Thread: "Russophobia" and "Russophilia" :)

Exactly - Stalin was ruthless, but the war situation made him worse than he otherwise would have been. As for the that whole starvation-in-Ukraine episode; it was one of the many things that I came to the light in the 90s, wasn't it? We will never know about the "what if" speculation. I find it hard to believe that somebody would have triggered starvation on purpose. Most people simply wouldn't want to be that cruel, plus there is no realistic motivation.

Almost all European countries have a horrible famine at some point in their history over the last couple of centuries. Ukraine's was quite recent, that's all. Of course, if Ukrainians really believe that they were being starved deliberately, it's not hard to understand that they have an axe to grind.

Also, unless if I'm not mistaken, it was under Stalin that the Soviet Union was so super productive that the USA flipped over and choked on its coffee...

They got worried that communism could be a serious contender to capitalism in terms of productivity and innovation (so far, that doesn't seem to be the case, unless people are high on revolutionary fever, have good leaders and there is some very strong motivation to work hard...)

Not to mention the victory over Nazism which happened while Stalin lead the country. So there WAS a positive side to his leadership.

Stalin almost won "most popular Russian" in that competition a few years ago - despite technically not being Russian. Clearly there are people in Russia who admire some aspects of his leadership.

I totally leave it to the people of the ex USSR countries to judge him, or not. It's got nothing to do with me.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I find it hard to believe that somebody would have triggered starvation on purpose. Most people simply wouldn't want to be that cruel, plus there is no realistic motivation.

Almost all European countries have a horrible famine at some point in their history over the last couple of centuries. Ukraine's was quite recent, that's all. Of course, if Ukrainians really believe that they were being starved deliberately, it's not hard to understand that they have an axe to grind.

If a state (that is, an institute that has protecting ppl's safety and their private property as one of its main purposes) instead robs people's houses and steals everything from them, even food, then you can certainly blame such a state for anything that those actions might possibly result in. If the majority of people in the area became victims of starvation because their food had been stolen from them --- it does look like a deliberately triggered starvation.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

If a state (that is, an institute that has protecting ppl's safety and their private property as one of its main purposes) instead robs people's houses and steals everything from them, even food, then you can certainly blame such a state for anything that those actions might possibly result in. If the majority of people in the area became victims of starvation because their food had been stolen from them --- it does look like a deliberately triggered starvation.

My father is native Ukrainian from South Russian Belgorod region. He was born in 1931, his parents were just simple peasants so he is one of those who survived the "starvation". Of course, he was too young to remember this time in detail but he talked with his parents, and he doesn't agree with your estimate of those events.
On the other hand, talking about protecting of people's private property, I would recommend to you to read the Constitution of Russian Federation. It says that in our country all type of property are equally respected. That means, that if the state has a duty to protect private property, it also has the same responsibility towards all other types of property - municipal, state, social, join-stock and so on. During the Soviet period of history a great industry was built in the Soviet Union - thousands of plants and factories. All this assets didn't belong to a certain person or a group of people - they were in a socialist property - the property of all Soviet people. So, how could it happen that all this property suddenly became a property of certain oligarchs in the 1990s when the liberal capitalist reforms started in the country approved by the Western politicians? Do you know what results these brought to Russian people? I'll tell you: deindustrialisation, impoverishment, social inequality, criminalization, corruption, decline in life expectancy, decline of birth-rate, terrorism ans so on. All this I saw in plenty an example with my own eyes. Have you ever worked without getting paid for three and more months when the inflation rate was more than 30%? I did. Have you ever received you wage not in money but in some natural goods, as, for example, sausage? I did.
So don't tell me about the great liberal values and the bad life in the Soviet Union.
Life in the Soviet Union was not easy, but there was a positive dynamic almost during the whole Soviet period. People always new, that to-day we maybe don't live very good, but to-morrow it will be better, and it really would happen.

Originally Posted by SergeMak

. Have you ever worked without getting paid for three and more months when the inflation rate was more than 30%? I did. Have you ever received you wage not in money but in some natural goods, as, for example, sausage? I did.
So don't tell me about the great liberal values and the bad life in the Soviet Union.

But now it's much better than in 90s and much bettre than in the USSR so maybe it's not that bad with tose "liberal values".

Originally Posted by SergeMak

.
Life in the Soviet Union was not easy, but there was a positive dynamic almost during the whole Soviet period. People always new, that to-day we maybe don't live very good, but to-morrow it will be better, and it really would happen.

I'm afraid it wouldn't. Those were only promises, things stayed the same every year. But i may be wrong considering china. Chinese managed to make reforms without revolutions. Whie the rgime in china is still much more strict than in USSR (which is ok with the western media btw when russia is always accused in some laws that are more strict in those western countries)

Originally Posted by Alex_krsk

But now it's much better than in 90s and much bettre than in the USSR so maybe it's not that bad with tose "liberal values".

I'm afraid it wouldn't. Those were only promises, things stayed the same every year. But i may be wrong considering china. Chinese managed to make reforms without revolutions. Whie the rgime in china is still much more strict than in USSR (which is ok with the western media btw when russia is always accused in some laws that are more strict in those western countries)

I'm not against the "liberal values". In fact, I'm not against any great idealistic values at all be it religious values or humanitarian ones. I'm against fanatical adherence to any principles, because it leads to creation of idol, and that is violation of the 2nd Commandment:
"Вторая заповедь: Не сотвори себе кумира, и всякаго подобия, елика на небеси горе, и елика на земли низу, и елика в водах под землею: да не поклонишися им, ни послужиши им".
Those who impose on people fanatical adherence to maybe the most great values in fact very often appear to follow very low and greedy aims. So when you hear when smb praise some values ask yourself - what aims is he after?

As for Soviet stagnation, yes it had place, but it was only 1 or maybe 1,5 last decades of the Soviet period. In fact, that stagnation killed the Soviet Union.
As for the assertion, that life is now better than in the 90s - yes, but thanks to what? Thanks to selling gas and oil abroad - about 60% of the budget income is from this. It cannot last forever, we need to develop industry, and I don't see much advance in this.

Originally Posted by SergeMak

As for the assertion, that life is now better than in the 90s - yes, but thanks to what? Thanks to selling gas and oil abroad - about 60% of the budget income is from this. It cannot last forever, we need to develop industry, and I don't see much advance in this.

That's true. But there is light. It takes time. It takes like 5 years to destroy everything (even shorter while looking at Ukraine) and 55 to rebiuld. (i hope that goes fater).

But look at norway btw. What do they produce besides pumping oil and gas? Not that much.

Originally Posted by Alex_krsk

But look at norway btw. What do they produce besides pumping oil and gas? Not that much.

As their neighbour and speaking the language, more or less... In addition to oil, they have
1) Fish, fish and more fish....
2) Svalbard and a slice of the Arctic and whatever is hidden there...
3) Ports to the Atlantic that Sweden and Finland use as well - it's a source of income.
4) A little bit of ship building - but it's cheaper to do it in Asia, so I don't know if it's still active.

The state there is HUGE and apparently very bureacratic in an old fashioned way. They never had to/needed to or wanted to slim down the state - so everything is very bureaeucratic.

They have managed the oil money quite well, paying back all debts and investing in public services.

The state, mainly, owns the oil, similar to in Russia, I think... But lots of private companies are involved in serving Statoil, that's what some people got rich on there.

They know they have to get ready for when the oil runs out and have lots of projects preparing for it.
Same dilemma as Russia I think. They know they need to diversify but it's not easy. .

Before they found the oil they were a well managed social democratic, and quite christian country. However, historically (pre-1950s or so, Norway was always poor, but people are hardworking and honest. They had a big transformation of society recently though. Same thing as the rest of Western Europe; issues with immigration and drastic rise in criminality.

But the most important thing that Norway doesn't own their oil and gas, they just collect tax from BP.
Norway had exchanged their sovereignty for garanteed piece of their oil pie.

Really? Are you sure about that? I thought that Statoil (state owned Norwegian official oil company). owned the Norwegian oil and BP or anyone else bought off them. In Scandianvia you see their oil tankers and petrol stations everywhere. I think it sells gas as well.

Originally Posted by Hanna

As for the that whole starvation-in-Ukraine episode; it was one of the many things that came to the light in the 90s, wasn't it? We will never know about the "what if" speculation.

Well, actually, a bit earlier than that. Welsh journalist Gareth Jones was able to visit Ukraine in 1933, and after returning to the West, he published the following on 29 March:

I walked along through villages and twelve collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, 'There is no bread. We are dying'. This cry came from every part of Russia, from the Volga, Siberia, White Russia, the North Caucasus, and Central Asia. I tramped through the black earth region because that was once the richest farmland in Russia and because the correspondents have been forbidden to go there to see for themselves what is happening.

In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it. I threw an orange peel into the spittoon and the peasant again grabbed it and devoured it. The Communist subsided. I stayed overnight in a village where there used to be two hundred oxen and where there now are six. The peasants were eating the cattle fodder and had only a month's supply left. They told me that many had already died of hunger. Two soldiers came to arrest a thief. They warned me against travel by night, as there were too many 'starving' desperate men.

This very quickly got the Kremlin's attention, because just two days later, Stalinist жополиз extraordinaire Walter Duranty (then the New York Times' correspondent in Moscow) attempted to rebut Jones' account of a developing famine as an exaggeration, and implied that Jones was deliberately trying to discredit the USSR.

And Jones responded to Duranty:

"My final evidence is based on my talks with hundreds of peasants. They were not the “kulaks”- those mythical scapegoats for the hunger in Russia-but ordinary peasants. I talked with them alone in Russian and jotted down their conversations, which are an unanswerable indictment of Soviet agricultural policy. The peasants said emphatically that the famine was worse than in 1921 and that fellow-villagers had died or were dying.

So, knowledge of this "episode" is not something that became known to the world only in the 1990s, after the Soviet period -- though it was nearly impossible to discuss it within the USSR until the period of glasnost in the 1980s.

I find it hard to believe that somebody would have triggered starvation on purpose. Most people simply wouldn't want to be that cruel, plus there is no realistic motivation.

It seems quite believable to me that Stalin wanted to starve SOME towns/villages "on purpose" -- namely, those areas that he considered to be pockets of anti-Soviet resistance in Ukraine and elsewhere -- but that the final number of deaths may have been a lot higher than he deliberately planned. (Farmers and their families who have died from starvation can't be forced to work digging coal or laying railroads, after all.)

I agree, though, that the famine (and the overall misery caused by the forced collectivization) should not be generally counted as "intentional genocide" of a people.