeats today when Putin officialy backs his successor Medvedev. In the essense nothing changed. The modern elections is just a performance for the press and western countries.
There is no real opposition in our Duma (Parlament) which means that laws and decisions may be biased.

So I feel that both communist and post-communist Russias are not dear to me. I have mostly negative perception of both these concepts. I neither would say I wished there was Tzar or things like that because it was such a long way back that we cannot now judge whether those were good or bad times for Russians.

So generally when it comes to politics and the preferable type of government and country running I'm lost.... And so I feel are many.

Russian people don't usually identify themselves with the government. Just on the contrary, they position themselves as opposed to the government. So what is important for all Russians is not the type of government but our culture, nature and traditions. So things that were formed in course of history and to some extent depend on the geography.

Russia has always been a vast country and so this large scale is reflected in our mentality - freedom, large distances, lots of wild unhabitated places, forests and fields. This defines the main traits of character which are typical of Russians. Mutual help, hospitality, inventiveness, bravery and inconsistency and so on...And this is dear for all of us, this is what Russia means for us.
Back to top
jo-jo-7
Just Starting


Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lusenish wrote:
It's true that Russians are pessimistic about their land and future. In my point of view the state of things didn't change a lot since the Soviet era. Although the people now have more rights and freedom they still can't do much to make things better. The today's govenment is a rough copy of the communist government. Someone mentioned in this thread that president Putin was not elected by the nation but just appointed and promoted by Yeltsin. That's right... The same situation repeats today when Putin officialy backs his successor Medvedev. In the essense nothing changed. The modern elections is just a performance for the press and western countries.
There is no real opposition in our Duma (Parlament) which means that laws and decisions may be biased.

So I feel that both communist and post-communist Russias are not dear to me. I have mostly negative perception of both these concepts. I neither would say I wished there was Tzar or things like that because it was such a long way back that we cannot now judge whether those were good or bad times for Russians.

So generally when it comes to politics and the preferable type of government and country running I'm lost.... And so I feel are many.

Russian people don't usually identify themselves with the government. Just on the contrary, they position themselves as opposed to the government. So what is important for all Russians is not the type of government but our culture, nature and traditions. So things that were formed in course of history and to some extent depend on the geography.

Russia has always been a vast country and so this large scale is reflected in our mentality - freedom, large distances, lots of wild unhabitated places, forests and fields. This defines the main traits of character which are typical of Russians. Mutual help, hospitality, inventiveness, bravery and inconsistency and so on...And this is dear for all of us, this is what Russia means for us.


Comment on your last paragraph, I am like a kid going to a amusement park...I cannot wait to go.... Wink
Back to top
start-wearing-purple
Frequent Guest


Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 22
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

charles wrote:
She, like russki, thinks that democracy is not a good form of government, but she also thought communism was just as bad. She believes Russia should be governed by a Tsar, because they follow the the Orthodox church. She's a rare one for sure, but it's interesting to me the very different "Russias" people can look back to for identity, and yet it is all "Russia".


honestly, I believe the Constitutional Monarchy to be the most effective and sustainable forms of government. I'd say I make this statement as a historian, but what does that even mean? history is skewed and no two accounts (though similarities may be drawn) are the same. my degree means nothing, save that I've spent my life studying what I'll never fully know because I can only be where I am with the perspective I have at any given point in time. I can also argue it from a democratic standpoint. I've lived in the U.S. my entire (albeit short) life and have seen and studied what we've done to force others into our "right" form of government and have watched it fail miserably. I'm also watching it collapse from the inside. the influence of my great-grandparents (who immigrated to the States barely before the first World War) leaves a stale taste in my mouth with regard to communism and has instilled in me a sense of pride for imperialism, but I still try to remain objective. all I can say is, it makes sense to give the people a sense of security and stability in the form of a monarch and a sense of participation in the monarch's effectiveness via a parliament and prime minister. best of both worlds in one government. then again, who am I to say anything at all?
Back to top
charles
Lounge Lizard


Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 180
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lusenish wrote:
Russia has always been a vast country and so this large scale is reflected in our mentality - freedom, large distances, lots of wild unhabitated places, forests and fields. This defines the main traits of character which are typical of Russians. Mutual help, hospitality, inventiveness, bravery and inconsistency and so on...And this is dear for all of us, this is what Russia means for us.


I've been living in Russia for 10 months, and I agree 100%. Of course for most Russians, life is in the city, and the vast wild places are more fairy-tale than reality. I have come to understand Russians essentially as villagers who moved to the city and brought the customs and values of country life with them. Only in St. Petersburg did I feel otherwise. There the people seem more "sophisticated" and typical Russian character is less noticeable.
Back to top
Soundbrigade
Frequent Guest


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 50
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When we talk about Russia and Soviet Union in our home I understand that my wife, more or less don't recognize any difference between the time of the tsars and the socialist era (note socialist as the country was "strugging towards communism"). The time of the tsars was a bad time and the last tsar was really a very reluctant ruler misspending too many resources with no gain or with big losses.
There are more or less just one historic person worth mention - Peter the First, for bringing Russia from the darkness to enlightment. Katarina the Great was another ruler that somewhat brought the country a few steps forward.

There are many myths about the socialist era, that people were starving, or waiting lines to buy shoes or beeing constantly monitored bu KGB, but most people lived a happy time, people had a job, had free school and post-high school education (university and institutes). These kind of ideas can sometimes be heard from Russians that were to young to remember anything from the socialist times. Instead health and dental care was free, people could be on maternity leave for up to three years, holiday travels were cheap, often organized by the union.
When we look at old Swedish movies and/or talk about Sweden during the 50's and 60's we notice that we had the same living standard or conditions.

I have noticed that some "nostalgic" Russians want to bring back Russia to the time of the tsars. However it is an idea of mostly wealth so-called new Russians, people who have gotten dirty rich in no time and who now crave to a fine title. There were people buying old photographs from the 19th century to nail to their walls, to show their fine ancester, though these people were often prostitutes, thugs or simply illiterate.

We consider it as dangerous to sort of "romatisize" a certain era beacuse people had fine titles, dressed nicely and spoke French. The way Russia has been ruled has been the same since 790 AD, nothing did change in 1917 and nothing changed in 1990.
Back to top
Absurd
Frequent Guest


Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Soundbrigade wrote:
The way Russia has been ruled has been the same since 790 AD,

You've taken too long period of time - in 790AD Kievan Rus' was ruled by swedish conqueror. Historians usually divide it to pre-mongolian times of Cities-States & Veche law and post-mongolian times of regaining independence, fighting with remains of the Golden Horde and Lithuania and rise of Muscovite absolutism.
Soundbrigade wrote:

nothing did change in 1917

Comparing to 1920's - 30's late 19th century was a paradise. It's like French revolution: if anybody in France knew what will be after the banquet, it wouldn't happen.
Soundbrigade wrote:

and nothing changed in 1990.

Modern authorities of Russia can't rule like commies did - there are dozens of internal and external causes for this. Even if they want it.
Back to top
Arina8
Frequent Guest


Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

charles wrote:
lusenish wrote:
Russia has always been a vast country and so this large scale is reflected in our mentality - freedom, large distances, lots of wild unhabitated places, forests and fields. This defines the main traits of character which are typical of Russians. Mutual help, hospitality, inventiveness, bravery and inconsistency and so on...And this is dear for all of us, this is what Russia means for us.


I've been living in Russia for 10 months, and I agree 100%. Of course for most Russians, life is in the city, and the vast wild places are more fairy-tale than reality. I have come to understand Russians essentially as villagers who moved to the city and brought the customs and values of country life with them. Only in St. Petersburg did I feel otherwise. There the people seem more "sophisticated" and typical Russian character is less noticeable.


Interesting. I mean, I have always wondered what the Russian character is. Perhaps you can explain it to me? I am not brave at all, unfortunately, I prefer to meet friends in restaurants rather than cook for them at home and I do not drink too much alcohol. On the whole, I do not differ much from other people who belong to the non-existent middle class. Maybe it's because I have lived in Moscow all my life? As well as my father and grandfather, so none of us remember moving to the city from a remote village.
Back to top
TheWaitisOver
Just Starting


Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 2
Location: Milwalkee, WI

PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

charles wrote:
overseas_expat wrote:
Charles--have you read the American Constitution lately? The Declaration of Independence? Do they have contemporary relevance for you? Or do they seem like ancient historical documents from the distant past?


I'm glad you brought that up. Actually, I think that the U.S. Constitution is extremely relevant to everyday life in the USA. It's a document which is constantly discussed - and it's something which the average American probably has not read recently, but is still quite proud of. I asked the question because I think the history of the U.S. (or how it's perceived by most Americans) has influenced to a large degree who Americans are, what we believe about ourselves, and how we relate to the world. I think most Americans indentify very closely with the War of Independence (even though it was more than 200 years ago). It's one of the main reasons, in my opinion, for differences between us & the Canadians, who had their independence handed to them. The U.S. national anthem speaks about "bombs bursting in air, and rockets' red glare", and the flag surviving through a battle. We sing our anthem at every baseball game, the Superbowl, etc. During my public school career, I estimate that I pledged allegiance to the flag more than 2000 times (do people in other countries do that? I don't know) We're constantly reminded of our fight for independence. Can you hear a political speech (especially by Bush) without hearing phrases like "hard-won liberty" or "fighting for freedom"? I think American history is perceived by Americans as being very simple - we fought for our independence from the British, and we've been the greatest country on earth ever since. (Of course if you're African American or Native American your view of U.S. history is quite different - but they're no less patriotic than everyone else). Have you ever been to a country where the people wave their flag more than in the USA?

So yes, I think a country's history is relevant to how people perceive themselves. Do Russians not care for history? Where does Russian pride come from?


I am American.
But Russian pride, from what I can deduce, comes from the fact that they, as a people, have endured for centuries. Also, keep in mind that much of American patriotism is cloaked prejudice--listen to any one of the major party's solutions to immigration and see that. Also, the Constitution has been desecrated over the past eight years, and it doesn't look like it will get any better soon.

America was home to one of the largest genocides in world history: the "Native" America was virtually annihilated. America invaded a sovereign nation [Iraq] for no reason...except lies.

And yet, I feel America is a fantastic country. Why? Because as a people we have, and will, endure. Much like the Russians.
Back to top
hpesch
Frequent Guest


Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:33 am    Post subject: Efficiency Reply with quote

Efficiency of totalitarian systems is a legend. Some results look awsome, like the terracotta army, the pyramids, the German autobahn and Stalin's power plants and canals.
But when you count the sacrifice and the real cost you notice that it was no good deal for the nation as a whole.
When North Korea once will get rid of the communist terror regime, its neighbours will have to invest an awful lot of money and work to put things right again. East Germany has cost already trillions of dollars to reconstruct, but it was the most developed parts of the communist block. Hope China will take part of the load that North Korea represents, but I'm afraid the democratic countries Japan and South Korea will be left with the dirtheap alone.

In 1913 a Russian worker had an income of 55 roubles per month. With that he was able to support his family and pay for school, doctors and rent. 20 years later the same worker got 200 roubles, but the wife had to work, a loaf of bread would cost 1-2 roubles, a suit 800 etc. Workers lived in dirty barracks and had to do slave work. And were not even allowed to strike or protest, which they did regularly under the Czar.

There was never socialism in the Soviet Union, it was slavery from start to end.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Way to Russia Talk Lounge Forum Index -> Russian Contexts, Myths and Truths All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7