Stalin not Welcome in Voronezh

Hi Sean,

this is your editor in chief speaking. We will run your story tomorrow under the title ‘Liberal governor defies Kremlins Stalin campaign’.

Next drinks are on you!

The history has very strange sense of humor.

The billboards of legal political party are banned because of Stalin (who was a legal political leader of the country). Stalin deprived of his rights for freedom of speech! ))

This is a billboard of Galichina SS Division in the area of Ukrainian Democracy:

http://www.rap.ru/_Uploaded/Image/society/2009-04-17/1239961433_1.jpg
(Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS. Galizische)

Off topic.

Hillary Clinton is not coming to visit Russia with Obama. I wonder if it has anything to do with her “Putin has no soul” comment?

She wasn’t invited?

I must say, I’ve grown accustomed to our host’s lackadaisical attitudes, but this takes the cake: Obama is in Moscow and Sean doesn’t have a post about it?

Oh well, Sean must be camping outside Neverland these days…

Hillary was invited. She broke her arm or some lame excuse.

She was probably cramping Obama’s “both feet in the future” style. Hard to show up and lecture a country about being stuck in the past with a Clinton joined at your hip.

One of my roommate’s students is performing for Michelle Obama, I think, today.

I wonder if Obama is lecturing Medvedev on how he should be more of a Marxist.

Obama is sweet and keeps McFaul behind his back while the shadow of Brzezinski is also looming there.

Brzezinski has not been in a position of importance in 30 years.

He was deemed important enough to give Obama good foreign policy street cred on the campaign trail.

That’s because he’s famous.

“In a tongue-in-cheek article, the business daily Kommersant said Russia’s former President Vladimir Putin, who now wields vast powers as prime minister, was visiting a combine harvester producer in southern Russia when Obama was in Moscow on Monday.

“Barack Obama run over by combine harvesters,” read its ironic front-page article on the visit.”
…………………….

“the Izvestia daily said the U.S. leader had not been given a red-carpet reception on his arrival.

“If — all of a sudden — Obama had hoped for a red carpet and a crazy crowd of fans chanting something like Hollywood-style, ‘We love you!’, nothing of the kind was awaiting him in Moscow,” it reported.”

Since we are now officially off topic…
I was watching the C-Span morning show yesterday, and they had on some woman (with some sort of slavic background) from the Heritage Foundation as guest. Anyway, one of the statements she made was that Russians didn’t respect Obama because they saw him as a weak adversary, and that they saw him as the American equivalent of Gorbachev.

I think she has a point in that Russians respect a worthy adversary. I have a feeling that the powers that be in Moscow will be disappointed when Obama decides to deep six the missile defense program, since they will then need to find a new axe to grind against the US and the west in general.

Personally, if I was in charge, I would keep a hard line on the missile defense and then get a free-trade agreement with Russia pushed through. It would tie our countries more closely together, thereby preventing any major hostilities, while still keeing up the ruse that we are adversaries. Then everyone would be happy, not to mention the Poles and Czechs who put a lot on the line to trust us on the matter.

I know a Russian lady who lost respect for Obama when he killed a fly in public place.

“Then everyone would be happy, not to mention the Poles and Czechs who put a lot on the line to trust us on the matter.”

The Poles and Czechs are against the proposed missile defense thingie.

To be frank, the whole “Russians respect a strong adverary thing”… EVERYBODY RESPECTS A STRONG ADVERSARY. It doesn’t mean you want one. I also don’t think foreign policy should be based on pop psychology.

Doom’s incapacity to comprehend two-way traffic in international politics must be attributed to lack of the complementary brain cell.

P.S. In this context “complementary” means “the second one”.

“The Poles and Czechs are against the proposed missile defense thingie.”

I am aware that popular support is lacking, but those in positions of power spent a fair amount of political capital to get those agreements pushed through. If they end up going bad, it makes it less likely for the governments of either country to deal with the US again, and it makes the US seem untrustworthy and fickle.

I know this is an argument fallacy (the name of which slips my mind for the moment), but we all know that the Russians are not actually threatened by the missile shield. They just don’t like the US hanging out and making friends with their estranged neighbors.

The whole adversary thing is not pop psychology, show me the history of Russia wanting to be friends with any country, that wasn’t based in real politick. I think the US and Canada are the only countries in the world, whose citizens want to be friends with the rest of the world. It’s naïve, yes, but it’s the truth. There might be a few more countries, but these two come to mind first. Russia on the other hand seems to relish is adversities and enemies. It seems to me that it is all political theater, though, as long as the other side is powerful enough to keep Russia in check.

One last thing, not everyone respects a strong adversary. Some just want them dead. I wouldn’t call that respect.

Typical Brzezinski attitude.

My attitude towards the Communists is described by Voltaire’s formula: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

I’m not a supporter of the Communists, but they are a legitimate political force, and as such they have a right for their own view of the history, including whitewashing of Stalin.

Any attempt of preventing them from excercising their view, is censorship and an attempt to silence the opposition.

Again: I’m not _with_ them, but I realize that their views are not worse and not better than mine.

It’s sad, that in countries of the West people learned to tolerate gays, but can’t tolerate Communists. That’s something I can’t understand no matter how hard I try.

Evgeny,

Please tell me you were joking?

Jason: sometimes, the best attempt to learn would be not ever to try. Currently, your political comments could be only read for amusement

Try reading

http://inoforum.ru

It’s a site providing Russian translations of various world newspapers, powered by a large group of enthusiasta.

The best point of this site is the special forum entry opened for each of translated articles.

Candide:

What do you know of the Communism?

It’s not merely some stupid theory or a political system.

But it’s the life of three generation of Soviet people. And those people have generated a vast layer of culture, with an unique understanding of life and values.

How can you say that it’s purely nonsense?

How can you dare to say that the modern Russia’s system is more successful?

Note, that I’m NOT a Communist, but I RESPECT Communists for all their effort, all their living devoted to their country and their ideals.

Briefly, Communists are a cultural and social phenomenon for me, not a political one.

Well, considering Communists killed more people than Nazis for ideological reasons during the 20th century, I see no reason why one shouldn’t be a bit alarmed by the whitewashing of Stalin, just as one would be alarmed of the whitewashing of Hitler.

You know the Nazi’s instilled a great sense of community and spirit among like minded Germans. You know, the “Volk” and all that.

This all doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be able to preach communism from the street corner. That’s their option, but if they get ridiculed or ostracized for it, well they brought it on themselves for choosing to be blind to history.

“Currently, your political comments could be only read for amusement”

Well, I am glad I have brought some small amount of joy to someone on this site.

If we consider pre-communist and post-communist system as “capitalist” the number of victims, the centuries of wartime in the West, Communism would look like an innocent game. And I am not talking about Russia, of course.

it’s the life of three generation of Soviet people. And those people have generated a vast layer of culture, with an unique understanding of life and values.

Oh yes, a vast layer of culture that not only prevented Russia and Russians from advancing their lifestyles, but also spread malignant cells all over the world including Western Europe. I was amazed how much the ever cultured Europeans managed to copy the most ugly invention of communism: ubiquitous concrete apartment buildings.

Last winter I made a train trip from Prague to Munchen and the former border is still painfully visible. It has been 20 years and the drag of communist culture still plagues Eastern Europe.

Tell me Evgeny, what was positive about that culture? Something that uniquely belonged to communism, not to human nature or to underlying Russian culture? Something communism improved on, except Днепрогэс, Беломорканал и лампочка Ильича?

Yep. That’s exactly what I spoke of. Just as I have noted that I RESPECT Communists, I’m pressurized.

Why do you think I’m unaware of crimes committed by Communists, etc? And I even guess that I’ve read more of Solzhenitsyn than you.

But for some reason you aren’t going to learn what was positive about the Communists.

Indeed, you tolerate gays and don’t tolerate Communists. But Gays are at least threatening your lifystyle as you may become a victim of sexual harrassment. And what bad did Communists do against you personally? Nothing at all!

But for some reason you aren’t going to learn what was positive about the Communists.

Evgeny, I asked a simple question. Please enlighten me and teach me about these positives. I am eager to learn.

Indeed, you tolerate gays and don’t tolerate Communists.

I tolerate communists. In a place where they do not control speech, they sure enjoy the right of free speech. I have nothing against that. Same with the nazis or any fringe cook group.

But Gays are at least threatening your lifystyle as you may become a victim of sexual harrassment.

And what bad did Communists do against you personally? Nothing at all!

Are you sure about that?

Cyril:

«Они говорили: “Что нам ваша индустриализация и коллективизация, машины, черная металлургия, тракторы, комбайны, автомобили? Дали бы лучше побольше мануфактуры, купили бы лучше побольше сырья для производства ширпотреба и побольше бы давали населению всех тех мелочей, чем красен быт людей. Создание индустрии при нашей отсталости, да еще первоклассной индустрии – опасная мечта”. Конечно, мы могли бы 3 миллиарда рублей валюты, добытых путем жесточайшей экономии и истраченных на создание нашей индустрии, – мы могли бы их обратить на импорт сырья и усиление производства предметов широкого потребления. Это тоже своего рода “план”. Но при таком “плане” мы не имели бы ни металлургии, ни машиностроения, ни тракторов и автомобилей, ни авиации и танков. Мы оказались бы безоружными перед внешними врагами. Мы подорвали бы основы социализма в нашей стране. Мы оказались бы в плену у буржуазии внутренней и внешней…»

И.В. Сталин. Речь в Кремлевском дворце на выпуске академиков Красной Армии 4 мая 1935 года. Сталин И.В. Cочинения. – Т. 14. –М.: Издательство “Писатель”, 1997. С. 58–63.

http://www.kprfast.ru/content/view/10223/51/

Cyril:

The Comminists did _me_ nothing bad. Unlike the democrats of 1990s.

“Please explain how I could become a victim of such “harrassment”?”

What are you going to do if a gay invites you to have sex with him? Okey, then, what if that gay is your boss?

Cyrill, whatever you have seen in the Eastern Europe, just go and ask any Eastern German about his life in the DDR in comparison of today.

Cyril: I can speak of one thing that was painfully lost. Like the demise of the Rome Empire lead to centuries of Dark Ages, the demise of the Soviet Union has sufficiently slowed down space exploration. Perhaps, for decades or centuries.

Cyrill:

Soviet internationalism is another thing that was lost perhaps for long time. Soviet Union has build a great number of civilian infrastructure in third world countries, including power plants, schools, hospitals..

Collapse of the Soviet Union threw multiple third world countries to the economy dark hole.

A tiny detail, if Soviet Union didn’t fall, there would be no collapse of the Afghan government. No 9/11 as a consequence.

Cyrill:

I don’t also get your complaint about concrete apatrment blocks in Eastern Europe.

You say that the Soviet-style buildings are yet in place, after 20 years since the fall of the Communism.

But doesn’t that mean just that those buildings are robust, but well-done? Doesn’t that mean that post-Communist Eastern Europe faces economical troubles which don’t let them to rebuild their countries?

Who is responsible for unability of the modern Eastern Europe to achieve stable economy growth? Only themselves, as since the fall of the Soviet Union they are absolutely free to do what they wish.

“Well, considering Communists killed more people than Nazis for ideological reasons during the 20th century, I see no reason why one shouldn’t be a bit alarmed by the whitewashing of Stalin, just as one would be alarmed of the whitewashing of Hitler.”

Well said, Jason.

Considering Communism gave birth to millions of children, carried out industriulization and put millions out of misery unlike new capitalists who kill the old and newly-born, deindustrialize whole continents, capitalism must die.

“..I RESPECT Communists for all their effort, all their living devoted to their country…”

Evgeny, poor Evgeny, try to understand one simple thing: ultimately Communists had no country!

The whole point of Communist movement was to destroy countries as we know them. Disintegrating Russian Empire was just a convenient vehicle for them.

If you read the history carefully, you’ll see how Communists planned to use Russian Empire as a base to change the world, how their maniacal plans were thwarted, how they attempted to build “Communism in a single country” and how they finally lost their control of that “single country”, after enormous and catastrophic losses of innocent human lives.

If Evgeny thinks that gays are the most annoying and insufferable people, that means he never met a Communist apparatchik.

Dear candide, I’m absolutely aware of the history of 1920-1930s, with the opposing views among the Communists, Trotsky supporting unlimited revolution as the primary purpose (with indeed, attempts of socialistic revolutions in Germany and Great Britain, which were failed), Lenin seeing the Russian revolution only as a first event in a chain (in Lenin’s view, socialistic Europe would aid the Russia to modernize its industry), and Stalin supporting the view of creating socialistic order in one distinct country.

But when I referred to the Soviet Union, I meant the country of 1970s, of the “established socialism”, which has refused of expansion plans (agree, there was no American Socialistic Republic as a part of the Soviet Union), and focused on different things.

Including space programs.

Poor Candide. You are reading history books but you can’t suppose others are doing the same.

I never met a Soviet apparatchik, and overall the Communists did not harm me any way. And it’s sad that you remember of negative aspects but never recall positive ones, such as Soviet internationalism and space programs. And I am sad, that as the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the humankind lost a great deal of the existing positive culture.

And I am sad, that as the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the humankind lost a great deal of the existing positive culture.

Жертва (пост-советского) телевидения…

Lyndon: Please, tell me, not-a-victim-of-television, what do you know of a nuclear rocket engine RD-0410? If it was installed on a real spacecraft, a manned flight to Mars would be a reality NOW. But it became mere history with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So, Not A Victim of Television, do you agree that the loss of RD-0410 as a real existing technology was a tragedy for the Humankind, or not?

Please, answer.

Sorry, I don’t really consider rockets (or pure speculation about what they might or might not have accomplished) to be “culture.” Frankly I’m pretty indifferent about whether we reach Mars or not – there are more important problems to be solved here on Earth.

I understand that “culture” is an elastic term and that some might include in their definition of it things like inter-ethnic friendship (or, to be more accurate, stability on the surface of inter-ethnic relations) and progress in the military-industrial technological realm which were arguably “lost” when the USSR ended.

By the way, “Humankind” did not lose the services of Soviet scientists just because the USSR ended – a lot of them moved to other countries to continue their work, and some of them stayed in Russia to work, in many cases on projects owned or funded by other countries. Since we’re talking about the benefit of “Humankind,” and not about your ridiculous nostalgia for a vision of an imperial past that bears little resemblance to reality, it shouldn’t matter where they worked or who funded them, right?

Regarding the speculation about RD-0410 (of which, I am happy to confess, I was blissfully ignorant until today), I’m fairly sure that if we imagine a scenario where the US space program had been shut down in 1990, if you were to look at NASA’s plans and projected accomplishments from 1985 you would see lots of impressive things projected for the year 2010. In a similar vein, have you ever seen “The Jetsons”?

Oh, and your homophobia is pretty amusing, though if it’s sincere (and you are worried about being propositioned by a gay boss) then I think you have what we Americans call “issues.” That is all.

There is definate relation between promiscuity inspired by the Western mass culture and birthrate. Those nationalities who are least influenced by that (mostly color immigrants in the US or Europe) stay unaffected and continue to propogate, while whites are dying out. Homophilia is just a part of that culture.

Lyndon:

Thank you for the fair answer. I understand you point and I disagree. It’s pretty much clear for me that if I or my country are going to achieve anything within the next 50 years, it’s worthless to discuss that with you. Do not see any sense in a further discussion. Thanks again.

You must be kidding, Yevgeny.

Khabar: I’m having technology background, while you are having a background of human sciences. Sorry, that’s just a wrong site for me. Good luck.

I am a telecom engineer.
There would be much more done for Mars exploration and if the USSR existed. This is not only my opinion.

Khabar:
I’m a student at a phd position in physics. Formally I’m employed as an engineer, but there’s actually very little of real engineering.

Just I’m feeling pretty sure that the purpose of existence of the Humankind is achieving happiness, and this can be best done through the way of technology development. Technology achievements are always good, loss of a technology is a tragedy.

Read a bit of cyber-punk science fiction to disillusion yourself from your erroneous assumptions on progress of Mankind.

Khabar: I read enough of cyberpunk already. But it’s not the problem of technology, but of bad management — something I don’t get

Well, the Buran technology turned out to be useless after all compared to rockets. Americans still waste billions on this junk. Who cares? People will think out something in the future.:)

Khabar: do you believe so? There are physical limitations on chemical rocket engines. Roughly speaking, liquid H2 + O2 has the best specific impulse possible. 400 seconds is the best you can achieve.

Technology of chemical rocket engines has reached its end already in 1960s.

But what else can one speak of?..

“..when I referred to the Soviet Union, I meant the country of 1970s”

Evgeny,

The USSR was in irreversible decline by 1970-s. Starting at 1970, if you wish, there was not a single positive thing being done by the Soviet State, and the whole atmosphere was of waste, shortages and impending doom. The single prevailing cultural trend you so care about, was aping the latest West fashions. Believe me, I lived through it all.

candide: 1960s and 70s were the time to implement market economy, evading dependency of Soviet economy on exported oil. It’s sad that existing chances were wasted.

Candide: As a former Soviet citizen may be you would enjoy this piece of fiction:

http://apervushin.narod.ru/book/Zvezda/zvezda01.htm

Perhaps, if SU had reasonable leadership that time, such scenario could be possible..

Khabar: Actually, NASA has some promising space programs, including creation of a new generation of rocket engines. But it’s unlikely that during the next 100 years there would be another option for Earth surface-Space flight but the use of chemical rocket engines.

Remember, that NASA had the NERVA project, and how did it end. I’m afraid, ecologists wouldn’t allow the use of nuclear engines for a launch from Earth.

I think “Evgeny” (and perhaps “Khabar”) are parodies made up by La Russophobe (or some other Russia-hater) to make Russians look stupidly homophobic and parochial.

That’s right, I don’t share the culture of megapolis and physicists often live in small towns where gays are absent as species. Have you ever been outside of MKAD?

Sorry, if we don’t fit into your Dem-Rep dichotomy.

Actually I had negative experience with gays.

When I graduated from school, I joined a group practicing martial arts. It’s been rumoured that its leader was gay, but I thought it were mere rumours. Soon after I started to practice karatee with that group, I missed a couple of classes and the leader of the group suggested me to practice the part I missed with him at his home.

I was ready to do that, but luckily when I shared my plans with my friends they explained me, a naive boy that time, what was the actual risk of that for me. And so I refused of any further contacts with that group and its leader.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - -

I do not have anything against gays, as long as they don’t have any plans regarding me.

p.s. That happened when I moved from a small town where I studied in a school to a big one to study in an univ.

With respect to the aping of the West in Soviet Union of the 70s and 80s, I wonder whether this strong distate for the West among many of today’s Russians is a reaction to what often was indeed a crass, tacky and laughable aping of the West.

As I wrote before, in my experience Russians are much more brand conscious than Americans: they pay more attention to brand names–whether a particular article of clothing or some gadget is of an “in” or “cool” brand. I’m talking in generalities, of course. There are plenty of Americans who pay attention to such silly things, but I was always struck that, paradoxically, Soviets/Russians were more prone to it. Perhaps some of the Russians who are rightfully disgusted by this mistakenly think that this sort of behavior epitomizes the West or that in the West such behavior is even more pronounced that what they see in, say, Moscow.

Kolya: Read Pelevin to understand the situation with brands. That’s exactly what he depicted in his “Generation P” and “Empire V”.

Nikolai, you are talking about mazhory or (the same) upper middle class (Moscow scale) you meet in the US.

Summing up, Stalin was right in more ways and predictions than one can imagine.

Kolya: I’ve just opened Gorchev’s book, and his “To become mad” (“Сойти с ума”) is exactly what you are asking about.

Indeed, “Весь нынешний мир устроен таким образом, чтобы человек как можно быстрее сошёл с ума.”

Read it here, pages 70-71:

http://www.litru.ru/index.html?book=10405&page=70

Actually, Gorchev is a witful person. E.g., look pages 57-58 at the same resource, about M.S. Gorbachev.