110 messages over 14 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 14 Next >>
Russianbear Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 6775 days ago 358 posts - 422 votes 1 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, Ukrainian Studies: Spanish
| Message 97 of 110 30 April 2009 at 5:31pm | IP Logged |
Oops, I double posted.
Edited by Russianbear on 30 April 2009 at 5:54pm
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 98 of 110 30 April 2009 at 5:37pm | IP Logged |
It's not so much that I'm less sure about the history curriculum of Russian children. I asked whether Russian pedagogy indeed goes into a more balanced or nuanced analysis of Russian history. It's a bit rhetorical for me since my experience with Russians so far in these kinds of discussions leads me to think that the teaching is rather one-sided, but seeing that I was not educated in Russia I arrive at my conclusion by considering what I've heard from Russians (hence things that I have to take as being the result of they have been taught). I asked the question to let you have your say about the state of history or historiography in Russian circles (not just about Stalin) It could be that I've had bad luck by consistently running into Russians who are the results of apologist-based historiography and that I've somehow never run across Russians who do more than justify past conduct by pointing out others' dirty laundry.
When we studied history, I had several teachers who would be denounced as "unpatriotic" or "revisionist" because of their criticism of the decisions to drop the atomic bombs or the imperialism inherent in the Monroe Doctrine and American foreign policy in South America. Perhaps I just kept getting teachers/professors who eschewed simplistic black-and-white thinking about history. Perhaps I just got a bunch of leftist types who avidly subscribe to views akin to those of Ward Churchill et al.
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 99 of 110 30 April 2009 at 6:29pm | IP Logged |
Perhaps you did. Perhaps you were lucky. My own experience leads me to believe that the sad picture described in "Lies My Teacher Told Me" is quite accurate for most American textbooks/classrooms, even if wasn't the case for you.
Chung wrote:
It could be that I've had bad luck by consistently running into Russians who are the results of apologist-based historiography and that I've somehow never run across Russians who do more than justify past conduct by pointing out others' dirty laundry.
|
|
|
It could be. But could it be that the Russians you've encountered do not share the view that there needs to be a judgement of "good" or "evil" attached to every single historical fact, and their pointing to others' "dirty laundry" is really just an attempt to point out the historical context?
And what do you mean, by "doing more"? Besides, pointing out others dirty laundry - isn't it exactly the thing you yourself are doing in this very thread? Somehow, if we took the body of your posts, I think we'd find quite a bit of references to Russian history, and very few references to the history of the US. Are you sure you are not guilty of the very thing you think the Russians you have encountered had done? :)
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 100 of 110 01 May 2009 at 2:21pm | IP Logged |
Russianbear wrote:
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? |
|
|
Efforts of claiming all the time that Russia isn't USSR basically are an attempt to manifest that Russia isn't responsible for its crimes in Soviet times. No one is confusing Russia with USSR. It's just that it is not important subject. Moscow is responsible for its internal and foreign policies during Soviet times, not Riga.
Russianbear wrote:
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. |
|
|
No, Lenin sovietized Russia, not Latvia. He got luck of getting some great doers that happened to be Latvians. The government and state of Latvia didn't play any role in Russian civil war, except the happenings that went on in Latvia(obtaining freedom). Latvia didn't conquer not a single square centimeter of Russian soil although it definitely had the chance to do it. On the contrary 20 yers later USSR occupied entire Latvian country and sent our people to Siberia. And you even seem to be puzzled why so many Latvians chose to fight on German side during WW2!
Russianbear wrote:
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. |
|
|
And red army was notorious of its brutality and crimes against civil population, actually so notorious that millions of people were stampeding when soviets started to "liberate" Eastern Europe. However we don't wail every time you are celebrating on the 9th of may.
Edited by paparaciii on 01 May 2009 at 2:26pm
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 101 of 110 01 May 2009 at 7:20pm | IP Logged |
Now, who is pointing at others dirty laundry - just so they can get their Waffen SS parade? Alright, you have your parade - it is none of my business. But then again, equating Waffen SS with the Red Army is a curious way of justifying an SS parade in your country. I don't remember the Red Army ever having orders to wipe out entire races of people or being an organization that had gone quite far in fulfilling such orders, I remember the Red Army stopping the people who were doing it - so the obviously strained analogy only goes so far.
"The government and state of Latvia didn't play any role in Russian civil war" rhetoric doesn't mean much - the same kind of argument can be made about Russian government's (As opposed to the Soviet government) lack of connection with whatever USSR was doing. Latvia was a constituent part of many states, including, Imperial Russia, USSR, Nazi Germany, perhaps even Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. One can certainly dislike some of the things those states had done, so one way or another Latvia will get its share of the blame. Latvia can blamed for the the Holocaust, you know. It definitely played a big part - and its recent actions show it doesn't feel particularly quilty about it, too. With all the thing USSR may have done to Latvia, Latvia has not exactly been in a hurry to break the connection with the Nazi past, as the Waffen SS parades, as well as the Legion (of the SS) Day would indicate. Given the suffering the Nazis inflicted on Europe, case can be made that Latvia - a hotbed of Nazi activity as it was at the time; traces of that can be seen even now - got off easy and the preventive liberation of it under the Germany-USSR pact was justified. Who knows how many Jews and Slavs were saved by the fact Latvia's Waffen SS didn't get formed earlier?
The thing is: when you say things like "my country shouldn't have been occupied", it sounds that much weaker after you've just mentioned you wanted to honor the Waffen SS for their "courage and horrors of war that they've been through". I don't happen to have a Russian citizenship, or have a particularly strong affection for Russia to start with, but if Russia ever stoops to holding SS parades or sets an official SS Day, I'd be the first one to invite occupation :)
Edited by Russianbear on 01 May 2009 at 11:48pm
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 102 of 110 01 May 2009 at 9:07pm | IP Logged |
We don't have SS parades in our country(in contradistinction to Russia were Russian nazis carry out their pageants) and we don't have an official SS Day neither. We commemorate our brave soldiers who were fighting against soviet pigs at the battlefront.
Latvian legion was founded more than a year after Latvian Jews were executed or sent to concentration camps.
And Latvia can't be blamed for the Holocoust more than any other country that was occupied by Germany, including Russia.
Btw, Russianbear, I believe you're a smart man, so there is no need to become ridiculous just to justify your fatherland. Your story about dreadful Latvia and generous Russia that saved Europe may be appealing to you but it is simply nonsense. There were two aggresors(USSR and Germany) at the time with horrifying and bloody regimes and tiny Latvia that was between them. And the reason why many Latvians chose to fight on German side was very simple - Soviet Union had killed more people than Germany and its crimes were more visible.
1 person has voted this message useful
| SII Senior Member Russian FederationRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5792 days ago 184 posts - 194 votes Speaks: Russian* Studies: English
| Message 103 of 110 01 May 2009 at 11:17pm | IP Logged |
Russianbear
IMHO, there is no sense to discuss with man who call "pigs" the soldiers fighting against Hitler. He outraged not Stalin, he outraged millions Russians, Ukranians, Byelorussians and others.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Juan M. Senior Member Colombia Joined 5899 days ago 460 posts - 597 votes
| Message 104 of 110 02 May 2009 at 1:10am | IP Logged |
When you have two brutal genocidal despots fighting against each other, it's hard to feel sympathy towards either. If I remember correctly it was Truman who years earlier opined that if hypothetically Hitler and Stalin should go to war with each other, America should simply aid the one losing at any particular moment.
And for all the oppression that Russia's tyrants brought to her neighbors in the past century, the bulk of their victims were its own people. Russians should be as proud of Stalin as Spaniards of the Holy Inquisition.
Edited by JuanM on 02 May 2009 at 1:13am
1 person has voted this message useful
|
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 0.3438 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|