# Forum General General Discussion  Vladimir Lenin

## Asylum

Can anyone help me with Soviet History? I am looking for all I can on
Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and the Romanov dynasty. 
                                                                 Thank you.

----------


## TATY

> Can anyone help me with Soviet History? I am looking for all I can on
> Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and the Romanov dynasty. 
>                                                                  Thank you.

 Vladimir (John) Lenin was in the beatles and married to Yoko Ono.
Joseph Stalin had a moustache.
The Romanovs are dead. 
Really have you not heard of Wikipedia?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Google is also a very informative source on Soviet History!

----------


## Бармалей

Now Stalin has opened up a chain of trendy restaurants in Portugal, where he lives with his poodle, Mr. Paisley. 
The Romanovs are now thought by historians to be greatly overrated in terms of the role they played in history. Really, they didn't do much besides die. Their cousins were much more influential: the Stroganovs, of course invented Beef Stroganov in addition to producing the hit show "American Idol." Young socialite Ivana Stroganova has appeared in Playboy a record 37 times. She hopes to gain a job as a hostess at Mr. Stalin's cafes. 
You deserved to be mocked. Really. I normally advocate cutting NoObS slack, but this is a ridiculous question. Uhm, would anybody mind going ahead and telling me about nuclear physics or Greco-Roman wrestling real quick? I have never heard of something called a "library," "books," "teh internets," or even "asking a well-thought out question."
What is this Gooooooooooogle of which you speak? 
Oh and:
In post-Soviet Russia, stupid question asks YOU!

----------


## ST

TATY-you talkin about this?  ::   
Ленин должен выступать на публике, все собрались...Огромная площадь забита людьми, все телеканалы транслируют...Ну вобшщем выходит Ленин и все начинают орать:
-Ленон, Ленон...ура Ленон!
Ленин говорит:
-ТовариСЧи, я не Ленон, я Ленин...
Все опять:
-Ленон, Ленон, Ленон!!!
Ленин подумал и опять говорит:
-Я не Ленон, я Ленин...
а люди не перестают орать ЛЕНОН, ЛЕНОН...
Ленин ещё подумал, и сказал:
"Ну чёрт с вами. Yesterday...all my troubles seems so far away..."

----------


## Asylum

I thought that this was a Russian forum. I am very sorry to offend anyone, and will leave the forum in search of a Russian one. 
                                                            Thank you all.

----------


## Бармалей

It IS a Russian forum. It also is a place to post reasonable, well-thought out questions. There are some people who are really knowledgable and helpful, but you need to practice some common sense and actually put forth minimal effort. Just asking someone to tell you about 70-some years of (well-documented) history is absurd.

----------


## basurero

www.google.com - type this into the box where it says http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtopic.php?t=8526 near the top of the screen. When the page loads, click on the box in the centre and type in "Soviet History." Move the mouse to the right and click on the button marked "search." Now, you're almost there, just scroll down the list and find a link which appeals to you! It's as simple as that!

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Here is another useful link:  http://www.soviethistory.com/

----------


## Dimitri

Lenin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin 
Stalin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin 
Romanov dynasty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanov  
wikipedia - good site :)

----------


## basurero

> wikipedia - good site

 Yes, but not necessarilly accurate.

----------


## Бармалей

> wikipedia - good site    Yes, but not necessarilly accurate.

 Well, NOTHING is necessarily accurate; whenver humans are involved something is apt to be screwed up. There HAVE been concerns about it containing inaccurate material -- either unintentional or actually intentional deception. I seem to remember a story, though, about Britannica containing roughly the same amount of erronenous material. Of course, you can debate how severe the errors are, and of course, you can cite Britannica as being professionally researched and editted. But don't knock wikipedia just for the sake of doing so, as is fashionable these days -- you should never really rely on one source for anything anyway. Just my two cents...

----------


## net surfer



----------


## Seventh-Monkey

> Originally Posted by basurero     
> 			
> 				wikipedia - good site    Yes, but not necessarilly accurate.   Well, NOTHING is necessarily accurate; whenver humans are involved something is apt to be screwed up. There HAVE been concerns about it containing inaccurate material -- either unintentional or actually intentional deception. I seem to remember a story, though, about Britannica containing roughly the same amount of erronenous material. Of course, you can debate how severe the errors are, and of course, you can cite Britannica as being professionally researched and editted. But don't knock wikipedia just for the sake of doing so, as is fashionable these days -- you should never really rely on one source for anything anyway. Just my two cents...

 Source.

----------


## Бармалей

Thanks for the source -- I don't think I read the Register's version, but some CNN-caliber thing. As anyone can see by reading it, my post belongs in wikipedia, probably. Perhaps I should readdress the matter. Wikipedia does not = Britanica in terms of suckiness. Britanica is somewhat better. With that being said Britanica still sucks to a fair extent. Thus you should read Wikipedia and Britanica and then reach a decision.

----------


## TATY

The thing about Wikipedia is, the article wirrten about the Soviet Union in English will probably be written by a Brit, or American. Whereas the same article in Russian will most likely have been written by a Russian. Obviously these two articles are going to vary greatly.

----------


## Бармалей

Right. And that's to say nothing of the length/depth of the articles. On numerous occasions, I've seen an article in English that substantially more in depth than its Russian version. But in these regards, I don't really know as this is much different than what Britannica would say about something vs. a Russian encyclopaedia.

----------


## TATY

> Right. And that's to say nothing of the length/depth of the articles. On numerous occasions, I've seen an article in English that substantially more in depth than its Russian version. But in these regards, I don't really know as this is much different than what Britannica would say about something vs. a Russian encyclopaedia.

 
The reason is Wikipedia is mostly used by English speakers. The number of Russian users is limited and therefore the number of articles, and also the length of them is obviously less. Most long articles are written by numerous people.

----------


## Friendy

It seems to me there are rather enough Russians writing for wikipedia in English. Just look at the histories of the pages mentioned here and you'll find some.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Actaully Friendy is right, I was reading a bit on Peter the great on Wikipedia, and I was noticing that many english articles had been abducted and were missing in the text!

----------


## Бармалей

> Actaully Friendy is right, I was reading a bit on Peter the great on Wikipedia, and I was noticing that many english articles had been abducted and were missing in the text!

 "Abducted?" What, were they part of the mob or something? How about "deleted" or "removed?"   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

They were missing, it just seemed to boring to write "missing"...   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

PS:  девушка или молодой человек 
Что, девушка не может быть молодым человеком?

----------


## Бармалей

> PS:  девушка или молодой человек 
> Что, девушка не может быть молодым человеком?

 Нет. Запретно.

----------


## Бармалей

> They were missing, it just seemed to boring to write "missing"...

 Uh huh. Well, maybe they just ran away from home and weren't really abducted. Ever think about that!?   ::

----------


## Friendy

> Actaully Friendy is right, I was reading a bit on Peter the great on Wikipedia, and I was noticing that many english articles had been abducted and were missing in the text!

   ::

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

> PS:  девушка или молодой человек 
> Что, девушка не может быть молодым человеком?

 "What, young ladies can't be with young men?". I'm confused. Peter the Great was a lady?

----------


## Бармалей

[quote=Seventh-Monkey] 

> PS:  девушка или молодой человек 
> Что, девушка не может быть молодым человеком?

 "What, young ladies can't be with young men?". I'm confused. Peter the Great was a lady?[/quote:v4051oz5] 
Transexual. I saw it on Jerry Springer, so it must be true. That whole "My Tsar is a slut" episode... :P

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

молодой человек - Young person 
Women aren't people? =)

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

What did that say exactly, though? I thought from the use of the instrumental case that it meant "with young men", or does it mean "young ladies can't be young men"?

----------


## Бармалей

Eh. I was always just under the impression that you addressed an unknown person by either молодой человек or девушка (as in "hey, <person>, can I order desert?" or "hey, <person>, excuse me, but can you tell me how to find Tverskaya street?"). I assumed that the former was just understood to apply to males in this context (I know that it literally just means "young person"). If I am wrong, please by all means, tell me.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

No you are right, you call a unknown young man for молодой человек, but as far as I know, you can techincally call a young woman the same thing, since молодой человек means young person... 
Monkey: "young ladies can't be young men", the point is that молодой человек means young person, so it should read "girls can't be young people?"

----------


## Бармалей

> No you are right, you call a unknown young man for молодой человек, but as far as I know, you can techincally call a young woman the same thing, since молодой человек means young person... 
> Monkey: "young ladies can't be young men", the point is that молодой человек means young person, so it should read "girls can't be young people?"

 Ok, so your position would be that calling a female stranger, stewardess, waitress, etc. молодой человек is fine?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Ummm, no  ::  
It's just that writing "девушка или молодой человек" seems to me to hint that women aren't people  ::  But I am probably seeing things  ::

----------


## Rtyom

> No you are right, you call a unknown young man for молодой человек, but as far as I know, you can techincally call a young woman the same thing, since молодой человек means young person...

 No, you can't do that! A girl will think you're a pervert.

----------


## Rostova

> No, you can't do that! A girl will think you're a pervert.

 But why not?? You may call a girl молодой человек when no girls can hear you

----------


## Rtyom

> Originally Posted by Rtyom  No, you can't do that! A girl will think you're a pervert.   But why not?? You may call a girl молодой человек when no girls can hear you

 You mean when you're alone?! Speaking to oneself?! 
By the way, why's the beaitiful rhomb in your avatar, молодой человек?  ::

----------


## Leof

In my opinion, we call both girls and boys молодые люди only in plural.
If I ever said молодой человек about any girl then I ment only her age regardless to her gender. I mean I regard her and her gender, but said it regardless....well...that's it  ::  
I can say about any girl - она хороший человек, она умный, обоятельный человек as about a person - she's a good, kind, clever, thoughtful, charming _person_. I wonder can I say _She is a good man_?  ::   Eventually we can say молодой человек too, but rarely and in spetial phrases. 
Please somebody explain it!

----------


## Rtyom

Well, again, молодой человек, I must agree, can be direct to a girl---but when we don't address to someone, when we speak abstractly. 
Она хороший молодой человек. 
The sentence above is awkward, however I see what I'm trying to say: She's one fo the young people I know and she is good. That's it.

----------


## Leof

I could not say it more clear *Rtyom*
and I'm totally agree  ::

----------


## Rtyom

Thanks.  ::

----------


## Rostova

> You mean when you're alone?! Speaking to oneself?!

 Yes, it's the best way to say everything you think about those damned girls and boys, you know...    

> By the way, why's the beaitiful rhomb in your avatar, молодой человек?

 It's the satanic rhomb. It affects your brain when you're looking at it and makes you love beer.

----------


## Rtyom

Satanic?!   ::   I think I already love beer. The inner voice tells me to leave my place and buy a bottle.  ::

----------


## Dimitri

> молодой человек - Young person 
> Women aren't people? =)

 Просто молодой человек - так всегда говорят о молодом парне. Это закрепилось в языке. О девушке так нельзя сказать

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

> No you are right, you call a unknown young man for молодой человек, but as far as I know, you can techincally call a young woman the same thing, since молодой человек means young person... 
> Monkey: "young ladies can't be young men", the point is that молодой человек means young person, so it should read "girls can't be young people?"

 I, uh, see   :: .

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Thanks guys, that is exactly what I thought. You wouldn't say молодой человек to a woman, but grammatically you can. Therefore, extrapolating on that and being an eternal Devil's advocate (maybe even Rostova's to, since she is satanic) if you say: 
девушка или молодой человек - you are _gramatically_ saying that a girl can not be a young person   ::  NO?

----------


## Friendy

> девушка или молодой человек - you are _gramatically_ saying that a girl can not be a young person   NO?

 I wouldn't say so because here "молодой человек" is translated as "a young man" but not as "a young person" (it also may have another meaning which is archaic - "a male servant"). So it's grammatically saying that a girl can't be a young *man*.

----------


## Rostova

> девушка или молодой человек - you are _gramatically_ saying that a girl can not be a young person   NO?

 As you probably know there are two logical operations: 'inclusive or' and 'exclusive or'. So using the first of them you're allowing girls to be young persons   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

this isn't digital data processing, Indra, this is grammar  ::  You would have to write: Девушка и/или молодой чеолвек 
wouldn't it be better to just say "молодые люди" instead of "девушка или молодой человек"

----------


## Rostova

> this isn't digital data processing, Indra, this is grammar  You would have to write: Девушка и/или молодой чеолвек

 It's cool to be Indra, I like it!   ::

----------


## Rtyom

Vinnie messed the names once again.

----------


## Бармалей

> this isn't digital data processing, Indra, this is grammar  You would have to write: Девушка и/или молодой чеолвек 
> wouldn't it be better to just say "молодые люди" instead of "девушка или молодой человек"

 *sigh* Kalinka, do I have to bring back my siggy with you acknowledging my correctness and greatness?  :P  So basically, from what I gather, I'm right after all? Referendum: Russians, please tell me yea or nay on whether this signature is acceptable or not!?!?   ::

----------


## Leof

I would write it that way:
Молодые люди, пожалуйста, поправьте меня, если я допустил ошибки!
So that was adressed to all young people 
Народ, пожалуйста, поправьте меня, если я допустил ошибки!
Like: Folks! Please correct me and so on.. 
Граждане, пожалуйста, поправьте меня, если я допустил ошибки!
(")Citizens("), correct me and so on... 
Люди, пожалуйста, поправьте меня, если я допустил ошибки!
People, please correct me... 
Мальчики и девочки, пожалуйста, поправьте меня, если я допустил ошибки!
Here 'boys and girls' is a bit ironical and well known to all Russians from their early years by TV show "Спокойной ночи, малыши" - Good nignt kids.

----------


## Friendy

Можно ещё "товарищи"  ::

----------


## Leof

Да!  ::  И господа as well!

----------


## Rtyom

Don't misspell it as тварищи...

----------


## Amanda11

I read a book called Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie.  That book has a LOT of information on the Romanovs and Lenin.  Everything you need to know about them is in there.  Stalin's not in there though, so I can't help you with that. 
~Amanda

----------


## TATY

> I read a book called Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie.  That book has a LOT of information on the Romanovs and Lenin.  Everything you need to know about them is in there.  Stalin's not in there though, so I can't help you with that. 
> ~Amanda

 "Everything you need to know from an American point of view" don't you mean.

----------


## Бармалей

> "Everything you need to know from an American point of view" don't you mean.

 Is that just a general observation or do you have a specific beef with Massie?

----------


## TATY

> Originally Posted by TATY  "Everything you need to know from an American point of view" don't you mean.   Is that just a general observation or do you have a specific beef with Massie?

 I just think it's naive to read one book by one author on such controversial hisorical figures and claim that it is "everything you need to know", no matter what the nationality or views of the author.

----------


## Rtyom

Bingo.

----------


## Бармалей

> Bingo.

 You sank my battleship!

----------


## Rtyom

You can get yourself another, can't you?

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

You sank my battleship!

----------


## Бармалей

> You sank my battleship!

 You sank _his_ battleship, too! You bastard!  ::

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

Quick, let's have him hanged... after a nap.

----------


## Rtyom

See you at 12 o'clock precisely at the main square.

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

Облична. 
Аблична? 
I've never seen it in Cyrillic before, just transliterated by a Ukrainian.

----------


## Dimitri

> Облична. 
> Аблична? 
> I've never seen it in Cyrillic before, just transliterated by a Ukrainian.

 Отлично?

----------


## Rtyom

> Облична. 
> Аблична? 
> I've never seen it in Cyrillic before, just transliterated by a Ukrainian.

 So fah so g'd, rascal.  Don't forget to load your gun, it'll be the duel of the duels for you. Ha ha ha ha

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

> Originally Posted by Seventh-Monkey  Облична. 
> Аблична? 
> I've never seen it in Cyrillic before, just transliterated by a Ukrainian.   Отлично?

 Does that mean something along the lines of "excellent"? 
Rytom: love the phonetic dialogue  :: .

----------


## Dimitri

[quote=Seventh-Monkey] 

> Originally Posted by "Seventh-Monkey":1a5ger41  Облична. 
> Аблична? 
> I've never seen it in Cyrillic before, just transliterated by a Ukrainian.   Отлично?

 Does that mean something along the lines of "excellent"? 
Rytom: love the phonetic dialogue  :: .[/quote:1a5ger41] 
Yes %)

----------


## Seventh-Monkey

Maybe he fell into Ukrainian or something. He doesn't speak a tremendous amount of Russian.

----------


## Rtyom

::

----------


## TATY

In Ukrainian it is 
Відмінно
or
Дуже добре  :P

----------

