Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

What’s Russia like?

  Tags: Russia
 Language Learning Forum : Cultural Experiences in Foreign Languages (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply
110 messages over 14 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12 ... 13 14 Next >>
Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 7156 days ago
4228 posts - 8259 votes 
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

 
 Message 89 of 110
24 April 2009 at 6:45pm | IP Logged 
paparaciii wrote:
SII wrote:
Yes, I'm talking and I will talk about annexion of Teshin and other crimes committed by Poland (and by other countries, of course). Or you think that when Poland (or any other country except Russia) does such things this is normal (or bad but very little bad), but when Russia acts similarly this is very bad? IMHO, if you condemn Russia for annexion of Baltic countries and demand apologies, you must do this and in relation to Poland for annexion of Teshin in 1938, capturing of West Belarus and West Ukraine after crash of Russian Empire etc, and in relation to other countries which did similar things.
Well, you see, that is completely Czech and Polish business to talk about Teshin in 1938. Russians are not invited to the party.
When I mentioned that Russia annexed half of the Eastern Europe it was because of direct relation to MY country. But Teshin has nothing to do with YOUR country.
And, btw, your logic is as absurd as it can be. The fact that other countries commit crimes doesn't give your country the legitimacy to do the same simply because if we would follow that way of thinking then, if Hitler was still alive, he could say 'F**k off you all! Libya attacked Chad in 1978. So I'm not that bad, everybody likes to fight!'
I've noticed this tendency by Russian politicians to start immediately talking about British/French/Spanish/whatever colonialism when the subject comes to Russia's nasty devilries against its neighboring countries.


I've noticed that this apologist tendency / mindset is maintained also by a lot of Russians who aren't politicians. It must be something in the curriculum (which seems to pass on the Kremlin's world-view to children) that lets these perceptions filter from one generation to the next.

On this particular topic of Europe in the 1930s, what SII seems to miss is the point that two wrongs don't make a right as paparacii points out.

Many people in the West today are ambiguous about British Prime Minister Chamberlain's legacy because of his appeasement of Hitler (not to mention how Germany's invasion of Western Europe brutally exposed Chamberlain's folly and ruined his standing forcing him to resign). On the other hand, I somehow doubt that Russians today look upon Stalin as ambiguously as Westerners do upon Chamberlain. There seems to be the view in Russia and among Russophiles that Russia eventually being on the winning side in WWII and misdeeds by Russia's enemies/rivals automatically absolves it and Stalin of less flattering deeds/policies (e.g. the Gulag, purges, occupation of Eastern Europe, crushing of the Ukrainian peasantry). The Hitler-Stalin deal not only inflicted misery upon Poles, Balts, Estonians and Romanians/Moldovans, but also had economic clauses as well. These clauses led to additional trade pacts which saw the exchange of Russian raw materials for German industrial machinery and military hardware. Thus many of the German tanks that charged into Western Europe and bombers that pounded Britain in 1940 ran on Russian oil. Imports of Russian raw materials combined with the spoils of war helped Germany to get around its inability to capitalize on the USA's "cash-and-carry" policy (which was really meant for Britain and France anyway) and overcome the effects of the Western European blockade in the early part of WWII.

Anyway this is getting off-topic, but I think that this illustrates one noticeable difference between historiography and mindsets in Russia and outside Russia. For all of the time-consuming debate and revisionism that sometimes shocks thinking or historiography in a Western democracy, at the least it shows that alternative voices can build a following or even thrive even if they contradict views of more well-known sources. In Russia it seems that such historiographical debate or reexamination is often stifled and not transmitted in educational circles or classrooms when it contradicts the Kremlin's world-view.
1 person has voted this message useful



QiuJP
Triglot
Senior Member
Singapore
Joined 5855 days ago
428 posts - 597 votes 
Speaks: Mandarin*, EnglishC2, French
Studies: Czech, GermanB1, Russian, Japanese

 
 Message 90 of 110
26 April 2009 at 1:59pm | IP Logged 
leonidus wrote:
QiuJP wrote:
Is it safe for me to go there (alone)


If it's a big city, you should be safe, of course use of common sense when picking people you talk to is required. In smaller towns you may have more interest to you, as people don't see many foreigners there and are naturally curious, which could be dangerous. So if you plan to travel to smaller towns, better have a native to accompany you.


Thanks for the advise here. I will be visiting the cities of Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Golden Ring.The tricky part of my trip is going to Omsk before going to the little town where my relative lives. From what I have known, Omsk has very few foreigners and I certainly will not meet my relative there........
1 person has voted this message useful



Russianbear
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6775 days ago
358 posts - 422 votes 
1 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Ukrainian
Studies: Spanish

 
 Message 91 of 110
30 April 2009 at 2:02am | IP Logged 
Chung wrote:
paparaciii wrote:
SII wrote:
Yes, I'm talking and I will talk about annexion of Teshin and other crimes committed by Poland (and by other countries, of course). Or you think that when Poland (or any other country except Russia) does such things this is normal (or bad but very little bad), but when Russia acts similarly this is very bad? IMHO, if you condemn Russia for annexion of Baltic countries and demand apologies, you must do this and in relation to Poland for annexion of Teshin in 1938, capturing of West Belarus and West Ukraine after crash of Russian Empire etc, and in relation to other countries which did similar things.
Well, you see, that is completely Czech and Polish business to talk about Teshin in 1938. Russians are not invited to the party.
When I mentioned that Russia annexed half of the Eastern Europe it was because of direct relation to MY country. But Teshin has nothing to do with YOUR country.
And, btw, your logic is as absurd as it can be. The fact that other countries commit crimes doesn't give your country the legitimacy to do the same simply because if we would follow that way of thinking then, if Hitler was still alive, he could say 'F**k off you all! Libya attacked Chad in 1978. So I'm not that bad, everybody likes to fight!'
I've noticed this tendency by Russian politicians to start immediately talking about British/French/Spanish/whatever colonialism when the subject comes to Russia's nasty devilries against its neighboring countries.


I've noticed that this apologist tendency / mindset is maintained also by a lot of Russians who aren't politicians. It must be something in the curriculum (which seems to pass on the Kremlin's world-view to children) that lets these perceptions filter from one generation to the next.

On this particular topic of Europe in the 1930s, what SII seems to miss is the point that two wrongs don't make a right as paparacii points out.

Many people in the West today are ambiguous about British Prime Minister Chamberlain's legacy because of his appeasement of Hitler (not to mention how Germany's invasion of Western Europe brutally exposed Chamberlain's folly and ruined his standing forcing him to resign). On the other hand, I somehow doubt that Russians today look upon Stalin as ambiguously as Westerners do upon Chamberlain. There seems to be the view in Russia and among Russophiles that Russia eventually being on the winning side in WWII and misdeeds by Russia's enemies/rivals automatically absolves it and Stalin of less flattering deeds/policies (e.g. the Gulag, purges, occupation of Eastern Europe, crushing of the Ukrainian peasantry). The Hitler-Stalin deal not only inflicted misery upon Poles, Balts, Estonians and Romanians/Moldovans, but also had economic clauses as well. These clauses led to additional trade pacts which saw the exchange of Russian raw materials for German industrial machinery and military hardware. Thus many of the German tanks that charged into Western Europe and bombers that pounded Britain in 1940 ran on Russian oil. Imports of Russian raw materials combined with the spoils of war helped Germany to get around its inability to capitalize on the USA's "cash-and-carry" policy (which was really meant for Britain and France anyway) and overcome the effects of the Western European blockade in the early part of WWII.

Anyway this is getting off-topic, but I think that this illustrates one noticeable difference between historiography and mindsets in Russia and outside Russia. For all of the time-consuming debate and revisionism that sometimes shocks thinking or historiography in a Western democracy, at the least it shows that alternative voices can build a following or even thrive even if they contradict views of more well-known sources. In Russia it seems that such historiographical debate or reexamination is often stifled and not transmitted in educational circles or classrooms when it contradicts the Kremlin's world-view.


This just shows a lack of understanding of Russian realities. There is a huge degree of ambiguity about Stalin's dealings with Hitler in Russia (among other things) - probably much more than there is in the West about West's own dealings with Hitler, which turned Hitler onto the east, which resulted in unparalleled human suffering. Edvard Radzinsky, who has made a career out of denouncing Stalin, and who is known for his rabid delivery, is given regular air time/shows on the most popular national (state-owned) TV channels in Russia. Echo of Moscow, the most influential (And one of the most popular) radio stations in Russia has a weekly show that deals with nothing but Stalin-related issues, with experts whose views on Stalin range from "very negative" to "extremely negative". If you cited some Russians who absolve Stalin of some things as an example of how alternative versions of history were unavailable/close to nonexistant, then you have refuted yourself, because even if they did absolve Stalin of things, their version of history is the *alternative*, NOT the official one. It may be a popular alternative, but then again, isn't a viable alternative to the official view of history exactly what you implied Russia should have and doesn't?

What may appear as attempts to absolve Stalin of certain things is more often than not is merely attempts to put things into historical context. It may look bad when you say USSR struck a deal with Hitler by splitting Poland with him - but when one points out the West has done the same thing earlier when it handed Hitler Czechoslovakia- it puts things into perspective because it shows the reality was more complex than the naive "you dealt with Hitler? Boo!" kind of approach. Moreover, the idealistic approach to morality, which takes things out of context, which is so popular among some in the West doesn't see some things as worthy of moralizing about as others. I have seen only the tiniest number of Americans who were willing to even ponder whether the usage of nuclear weapons on civilians in Hirosima and Nagasaki (or things like carpetbombing of Dresden or other German cities or firebombing of Japanese cities, which killed hundreds of thousands) was a moral thing to do. I don't think Russians are any more stubborn about their history than (just using them an example I know well) Americans are about theirs. In fact, I've spoken with many Americans on some of the darker pages of the American history, and I think there is less ambiguity among Americans about those things, than there is in Russia about some of the things you've cited.

Also, the very way this post is framed shows a lack of cultural sensitivity/understanding. It equates Russia with USSR, for one. But it is not the same thing. That, combined with the fact that Stalin (As well as his KGB chief at wartime) were Georgians, can perhaps explain why Russians may be less inclined to defend Stalin than some may think.

And yes, there is a great deal of pride in Russia (or for that matter, in Ukraine, Belorus, Georgia, and other former Soviet Republics) about the fact that they defeated Hitler, who proved unstoppable in the rest of Europe. I don't see how that pride, combined with an understanding of a rather cynical way foreign policy was conducted at the time(not just by USSR, but by other world powers), proves that Russians are not as exposed to alternate opinions on history as people in some other countries.

Edited by Russianbear on 30 April 2009 at 2:05am
1 person has voted this message useful



Russianbear
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6775 days ago
358 posts - 422 votes 
1 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Ukrainian
Studies: Spanish

 
 Message 92 of 110
30 April 2009 at 2:57am | IP Logged 
paparaciii wrote:
QiuJP wrote:

[QUOTE=SII] Poland didn't apologize too...
for division of Czechoslovakia in october 1938 joint with Hitler (Nazi German got Sudeten, Poland got area of Teshin)...
Hmm... and Russia together with Hitler conquered half of the Eastern Europe. Including my country.
And you are talking about AREA OF TESHIN, lol!


Guess what. You country IS roughly the area of Teshin, when viewed from Russia :) Besides, this just shows double standards. You lol about something that is supposedly as insignificant as Teshin, and yet you get all annoyed when it turns out you yourself may be a Teshin to someone else. Make up your mind about whether it is funny or sad - and stick with it.

Besides, if you can confuse Russia and USSR (as you did in the comment), surely you won't mind if you get mistaken for the Soviet republic of Latvia? :) You think Russia is USSR, maybe Stalin thought Latvia was a soviet republic. Both were honest mistakes, I am sure :)

As for the "together with Hitler" part - I remember hearing about veterans of Hitler's Waffen SS (the organization that is known for its involvement in the Holocoust) being honored with a parade in Latvia as late as this year. With that in mind, I wouldn't use a phrase like "together with Hitler" loosely, especially in a general direction of a country that lost more people than others fighting Hitler.



Edited by Russianbear on 30 April 2009 at 3:07am
1 person has voted this message useful



Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 7156 days ago
4228 posts - 8259 votes 
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

 
 Message 93 of 110
30 April 2009 at 7:50am | IP Logged 
Russianbear, it's not a simple matter of saying that if A does something bad, then B is entitled to do something bad too. Running tit-for-tat that doesn't really do anything but perpetuate the same brand of idiocy in foreign policy or anything in general. In addition, trying to cover things up by saying that the West doesn't understand "Russian realities" sounds as worthwhile as saying that Russia doesn't understand "Western realities" and that it's Russia's tough luck. Why should we analyze relations through the prism or the world-view of a governing elite? I mean can't we agree that defending one side's crimes by deflecting attention to that of others' still doesn't do anything other than to convince the other side that it's OK to commit a similar crime or injustice? I thought that committing a crime or injustice was what everyone was screaming about in the first place.

Actually the Anglo-American bombing campaign (not just the atomic bombs or fire-raids on Dresden and Tokyo) is questioned in the West. Not to mention that President Reagan apologized for the treatment by the US government of Japanese-Americans during WWII and set up reparation payments to surviving internees or their heirs. Do Russians (or their more importantly Russian schoolchildren) get exposure to less glorious aspects/policies of the Russian victors? War is messy, that is true, but does it really hurt in the long-run to discuss or analyze mistakes and policies even when they are politically inconvenient or detract from the shine of the victors? Brushing things off doesn't do anyone any good nor does minimizing mistakes of the "good guys".

Perhaps you haven't had a chance to meet Americans who were a little more aware of history and capable of going beyond the analysis presented in watered-down or politically-correct curriculums of today. I mean in a country of about 300,000,000 people, surely not everyone is on the left side of the bell curve, if you know what I mean.
1 person has voted this message useful



paparaciii
Diglot
Senior Member
Latvia
Joined 6336 days ago
204 posts - 223 votes 
Speaks: Latvian*, Russian
Studies: English

 
 Message 94 of 110
30 April 2009 at 3:49pm | IP Logged 
Russianbear wrote:
I have seen only the tiniest number of Americans who were willing to even ponder whether the usage of nuclear weapons on civilians in Hirosima and Nagasaki (or things like carpetbombing of Dresden or other German cities or firebombing of Japanese cities, which killed hundreds of thousands) was a moral thing to do. I don't think Russians are any more stubborn about their history than (just using them an example I know well) Americans are about theirs. In fact, I've spoken with many Americans on some of the darker pages of the American history, and I think there is less ambiguity among Americans about those things, than there is in Russia about some of the things you've cited.
Thanks for displaying Western mischiefs but you should take into account that Eastern Europe still would be pissed of on Russians even if Americans would've wiped Japan and Germany off the face of the earth. And I think you are aware that there is a certain degree of solidity to this wounded feeling.

Russianbear wrote:
Besides, if you can confuse Russia and USSR (as you did in the comment), surely you won't mind if you get mistaken for the Soviet republic of Latvia? :)
I don't confuse them, it is just that I think it is not fair that one can just change the name of the country and not to care a damn about previous wrongdoings.
Latvia didn't capture Russian lands. Russia did it to us. And who the hell cares what is the official name of the occupant? If I remember correctly Hitler's Germany was called something like "Grossdeutsches Reich" but we couldn't care less. It is just Germany for us.

Russianbear wrote:
As for the "together with Hitler" part - I remember hearing about veterans of Hitler's Waffen SS (the organization that is known for its involvement in the Holocoust) being honored with a parade in Latvia as late as this year. With that in mind, I wouldn't use a phrase like "together with Hitler" loosely, especially in a general direction of a country that lost more people than others fighting Hitler.
He he, "Latvians are glorifying fascism" card played again. :)) Yes, many Latvians were drafted in German army(as well as in red army) but they have nothing to do with holocoust, they were fighting against soviets at the frontline. In fact, the same guys were appointed to guard the prison where nazi war criminals were held after the war. We don't honour them because they were in German army, we honour them because of their courage and horrors of war that they've been through. Unfortunately most of Russians think that only one army's soldiers have to be commemorated.
Besides that, much more Russians were fighting on German side than Latvians did. So better fold this card, it's worthless.

Edited by paparaciii on 30 April 2009 at 3:56pm
1 person has voted this message useful



Russianbear
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6775 days ago
358 posts - 422 votes 
1 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Ukrainian
Studies: Spanish

 
 Message 95 of 110
30 April 2009 at 4:38pm | IP Logged 
Chung wrote:
Russianbear, it's not a simple matter of saying that if A does something bad, then B is entitled to do something bad too. Running tit-for-tat that doesn't really do anything but perpetuate the same brand of idiocy in foreign policy or anything in general. In addition, trying to cover things up by saying that the West doesn't understand "Russian realities" sounds as worthwhile as saying that Russia doesn't understand "Western realities" and that it's Russia's tough luck. Why should we analyze relations through the prism or the world-view of a governing elite? I mean can't we agree that defending one side's crimes by deflecting attention to that of others' still doesn't do anything other than to convince the other side that it's OK to commit a similar crime or injustice? I thought that committing a crime or injustice was what everyone was screaming about in the first place.

I don't think anyone is saying two wrongs make a right. *I* am certainly not saying that. If I say anything at all - it is that it is questionable whether labels of "right" or "wrong" can be applied to things that are taken out of their historical context. Using the words like "crime" or "injustice" when talking about certain geopolitical decisions can get tricky - as it often implies there is some sort of standard of morality that is independent of the historical context. I am not convinced of the usefulness of this sort of value judgements.
Quote:


Actually the Anglo-American bombing campaign (not just the atomic bombs or fire-raids on Dresden and Tokyo) is questioned in the West. Not to mention that President Reagan apologized for the treatment by the US government of Japanese-Americans during WWII and set up reparation payments to surviving internees or their heirs. Do Russians (or their more importantly Russian schoolchildren) get exposure to less glorious aspects/policies of the Russian victors? War is messy, that is true, but does it really hurt in the long-run to discuss or analyze mistakes and policies even when they are politically inconvenient or detract from the shine of the victors? Brushing things off doesn't do anyone any good nor does minimizing mistakes of the "good guys".

It sounded like you were quite sure that Russians or Russian schoolchildren don't get the same kind of exposure to the alternative interpretations of Russian history. You sound less sure now. I stand by what I wrote earlier - that I think Russians get at least as much, perhaps even more exposure to alternative views of their history than Americans get of their history.
Quote:


Perhaps you haven't had a chance to meet Americans who were a little more aware of history and capable of going beyond the analysis presented in watered-down or politically-correct curriculums of today. I mean in a country of about 300,000,000 people, surely not everyone is on the left side of the bell curve, if you know what I mean.


Oh, I don't mean to say that absolutely NO Americans ever question the things I mentioned. But you can do an experiment yourself: just question the moral justification behind the usage of nukes on civilians at the end of WWII, and see how Americans will react. More often than not (especially if you don't talk to leftist folks of the Ward Churchill ilk, but people who are anywhere near the American mainstream) you will hear something that would repeat the official view of the event - to the point where it is scary how different people can come up with the same kind of a rationalization for nuking civilians - sometimes in the exact same words.
1 person has voted this message useful



Russianbear
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6775 days ago
358 posts - 422 votes 
1 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Ukrainian
Studies: Spanish

 
 Message 96 of 110
30 April 2009 at 5:30pm | IP Logged 
paparaciii wrote:
Russianbear wrote:
I have seen only the tiniest number of Americans who were willing to even ponder whether the usage of nuclear weapons on civilians in Hirosima and Nagasaki (or things like carpetbombing of Dresden or other German cities or firebombing of Japanese cities, which killed hundreds of thousands) was a moral thing to do. I don't think Russians are any more stubborn about their history than (just using them an example I know well) Americans are about theirs. In fact, I've spoken with many Americans on some of the darker pages of the American history, and I think there is less ambiguity among Americans about those things, than there is in Russia about some of the things you've cited.
Thanks for displaying Western mischiefs but you should take into account that Eastern Europe still would be pissed of on Russians even if Americans would've wiped Japan and Germany off the face of the earth. And I think you are aware that there is a certain degree of solidity to this wounded feeling.

I wouldn't speak for the whole Eastern Europe if I were you. And as for the Latvians' feelings - I think the situation is more complex, and a lot of the ill will that is generated towards the Russians is not rational, but politically charged.
Quote:

Russianbear wrote:
Besides, if you can confuse Russia and USSR (as you did in the comment), surely you won't mind if you get mistaken for the Soviet republic of Latvia? :)
I don't confuse them, it is just that I think it is not fair that one can just change the name of the country and not to care a damn about previous wrongdoings.
Latvia didn't capture Russian lands. Russia did it to us. And who the hell cares what is the official name of the occupant? If I remember correctly Hitler's Germany was called something like "Grossdeutsches Reich" but we couldn't care less. It is just Germany for us.

This is very simplistic. If it is ok for you to pretend Russia is the same thing as USSR, why would it be wrong to say, Latvia is basically a Soviet Republic of Latvia, with a mere name change? And if it is, then its entrance into the USSR cannot be classified as occupation. If you don't even bother to figure out who was it that was "occupying" you, you are probably not as pissed about the occupation as you may want others to believe.

Besides, who occupied whom is a big question. Latvians had played a huge role in the creation of USSR, a role so large that perhaps USSR wouldn't not have happened, had it not been for the Latvians. The Latvian Riflemen were the most badass fighting force in the whole of the Russian Civil War and they turned the tide on many a front. They were so efficient that their commander, Jukums Vācietis, was appointed the first commander-in-chief of the Red Army. Yakov Peters, also a Latvian, was (along with Feliks Dzerzhinsky) one of the cofounders and chiefs of the Soviet secret police. Martin Latsis, another Latvian, was the Chairman of the secret police in Ukraine. Even the body guards of the top Soviet leaders at the time were Latvians. The famous Trotsky's armored train was manned by Latvians (to a large degree). So, before "Russia" could sovietize Latvia, Latvia had to sovietize Russia first.
Quote:

He he, "Latvians are glorifying fascism" card played again. :)) Yes, many Latvians were drafted in German army(as well as in red army) but they have nothing to do with holocoust, they were fighting against soviets at the frontline. In fact, the same guys were appointed to guard the prison where nazi war criminals were held after the war. We don't honour them because they were in German army, we honour them because of their courage and horrors of war that they've been through. Unfortunately most of Russians think that only one army's soldiers have to be commemorated.
Besides that, much more Russians were fighting on German side than Latvians did. So better fold this card, it's worthless.
Well, that just shows the relative size of Russia more than anything else. They don't quite stoop to holding Waffen SS parades, or set aside a day on the calendar for a "Legion (of the SS) Day" in Russia, though. The degree of the Latvian Waffen SS' involvement in the Holocoust and other war crimes is subject to debate - even inside Latvia, so I won't go there. Like I wrote, the Waffen SS are notorious for their role in the holocoust, and talk of honoring them for "their courage and horrors of war that they've been through", is a little out there, given that when one thinks of the horros of that war, what comes to minds of many is exactly the kind of thing the Waffen SS was notorious for.

Edited by Russianbear on 30 April 2009 at 5:42pm


1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 110 messages over 14 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 3.0469 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.