When did the USSR start to lose the Cold War?

Stalin was best leader in my opinion. USSR was strongest during 1945-1951.

When Pepsi beat them

When it started

If Hruschev would've fully realised this and had the will power to accept this loss and proclaim it, I wonder how would've the world looked today

When Pepsi started to disarm the USSR

Kirjoittanut Red.Army, 03.04.2019 at 11:31

I personally think they had no chance of overtaking the US after Stalin died. Every leader after Stalin was terrible.

they had no chance period. Stalin put up a huge affront of how awesome the soviet economy was, while it was actually crap. The leaders after stalin just didn't have his diplomatic persuasiveness and savvy, but russia never stood a chance in the cold war, and Stalin probably knew this. I suspect however, since Stalin was an evil genius, that since the US was a democracy, theres a chance they'd eventually fold and not want to continue in an arms race, which would give him ultimate global power. A genuinely great thought, since democracies are known to act in such a way. However, history didn't play out this way....

The USA was a larger, stronger nation with larger, stronger allies than the Soviet ones, if anything it's more surprising that the Soviets lasted as long as they did.

Soviet allies had to have similar system like USSR, so it was hard to find allies. USA was very practical and had more allies. Unlike today when USA is playing USSR and forcing allies to adjust system to the US.

Soviet economy was bad, but not as bad as westerenrs portrait it to be. Despite being ok economy, it couldn't thrive on its own alone, it had to expand (which is paradox due to wishful autarky), so USSR needed more and more allies or it will face stagnation, which they failed to get. And when i say it need to expand, i dont mean conquer, but find new markets to exchange resources.

Next thing you have to know, is that Soviet military was defensive army, made to defend the Motherland in 'capitalist WW3', USSR suffered alot in WW2 and didn't intend on conquering the world, no matter what westerners are saying - soviet military equipment and numbers indicate >defensive strategy< Therefore achieving victory in Cold War is impossible, due to not being able to attack and beat the enemy with defensive army, it waited USA to attack so they can just defend. Don't forget that the West started Cold War, not the Soviets (NATO created in 1949, Warsaw Pact 6 years later as response).

And last thing you have to know; USSR ended Cold War with USA in 1989, it didn't lose it. USA agreed on terms to stop it 2 years before USSR died. And you can't claim victory over someone who died 700 days ago, maybe you can in your mind, but that's orwellianism my friend, which mean you will need lots of medication to repair your mental state.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 04.04.2019 at 12:21

Soviet allies had to have similar system like USSR, so it was hard to find allies. USA was very practical and had more allies. Unlike today when USA is playing USSR and forcing allies to adjust system to the US.

Soviet economy was bad, but not as bad as westerenrs portrait it to be. Despite being ok economy, it couldn't thrive on its own alone, it had to expand (which is paradox due to wishful autarky), so USSR needed more and more allies or it will face stagnation, which they failed to get. And when i say it need to expand, i dont mean conquer, but find new markets to exchange resources.

Next thing you have to know, is that Soviet military was defensive army, made to defend the Motherland in 'capitalist WW3', USSR suffered alot in WW2 and didn't intend on conquering the world, no matter what westerners are saying - soviet military equipment and numbers indicate >defensive strategy< Therefore achieving victory in Cold War is impossible, due to not being able to attack and beat the enemy with defensive army, it waited USA to attack so they can just defend. Don't forget that the West started Cold War, not the Soviets (NATO created in 1949, Warsaw Pact 6 years later as response).

And last thing you have to know; USSR ended Cold War with USA in 1989, it didn't lose it. USA agreed on terms to stop it 2 years before USSR died. And you can't claim victory over someone who died 700 days ago, maybe you can in your mind, but that's orwellianism my friend, which mean you will need lots of medication to repair your mental state.

they lost, their economy was kaput, but they weren't gonna stop unless we stopped first. So we proved that we'd stop, and then they happily began the process of demilitarizing. The US had to take the moral high ground. Its kinda like when the 18 year old kid walks onto the playground and theres the 13 year old bully who typically is able to beat everyone up. The 13 year old is so stubborn and immature that he won't want to give up. So the 18 year old says "fine, no one wins, but your gonna need to stop bullying everyone else" Its quite obvious who "won" in that situation, tho theres no official winner

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 04.04.2019 at 12:21

And last thing you have to know; USSR ended Cold War with USA in 1989, it didn't lose it. USA agreed on terms to stop it 2 years before USSR died. And you can't claim victory over someone who died 700 days ago

Say what you want about Tito, but I'm learning from him some history of the CCCP. And most important, the point of view of the Russians.

Claiming victory on someone long dead, you mean the ones who laid the foundation to the Soviet system?

Also, you say that Truman started the Cold War, but...it's like saying Hitler attacked CCCP and the Russians didn't have any fault in this.
Of course, the Russians were victors in WW2, had an ok army, were developing nuclear weapons and had all the Europe up to its center into it's grip (I won't go into promising 'democratic elections' in the states behind the Iron Curtain and frauding all the elections thing, that's another topic) so they were a power, even a superpower. But I think here is the problem of the colliding ideologies: democratic-republicanism on one side, communism of different nuances on the other side.

CCCP was considered an empire of evil. Or is this just propaganda, because they didn't give even the slightest impression of aligning to the West? And let's face it, maybe if there was Hruschev leader after ww2 (the case of Churchill going down after the war), maybe there would've been some cooling in the relations between the two states. But with the man of steel, a fine political hardliner, there could be no such thing. And...we can say that Truman too was a fine political hardliner, no party even attempted a compromise, so they delved into a long, quiet conflict

American's are dying from overdosing on carfentanil in the 10's of thousands

Kirjoittanut Tokugawa, 04.04.2019 at 15:37

American's are dying from overdosing on carfentanil in the 10's of thousands

Did you find that on photobucket

Kirjoittanut Red.Army, 05.04.2019 at 00:56

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 04.04.2019 at 13:40

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 04.04.2019 at 12:21

Soviet allies had to have similar system like USSR, so it was hard to find allies. USA was very practical and had more allies. Unlike today when USA is playing USSR and forcing allies to adjust system to the US.

Soviet economy was bad, but not as bad as westerenrs portrait it to be. Despite being ok economy, it couldn't thrive on its own alone, it had to expand (which is paradox due to wishful autarky), so USSR needed more and more allies or it will face stagnation, which they failed to get. And when i say it need to expand, i dont mean conquer, but find new markets to exchange resources.

Next thing you have to know, is that Soviet military was defensive army, made to defend the Motherland in 'capitalist WW3', USSR suffered alot in WW2 and didn't intend on conquering the world, no matter what westerners are saying - soviet military equipment and numbers indicate >defensive strategy< Therefore achieving victory in Cold War is impossible, due to not being able to attack and beat the enemy with defensive army, it waited USA to attack so they can just defend. Don't forget that the West started Cold War, not the Soviets (NATO created in 1949, Warsaw Pact 6 years later as response).

And last thing you have to know; USSR ended Cold War with USA in 1989, it didn't lose it. USA agreed on terms to stop it 2 years before USSR died. And you can't claim victory over someone who died 700 days ago, maybe you can in your mind, but that's orwellianism my friend, which mean you will need lots of medication to repair your mental state.

they lost, their economy was kaput, but they weren't gonna stop unless we stopped first. So we proved that we'd stop, and then they happily began the process of demilitarizing. The US had to take the moral high ground. Its kinda like when the 18 year old kid walks onto the playground and theres the 13 year old bully who typically is able to beat everyone up. The 13 year old is so stubborn and immature that he won't want to give up. So the 18 year old says "fine, no one wins, but your gonna need to stop bullying everyone else" Its quite obvious who "won" in that situation, tho theres no official winner

The Soviet Red Army would of swarmed mainland Europe. No way the US could have stopped them in 1945-1946 unless they use nukes which they didn't have too much of.

nope. US army alone could have stopped them, not to mention every other nation in Europe which was anti-communist...

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 04.04.2019 at 14:51

Say what you want about Tito, but I'm learning from him some history of the CCCP. And most important, the point of view of the Russians.

Claiming victory on someone long dead, you mean the ones who laid the foundation to the Soviet system?

Also, you say that Truman started the Cold War, but...it's like saying Hitler attacked CCCP and the Russians didn't have any fault in this.
Of course, the Russians were victors in WW2, had an ok army, were developing nuclear weapons and had all the Europe up to its center into it's grip (I won't go into promising 'democratic elections' in the states behind the Iron Curtain and frauding all the elections thing, that's another topic) so they were a power, even a superpower. But I think here is the problem of the colliding ideologies: democratic-republicanism on one side, communism of different nuances on the other side.

CCCP was considered an empire of evil. Or is this just propaganda, because they didn't give even the slightest impression of aligning to the West? And let's face it, maybe if there was Hruschev leader after ww2 (the case of Churchill going down after the war), maybe there would've been some cooling in the relations between the two states. But with the man of steel, a fine political hardliner, there could be no such thing. And...we can say that Truman too was a fine political hardliner, no party even attempted a compromise, so they delved into a long, quiet conflict

1. I mean the country died, so you can't claim victory in the war that ended 2 before. I always thought Gorbachev was an idiot but apparently he was the best leader USSR had in its history: he opened up the country, allowed elections and told planners to repair the economy even if that means reforming to capitalism. He is to credit for ending Cold War, approaching the West and holding numerous meetings with Reagan of the US. Can hardly blame him for collapse, if people want separatism. That's like blaming Tsar Nikolai because people starved, while living in Chernozem.

2. By the international law we humans created, USSR (not Russians, that's misleading) was not to blame for WW2 and Barbarossa. USSR is to blame for not allowing elections in Eastern Europe after WW2, but not for the war itself.
I don't know if Soviet and American soldiers are to be judges for rapes in Europe, that is not the same like when Germans raped in Europe. Germans did it systematically, had orders to do it and considered non-Germans 'animals', used them as slaves. Soviet and American rape in Europe was retaliation after enduring long stress and aggravation.

3. If USSR was considered the empire of evil, that's to people to decide, but history and laws we invented shows that USSR doesn't fulfill the criteria to fall under category of evil states. Nazi Germany do, because Soviet Union never had death camps, slave labour, or targeted people for extermination, never declared other race to be subhuman.
Read 'Korenizatsiya' on Wikipedia for how USSR give each race it's own republic, state insitutions, official language, schools and media, instead banning their language, media and politics to pursue Russification like Tsarist Russia did.

4. USSR despite having veteran army of millions after WW2, it was exhausted. Simple logic indicates that exhausted nation + defensive army is incapable of conquering the world, so we can only conclude that Truman or US planners deliberately created NATO and started Cold War so They can try to conquer the world. Communism was just excuse, it was never about ideologies. USA ended WW2 with veteran army and untouched nation while everyone else was destroyed, it was right time to strike and they didn't lose time.
And again, according to laws we have, and human nature, it is logical to conclude that NATO was bad, not only because they started it, but because they openly said they are against Communism and USSR, and humans by nature are avoiding conflict, i don't think Japan, Sweden, Mexico and others like that to hear. You will never hear serious mature diplomat using such language in official speech.

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 04.04.2019 at 13:40

they lost, their economy was kaput, but they weren't gonna stop unless we stopped first. So we proved that we'd stop, and then they happily began the process of demilitarizing. The US had to take the moral high ground. Its kinda like when the 18 year old kid walks onto the playground and theres the 13 year old bully who typically is able to beat everyone up. The 13 year old is so stubborn and immature that he won't want to give up. So the 18 year old says "fine, no one wins, but your gonna need to stop bullying everyone else" Its quite obvious who "won" in that situation, tho theres no official winner

Lost how? You didn't explain, just repeated US mainstream narrative. There was no real war, just interfering in other peoples war (proxies) and lots of propaganda, so how did USSR lost when there was no fight? I didn't know death is considered 'losing'. I guess that mean if we don't agree on this subject, and you die before me, i can claim victory in this threat, you won't be able to reply I also guess that if something negative happens to you, i can use that against you to prove how your life was bad.

Also, there was nothing to stop except War in Afghanistan, Soviets didn't roam the globe, Americans did. USSR and WP were defensive and didn't had intentions to police or conquer the world. I can write a full list of arms here and post link but i don't think it's necessary. USSR had 1 aircraft carrier and 5 helicopter carriers, USA had 10-15 aircraft carriers - aircraft carrier is offensive weapon, so who's preparing to attack who here? Soviets made thousands of rockets and tanks, went to space, they could spam 50 aircraft carriers from iron taken in Ukraine and fuel them with oil from Ural, why they didn't? Because Soviet military doctrine was defensive.

I am sorry but i don't you as American can understand European mentality, and Russian mentality (in this case Soviet, because the people are still europeans) have reasoning as Europeans. Europe never had grand dreams of wars, violence and new order, so didn't USSR, it was merely just another defensive European nation, that happened to match new world superpower, which seems to really triggered Americans, as their number one spot was being questioned. I guess little competition is harmful so it justifies all the lies and deaths.

Soviets were no angels, and power makes people drunk, even peaceful europeans. Soviet economy and experienced military did gave the sense of power to politicians and people, who then tried to act all important in world affairs, trying to get their way, meddle across the globe, but that was no way close to classify as trying to conquer the world.

Almost all actions Soviets did was replying to Americans:

- Vietnam experience revolution, Americans go to stop it, Soviets joins to help other team
- Americans fund Afghan extremists (Brzezinsky admitted it, google), Soviets join to stop terrorism spread to Middle East
- Americans place nukes in Turkey, Soviets reply by placing nukes in Cuba, which angers Americans and almost led us to WW3
- Maybe even Korean was triggered by the Americans, i have to do more research, but i've found that Americans banned south korean communist to form a government after Japanese left. If that government was formed, it would peacefully merge with North Korea and there would be no 2 million deaths.

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 05.04.2019 at 07:23

nope. US army alone could have stopped them, not to mention every other nation in Europe which was anti-communist...

Not sure if trolling or serious

French disliked Americans at this point, Americans(i just use this phrase, i don't blame the people), were printing new french money in America and then using in France, which angered French who already had their own money. Read De Gaulle's memoirs (i did 3 books...) he says there the Americans and British were sabotaging Free French and France at every step, to prevent them becoming again great power. If that money plan was success, it means the French economy would depend on the foreign government, which is basically colonialism. Therefore we don't know if French would support the Americans in the 1946 war against the Soviets. Even their resistance was pro-socialist.

Italians are the greatest socialists in the Western World. Their prime minister is kidnapped by the Americans during Cold War because he was socialist (google it), their WW2 resistance was pro-socialist, and they had good ties to USSR (soviets even named cities after italians). They would stay neutral or join Soviets in case of 1946 Soviet-American war.

Sweden would stay neutral, Spain as fascist would join US forces, UK as always would be fanatical US ally, Turkey was smart as during whole 20th century and would stay neutral, Poland was pro-Soviet at this time so it would join the war, the rest are too weak or small to make a difference. Grece as stubborn little country would either join Soviets or attack Turkey, then USA will attack it so Soviets would come to help the Greeks, thus getting warm ports (something that dreads westerners).

Germans as cursed as Koreans, would be divided again. Half would fear Soviet revenge and would join US forces, other half would perceive USA as 'decadent' (conservative germans) so they would join Soviets as they would believe Soviets are lesser evil of the two.

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 05.04.2019 at 07:23

nope. US army alone could have stopped them, not to mention every other nation in Europe which was anti-communist...

Red army was like 2 times bigger in Europe,they could easily take the rest of europe while Americans still in America and Pacific,tho they would have no means of invading UK let alone usa,allies would nuke them into peace with superior air forces,as result country is even in bigger ruin and probs will be driven out of Eastern Europe

Wrong... As i remember researching, USA had 5 million troops in Europe in 1944/45, USSR 20 million, that mean US army was not in America, but good chunk of total 16 million was already in Europe fighting. Problem is 5 million with sherman tanks(76mm) cannot match 20 million with IS tanks(122mm).

Soviets would not be able to invade UK or US, but able to defend Europe against US bombing, because US bombing didn't harm Germany in WW2, why would it harm Soviet Europe when soviet war industry is in the Ural. Germany could stop US bombing if there was no Eastern Front, and here it is 1v1 USA vs USSR which mean Soviet planes made in Ural could fight freely over skies in Europe.

If USA tries to bomb Ural industry, it need closer runways because WW2 planes range is 500-1500km (ie: distance from central france to central spain). Closest it can get is Pakistan, Turkey, Iran. Sweden would be neutral or occupied, Iran was occupied, Turkey neutral and only viable option is Pakistan. Pakistan-Ural distance is 3000-3500km, which mean soviet war industry would be intact just like the american.

The Europe would be swarmed with soviet infantry and skies protected with planes (who will maybe have heavy lossses, but not enough to lose the skies due to influx of fresh pilots and planes from the east), and the war would last until USA give up trying to liberate Europe.

Then Europe becomes Warsaw Pact and collapses after 50 years, they all join NATO and USA gets even richer selling them guns.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 05.04.2019 at 10:02

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 04.04.2019 at 14:51

1. I mean the country died, so you can't claim victory in the war that ended 2 before. I always thought Gorbachev was an idiot but apparently he was the best leader USSR had in its history: he opened up the country, allowed elections and told planners to repair the economy even if that means reforming to capitalism. He is to credit for ending Cold War, approaching the West and holding numerous meetings with Reagan of the US. Can hardly blame him for collapse, if people want separatism. That's like blaming Tsar Nikolai because people starved, while living in Chernozem.

2. By the international law we humans created, USSR (not Russians, that's misleading) was not to blame for WW2 and Barbarossa. USSR is to blame for not allowing elections in Eastern Europe after WW2, but not for the war itself.
I don't know if Soviet and American soldiers are to be judges for rapes in Europe, that is not the same like when Germans raped in Europe. Germans did it systematically, had orders to do it and considered non-Germans 'animals', used them as slaves. Soviet and American rape in Europe was retaliation after enduring long stress and aggravation.

3. If USSR was considered the empire of evil, that's to people to decide, but history and laws we invented shows that USSR doesn't fulfill the criteria to fall under category of evil states. Nazi Germany do, because Soviet Union never had death camps, slave labour, or targeted people for extermination, never declared other race to be subhuman.
Read 'Korenizatsiya' on Wikipedia for how USSR give each race it's own republic, state insitutions, official language, schools and media, instead banning their language, media and politics to pursue Russification like Tsarist Russia did.

4. USSR despite having veteran army of millions after WW2, it was exhausted. Simple logic indicates that exhausted nation + defensive army is incapable of conquering the world, so we can only conclude that Truman or US planners deliberately created NATO and started Cold War so They can try to conquer the world. Communism was just excuse, it was never about ideologies. USA ended WW2 with veteran army and untouched nation while everyone else was destroyed, it was right time to strike and they didn't lose time.
And again, according to laws we have, and human nature, it is logical to conclude that NATO was bad, not only because they started it, but because they openly said they are against Communism and USSR, and humans by nature are avoiding conflict, i don't think Japan, Sweden, Mexico and others like that to hear. You will never hear serious mature diplomat using such language in official speech.

1. How can a country simply die. Isn't Gorbachev what the likes of Stalin of Hruschev should have been? Like, ok, we've seen that communism isn't working as we wanted, as we dreamt so..we should let it go and learn extremely valuable lessons out of this.

USSR has not the resources for such an endeavour. Russia created its empire bit by bit, in hundreds of years, in the quietness of the steppes. Bit by bit chipping the mighty Polish-Lithuanian Republic, bit by bit making its entrance into the grand political concerto of Europe, bit by bit becoming a great power. The Republic tried to bring it down and maybe it was the closest to this. Napoleon's invasion and Hitler's are simply folly.

2. Yes, USSR didn't start it, it only armed itself, knowing that such a great enemy lies unto its doorstep, Nazi Germany, and waited, pretty clever, if u ask me.
Don't tell me about rapes, I never heared of Germans passing by in these lands to do so or from the history of Barbarossa. The first hand accounts, of my grandparents, were something like this: the Germans were an incredible armada, incredible soldiers, well equipped and disciplined, paying for what they took and civilised. Russians? Lol, almost a rabble, no discipline, riding in carts and on horses, women among them. Raping everything, stealing everything. Claiming victories they were not their own (liberation of Romania), all in all, a horde, a bunch of barbarians and this is the reality, my friend.

3. Soviet Union maybe didn't declare other race to be human, it declared entire classes to be subhuman unless it served the Party, the intelectuals, the burgeosie and aristocracy were all 'subhumans' who were eradicated. When did Nazi Germany had slave camps? Also, Soviet Union not having death camps or targeting people fore extermination? This must be a joke. What is the Gulag, if not a forced work camp? The Soviets almost coined the practice. What are the Great Purges of Stalin? The Holodomor? The problem with Nazies is that they targeted the Jews, the most influent nation of the planet. Nobody cares about the Ukrainians dying in the Great Famine. Yes, my friend, CCCP probably fulfills almost all criteria for being an empire of evil.

4. Maybe Usa and Truman of the 1946 were extra hyped as they discovered how strong they were and thought they can conquer the globe, but CCCP was a totalitarian regime, a victor in the war with a huge army. An 'evil' in the eyes of any decent westerner (even if countries like France were and are leaned toward the left). CCCP army was exhausted and it was not an army capable of conquering the globe, but it was a huge army. Tell me, how can 20kk soldiers, thousands and thousands of planes and tanks cannot look like an army ready to storm the globe, or at least eurasia and africa? What could stop USSR to reach India (it is known that they wanted this since centuries ago) or Egypt, or even South Africa?!


Conclusion: So many Russians long after CCCP, some Romanians long after PRR, but I have read a thing or two regarding this subject. And I was born after 89 so I can't say nothing about how people lived then. But I know that a simple worker can do very well under a Communism regime if he don't do anything stupid. But any guy who read some lectures and intellectuals in general can't survive under such a regime, because you either praise something which is flawed (and this is artistic prostitution), something in which you do not believe with sincerity or you harshly criticize it, and we know of great Russian or Romanian artists who couldn't stand the lie and started talking, writing, composing, criticizing and the hammer fell upon them! By no means, a honest intellectual can't live in communism and there are few who really believed in Communism as Lenin or Stalin coined it. This is one of the problems of Leninism or Stalinism, that it didn't accept criticism. But this is the problem of any authoritarian regime aight?
Also, never living in an authoritarian regime, as you do (you live in Russia if I'm not mistaken), I can't say how you would feel or if u can live well and prosper. You will, because you believe in the Slav cause with sincerity, but I see that you also are aware of the severe flaws the establishment has.
You defend what you have, your country. I defend what I have, my country and Russia can be admired yea, from many points of views, but despised also. I tend to be in awe of other Slavic nations like the Poles or even the Czechs. Thing is, I don't think I understand the Russian mindset, after all these lectures...I think I need to visit Russia to understand more. You, personally, can't be blamed for the faults of your ancestors, and I can't too. We need to start to understand this history more and to see how can we combine its understanding with the present, with the present geopolitical situation. However, you see the present situation, NATO on one side, Russia on the other. It's a sad situation and I'd like to to be optimistic, but it seems that this peace is like a bubble, waiting to be burst...

P.S. sorry for the long quote, but it seemed to me that after so many new posts, having the text to which I responded to would help u

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

1. How can a country simply die. Isn't Gorbachev what the likes of Stalin of Hruschev should have been? Like, ok, we've seen that communism isn't working as we wanted, as we dreamt so..we should let it go and learn extremely valuable lessons out of this.

It does, no one knows how, it all happened so fast. Economy failed, nationalism appeared, separatism appeared, new generation of politicians appeared in the same time who had different things in mind. Combine all that and hell break loose.

No Gorbachev was way different, way more liberal, even Khruschov can't be compared to Stalin because Stalin is considered conservative, Khrushchov liberalized the country (reason why he was ousted later), tv, media, culture, they call it 'Khruschev Thaw'. Then Brezhnev arrived, who was conservative and wanted to restore Stalinism so Politburo removed Khruschov while he was in Crimea on holiday i think, USSR was actually making progress under Khruschov politics, and as soon Brezhnev took over, country stagnated and that led to collapse during Gorbachov era.

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

USSR has not the resources for such an endeavour. Russia created its empire bit by bit, in hundreds of years, in the quietness of the steppes. Bit by bit chipping the mighty Polish-Lithuanian Republic, bit by bit making its entrance into the grand political concerto of Europe, bit by bit becoming a great power. The Republic tried to bring it down and maybe it was the closest to this. Napoleon's invasion and Hitler's are simply folly.

Hm, i agree with this. Well said.

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

2. Yes, USSR didn't start it, it only armed itself, knowing that such a great enemy lies unto its doorstep, Nazi Germany, and waited, pretty clever, if u ask me.
Don't tell me about rapes, I never heared of Germans passing by in these lands to do so or from the history of Barbarossa. The first hand accounts, of my grandparents, were something like this: the Germans were an incredible armada, incredible soldiers, well equipped and disciplined, paying for what they took and civilised. Russians? Lol, almost a rabble, no discipline, riding in carts and on horses, women among them. Raping everything, stealing everything. Claiming victories they were not their own (liberation of Romania), all in all, a horde, a bunch of barbarians and this is the reality, my friend.

Every account and old people who spoke about it told me that Germans acted as barbarians in Eastern Europe, not only in the USSR. But they also told me Red Army acted as barbarian, i won't lie. Just i won't let myth of civilized German Army bringing peace to the East, because i believe the people who told me of their experience, many grandmothers told they were raped by the germans, and they were not party members because they didn't care for politics, so i doubt they lied in order to make Germany look bad, they are peasants and farmers away from the cities, they don't even know where Germany is.

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

3. Soviet Union maybe didn't declare other race to be human, it declared entire classes to be subhuman unless it served the Party, the intelectuals, the burgeosie and aristocracy were all 'subhumans' who were eradicated.

No no, it declared entire classes to be 'enemy of the people', not subhuman, that's huge difference! Communism says some people(classes) abuse other people, so they must be fought. Nazism says group of people abuse other people so they must die, that's a big difference.

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

When did Nazi Germany had slave camps?

Are you joking, Germany had millions of slave labor, check wikipedia. I posted this source long ago, lazy to search now. My cousin was slave in Nazi Germany, first in a war factory and later on some german farm. He said conditions in the factory were terrible, hell was better place, but farm was paradise, peaceful village and not hard job. He was eating and sleeping in the house with the German family, but when SS visit to check on him, they lock him in the barn, when SS leave, they release him, so it doesn't look they are treating him as human. He was free to roam around.

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

Also, Soviet Union not having death camps or targeting people fore extermination? This must be a joke. What is the Gulag, if not a forced work camp? The Soviets almost coined the practice.

Gulag was 'network of prisons'; it did had 'forced labour' but that was normal in that age, you must understand we modern people do not think like them. For example gays are ok today....

Prison work was ok back then (and i want it back..), so taxpayers don't have to feed criminals. Now of course many innocent people ended up locked there, neighbors falsely reported friends out of envy. But Gulag was simply prison system of the country, not paralel institution next to normal prisons. They had many prisoners, millions, but the country was big, so prison population cannot be small.

The subject is not simple: USSR barely kept order in the 20's, many parents died in WW1 and civil war, children where out on the street, they had to steal to survive, they grown up to be criminals, they didnt know what else to do. Then many people turned to crime during WW1 in order to survive, times were hard, their homes ruined, new country still unable to help them, and when new country was built up, they were simply sent to gulag for their crimes. Khruschov pardoned millions after Stalin.

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

What are the Great Purges of Stalin? The Holodomor? The problem with Nazies is that they targeted the Jews, the most influent nation of the planet. Nobody cares about the Ukrainians dying in the Great Famine. Yes, my friend, CCCP probably fulfills almost all criteria for being an empire of evil.

Purges is crime. No question, it was politicized by Stalin or his members, but it was not a genocide or ethnic cleansing. It is political crime. Around 700,000 people died in few short years, not millions.

Yes Ukraine had famine, but that is misleading to say, because south Russia and North Kazakhstan also had same famine! I'm really lazy to search and post map(again), but the famine spanned East Ukraine-South Russia-North Kazakhstan, not only 'Ukraine'! They are politicizing the famine today to blame Russia, Kazakhstan can do the same you know, Russia can blame Ukrainians as well.

Famine occured due to bad economic policies of the planning committee. We can't blame ethnic groups for trying to exterminate other ethnic group when that cleary is not the case. Three ethnic groups suffered in it.

Kazakhs proved as very very good people in that time, sharing food with the Russians(and kazakhi ukrainians), and they didn't even have enough for themselves. And i am not talking about sending food to Russia, but people giving people on the streets in Kazakhstan.

So as you said, 'nobody cares for Ukrainians', but did you know Kazakhs starved as well? No body cares for them it seems, but everyone heard about Ukrainians!

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

4. Maybe Usa and Truman of the 1946 were extra hyped as they discovered how strong they were and thought they can conquer the globe, but CCCP was a totalitarian regime, a victor in the war with a huge army. An 'evil' in the eyes of any decent westerner (even if countries like France were and are leaned toward the left). CCCP army was exhausted and it was not an army capable of conquering the globe, but it was a huge army. Tell me, how can 20kk soldiers, thousands and thousands of planes and tanks cannot look like an army ready to storm the globe, or at least eurasia and africa? What could stop USSR to reach India (it is known that they wanted this since centuries ago) or Egypt, or even South Africa?!

I understand that viewpoint, it kinda make sense, but then why not fearing China? China had 5-10 million active-duty soldiers during Cold War, and they built war factories, could spam tanks and planes. They could storm Eurasia and Africa as well. So fixing your gaze on USSR (as American) is unprofessional in military terms, as other power could sneak and achieve victory.

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

Conclusion: So many Russians long after CCCP, some Romanians long after PRR, but I have read a thing or two regarding this subject. And I was born after 89 so I can't say nothing about how people lived then.

That's the problem, people dont understand why older people miss communism, especially westerners.

Old people do not miss communism, but miss their country. Those countries were 'slow', orderly, institutions worked, no crime. Today cities are noisy, crime rampant, people watch idiotic TV shows, values changed (instead education - fast money). Old people don't really care their countries were communist, because in comparison to what they see today, their time was paradise.

They could go on vacation without taking bank loan, could buy or build 2 houses (most build because then the house look exactly as they wanted), buy a car without bank loan, could buy anything they want from food, clothes, toys, bills and still have savings. Today people cant do this in Eastern Europe. They have to join a party, lie, lick butts to get promoted to some high position in a ministry or company in order to achieve same things as their fathers (who worked honestly in factories).

I had to sell a flat i had in the downtown and a cottage in countryside (real estate achieved by my family in communism by just working as middle class) and buy a farm in order to preserve my lifestyle(middle class with freedom and options and not sucking employers in the city), the rest are either working as slaves in local companies or prostitute themselves in political parties for positions (companies do not issue papers to workers so they dont pay taxes, thus workers cant prove they work in order to achieve pensions later in life... my family never had problem with this in communism for example)

Eastern European economies were better performing than Western counterparts from 1945 to 1970, after that West overtakes and East suddenly enters recession in 1980, from which it couldn't get out and collapse.

Not to mention when communism collapsed, order collapsed as well, gangs and mafia roams free and up to this day people used to this, courts are struggling to sentence them. Police is actually doing a good job arresting them, keeping them off the streets, but judges get bribed and release them, not judges actually but 'experts', i dont know how to translate that, those people judges invite as 'independent experts' to testify about technicalities that occured during crime. Smart mafia bribes them, so they testify falsely in favor of a criminal, that way they dont bribe judges so you cant prove a thing. Its a mess, and that's why old people get frustrated and wish Stalin is back (with his gulags).

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

But I know that a simple worker can do very well under a Communism regime if he don't do anything stupid. But any guy who read some lectures and intellectuals in general can't survive under such a regime, because you either praise something which is flawed (and this is artistic prostitution), something in which you do not believe with sincerity or you harshly criticize it, and we know of great Russian or Romanian artists who couldn't stand the lie and started talking, writing, composing, criticizing and the hammer fell upon them! By no means, a honest intellectual can't live in communism and there are few who really believed in Communism as Lenin or Stalin coined it. This is one of the problems of Leninism or Stalinism, that it didn't accept criticism. But this is the problem of any authoritarian regime aight?
Also, never living in an authoritarian regime, as you do (you live in Russia if I'm not mistaken), I can't say how you would feel or if u can live well and prosper. You will, because you believe in the Slav cause with sincerity, but I see that you also are aware of the severe flaws the establishment has.

This is correct, Solzhenytsin said 'I left Soviet Union, i will return to Russia'. And he did.

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

You defend what you have, your country. I defend what I have, my country and Russia can be admired yea, from many points of views, but despised also. I tend to be in awe of other Slavic nations like the Poles or even the Czechs. Thing is, I don't think I understand the Russian mindset, after all these lectures...I think I need to visit Russia to understand more. You, personally, can't be blamed for the faults of your ancestors, and I can't too. We need to start to understand this history more and to see how can we combine its understanding with the present, with the present geopolitical situation. However, you see the present situation, NATO on one side, Russia on the other. It's a sad situation and I'd like to to be optimistic, but it seems that this peace is like a bubble, waiting to be burst...

P.S. sorry for the long quote, but it seemed to me that after so many new posts, having the text to which I responded to would help u

This is also correct, but how to achieve that when we are surrounded by young people who use negative emotions for no reason (hate towards other nations, they fight on football matches, carrying torches, knifes, or people who distance themselves when they see a foreigner who they saw on the TV someone said was bad)

You have to put down on the paper pros and cons about this, and see whether theres more good things or bad things in order to judge (young people judge before getting the full picture).

Kirjoittanut Freeman, 07.04.2019 at 00:03

The german army was pretty brutal on the eastern front, they murdered and raped millions of soviets. In WW2, the german army definitely did not have the moral ground ground. The holocaust wasn't just conducted in the death camps, some of the mass murders were done by the german army as well.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 06.04.2019 at 08:03

I want to address a few things:

1. I think I didn't express myself properly. I don't believe in some myth of Nazi Germany civilized army. They didn't rape or steal in our country, which up until 1944 was German ally. Of course you won't destroy an allied country. On the other hand, an enemy country...

I am somehow frustrated that the Russians treated us harshly after ww2, even if in the last year of war we fought against Germany. However, there are 2 points of view which needs to be considered from the Russian side. a. Romania had 1 year fought in the Allied camp, but 4 in Axis'. b. We are talking here of CCCP's ruler, Stalin, maybe if there would've been any more lenient ruler, a Hurschev, or Gorbachev, probably he would have considered that 1 year, but not him. So my country, even if it received the Red Army as allies on its territory, it was treated at least partially as an enemy. Though, if I think more clearly now, I know accounts of rapes and heavy pillaging in the north, but not the same was in the center. Probably the harshness of the Russians calmed towards west and south Romania.

2. Comparing Nazi Germany's 'subhuman policy' with Communist Russia's 'enemy of people policy' is like comparing rotten apples with toxic carrots. Its like drawing a scale of evil. A dialogue between an accuser of Nazis and one accusing Communists would look like this:

- I say Nazis must be on top of the evil ladder because entire peoples were declared subhuman and subsequently subjected to extermination.
- I say Communists must be on top because if entire classes are enemies of the people, it means that hundreds of millions of people (at the globe's 1945 population) can fill these categories.

Well, which one is more evil?
For Nazies we have pretty clear numbers of their victims, because their reign was shorter too. But if we'd start counting in every country which was or is Communist the victims of the war against 'the enemies of the people', I think the numbers would be jaw-dropping.

3. What is this on the grand picture? If not a clash of economic and political systems. I even think that people older than 45 that long for communism probably can't adapt well in this world. And honestly, how to adapt in this new world, meaning East Europe post 1989? Look at all the youngsters now, who are all day on youtube watching vloggers or on TV watching (as you said) stupid shows copied from the West. The scale of values is reversing. Education is no more important, but guts, luck and shrewdness. Technical highschools abandoned because everybody wants college/faculty degree and now we wake up that we can't fill all the blue collar jobs available and Vietnamese/Nepalese/Chinese must come to do them! My mother told me that the times were simple in Communism and everybody knew its place, but there was also fear. I am afraid of this fear of the government, however strange this statement may be. I imagine that I can't live in that fear. But my parents were simple folk, they didn't do anything against the system, no intellectuals who could contest Communism ideas. Also, I have a problem with the Communist economy. It always seemed to me that it was obsolete. The products produced by these factories being exported only to African or Middle Eastern country, because they couldn't compete with the West's one. Also, a professor of mine (a very informed person) told me that at one steel mill in the Communist they would produce with 20k workers the amount of steel it is produced today with only 2k workers.

Not talking about the stealing of technical information from the Westerners, which was considered legal, because the Communists considered the Western researchers who developed various technologies or new procedures as 'oppressed proletarians'. This is such a great fault of the Communism.

So it was a more 'simple time' for the simple folk, who was kept in an endless bliss, blind to every scheme and maneuver of the Party members. People who never walked out of the country and were not allowed to do so.

It came into my mind Huxley's ' Brave New World'. And that book really raises important questions marks. What's better, a perfect society where everything is just great, but people look like each other, think in the same cliches as each other? Where truth's meaning is reversed, and lies told thousands and thousands times again become the new truths. Where people who start doubting the establishment (like the misfit character Bernard Marx and Helmholtz Watson) are eventually exiled to places at their choosing (such a heart-melting gesture to let them pick their exile since all the planet is one state/government). All in all, this is the 'Brave New World', an everlasting bliss here on Earth (forget religion, it is abolished completely in the book).
Maybe a related bliss to this my and your parents experimented in the Communism time. But maybe everybody is saying this also because that was the time when they were all young, that incredible time who one remembers with nostalgia and delight.

We come to the core questions. What is a perfect society and how can it be accomplished? and What can we take from authoritarian rules, far-left and right (if we can use these at all), utopias and different democratic rules across the globe to accomplish a new state/political ideology, a perfect one? Oh, this question raised (at least) from Plato up until now...


p.s. I think your remarks regarding why USSR simply died after 1989, the Gulag network after WW1, and the Ukr-RS-Kazakh. Famine are great.

For those who haven't seen this, enjoy ♥