Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The famines of the 1930's in Russia and the USSR as a whole were due to collectivisation, a misguided concept if any. As late as the 1980's the most productive soviet agricultural land was the 5% of total farmaland people were allotted as private plots. Why is that? I fail to see how crop failures through weather (Irish Potato famine) and dislocation caused by war and depopultaion (Thirty Years War) are equivalent to a systematic government policy enacted by force (Collectivisation). The first two are somewhat unavoidable, collectivism was a self-inflicted wound.
I don't think so. Collectivisation and Industrialization had a great economical effect and result in USSR's prosperity in 1950-70th. Let's look at this slide (Angus Maddison, the Netherlands, if you would like European sources).
This slide describes relationship gross domestic product per head in the USSR (in % to this one in the USA). Look at this from 1927 till 1953 and further. During 63 years from the creation of the USSR to Gorbachev in spite of negative profit during wars, well-being levels exceeded the pre-revolutionary one in 1885 (Russia's best years in economics). Keep in mind that this index is relative and compared with the USA's one. For example, USSR's gross domestic product in 1985 was compared with the USA's one in the same year, and the latter increase tenfold in compare with 1922. If calculate this stuff the conclusion is that USSR's economics during these 63 years was developing more rapidly than the USA's economics in 2.18%. Were collectivism & industrialism not effective?Where did you get your numbers for number of deportees from Estonia? Do you have a citation for that?
So is this a Russian or European source who is making these claims?
It is a Soviet source. People's commissar Merkulov's Memorandum (internal document) to Stalin June, 17 1941.
current Gas crisis with Ukraine
Why Russia must sell gas dirt-cheap and have no right to demand repay from Ukraine?
I challenge you to find a Czech or Hungarian that agrees with your assessment of Russian activities in Eastern Europe.
I can not find such people because as you have said "History is what happened, not what we wanted to have happen". 😉 It is fashionable nowadays in Czech and Hungary to sully the USSR's name.Apropos of theme of this discussion "Cold War Mentalities in Today's World". At the begining of this discussion I have said "that the Cold War have ended as soon as the USSR have been destroyed in 1991". But... After what I have heard from you I changed my mind. The Cold War is not finished.
A good example of Russian imperialism is the War in Georgia last summer
I just afraid of speak about it with you 😉 I feel that we live in different worlds. 🙂Are there anybody of you teach history? Would you please give me some links to textbooks that you using in your teaching practices. I feel it would be very interesting for me. Thanks in advance.
I don't want to say that in Russian history there are no aggressive actions, I just want to say that agression in Russia no more then in any of the European counties.
In Estonia:In 1940, Estonia became just another victim of the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (aka Treaty of Nonaggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and was invaded by the Soviet Union. During the first purge in 1941, ten thousands of Estonians were murdered, deported or forced into military service in the Red Army. Pure terror reigned the country for the next time. Things didn't get much better when the Nazi German Wehrmacht occupied Estonia to make it a part of the wide Generalkommissariat Ostland (Central province of Eastland). The terror continued. But in August 1944, the Red Army took over again. Especially in 1949, the hunt for the so-called "enemies of the nation" started. Again, Estonia saw ten thousands of its citizens deported or killed. At the same time, forced collectivization of farmers, massive industrialisation and russification started. The original language, Estonian, was gradually marginalised.
Ten thousands... It is exaggeration. Only 9156 people were deported, from these 3178 people were sended into the camps, and 5978 were sended to the settlements in the Krasnoyarskaya oblast' (region) and in the Novosibirskaya oblast' (region). Only 200 people was died among prisoners. There are no exact data about how many people were died among exiles. It is thought that no more than 2000 people. But do not forget that so high mortality was because it was the hard wartime, but not due to Kremlin's evil plans. Also the deportation was the necessity for the USSR, because it was the wartime. If there were no many Estonian nationalists which collaborated with German intelligence services then there was no necessity of such actions.Afterwards, during Soviet period in Estonia was built the complex of modern seaports, the USSR spent a lot of money and resources on the industrialisation of agrarian Estonia. I recall in my childhood in the later USSR people said that "People in Estonia live like in Europe". The level of the living-index in Estonia was one of the most higher in the USSR.
The death toll from the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine has been estimated between six million and seven million. According to a Soviet author, "Before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings." Yet one of Stalin's lieutenants in Ukraine stated in 1933 that the famine was a great success. It showed the peasants "who is the master here. It cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay."
In that time the famine was not only in Ukraine, but in the whole USSR. And it is also exaggeration. Almost all of the pictures you may see about 1932-33 famine in Ukraine are falsification. For example, look at the cover of this book: And now look at the original picture:
This picture was made in Russia, Buguruslan in ... 1921 (not 1932-33). There is a text at the back side of this picture: Subject: HUMANITARIAN ACTIVITY, Famine Date: Fall/1921 Location: Russia, Buguruslan Motif: In the village S. Sojekjejevo. A starving 7 year old girl who has a swollen stomach due to prolonged starvation, and because she has eaten grass. Published: Sоrensen, Оystein: Fridtjof Nansen : Mannen og myten, p. 112. Additional information: Typewritten text in Russian glued on the back: "15-M ...". Originator: Liberman, Photo
The same period was in many countries. In the UK such period was called as "enclosure" (if I translate it correctly), in German known as "Thirty Years' War".
I suppose then the Russian suppression of the Hungarian and Czech uprisings were really just demonstrations of communist solidarity instead of the Bloody, repressive, crackdowns of independence movements that they appeared to be in the west?
There are also many myths about it. For example, it is said that Soviet intervention finished off democratic government the CSSR and its leader Dubchek. But... The Soviet troopers invaded in the CSSR in August. 21 1968, but prime secretar Dubchek retired only in January 1969, and head of government Chernik in 1970. Besides these people signed protocol about the conditions in what the Soviet troopers could stay in the CSSR. And why the the CSSR's army (200000 people) was staing in the barracks and did not resist?Bloody? During this action died 72 Czech people, who threw the petrol bombs at the Soviet tanks, tried to spoil the communications facilities and transport.
Which is how? Keeping in mind that Russia maintained control of both Berlin and East Germany for the next fifty years as the most strategic depth they had ever achieved. Only relinquishing control in the face of popular uprisings both in Germany and at Home.
The way the Russians moved into Berlin? Zukov got 700,000 of his troops killed in that last campaign (a lot from friendly fire) in his rush to beat the rest of the Allies there.
Do you think Russians should not move towards Berlin in 1945 and let Nazy to conquer the Europe?
I really want to hear Romans take on how communist domination of Eastern europe for 50+ years was not imperialistic.
In my opinion, it was a normal period of the country development. Most of the European countries went through the colonial period. The Russia development is retarded. It was a Russian colonial period. And it ends. Like this period ended in the UK, German, France, the Netherlands and others about 100 years ago. But the USSR do not oppress any Eastern Europe country during its colonial period. On the contrary, the USSR spend a lot of money and resources to maintain those countries development. I can not say it about for example UK politics in India in the 19th century. And I want to say that today's Russia is not a direct descendant of the USSR. Russia was a part of the USSR like any of the 14 other countries.
Yes, how else do you explain Russian moves towards Constantinople in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries?
The same way as I explain Russian moves towards Berlin in 1945.
No, in fact, every country does not want to control the countries on its border or increase their borders at the expense of others…The partitions of Poland were partly inspired by Russian desire for greater security on their western border.
Those partitions were carried out not only by Russia, but also by Prussia and Austria.
Attempts to conquer Turkey
Do you really think that it is true?
I am going to guess you are claiming that the Estonians are Laps or Swedes instead of Slavs? I will give you this point as it is not germane to the discussion and so not worth debating.
Estonians is the Finno-Ugric peoples.
And yes, the Russians do historically think they should have hegemony over the nations on their border.
Every country's governments want to increase their borders. It doesn't mean that they think they should have hegemony over the nations on their border.
See any of the Partitions of Poland, Russian actins in the Crimea in the 19th century.
Russian actions in the Crimea in the 19th century were not to have hegemony over the nations, but it was war for the access in the Mediterranean, that Britains and Frenchs want to forbid to Russia. What parts of Poland now is Russian's? Or the Crimea?
How long is the area going to remain contaminated?
137,000 km2 of Ukraine, Russia and Belorus' territory was contaminating by Cesium. The Chernobyl plant have stopped only in December 15, 2000.
Do you think that old Cold War-era geopolitical mentalities continue to exist today, more than a decade since the Cold War ended? Do you think that geopolitics - military, economics, political, and cultural -needs to be updated for our new age of globalism?
I think that the Cold War have ended as soon as the USSR have been destroyed in 1991. Today's Russia is not a direct descendant of the USSR. Today's Russia was building on the USSR's ruins. USSR was comparable with USA in the technology, weapons, economics, etc, but today's Russia does not. I think the cold war can exists only when combatants are comparable in power.
Do you think Russia's current actions in mainly Eastern Europe nations are a continuation of Cold War mentality?Do a google news search on Estonia and you'll see what I mean.
What do you mean? 🙂
Do you think Russia's current actions in mainly Eastern Europe nations are a continuation of Cold War mentality?Do a google news search on Estonia and you'll see what I mean.
Russia's actions in Eastern Europe are a continuation of a centuries old Policy by the Russian's. They think that the Slavic countries are their backyard and they should have carte blanche to do with them and to them what they will.
Estonia is not a Slavic country.
This slide describes relationship gross domestic product per head in the USSR (in % to this one in the USA). Look at this from 1927 till 1953 and further. During 63 years from the creation of the USSR to Gorbachev in spite of negative profit during wars, well-being levels exceeded the pre-revolutionary one in 1885 (Russia's best years in economics). Keep in mind that this index is relative and compared with the USA's one. For example, USSR's gross domestic product in 1985 was compared with the USA's one in the same year, and the latter increase tenfold in compare with 1922. If calculate this stuff the conclusion is that USSR's economics during these 63 years was developing more rapidly than the USA's economics in 2.18%. Were collectivism & industrialism not effective?
This picture was made in Russia, Buguruslan in ... 1921 (not 1932-33). There is a text at the back side of this picture: 
