Monuments: Preserve or Destroy

Kirjoittanut Goblin, 20.04.2016 at 07:09

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 20.04.2016 at 07:00

You're gonna destroy a monument and build an older one in it's place? Makes sense.

You would understand the joke if you were from balkan...

When Serbs were shelling Dubrovnik (kings Landing ) ...one Serb said "we gona build an even older and more beautiful one"

Actually I am from Balkan. I don't understand why people think Yugoslavs as Balkans... the Balkan Mountains aren't even in Yugoslavia.

Kirjoittanut Goblin, 20.04.2016 at 08:17

Thats what my elementary school teacher taught us too... he claimed geographicaly Balkan peninsula is only Greece.

As far as I know the Balkans are usually defined by the path of the Danube up until it passes Belgrade, from which the region is defined by an artificial line going straight to the west.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 19.04.2016 at 18:20

It was wrong to destroy Konigsberg landmarks. They should've tried to repair after the war, not build appartments.

Personally i like Soviet architecture, like that building, partly because it looks futuristic for me, partly because it is great value today after fall of communism and USSR, it wouldn't be special if USSR was still alive.

Van Gog became famous long after his death.

well, it has a lot to do with ethnical cleansing, wich was either done by force or by surpressing people :S

look, i get that you talk about stuff like monuments in a very...russian context, but as long as you dont recognize the fucked up shit you did in the past, there really isnt any point in getting pissed over some random estonians moving a single statue from place a to place b when there really are greater issues in every country (especially russia).
i mean, russia has real problems that need to be talked about in public. its economy is mostly based on the exploitation of natural recources and russians have (i think) 1.5 children per woman, wich means you'll go extinct in like 500 years. contrary to all of that, all i ever hear from russians is "we are graetest and we vil rekt you with aur superior militairy tank vihicel stuff"

and on architecture, i dont like blocks of concrete, but then again, thats just my subjective opinion

Pretty much anything that reminds plebs to consider history and stop living moment to moment should be preserved

Kirjoittanut Acquiesce, 20.04.2016 at 17:20

Pretty much anything that reminds plebs to consider history and stop living moment to moment should be preserved

Assuming plebs look at monuments and consider history.

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 20.04.2016 at 22:25

Assuming plebs look at monuments and consider history.

A man can dream

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:02

well, it has a lot to do with ethnical cleansing, wich was either done by force or by surpressing people :S

Ok, i'll play along with you; it was ethnic cleansing, now what? Nazi Germans tried to ethnically cleanse Soviets from USSR, but lost the war, so Soviets cleansed them. Again, now what? I don't know what you want to be done.

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:02

look, i get that you talk about stuff like monuments in a very...russian context, but as long as you dont recognize the fucked up shit you did in the past, there really isnt any point in getting pissed over some random estonians moving a single statue from place a to place b when there really are greater issues in every country (especially russia).

I thought i am talking about monuments in humanistic context, context which advise preservation over destruction, information over misinformation. Polish monuments are Polish monuments, not Russian. Poles want to destroy their own monuments, not mine. Their agency ordered Polish towns to demolish or remove 500 monuments commemorating Allies (Polish liberation army and Red Army) liberation of Poland from Nazi occupation. That divided Poland with one side obeying order, and other denying and protecting monuments.

They say these monuments are Russian and glorify Russian occupation of Poland, but every decently educated person can recognize misinformation like Russia didn't exist back then so it could not occupy Poland, neither Russians built those monuments but Poles living in Poland as construction and permit papers are in Polish archives as a proof.

They even renamed Katowice to Stalingrad because their allied country leader was Stalin in that time. How is that connected to Modern Russia? But speaking about renaming cities, i disagree with Stalingrad (in USSR and todays Russia) being renamed to Volgograd. Because it was built as Tsarytsin (Empress' City), no need to rename it 3 times, it should be Stalingard, and stay that way or returned to Tsarytsin, like Leningrad was returned to Saint Petersburg and was not renamed to newly invented name.
Same i propose for Kalinigrad, it should be renamed back to Konigsberg. Same with that region, renamed to Prussia from Kaliningrad Oblast, but 20-40 years after renaming the city, not in the same time.

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:02

i mean, russia has real problems that need to be talked about in public. its economy is mostly based on the exploitation of natural recources

Russia have many problems, like AIDS, alcoholism, corruption, poverty, but i don't see exploitation of natural resources as a problem? Saudi Arabia built an empire by selling ENR, has high standard of living with high wages, good infrastructure and influence in the region. I don't understand how someone else can sell ENR but when Russia does - it's a problem?

AIDS is solved by boosting healthcare spending, alcoholism with advertising healthy life and information, corruption with transparency and poverty with creating welfare and jobs. To achieve that it is necessary to have peace and stability, which Russia doesn't have from sanctions and Western threat (NATO build-up in Eastern Europe). But Russia is making deals with India, China and the rest of the world like Egypt, Iran, Brazil, South Africa. Deals/contracts provide jobs to Russians, which mean situation will stabilize in the long run when, when developing world reform from trading with the West, to trade among themselves. West is not trustful because they stop trade (use of sanctions) to achieve political goal, which is violation of human rights.

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:02

and russians have (i think) 1.5 children per woman, wich means you'll go extinct in like 500 years. contrary to all of that, all i ever hear from russians is "we are graetest and we vil rekt you with aur superior militairy tank vihicel stuff"

How is declining population a problem? I don't understand, yet i don't understand much things coming from the West.. Should we force women and couples to make more children? Should we send einzgruppen to put a gun on their head and make them procreate? Should we create state-owned procreation centers where women are brought to have sex with soldiers and officers?

It is women and couples right not to have children, even Russian Church doesn't force believers to have children, they just advise to have more. No one can force Russians to have more children if they don't want to. Basic freedoms must be respected. I don't know how it is in the West.

Being extinct in 500 years is ridiculous because with 150 million population it is hard to be extinct like some ancient clay-oriented tribe. Population can reduce to 100 million, even 50 million in few hundred years, but then it will start to rise - until it stagnate or fall again, that's history. There are many factors for population to rise: State consumer subsidy, money reward for birth, crime-free enviroment, stability, wealth, religion and/or state promoting large families. Some of that, or all of that. Arab world have high birth rates because it is rooted in their tradition and religion, although their region is in perpetual war for the last 3000 years.

Russia have 2 million births and 2 million deaths a year, that mean it is balanced. I don't see how population can decline when it is on zero not minus.

wikipedia/demographics_of_russia


But anyway, should i mention pollution, enviromental decay, nature shrinking, climate change, volatile economy (job is easy to lose as it is easy to find). You think it is easy to maintain low pollution. full employment and good enviroment with huge population? Look at China; they only started buying cars and they became the most polluted country on earth. And they have 50% of water polluted. What will happen when they develop like America, when every Chinese family own 2 cars, when there are thousands of companies owning hundred of trucks, when there are thousands of factories using fossil fuels, when there are thousand factories and homes using solar and wind power consuming space?

Russia doesn't have any of these problems.

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:02

and on architecture, i dont like blocks of concrete, but then again, thats just my subjective opinion

Google 'retro futurism'.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.04.2016 at 09:52

oh god, i just realized i am becoming a troll, writing short controversial sentences to make people answer in big blocks of text while i sip my coffee and answer in 2 sentences. i'm sorry i always write these comments, when i'm super tired and cant think properly
well, i will answer, just trying to make up for being an asshole.

however...you talk about russia a lot, wich is totally fine, because thats what everybody does on the internet. everyone tells their point of view. i do it, i said how shitty it was that the soviet union and poland basically destroyed ~1000 years of german history in silesia and prussia etc. etc. while germans arent particularily angels either

and you have to admit, that ~51% of the population of the soviet union was russian and 10% byelorussian, while most leaders of the soviet union, were russians. and it wasnt exactly a solely russian occupation (they did have huge autonomy) but 1: they dont care wich foreign occupator it was 2: the soviet union had a huge influence over them, the same as in the chez republic could easily have happened to poland aswell.
(i do agree, that destruction of monuments of your own nations heros is pretty shitty though)

yea, declining populations arent that big of a problem, i just listed some that i came up with from the top of my head. point is that russia does have some problems, wich have to be discussed, rather than ignored, while you gaze upon your own hugely overfunded army. i mean, its fine if you want to waste your money on an army and conquer crimea rather than putting money into education and living in harmony like we did in...i think 1991-2008 (or 2012 idk when the funding started). these glorified armies in russia are kind of a problem, because they steer the public debate away from quite a lot of problems and towards the militairy, wich is conceived as very great and powerful by the russians, wich could lead to a lot of wars in the future. meanwhile its conceived in the west as ivan memes



also, i dont know who it was who started all the tensions, but russia annected crimea, so they were the first ones to use their militairy i guess? (please dont make a huge argument, not in the mood, i know about the nato expansion into eastern europe, stop typing please)

well, china has 100 million cars, not 2 per family i'm a german, i must know, because we sold them . anyways, exploiting your natural resources isnt directly a problem, it is a problem when they run out and russias economy has to depend on selling old tanks, 3 cars a year and the local vodka production and consumption. (jkjk just not a really diverse economy)
besides, the climate change is a global problem and russians do pollute the air by about a third less co2 per person than the americans, its the same as germans and twice the emissions of chinese people (wich still is way too much)

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.04.2016 at 09:52

Ok, i'll play along with you; it was ethnic cleansing, now what? Nazi Germans tried to ethnically cleanse Soviets from USSR, but lost the war, so Soviets cleansed them. Again, now what? I don't know what you want to be done.

In that case, Soviets were no better than the Nazi Germans. Churchill once said the greatest threat after Hitler was Stalin.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.04.2016 at 09:52

They say these monuments are Russian and glorify Russian occupation of Poland, but every decently educated person can recognize misinformation like Russia didn't exist back then so it could not occupy Poland, neither Russians built those monuments but Poles living in Poland as construction and permit papers are in Polish archives as a proof.

They even renamed Katowice to Stalingrad because their allied country leader was Stalin in that time. How is that connected to Modern Russia? But speaking about renaming cities, i disagree with Stalingrad (in USSR and todays Russia) being renamed to Volgograd. Because it was built as Tsarytsin (Empress' City), no need to rename it 3 times, it should be Stalingard, and stay that way or returned to Tsarytsin, like Leningrad was returned to Saint Petersburg and was not renamed to newly invented name.
Same i propose for Kalinigrad, it should be renamed back to Konigsberg. Same with that region, renamed to Prussia from Kaliningrad Oblast, but 20-40 years after renaming the city, not in the same time.

Sometimes it hurts how biased you can be, all that argumet of "Oh, they say Russia occupied Poland, but that is a Western lie! Because Russia didn't exist back then, so Russia didn't do it!". Russia did exist in the form of USSR. Russian Empire ---> USSR, so Russia indeed existed under the form of Soviet Union. When people refer to russians during Soviet Era, they refer to the general of the Soviet Union, because there was indeed a Russian predomincance. Moscow was the capital and predominant city, wasn't it?

You should be that biased Tito, it hurts.

Kirjoittanut Tirpitz406, 20.04.2016 at 17:02

i mean, russia has real problems that need to be talked about in public. its economy is mostly based on the exploitation of natural recources

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.04.2016 at 09:52

Russia have many problems, like AIDS, alcoholism, corruption, poverty, but i don't see exploitation of natural resources as a problem? Saudi Arabia built an empire by selling ENR, has high standard of living with high wages, good infrastructure and influence in the region. I don't understand how someone else can sell ENR but when Russia does - it's a problem?

AIDS is solved by boosting healthcare spending, alcoholism with advertising healthy life and information, corruption with transparency and poverty with creating welfare and jobs. To achieve that it is necessary to have peace and stability, which Russia doesn't have from sanctions and Western threat (NATO build-up in Eastern Europe). But Russia is making deals with India, China and the rest of the world like Egypt, Iran, Brazil, South Africa. Deals/contracts provide jobs to Russians, which mean situation will stabilize in the long run when, when developing world reform from trading with the West, to trade among themselves. West is not trustful because they stop trade (use of sanctions) to achieve political goal, which is violation of human rights.

How can you not consider the huge russian dependency on non renewable natural resources a problem? Are you really that ignorant?
An economy built on exploitation of natural resources that will become extinct in the next 20-100 years is really a great danger, especially because over time Russian's buyers of those resources (Oil and Natural Gas incase you don't know) will switch (and are already slowly switching) to renewable energy sources which will eventually lead to Russia's Economy collapsing. Oil prices are already on a downhill, which is affecting countries that like Russia, depend on Natural Resources with a short 'lifetime' as of now like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc..

Regarding the second problem, do not blame Russia's social problems like Poverty and others on the Western sanctions and NATO. It's entirely Russia's and its political class's fault for all those social problems. That is what you get for innefective policies.

AIDS is solved by Information and more spending on prevention, not Healthcare spending, the strategy to fight AIDS is to prevent it, and not entirely treat/delay it in a human body Tito. Alcoholism is solved by Social Policies like Social Programs, Information, and thus a bigger spending in Social Security and empowering it with resources, not just campaigning for healthy life. Measures are needed, not advertisements. Corruption is solved by having a bigger transparency, establishment of independent committees (which Russia does not have) to assess the Government and others, and a bigger opening of some sectors of the State, and of course, the arrest of the corrupted political class.

Regarding the Sanctions, you brought it upon yourselves, I wouldn't consider it a violation of human rights, and if you want to consider, Russia violated human rights too when imposing sanctions on Turkey (altough I agree with sanctions), following your distorted logic, that is.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.04.2016 at 09:52

How is declining population a problem? I don't understand, yet i don't understand much things coming from the West.. Should we force women and couples to make more children? Should we send einzgruppen to put a gun on their head and make them procreate? Should we create state-owned procreation centers where women are brought to have sex with soldiers and officers?

It is a problem because if there aren't enough births per year, the Social Security system will not be sustainable if there isn't enough work force (tax payers) to sustain it. If there aren't enough births aswell, that means population will be an aged one, Social Sec. will go bankrupt and eventually collapse (don't tell me using Natural Resources Income is valid to sustain it because it's not) and the Economy will become more and more fragile and uncompetitive against other economies because the workforce (Population that works/or is fit to work) isn't as qualified or as competitive like other countries, that translates also in workforce not being disciplined. It's not really that hard to understand it's a severe problem to such a big country like Russia Tito..

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.04.2016 at 09:52

It is women and couples right not to have children, even Russian Church doesn't force believers to have children, they just advise to have more. No one can force Russians to have more children if they don't want to. Basic freedoms must be respected. I don't know how it is in the West.

We in the west also respect Basic Freedoms and our Churches don't force people to have more children, first because there's a separation of the Church ad the State. No one forces no one to have children. What we do, as progressive and capable minds is approving Laws to stimulate birth. Those laws/policies consist of subsidies, tax discounts and more suitable conditions for a couple to have children. Those subsidies strategies are working in some countries, like Portugal, where we finally balanced our Birth/Death's ratio, after years with these policies.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 21.04.2016 at 09:52

Russia have 2 million births and 2 million deaths a year, that mean it is balanced. I don't see how population can decline when it is on zero not minus.


But anyway, should i mention pollution, enviromental decay, nature shrinking, climate change, volatile economy (job is easy to lose as it is easy to find)

It will mean a decline when there are outside factors that can heavily influence those values.

Volatile economy is also your biggest problem lmao, your economy is weak and uncompetitive in most sectors with other countries. You base yourselves in Natural resources. That's a recipe for disaster.