Thread: Regarding Russian in the Baltic States

I mean, the bit about Russians getting superior housing in Latvia, and some cultural or language insensitivites.

And what did this superiority consist of? What made Russians superior over Latvians?

Immigrants from Soviet Union did not need to learn local languages - Russian was enough and only Latvians needed to know both.
Also as I said - immigrants got apartments outside of normal queue.
Soviet ideology was basically the same as in Nazi Germany.
Only "master race" were Russians not Germans.

Originally Posted by nulle

...Soviet ideology was basically the same as in Nazi Germany.
Only "master race" were Russians not Germans.

It's not true basically, but you entitled to your opinion.

Immigrants from Soviet Union did not need to learn local languages - Russian was enough and only Latvians needed to know both.

Latvians could understand Russians, while Russians did not understand Latvians - Latvians had an advantage!

Originally Posted by nulle

Soviet ideology was basically the same as in Nazi Germany.

Not the same, otherwise the Baltics wouldn't stll worship the German SS.

20100226110101.jpg

It's not true basically, but you entitled to your opinion.

Maybe in Russia it was not true (russian speakers were "master race" after all).
But in occupied territories it was like that.
Soviet long term goal was to make russian speaking "soviet nation".
And looks like they already succeeded in Belarus.

Mishau - what does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuperjanov_Battalion have to do with nazis?

ss_galichina.jpg

Mishau - looks like you do not like Putin - but you are repeating his propaganda here...

Only "master race" were Russians not Germans

That's why the Soviet Union was ruled by a Georgian for many years.

I am almost certain that the Soviet Union made a very big issue out of promoting the idea that it was a union of quite different states.

And to say that the USSR was fascist like is just crazy talk - nobody hated fascism more.

I think the USSr actually tried to make a point out of recognizing the local countries.
I remember it from watching some kids stuff from there in my childhood and I found it very fascinating to have a massive country that was made up of different peoples. My country was not like that - everyone was the same back then. Remember watching programs with Soviet kids in national costumes etc -- I had a big fascination for such costumes as a child so I still remember it to this day. Something about a puppet that visited children across the USSR. And there was talk about "we are a big family" and lots of idealistic concepts like that.

Perhaps it was the Russians that had the last word, and Russian language used as the main language, but it definitely seemed like the tried to value all the different cultures and teach kids about it. At any rate, lots of other countries have done a much worse job of it.

It would be interesting with a thread about minority people in Russia, for example. I still find the idea of one country-many nationalities very fascinating.

Perhaps it was the Russians that had the last word

No.

and Russian language used as the main language

Yes. There had to be a common language, Russian was bigger than all the other taken together. But other languages were supported.

Originally Posted by nulle

Soviet long term goal was to make russian speaking "soviet nation".

No it's your wishful thinking. Soviet long term goal was totally different. "A spectre is haunting Europe-the spectre of Communism" - the author is?
Please read some history books first in order not to seem so ignorant. You could start with Second International for instance, though I don't think you'll ever bother -- much easier to throw uneducated inventions here.

Originally Posted by mishau_

"A spectre is haunting Europe-

I think Latvians would rather give their whole country to the USA as a vassal state and sell themselves as slaves to international capitalism, than read a single word written by that particular author, or even look at the front page of the book in question...

I think Latvians would rather give their whole country to the USA as a vassal state and sell themselves as slaves to international capitalism

They have already done it.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think Latvians would rather give their whole country to the USA as a vassal state and sell themselves as slaves to international capitalism, than read a single word written by that particular author, or even look at the front page of the book in question...

In the nowaday world, those who are not "slaves of international capitalism" are slaves of hunger, thirst and cold weather. It's good and very convenient to speak out on how evil those corporations and businesses are while you in fact use them everyday to maintain the basics of your life. Go move to a third world country and live on up to $3 a day, then you can say how much you enjoy being out of the "big greedy filthy capitalism".

I am currently a slave to international capitalism, but under decidedly better conditions than those that manufacture the goods that my employer sells. They work in Bangladesh and similar places for a few dollars a day. Should I be satisfied with the unfairness of that?
With pollution, greed and exploitation?
I choose the red pill!

Ok, just to give an example that's relevant, and an alternative. People in the USSR for example, did not work international corporations and they had an acceptable standard of living for a few decades, as far as I know.
Even though they were not rich, they were also relatively free from worries about job and housing, I think. They had free healthcare, good education and decent holidays. That's more than many in the USA, for example.

What if that had ended differently and they would have continued to improve their standard of living like in the 1960s? It is not entirely unfeasible. With better leadership, that might have happened.

Giving up and giving in to corporations and international capitalism is not the only option. T
There are alternative movements today - ecological, religious etc.
We do not have to be slaves to capitalism.

And what happened with the Latvians and the other Balts the minute the USSR disintegrated? Every corporation in Scandinavia cooked up an idea of how to profit from the new situation and the fact that the Balts were in really dire straits. And the Germans too.
Cheap textile production, foreigners bought their property there for bargain prices, outsourcing of programming... buying their antiques and art for prices below the real value, you name it. Previously honest Baltic people became crooks and ruthless criminals.

I am not so sure how much more dignified their situation really is, compared to in the Soviet past. I guess they are more pleased with the situation and that's what matters. But Latvia for example is in terrible debt, up to their ears with the IMF etc. All the Scandinavian banks opened up there, and in my opinion did not behave very ethically. Before, they were part of the Soviet Union, now they are part of the European Union. Both of these are superstates that limit national freedom. The European court can overrule any Latvian court. The European Union itself is not democratic in the way that it is governed. It's a meritocratic bureacracy. Whether there is really more democracy now is debatable.

I saw some seriously poor people in Latvia. They would probably have had a much more dignified lifestyle in the USSR. I visited Jurmala before the end of the USSR, in my childhood - it was a bit grey and no good shops. But there wer no beggars or dirt-poor people around. And I think many buildings were in a better state of repair. The feeling I strongly recall was of coming from a small country to a superpower country, similar to visiting some part of the USA perhaps. Now, when visiting Latvia, the feeling is quite different.

It's a shame about the military bases and excessive Soviet military installations in the Baltic states. It's really ugly and can totally sympathise that the Balts must have hated having them there. I would have.

(Deleted. L.)

The population of Latvia has decreased significantly, many people have left the country since the fall of the USSR. But the unemployment is very high. How can it be?

Originally Posted by Marcus

The population of Latvia has decreased significantly, many people have left the country since the fall of the USSR. But the unemployment is very high. How can it be?

Do you know why "there was no unemployment in the USSR"? That's very well covered in that old Soviet joke, "How come the Soviet people know no unemployment? Because everyone has something to do - the first one builds something, the second one takes down what the previous one has built, the third one rebuilds what the previous one has taken down, etc."

Originally Posted by Seraph

Austerity. Everywhere that austerity went, recession was sure to go.

General situation in Europe. Austerity pushed onto peripheral states has lead to slowdowns/recessions/depressions. This is a political action to shape the future of Europe.

Hmm... Sure, if you throw off your money, it will help.