|
 |
What’s Russia like? | ||
Tags: Russia | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Cultural Experiences in Foreign Languages | ( Topic Closed) |  |
| 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 105 of 110 02 May 2009 at 1:33am | IP Logged | |||||
Just to reassure you that I'm not as biased as you think I am, I could reel off some other questionable deeds made by the US or other Western Allies in the 20th century, in addition to some Russian ones. I didn't wanted to become tiresome, but I did mention the internment/forced resettlement of Japanese-Americans, the "selling out" of Czechoslovakia by Chamberlain, the questioning of the intensity of the aerial bombing campaigns on Germany and Japan. To those I can add the irrationality surrounding Versailles and the associated treaties (e.g. extremely punitive reparations on Imperial Germany which were exploited by Hitler for political advantage), the dubiousness of supporting Chiang Kai-Shek over Mao Tse-Tung (I find it funny that the Western Allies would not support Mao Tse-Tung, but would support Josip Tito). "Realpolitik" is one thing, but... When it comes to talking about less glorious moments in Russian history, I have often found that the discussion turns into one where each side trades insults and tries to equate his/her own side's mistakes or failures with those of the other. There's an attitude that somehow Russia does less wrong than the rest of the world (a mirror image of the arrogance of some Americans who believe that America does less wrong than the rest of the world). Just because one side does it doesn't mean that the other side has free rein to do the same subsequently. There comes a time when people simply have to take responsibility and stop being dishonest with themselves, no matter how hypocritical or insincere the critics are. For example, it would be a nice change for me to have a discussion with a Russian who questions the partition of Poland in 1939 rather to get defensive about it the moment it comes up in a discussion or say that "it was good for us in Russia" (I have indeed heard this as an excuse) and too bad for those innocent people caught in the middle. It reminds me of someone justifying American meddling in some country's affair and then exchange the word "Russia" with "America" in that excuse. This is what I mean by doing more. Instead of trying to deflect criticism of past misdeeds committed in the name of Russia by pointing out Western stupidity or calling Westerners hypocrites, rise above the fray and actually consider the criticism or adopt a less defensive approach. I'm surprised that you've overlooked my discussion about the mistakes or stains on the Western side. I haven't exactly silent about it. I also haven't seen the point either of trying to brush off criticism of Western policy as indicative of others' ignorance of "Western realities". I could easily do so, but that would give me the ability to gloss over things which I don't believe is right. Among the former Western Allies, there is a certain amount of guilt (outside the attitudes from uneducated or simply bigoted people which we already know about) for past historical events even when they were on the "winning side". For example, the American government felt guilt and took on responsibility for the internment of Japanese-Americans (even though Roosevelt was long dead by then). I'm also sure that the lobbying by Japanese-American survivors also kept things in motion. How do Russians or the Russian government feel about the forced resettlement/eviction of non-Russians in World War II to the wastelands of Kazakhstan or Siberia? (BTW don't tell me that all of them were collaborators with the Germans - some were because of long-standing bad blood between them and Russians). As part of a course at university I once read Russian sources which glossed over it labelling all such people (even their children) as Nazi collaborators. I found that simplistic and it left me with the impression that a lot of innocent Soviet citizens were maltreated by the government in a way that had no benefit even for military strategy. By the way, I don't really see the point of indicating Stalin's Georgian ancestry as a factor in his chequered legacy. Does it gives Russians more of an excuse to question that legacy? Is the insinuation that his not being born and bred as a Russian somehow made him more ruthless or totalitarian than otherwise? What if an equally autocratic leader had led the USSR between the 1920s and 1953 but had been Russian? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| jbbar Senior Member Belgium Joined 5800 days ago 192 posts - 210 votes Speaks: English | Message 106 of 110 02 May 2009 at 3:43am | IP Logged | |||||
Was that not the case? It's not like the ones who executed Stalin's orders were all Georgians and his admirers today are all non-ethnic Russians? Millions of native Russians were butchered by the communists, period. Stalin wasn't the one to start it, but he sure outdid his predecessors who also suffered from delusions of grandeur and lack of morality. Having said that, I can understand why the Russians would celebrate the victory of the Red Army over the German troops, as they managed to keep the invading forces out of Russia like the Russians had to do earlier when Napoleon tried to conquer their homeland. However, I fully understand the controversy in view of the fact that the Red Army itself became an occupying and invading force which lead to decades of tyranny in Eastern Europe. Am I saying all the Soviet soldiers were monsters and they are to blame for this? Not at all. The Soviet ideology and its propaganda brainwashing machine are to blame for it. I think that both sides could use some lessons in history and empathy, to say the least. Good night, jbbar Edited by jbbar on 02 May 2009 at 4:47am 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 107 of 110 02 May 2009 at 5:10am | IP Logged | |||||
Chung
I think, it is need to consider some questions. 1) Is it acceptable to resettle some group of citizens in time of war? 2) Had Soviet government the forcible arguments for the forced resettlement some nations in World War II? 3) Does the resettlement carried out with maintenance the most possible comfort for the migrants in this situation? 4) Had Soviet government the forcible arguments for compulsion the migrants to live in areas where they were resettled after World War II ended? On question 1 I answer “yes”. War is the special time, and war laws are special too. On question 2 I answer “yes” too. For example, at time of World War II all the oil in USSR produced only on Caucasus (in Chechnya and Azerbaijan). The loss of these oilfields may brought to catastrophic consequences in the war. In this situation the rights of any separate people or nations must force out before public interest. On question 3 I answer neither “yes” nor “no”. I sure that in many cases the migrants were subjected oppression without necessity, but the guilt in such cases be borne by the specific persons, not by all the Soviet Army, Russians etc. On question 4 I answer “no”. After the war was ended it is need to resettle the migrants to their homeland. But, as in the previous question, the guilt be borne by the specific persons. In addition about need to resettle some nations. German field marshal Erich von Manstein in his book “Verlorene Siege” wrote (I have only Russian translation, “Утерянные победы”, so I translate to English from Russian): “[Crimean] Tatars at once take our (German) side. They see us as theirs liberators…” (Chapter “The Crimea's Campaign”, subchapter “The Pursuit”). You can see that Crimean Tatars supported Germans. Similar situation was on Caucasus. Of course, not all of Tatars, Chechens etc gave support to German, but in war area it is impossible to carefully examine who is German's accomplice and who isn't. And it is inadmissible that after the war all the resettled nations don't resettle again to its homeland: in peace time it is possible to do the careful investigation. 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 108 of 110 02 May 2009 at 5:25am | IP Logged | |||||
jbbar
You are absolutely right. But many others don't understand (or don't want to understand) that when they say something like "Russians occupied", they condemn not Russian/Soviet leaders but Russian nation, and not only in past but in now too. Of course, we interpret these things as outrage. In addition, it is not infrequently that they use the dual standards or refer to some events without the historical context. 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 109 of 110 02 May 2009 at 11:17am | IP Logged | |||||
What would be your attitude towards Germany and Germans if they didn't repent at all and would say that 'well, yes we killed many Slavs and Jews, but you know, war is the special time, and war laws are special too'? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| patuco Diglot Moderator Gibraltar Joined 7015 days ago 3795 posts - 4268 votes Speaks: Spanish, English* Personal Language Map | Message 110 of 110 02 May 2009 at 11:57am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Please remember that this is not the place to discuss politics. This thread is closed.
1 person has voted this message useful |
Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
