Thread: Is Belarus next??

2. He turned Russia from nothing into industrial giant in less than 10 years. If he hadn't done that, we would have ceased to exist as nation.

Alone? On his own? Was he God? Or he had the magic wand?

If he hadn't done that,... it'd have been done by someone else!

Originally Posted by mishau_

If he hadn't done that,... it'd have been done by someone else!

It's not about him personally, I don't practice cult of any personality. It's more about methods and policy. It's clear to me, that more liberal policy, more evolutional rather than revolutional development couldn't bring the same result. And there wasn't time for slow way like NEP - too many foreign threats were around.

After Hitler took power in 1933 it was clear to many people, that there will be big war in Europe. Almost undevelopped and ruined USSR wasn't in shape to counter this threat, and clock was ticking.

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

Good. The world would've been a lot better off if the Soviet Union hadn't existed.

I do not care about states, I care about nation. USSR was necessary for our nation to survive in certain circumstances, and we did survive, whether you like it or not, and regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise.

It was the Soviets who invaded Finland in 1939 and took away half their land

A half?

and planted nuclear missiles 90 miles off the coast of Florida and scared the cr@p outta the Americans by threatening to turn the Cold War nuclear.

So? US nukes were in Turkey, very close to our borders as well. Let me remind you USSR wasn't who invented nuke and planned massive A-bombing of the opponent. It was US. Soviet nuke created later in fact saved the world from hundreds of new Hiroshimas, disrupting those plans.

And education in the Soviet Union was not really "good". The schools taught students only what the government wanted them to know, that is, how great communism was.

Talking about Soviet education, please, don't show how bad is your own.

And just because you don't remember standing in bread lines doesn't mean other people don't.

I remember standing in lines, but not for bread - that was my point.

You're Russian, I'm sure you know of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn--read The Gulag Archipelago and perhaps you'll have different opinions about the USSR.

I read it. Nevertheless, my opinion stays, because it's based on something more than one book of Solzhenitsyn.

So? US nukes were in Turkey, very close to our borders as well. Let me remind you USSR wasn't who invented nuke and planned massive A-bombing of the opponent. It was US. Soviet nuke created later in fact saved the world from hundreds of new Hiroshimas, disrupting those plans

US nukes were in Turkey to counter the Soviets in Cuba, in case they were fired. They didn't just put them there unprovoked. The US A-bombing of Japan has nothing to do with the Soviet Union, and Soviet weapons didn't prevent more bombings, they only increased the chances of nuclear war, hence the Cuban Missile Crisis. The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the greater the chance of a nuclear war.

And if Soviet education was so good, how come it was the Americans who beat you guys in just about everything except Sputnik and hockey? They developed the A-bomb and H-bomb first, they made it to the moon first, and they had the greater economy.

And Solzhenitsyn knows what he's talking about--he spent 11 years in a gulag. Have you read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? How about We Never Make Mistakes?

And if half of Finland doesn't seem so bad to you, how about robbing 14 other countries of their independence and making them part of a nation that practices mass murder?

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

The US A-bombing of Japan has nothing to do with the Soviet Union

In fact it had. This was demonstrtion of force, without any real military need, becasue Japan was almost defeated by that time and after USSR promised to the Allies to attack it 3 month after Germany's defeat, Japan was doomed. There wasn't any need in A-bombing.

Soviet weapons didn't prevent more bombings, they only increased the chances of nuclear war

In case you don't know, there were U.S. plans to finish USSR, heavily damaged by WW2 with A-bombs, US was producing A-bombs in large numbers and planes were ready. USSR broke American monopoly on Nuclear weapons and guaranteed mutual destruction was the thing that prevented transformation of Cold War in 'Hot' one, and plans were forgotten.

Realise one simple thing, initially USSR was defending side. Cuba was needed to cool American hot heads forever, because technology of those days wasn't very advanced and there was necessity to keep nukes as close to possible targets as possible. And US' satellites were in general closer to USSR, than Soviet satellite countries to US. Except Cuba.

The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the greater the chance of a nuclear war.

I mostly agree, but with small correction. The more one country has advantage over others in nukes, the greater the chance of a nuclear war. If possible enemies are equal in nuclear strength, nuclear war will never begin. And the question remains, who started it all?

And if Soviet education was so good, how come it was the Americans who beat you guys in just about everything except Sputnik and hockey? They developed the A-bomb and H-bomb first, they made it to the moon first, and they had the greater economy.

And if your education is so better than mine, why don't you know that hydrogen bomb (I mean not huge ones for testings, but small and deadly one plane can carry) was created in USSR, as well as peaceful nuclear power station?Soviets were better in space stations, automatic inter-planet probes, were first in video-recording and bunch of other things.

And Solzhenitsyn knows what he's talking about--he spent 11 years in a gulag.

I don't say that he described gulag from inside correctly in general, but sitting there he couldn't see it from outside, could he?

And if half of Finland doesn't seem so bad to you, how about robbing 14 other countries of their independence and making them part of a nation that practices mass murder?

I thought I just misunderstood you. No, you said "half of Finland" again. Well, I simply don't know what to answer, especially if you're better educated. Anyway, I suspect your knowlege has some empty spaces.

In case you don't know, there were U.S. plans to finish USSR, heavily damaged by WW2 with A-bombs, US was producing A-bombs in large numbers and planes were ready. USSR broke American monopoly on Nuclear weapons and guaranteed mutual destruction was the thing that prevented transformation of Cold War in 'Hot' one, and plans were forgotten.

And where did you get THIS information? From the records of the USSR again? You know, all I have is your word that stuff came from Soviet records. You could be making that up for all I know. And the USSR couldn't have been "damaged by A-bombs" because they weren't used until Hiroshima. The Manhattan Project was in process solely for the purpose of Japan, not to nuke the Soviet Union.

I don't say that he described gulag from inside correctly in general, but sitting there he couldn't see it from outside, could he?

And you couldn't see it from the inside, could you?

And about education: I never said I was better educated than you. But listen to this: Education used to be good here (like in the days of the Cold War), but today is a different story. My math and science education is very good, but when it comes to subjects like English and history, I have to agree with you: it's terrible. I learned most things in those fields outside of the classroom. In history, for example, the cirriculum is pre-designed by the state to include only what they want us to know, and what they want us to know is their own opinion, and it is very left-leaning, as is communism. Education in that field in a way resembles that of...THE SOVIET UNION.

And yes, the Soviets really did take half of Finland. You didn't misunderstand me.

So...you and me, an American and a Russian, arguing over whether the Soviet Union was good or bad...looks like the Cold War isn't really over then, is it?

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

And yes, the Soviets really did take half of Finland. You didn't misunderstand me.

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

And where did you get THIS information?

Some fragments of the info can be found even in wikipedia you read. Here's only one planned operation for example, there were many

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot

Operation Dropshot was the United States Military code-name for a proposed nuclear war with the USSR in the post-WWII period more commonly known as The Cold War. Whilst details of the plan differ between sources, the operation is rumoured to have had the potential to wipe out up to 80% of the Soviet Union's industrial power in one attack, which would involve up to 300 nuclear missiles .

According to UK Parliament Records, there was never any "Soviet plan to attack America or western Europe."


"Dropshot" is about nukes. Let me remind cancelled Operation "Unthinkable" also. http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

Now answer me, who planned agression and who was defending side. And what USSR's records have to do with all this stuff, if that isn't our plans, we've never planned anything like that, even during Cuban crisis, search all Soviet archives up to the last piece of paper, you'll find nothing about striking first.

And the USSR couldn't have been "damaged by A-bombs" because they weren't used until Hiroshima. The Manhattan Project was in process solely for the purpose of Japan, not to nuke the Soviet Union.

Due to my poor English, you misunderstood me. I meant:
USSR was damaged by war in 1941-1945. We lost many people and our economy suffered a lot. But somebody wanted to bring us some more suffering, with A-bombs, that were successfully used against Japan and planned to be used against USSR.

And you couldn't see it from the inside, could you?

Only through Solzhenitsyn's eyes. But it is irrelevant how it looks from inside, if we speak about it's place in USSR history.

And about education: I never said I was better educated than you. But listen to this: Education used to be good here (like in the days of the Cold War), but today is a different story. My math and science education is very good, but when it comes to subjects like English and history, I have to agree with you: it's terrible. I learned most things in those fields outside of the classroom. In history, for example, the cirriculum is pre-designed by the state to include only what they want us to know, and what they want us to know is their own opinion, and it is very left-leaning, as is communism. Education in that field in a way resembles that of...THE SOVIET UNION.

I do not pretend to be better educated and smarter than you either. It was just my reaction to your words that Soviet education was bad compared to western. I finished my education in post-soviet Russia, but the system itself remained Soviet from the top to bottom. So I'm not ashamed to state that I'm Soviet-educated. Soviet education was/is incredibly good in natural scienses, like mathimatics, physics, and such. Considering your last words, I'm think that now we just swithed gates on the same field. To be honest, the U.S. reminds me USSR in general. Once I said that to defeat monster one should become more terrible one. I'm afraid that's what happened to U.S. It seems that all we left in the past is reborn on the other side of the ocean. I'm even more afraid that U.S. still consider themselves flagman of the free world, though lost that flag somewhere in the way. United States - Soviet Union. US - SU. A mirror. What a bitter irony!

And yes, the Soviets really did take half of Finland. You didn't misunderstand me.

I can laugh like Alware do, but I wouldn't. I just recommed you to find some additional info about that war. It started because of small portion of land close to Leningrad. Stalin offered Finns to exchange that land for bigger land in Karelia, but they refused and War began. Soviets finally got what they wanted, but that never was anything like "half of Finland". And when Finland was defeated in 1944 again, no Finnish land was annexed.

So...you and me, an American and a Russian, arguing over whether the Soviet Union was good or bad...looks like the Cold War isn't really over then, is it?

Maybe it's not over, but I think it's not our failure mainly... As for SU, let's say it wasn't absolutely good, nor absolutely bad. And remember, it's not just abstract thing somewhere. It was a country we was born and lived in. We don't like when someone tries to paint it in all-black, because it wasn't all-black, though we don't like everything from that time either.

Some fragments of the info can be found even in wikipedia

I thought you said wikipedia wasn't the most reliable source. But what really tells me this isn't necessarily true is the code name "Dropshot". In the WW2 era, US military code names were generally not related to the operation in any way, like "Overlord" was D-Day, and "Pegasus Bridge" was some air-raid that I've forgotten. "Dropshot" sounds way too obvious for an operation that involves dropping bombs.

we've never planned anything like that, even during Cuban crisis.

If you never planned on striking with missiles, what were they doing off the coast of Florida?

search all Soviet archives up to the last piece of paper, you'll find nothing about striking first.

But did you actually look through every last peice of paper in the Soviet archives?

Stalin offered Finns to exchange that land for bigger land in Karelia, but they refused and War began

And who's fault is that? The Finns' or the Soviets'? If the Finns didn't want to exchange land, the Soviets should have just let it be. Instead they invaded the country, and war began.

hydrogen bomb (I mean not huge ones for testings, but small and deadly one plane can carry) was created in USSR

I was talking about the huge kind. The US invented it first.

I do not pretend to be better educated and smarter than you either. It was just my reaction to your words that Soviet education was bad compared to western. I finished my education in post-soviet Russia, but the system itself remained Soviet from the top to bottom. So I'm not ashamed to state that I'm Soviet-educated. Soviet education was/is incredibly good in natural scienses, like mathimatics, physics, and such. Considering your last words, I'm think that now we just swithed gates on the same field. To be honest, the U.S. reminds me USSR in general.

Yes, the US, in a way, is resembling the USSR more and more. My example of our education system is just one example. Solzhenitsyn wrote another book called Warning to the West, in which he told them to shape up or they would become like their Cold War enemy. As you later say, US-SU is a like a mirror image. I'm afraid you are right.

And I only meant Soviet education was "bad" in the sense that the schools only told the kids that communism was flawless and didn't want them to know otherwise. When it comes to math and science, you're right--their education there was very good. Russians have always been very good at math and science.

Once I said that to defeat monster one should become more terrible one. It seems that all we left in the past is reborn on the other side of the ocean. I'm even more afraid that U.S. still consider themselves flagman of the free world, though lost that flag somewhere in the way. United States - Soviet Union. US - SU. A mirror. What a bitter irony!

"To defeat the monster, become a more terrible one". President Reagan thought along those lines. He ran a campaign commercial, saying something like "There's a bear [the USSR] in the woods. Some say the bear is tame. But isn't it good to be stronger than the bear, just in case?"

Say, I thought this thread was about Belarus anyway?

Originally Posted by RusskiSlav

If you never planned on striking with missiles, what were they doing off the coast of Florida?

To ensure that if we're attacked, our back strike won't miss. You know, rockets at that time weren't accurate enough on long distances.

But did you actually look through every last peice of papaer in the Soviet archives?

One is innocent until proven guilty. So if you want to prove we're guilty in preparing nuclear war, I'd leave that enormous work to you.

If the Finns didn't want to exchange land, the Soviets should have just let it be. Instead they invaded the country, and war began.

It's fault of all sides - Soviets, because they invaded, Finland, because it didn't keep distance from Hitler's Germany, so Soviets worried about possible nazi satellite a few kilometers away of second Russian town, and wanted to move border farther from it, and Hitler's Germany, because it prepared huge war, so everybody had to worry about his safety.

Say, I thought this thread was about Belarus anyway?

Forget it!

But did you actually look through every last peice of papaer in the Soviet archives?

One is innocent until proven guilty. So if you want to prove we're guilty in preparing nuclear war, I'd leave that enormous work to you.

Well, the Cuban missile crisis was in 1962. Operations "Dropshot" and "Unthinkable" (if they really were planned) were after WW2, in 1945, according to those documents on the link you posted. And, had those operations been real, we never carried them out. And yet, 20 years later, (which should've been plenty of time to figure out nothing nuclear was looming), Soviet missiles appear 90 miles off US land.

Say, I thought this thread was about Belarus, anyway

Forget it!

I'd like to forget it, actually. I tried posting some stuff about Belorussian politics earlier, as well as other stuff on other threads, but other people (I don't know where they were from, their locations didn't say) didn't take me seriously simply because I was an American. They claimed all Americans were stupid and biased. I changed my location to say "The world" instead of "USA" because I was tired of being made fun of. So thank you for not saying the same things they said to me.

Originally Posted by laxxy

Originally Posted by mishau_

So what Ukrainian politicans are doing is making constant attempts to whip portfolio from the hands of each other. So it's been lasting rather for long. I think it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron, because people will get tired of constant clashes and rows and need strong establishement.

That's what public politics is like anywhere, although I agree that Ukraine's one is more fractuos than most. It's not necessarily such a bad thing in itself, and it is definitely preferrable to having a strong man (or woman) on the "Ukrainian throne". There was a certain chance of getting a "Putin-like man" in '04, and we have successfully avoided it. I do not see that happening again in the near future.

You seem you don't want to either listen to or hear me. Once again, when I say that it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron I mean this:

http://lenta.ru/news/2006/08/12/yanukovich/

http://www.proua.com/news/2006/08/12/144141.html

Do you understand me? Establishment of the authority vertical, you know, that's what it's called. Unfortunalelly, my worst predictions always come true and never do my best ones. And you say "I do not see that happening again in the near future." But no one wishes to duscuss it till it happends indeed. While you hear only yourself some one will beat you around.

У меня сложилось ощущение, что Украина и Белоруссия воспринимали российскую помощь как должное и поэтому в результате пересмотра ценовой политики со стороны России у этих стран появилось ощущение, что у них что-то незаконно отбрали.

Но дело даже не в этом. В свете сказанного Лукашенко:


"Должен сказать, что и Европа, и США в этой ситуации повели себя порядочно. Они предложили помощь и поддержку, если это будет нужно белорусскому государству и народу. И это мы никогда не забудем. Если европейцы готовы в этом отношении сотрудничать с Белоруссией, то мы пойдем на любое сотрудничество с Европой ради обеспечения нашей национальной безопасности в области поставок углеводородного сырья", - подчеркнул Александр Лукашенко.

И мне интересно, какую такую поддержку и помощь Европа и США предложили "последнему диктатору Европы".

[quote=mishau_][quote=laxxy]

[quote="mishau_":2xp4sc7b]So what Ukrainian politicans are doing is making constant attempts to whip portfolio from the hands of each other. So it's been lasting rather for long. I think it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron, because people will get tired of constant clashes and rows and need strong establishement.[/quote]

That's what public politics is like anywhere, although I agree that Ukraine's one is more fractuos than most. It's not necessarily such a bad thing in itself, and it is definitely preferrable to having a strong man (or woman) on the "Ukrainian throne". There was a certain chance of getting a "Putin-like man" in '04, and we have successfully avoided it. I do not see that happening again in the near future.

[/quote]

You seem you don't want to either listen to or hear me. Once again, when I say that it may bring a Putin-like man to the Ukrainian Thron I mean this:

[url="http://lenta.ru/news/2006/08/12/yanukovich/"]http://lenta.ru/news/2006/08/12/yanukovich/[/url]

http://www.proua.com/news/2006/08/12/144141.html

Do you understand me? Establishment of the authority vertical, you know, that's what it's called. Unfortunalelly, my worst predictions always come true and never do my best ones. And you say "I do not see that happening again in the near future." But no one wishes to duscuss it till it happends indeed. While you hear only yourself some one will beat you around.[/quote:2xp4sc7b]

ahhh somehow i missed this post at the time -- but no, this was no great cause to worry unlike '04 he can try whatever he wants, but the situation is quite different now (as in August...)

Originally Posted by mishau_

У меня сложилось ощущение, что Украина и Белоруссия воспринимали российскую помощь как должное и поэтому в результате пересмотра ценовой политики со стороны России у этих стран появилось ощущение, что у них что-то незаконно отбрали.

Но дело даже не в этом. В свете сказанного Лукашенко:


"Должен сказать, что и Европа, и США в этой ситуации повели себя порядочно. Они предложили помощь и поддержку, если это будет нужно белорусскому государству и народу. И это мы никогда не забудем. Если европейцы готовы в этом отношении сотрудничать с Белоруссией, то мы пойдем на любое сотрудничество с Европой ради обеспечения нашей национальной безопасности в области поставок углеводородного сырья", - подчеркнул Александр Лукашенко.

И мне интересно, какую такую поддержку и помощь Европа и США предложили "последнему диктатору Европы".

one can promise anything. But the 2nd episode of the circus was surely fun to watch, even better than the first one ))) i knew it would be ))

I was passing by when I saw written "velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia". I am from that part of the world, so I have stopped here for a moment.

Velvet, oh yes.. can be the real revolution done with a velvet glove in a velvet way? Can be the strong might overthroven by kind and velvet smile as happened in our state of Czechoslovakia in 1989? Hm..

There were circa 150 000 (at least) soldiers in military service, ready to get orders, ready to start their machines.. ready to stop the revolution.. Yes, you can say, that these 150 000 of man power were just a young boys who disagree with the regim as well as the young students on cities