What makes the Ukrainians like their own children for breakfast?
Dragon Fly
that neither Irish during great famine in Ireland in 1840-ies,
nor even Somalis during famine in 1992-1993
were ever spotted eating their own children?
But the Ukrainians did!!!!
Eyewitness accounts tell the horrific stories of
Ukrainians cannibalizing on their own
children during Ukrainian famine 1932-1933.
In fact, the practice of eating their own
children was so spread on the Ukraine that
horrified Red Army officers were ordering
soldiers to take Ukrainian children and put
them in a special wards which were guarded
against adult Ukrainians.
Really, Ukrainians are probably very special, in a sense...
Cordially,
Dragon
Dragon Fly
children or other relatives when asked
were saying that the meat of a young Ukrainian
reminds salted pork, but if the victim was
older it smelled urine.
Read "Ogoniok" 08/1994 issue.
Cordially,
Dragon
GRycar
Murder is not something to be proud of. I trust that you are not
all there. It is unfortunate that your traitarous relatives did not find
themselves in Western Ukraine where people were still armed and I trust
would have dispatched same to hell forthwith.
I also bring to your attention that you type of sick commentary
will not sit lightly with Ukrainians. Needless to say, you need a
phsyciatrist fast.
Regards
George
csource
>
> S--- Fly;
Seems to me that the Fly has a schitzo problem. On one of his letters, he praised
certain "noble defenders of Ukrainian independence." Now he's talking about them
eating their children.
Hey, you filthy insect, are you proud of your murderous heritage? How does it feel to
have the bloody sins of your fathers dripping from your hands?
Ilya Vinarsky
2. Some 20 years ago my mother met a peasant woman in Stary Saltov, some
40(?)km from Kharkov. One of her hands was crippled. She said that in
1933 she was nine years old. She had nothing to eat, so she started to
eat herself.
3. There were plenty of cannibals in the siege of Leningrad, too. Not
long ago, I read a book by one S. Vititsky, which Ahasuerus from the
science fiction newsgroup says is a nom de plume of Boris Strugatsky; it
has some harrowing stuff about the siege (along the lines of the
description in _Grad Obrechenny_, but in much greater detail).
Dragon Fly
In article <3169AB...@ro.com>, csource <cso...@ro.com> wrote:
}GRycar wrote:
}>
}> S--- Fly;
}> Murder is not something to be proud of. I trust that you are not
}> all there. It is unfortunate that your traitarous relatives did not find
}> themselves in Western Ukraine where people were still armed and I trust
}> would have dispatched same to hell forthwith.
}> I also bring to your attention that you type of sick commentary
}> will not sit lightly with Ukrainians. Needless to say, you need a
}> phsyciatrist fast.
}>
}
}he praised certain "noble defenders of Ukrainian independence."
True, I paid a tribute to Prof.Voronka, Prof.Viznyuk, and Dr.Vulis
who are the only truly corageous and honest defenders of
independence, nizalizhnost' and samostijnost' of the Ukraine
on the Usenet.
Do you Tchurka really think it's a "schitzo problem" to be
a corageous defender of the Ukrainian independence against
encroachments by some subhuman Turko-Okrainians like Vova Sovokin
and yourself?
DO YOU TCHURKA SWINE REALLY THINK SO ???!!!!!
We True Russians deeply despise and spit on a Tchurka scum like you
and Vova Sovokin and other Turko-Okrainians whose only destiny is
to lick Russian ass (mine in particular).
Just answer me you the Tchurka:
how many children did your stupid ancestors eat in 1932-1933
and earlier?
Too bad you weren't one of them..
} Now he's talking about them eating their children.
BTW, my great-grandpa who exterminated more than 30
Turko-Okrainians late in 1932 in fact maybe saved someone
like you from being eaten by your own Tchurkish father or
mother.
Learn how to be grateful to us Russians, you the Ukrainian Tchurka!
}Hey, you filthy insect, are you proud of your murderous heritage?
}How does it feel to
}have the bloody sins of your fathers dripping from your hands?
I'm fine and proud of my fathers.
And you the Ukrainian Tchurkas know your place.
(Needless to remind where is it)
BTW, the time is coming: get ready to lick Russian ass once again.
Cordially,
Dragon
Dan Korolev
>In article <3169AB...@ro.com>, csource <cso...@ro.com> wrote:
>}GRycar wrote:
>}>
>}> S--- Fly;
>}> Murder is not something to be proud of. I trust that you are not
>}> all there. It is unfortunate that your traitarous relatives did not find
>}> themselves in Western Ukraine where people were still armed and I trust
>}> would have dispatched same to hell forthwith.
>}> I also bring to your attention that you type of sick commentary
>}> will not sit lightly with Ukrainians. Needless to say, you need a
>}> phsyciatrist fast.
>}>
>}
>}Seems to me that the Fly has a schitzo problem. On one of his letters,
>}he praised certain "noble defenders of Ukrainian independence."
>True, I paid a tribute to Prof.Voronka, Prof.Viznyuk, and Dr.Vulis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doe sanybody know if Viznyuk has finally gone over the deep end? I mean, why
is he now constantly refering to himself in hte third person ("Prof.Viznyuk"
instead of "I")? And why is he giving himself this new title ("Professor")?
is he REALLY a Porofessor at Ohio State? And even if so, why IS he referring
to himself in the third person?
>who are the only truly corageous and honest
defenders of >independence, nizalizhnost' and samostijnost' of the Ukraine
>on the Usenet.
>Do you Tchurka really think it's a "schitzo problem" to be
>a corageous defender of the Ukrainian independence against
>encroachments by some subhuman Turko-Okrainians like Vova Sovokin
>and yourself?
> DO YOU TCHURKA SWINE REALLY THINK SO ???!!!!!
>We True Russians deeply despise and spit on a Tchurka scum like you
>and Vova Sovokin and other Turko-Okrainians whose only destiny is
>to lick Russian ass (mine in particular).
Does Prof. Voronka share your views?
>Just answer me you the Tchurka:
>how many children did your stupid ancestors eat in 1932-1933
>and earlier?
>Too bad you weren't one of them..
I recall your greatgrandfather also did his share: according to you, he
had murderd more than 30 of his fellow Ukrainians.
>} Now he's talking about them eating their children.
>BTW, my great-grandpa who exterminated more than 30
>Turko-Okrainians late in 1932 in fact maybe saved someone
>like you from being eaten by your own Tchurkish father or
>mother.
Exactly as I said...
>Learn how to be grateful to us Russians, you the Ukrainian Tchurka!
>}Hey, you filthy insect, are you proud of your murderous heritage?
>}How does it feel to
>}have the bloody sins of your fathers dripping from your hands?
>I'm fine and proud of my fathers.
>And you the Ukrainian Tchurkas know your place.
>(Needless to remind where is it)
>BTW, the time is coming: get ready to lick Russian ass once again.
>Cordially,
>Dragon
As I said, off the deep end.....
Dan
lionking
What kind of cheap drugs are you on?
You are one twisted bastard. Possibly it could have happened in isolated incidents, just as it could have happened in Ireland
or anywhere else, but to say that the Russian pigs were protected Ukrainian
children is insance. I'm sure Stalin wanted to protect the Ukrainian children, while
at the same starve the rest of Ukraine. Why don't you go to school and read
a book. You fucking idiot.
You probably think that Chernobyl was caused due to a microwave exploding.
Your a real brainiac.
Fuck You Dragon
Frosty
csource
> }Seems to me that the Fly has a schitzo problem. On one of his letters,
> }he praised certain "noble defenders of Ukrainian independence."
> True, I paid a tribute to Prof.Voronka, Prof.Viznyuk, and Dr.Vulis
> who are the only truly corageous and honest defenders of
> independence, nizalizhnost' and samostijnost' of the Ukraine
> on the Usenet.
> Do you Tchurka really think it's a "schitzo problem" to be
> a corageous defender of the Ukrainian independence against
> encroachments by some subhuman Turko-Okrainians like Vova Sovokin
> and yourself?
>
> DO YOU TCHURKA SWINE REALLY THINK SO ???!!!!!
First of all, you idiot, I am not Ukrainian. I, unlike you, am a
natural born citizen of the greatest nation on earth, the
United States of America. I am simply a friend of the proud and
independent Ukrainian people, who are among the most noble on
earth. And I am also a friend to a lot of Russians. TRUE
Russians. Not like yourself.
> We True Russians deeply despise and spit on a Tchurka scum like you
> and Vova Sovokin and other Turko-Okrainians whose only destiny is
> to lick Russian ass (mine in particular).
You are not a true Russian. I have friends who are true Russians,
both here and in Russia, who would be embarrassed to be numbered
with the likes of you.
> Just answer me you the Tchurka:
NO, the AMERICAN....something I dare hope you'll never be...
> how many children did your stupid ancestors eat in 1932-1933
> and earlier?
None. They were here building the American dream which you now
seem to be pursuing rather than being at home helping defend your
superior Russia from the fearsome hordes of Chechnya (chuckle).
> BTW, my great-grandpa who exterminated more than 30
> Turko-Okrainians late in 1932 in fact maybe saved someone
> like you from being eaten by your own Tchurkish father or
> mother.
Your great-grandpa saved nobody from nothing. He was a coward
and a murderer by your own tesimony. And my grandfather was
over there risking his life fighting the Germans so that
murderous animals like your great-granddad could live to
produce hate-mongering offspring like yourself.
> Learn how to be grateful to us Russians, you the Ukrainian Tchurka!
Learn how to be grateful to us Americans, you who can't tell a
Ukrainian from a Russian from an American. How many
loaves of American bread did YOU eat after a bad wheat crop?
I hate to think that some true Russian went hungry while
you ate their bread.
By the way, is your last name "Vizhnyuck" or something like that?
Sounds Ukrainian to me, not pure Russian. Perhaps there is a "fly"
in your Russian ointment...
If Russia is so great, smart guy, what are YOU doing over here in the
States?
> I'm fine and proud of my fathers.
Stalin is your father.
> BTW, the time is coming: get ready to lick Russian a-- once again.
The U.S. never licked. We only kicked. Get used to it. Deal with it.
Dave
csource
UJWompa
during WWII, in posession of chunks of human flesh - not under siege
conditions, either. More recently, I've read of backwoods inhabitants of
Siberia found eating the occasional neighbor. The anecdotes, stories, and
criminal cases span most of the last century - since the last food surplus
under the Tsars. Remember when the Russian Empire was the breadbasket of
Europe?
Perhaps these cannibals were the grown-up orphans from the post-Civil War
childrens' street gangs, or brutalized survivors of the Gulag. Then again,
perhaps no good excuse - except that their government didn't care about
human life, so why should they?
Dan Korolev
>In article <3169AB...@ro.com>, csource <cso...@ro.com> wrote:
>}GRycar wrote:
>}>
>}> S--- Fly;
>}> Murder is not something to be proud of. I trust that you are not
>}> all there. It is unfortunate that your traitarous relatives did not find
>}> themselves in Western Ukraine where people were still armed and I trust
>}> would have dispatched same to hell forthwith.
>}> I also bring to your attention that you type of sick commentary
>}> will not sit lightly with Ukrainians. Needless to say, you need a
>}> phsyciatrist fast.
>}>
>}
>}Seems to me that the Fly has a schitzo problem. On one of his letters,
>}he praised certain "noble defenders of Ukrainian independence."
>True, I paid a tribute to Prof.Voronka, Prof.Viznyuk, and Dr.Vulis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>who are the only truly corageous and honest defenders of
>independence, nizalizhnost' and samostijnost' of the Ukraine
>on the Usenet.
>Do you Tchurka really think it's a "schitzo problem" to be
>a corageous defender of the Ukrainian independence against
>encroachments by some subhuman Turko-Okrainians like Vova Sovokin
>and yourself?
> DO YOU TCHURKA SWINE REALLY THINK SO ???!!!!!
Sorry to interrupt your deeply profound, scientific, polite and logical
train of thought, Professor Viznyuk, but let me make a small remark
concerning the "schitzo problem". Your true undeserving servant (myself that
is) wants to know what is the name of a psychiatric desease under which a
person consistently refers to himself in third person and invents titles for
himself?
Take, for example, you. In a third post in a row you refer to
yuorself, DragonFly-Viznyuk, in third person as " Prof.Viznyuk". If this is
not schitzo, what is?
Your servant,
Dan Korolev
Henrietta Thomas
lionking (fro...@oanet.com) wrote:
: In article <4k4hhl$n...@news1.infinet.com>, Dragon Fly <df...@infinet.com>
: says:
: >
: >Ever wondered why it was so
: >that neither Irish during great famine in Ireland in 1840-ies,
: >nor even Somalis during famine in 1992-1993
: >were ever spotted eating their own children?
: >
: > But the Ukrainians did!!!!
: >
: >Eyewitness accounts tell the horrific stories of
: >Ukrainians cannibalizing on their own
: >children during Ukrainian famine 1932-1933.
: >
: >In fact, the practice of eating their own
: >children was so spread on the Ukraine that
: >horrified Red Army officers were ordering
: >soldiers to take Ukrainian children and put
: >them in a special wards which were guarded
: >against adult Ukrainians.
: >
: >Really, Ukrainians are probably very special, in a sense...
: What kind of cheap drugs are you on?
: You are one twisted bastard. Possibly it could have happened in isolated
: incidents, just as it could have happened in Ireland
: or anywhere else, but to say that the Russian pigs were protected Ukrainian
: children is insance. I'm sure Stalin wanted to protect the Ukrainian
: children, while at the same starve the rest of Ukraine. Why don't you go
: to school and read a book. You fucking idiot.
: You probably think that Chernobyl was caused due to a microwave exploding.
: Your a real brainiac.
I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
protect children. In the article following the one to which you responded,
Dragon says to read Ogoniok for August, 1994. I do not have access to this
publication, and don't know Russian anyway, but maybe someone will verify
this as the source of Dragon's information before we go around accusing
him of telling lies again.
Henrietta Thomas
Posting from soc.culture.russian
h...@wwa.com
Dmitry Gryaznov
> I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
> the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
> protect children. In the article following the one to which you
Ah, c'mon Henrietta! Don't you see how this Dragon Fly jerk is trying to
interpret the tragic facts? Should I remind you and him that there were
documented cases of cannibalism during Povolzhie famine in Russia in
1920s? It proves nothing but the fact people (be it Ukrainians or
Russians or anybody else) can lose their minds in the face of the
imminent and torturous death by starvation... It's a tragedy - not to be
used to support any chauvinistic ideas!
--
Sincerely, | VirusLab, S & S International PLC.
Dmitry O. Gryaznov | Alton House, Office Park, Gatehouse Way,
Senior Virus Research Analyst | Aylesbury, Bucks HP19 3XU, United Kingdom
E-mail: gr...@dial.pipex.com | Tel: +44 (0)1296 318700
WWW: http://www.drsolomon.com | Fax: +44 (0)1296 318734
Dave
> I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
> the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
> protect children. In the article following the one to which you responded,
> Dragon says to read Ogoniok for August, 1994. I do not have access to this
> publication, and don't know Russian anyway, but maybe someone will verify
> this as the source of Dragon's information before we go around accusing
> him of telling lies again.
>
> Henrietta Thomas
> Posting from soc.culture.russian
> h...@wwa.com
Why don't YOU go and read a book about what Stalin and his lieutenants did
to cause the Ukrainians to eat anything they could find? How many Ukrainins
do YOU personally know? And have you ever been to Ukraine or Russia? I have,
and both Russians and Ukrainians agree about the true facts of the matter.
No truer statement has been made than when you said you don't know Russian.
Are you talking about language or culture? I know BOTH.
Sincerely,
Dave
NOTE: The opinions posted above are not necessarily those of my associates. But
they should be.
Dan K.
> > I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
> > the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
> > protect children. In the article following the one to which you responded,
> > Dragon says to read Ogoniok for August, 1994. I do not have access to this
> > publication, and don't know Russian anyway, but maybe someone will verify
> > this as the source of Dragon's information before we go around accusing
> > him of telling lies again.
> > Henrietta Thomas h...@wwa.com
Henrietta, you're mouthing things which you have no comprehension of, things
that are as tragic as events which happened during the Russian orchestrated
Genocidal Famine against the Ukrainian nation with such non-chalance and
confessed, (once again) ignorance confirms beyond any shadow of doubt that
you are as disgusting as you are ignorant and are made of the same "cloth"
as Dung Fly!
Dan K.
Dan K.
F. Tereshchenko wrote:
> Mr. Savchenko,
> Mr. Korolyshyn is just another nationalist
Oh, really, what kind of nationalist? I always thought that I was
an American of Ukrainian ancestry. Patriotic towards, America & Ukraine?
Absolutely, nationalistic, depends what you mean by that.
>who wants the death of
>the country to which he does not belong and which he does not understand.
Tereshchenko, you are displaying signs of mental disorder. I suggest you
go back to Russia immediately and visit one of Russia's famous psychiatric
wards. I have never expressed the death of any country not even the death
of Russia, a country famous for committing GENOCIDE against other
nations and which is currently waging a GENOCIDAL WAR against the
Chechen people which even the majority of the Russian people are against.
>If he lacks arguments he usually calls one a "sovok"
Tereshchenko, you deceitfull silly mama's boy, I have never lacked arguments
refuting your chauvinistic soviet Russian propaganda and exposing your
ignorance not only of things Ukrainian but also things Christian. That you are
a sovok is recognized by all who post here.
>or "person who does not know history",
Your posts give evidence that you know neither history nor Christian theology,
but that has nothing to do with your being a sovok.
>or uses any other personal blames.
What personal blames?
>It is quite usless to argue with him unless you just having a fun.
Rough being a loser isn't it?
>Seldom he has an argument.
Arguments I seek not, but your chauvinistic Russian bull%#@$ has
been exposed for all to see for themselves.
>He does not speak (write) Ukrainian,
Don't believe it folks, more soviet propaganda and Tereshchenko bull@#%*.
Spravdyi, khto tobi take skazav? Breshesh yak moskovskaya sobaka!
>but he will teach all Ukrainian citizen what to do.
No, just foreigners who pose as Ukrainians because they have Ukrainian
citizenship but lack any Ukrainian patriotism.
>Responding to his post is just "metaniye bisera pered..."
Folks, that statement WAS NOT UKRAINIAN, and believe me
I do not know what it means nor am I in the least interested.
Jag kan ocksa skriva nanting som den har idiot inte forstar.
Ryss skit javel bor ga hem tilbaka till sitt eget hemland.
That was not Ukrainian either, let's see if he can figure it out!
>And I do not think that it is his personal fault. He is just a pity
>indoctrinated and brainwashed person... So, have mercy too...
> Yours, Feodor Tereshchenko
Hey Tereshchenko, did you get so excited writing this post that
you forgot your Esq.? Ha Ha, Ty durin'
Regards, Dan K.
Dan K.
F. Tereshchenko wrote:
> Mr. Savchenko,
> Mr. Korolyshyn is just another nationalist
Oh, really, what kind of nationalist? I always thought that I was
an American of Ukrainian ancestry.
>who wants the death of
csource
Wonder what a dragon fly would taste like?
Things that make you go "hmmmmm...."
Henrietta Thomas
: Henrietta Thomas wrote:
: > I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
: > the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
: > protect children. In the article following the one to which you
: Ah, c'mon Henrietta! Don't you see how this Dragon Fly jerk is trying to
: interpret the tragic facts? Should I remind you and him that there were
: documented cases of cannibalism during Povolzhie famine in Russia in
: 1920s? It proves nothing but the fact people (be it Ukrainians or
: Russians or anybody else) can lose their minds in the face of the
: imminent and torturous death by starvation... It's a tragedy - not to be
: used to support any chauvinistic ideas!
Agree, Dmitry. But I wasn't responding to Dragon's chauvinistic post. I
was responding to an offensive article written in response. I do not think
such articles do much good. They only raise the level of noise in the
newsgroup. And besides, since when is Dragon the only chauvinist posting
here? Have you seen the stuff "csource" is laying down? He claims to be an
American. Well, I'm an American too. And I am opposed to _every_ one of
these chauvinist guys. A pox on all their houses. So there!
No offense intended,
Henrietta Thomas
: Henrietta Thomas wrote:
: > I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
: > the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
: > protect children. In the article following the one to which you responded,
: > Dragon says to read Ogoniok for August, 1994. I do not have access to this
: > publication, and don't know Russian anyway, but maybe someone will verify
: > this as the source of Dragon's information before we go around accusing
: > him of telling lies again.
: Why don't YOU go and read a book about what Stalin and his lieutenants did
: to cause the Ukrainians to eat anything they could find? How many Ukrainins
: do YOU personally know? And have you ever been to Ukraine or Russia? I
: have, and both Russians and Ukrainians agree about the true facts of the
: matter.
I am glad to know everybody agrees on the "true facts of the matter." It
saves me the trouble of discussing it.
: No truer statement has been made than when you said you don't know Russian.
: Are you talking about language or culture? I know BOTH.
Good. Maybe you will volunteer to be an interpreter for poor ignorant
Americans such as myself.
p o l u b o g
>
>Wonder what a dragon fly would taste like?
>
>Things that make you go "hmmmmm...."
I think you'd be the judge of it if you'd try a fruit off the raspberry
bush, covered with shit all-over it...
Polubog.
Dan Korolev
>In article <316D8E...@ro.com>, csource <cso...@ro.com> says:
>>
>>Wonder what a dragon fly would taste like?
>>
>>Things that make you go "hmmmmm...."
Well, "hmmmmm..." is better than "mmmmm..."
>I think you'd be the judge of it if you'd try a fruit off the raspberry
>bush, covered with shit all-over it...
I gather you are not very enthusiastic about the way Dragon Flies taste, are
you?
Or is it a clever metaphore about DragonFly's personality: raspberry inside,
all covered with sh....t on the outside?
>Polubog.
Poludan
Dragon Fly
]Henrietta Thomas wrote:
]
]> I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
]> the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
]> protect children. In the article following the one to which you responded,
]> Dragon says to read Ogoniok for August, 1994. I do not have access to this
]> publication, and don't know Russian anyway, but maybe someone will verify
]> this as the source of Dragon's information before we go around accusing
]> him of telling lies again.
]> Henrietta Thomas
]> Posting from soc.culture.russian
]> h...@wwa.com
]
]Why don't YOU go and read a book about what Stalin and his lieutenants did
A year or so ago in Rostov-on-Don Russia
was executed an Ukrainian, whose name was Chikatilo
who was the worst serial killer recorded in the
contemporary history. In 1980-ies (which is far
later after Stalin and "his lietenants" died) that
Ukrainian killed and ATE more than 50 people (mostly
young kids) on the Ukraine and Southern Russia.
This year yet another Ukrainian cannibal was caught.
I wonder why Russia still tolerates that Ukrainian
shithole on its borders? Were I Russian president
I would just ordered to nuke the Ukraine into Stone Age.
And I bet the whole Progressive Mankind would appreciate this act.
Its really sucks to live side by side with some
miserable, filthy, degenerate shithole populated
by some 50 mln of hungry and desperate beggars who are
really ready to eat everything they could find.
Cordially,
Dragon
Dan K.
I was always under the impression that it was dung inside and dung outside!
As my best friend once said, "Out of the heart the mouth speaks".
Regards, Dan K.
Dan K.
> In article <316D2B...@hiwaay.net>, Dave <mba...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> ]Henrietta Thomas wrote:
> ]> I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
> ]> the 1930's famine.
> ]> Henrietta Thomas
> ]> h...@wwa.com
> Were I Russian president
> I would just ordered to nuke the Ukraine into Stone Age.
> And I bet the whole Progressive Mankind would appreciate this act.
> Its really sucks to live side by side with some
> miserable, filthy, degenerate shithole populated
> by some 50 mln of hungry and desperate beggars who are
> really ready to eat everything they could find.
> Cordially, Dragon
Yes, Dung Fly, you and Khenrietta Thomas make a fine couple
indeed. You two should get hitched, Satan and all of his little
devils would be there at the wedding, it would be so nice. But
you better hurry Dung Fly, I bet Zhirinovsky is after her, she
would make such a fine diyevocka for someone like you guys.
Regards, Dan K.
csource
> : No truer statement has been made than when you said you don't know Russian.
> : Are you talking about language or culture? I know BOTH.
>
> Good. Maybe you will volunteer to be an interpreter for poor ignorant
> Americans such as myself.
I have a better suggestion. No joke. Start learning to read Russian. The
rewards of learning the Russian language will be motivation enough. Imagine
reading Chekov, Pushkin, Tolstoy, etc. in the original language!
Best suggestion: Visit Ukraine and you will then see the result of
70 years of Russian "benevolence" to its Ukrainian neighbor. You will
meet people who have worked all their lives to grow wheat for Russian
sandwiches. Dragon lies when he talks about the Russians feeding those
poor starving Ukrainians. Why do you think Ukraine was called the
"Breadbasket of the Soviet Union?" And why do you think the Ukrainians
are so poor? Because the Russians imported communism to Ukraine.
Don't get me wrong - Russia is not to blame for all of Ukraine's problems.
And the Russian people I've met, like my Ukrainian friends, are good, honest
and hardworking. But Ukraine would have been better off had they been
excluded from Russian expansionism via the Soviet Union.
My final suggestion to you is that you guard your mind against the junk
being spewed forth by the fly. Get yourself a can of mental "Raid."
Sincerely,
Dave
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by this writer are not necessarily
shared by his employer and peers. But they should be.
p o l u b o g
>
>pol...@direct.ca (p o l u b o g) writes:
>
>>In article <316D8E...@ro.com>, csource <cso...@ro.com> says:
>>>
>>>Wonder what a dragon fly would taste like?
>>>
>>>Things that make you go "hmmmmm...."
>
>Well, "hmmmmm..." is better than "mmmmm..."
>
>>bush, covered with shit all-over it...
>
>I gather you are not very enthusiastic about the way Dragon Flies taste, are
>you?
>
>Or is it a clever metaphore about DragonFly's personality: raspberry inside,
>all covered with sh....t on the outside?
Something like this, although I implied to the taste, rather than
personality, and to whole a buch as oppose to a single berry.
You see for some it will not be enough in order to determine as
"to how one can taste like".
Polubog.
"Only the weak hate and punish"
"Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future
with fear, but look around with awareness."
Henrietta Thomas
[snip]... article deleted to save bandwidth
I have already responded by e-mail, not knowing it was also posted here.
I am glad to know that Dave (csource) doesn't blame Russia/Russians for
all the problems of the world.
Unknown
I think you are too emotional. I am russian nationalist, but I think
Russia has a lot of evil sides and Ukraine too. But I forgot what is
Ukraine and where is Ukraine like most of russian. I'd recommend you
to do the same thing about Russia.
Best regards,
Andrei.
M1Lachko
to express the sorrow at finding someone who so enjoys rubbing salt in the
wounds of Ukraine. It wasn't their fault that Stalin tried to kill them
all. As for the saving of children, if the Russian Soviets were so
compassionate they wouldn't have been starving them to begin with!
Examine your heart- in saying these things aren't you siding with the
Stalinists and in that way making yourself just as bad, and almost
becoming an accomplice to this genoside yourself?
Vizitei
USSR in the 30s, 40s, and 50's (lesser known events in Bessarabia) were a
direct result of the production quotas estbalished by central planning.
Local bosses eager to fulfill their allocated share of contribution to
Moscow did so at the expense of local supplies. The blame therefore rests
directly with the communists and ultimately with that pillar of democracy
- Comrad Stalin. This is not a russian/ukranian issue. Folks responsible
for this were the same ones who brought us goulags etc. It was all about
quotas, nothing personal.
Do people kill and starve other people to fulfill their ideological
comittments ? People do...
Regards,
Vizitei.
Henrietta Thomas
: This message of yours (Henrietta) is reprehensible! I cannot find words
To M1Lachko and Dan K.,
Recognizing the possibility that Ukrainians may have resorted to
cannibalism during the 1930's famine does not imply any kind of
endorsement of the measures taken to induce said famine. Many people have
resorted to cannibalism at one time or another to survive---recall the
Donner Party of 1846 which got lost in the Sierra Nevadas of the American
West without food or shelter.
The 1930's famine in USSR was not, IMO, a genocide against the Ukrainian
people, the reason being that the peasantry was affected throughout the
entire country. In the Stavropol region of South Russia, where Gorbachev
was born in 1931, the people were both Russian and Ukrainian. The famine
alone took the lives of a full 1/3 of the population of that area. Gail
Sheehy reports in her book, "The Man Who Changed The World," that some
people were so weak, they dispensed with separate burials and just dumped
two or three bodies in one grave. We need to remember that the Russians
suffered just as much as anyone else. Then maybe we'll stop blaming them
for things they didn't do.
Dan K.
> Let us remember that most of the starvation which took place throughout
> USSR in the 30s, 40s, and 50's (lesser known events in Bessarabia) were a
> direct result of the production quotas estbalished by central planning.
> Regards, Vizitei.
Vizitei,
Your comment may be true for Russia, but not for Ukraine. In the Ukraine
the Soviet Russian policy was to break the free and independent spirit of
the Ukrainian nation. Stalin felt that the best way to do this was to
wipe out the Ukrainian nation just as years later Hitler tried to wipe out
the Jews. After wiping out the Ukrainian people in Eastern Ukraine Stalin
then settled Eastern Ukraine with Russians, the reason why Eastern Ukraine
today has some 11 million, AFAIK, Russians living there. If you read polls
which query the attitudes of these transplants in Ukraine you will see that
the mentality of these people is very different from the mentality of
ethnic Ukrainians including religious beliefs or I should say lack thereof.
Regards, Dan K.
Zenon M. Feszczak
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
>
> The 1930's famine in USSR was not, IMO, a genocide against the Ukrainian
> people, the reason being that the peasantry was affected throughout the
> entire country. In the Stavropol region of South Russia, where Gorbachev
> was born in 1931, the people were both Russian and Ukrainian. The famine
> alone took the lives of a full 1/3 of the population of that area. Gail
> Sheehy reports in her book, "The Man Who Changed The World," that some
> people were so weak, they dispensed with separate burials and just dumped
> two or three bodies in one grave. We need to remember that the Russians
> suffered just as much as anyone else. Then maybe we'll stop blaming them
> for things they didn't do.
>
> Henrietta Thomas
> Posting from soc.culture.russian
> h...@wwa.com
>
All good and fine, except the two dispute motivations for the famine in
Ukraine are not mutually exclusive. The collectivization program was
one motivation, the obliteration of Ukrainian nationalism was another.
This latter was not genocide - the idea was not to kill all Ukrainians,
only those who had some active nationalistic sentiment (along with
those
who resisted collectivization, and these two tendencies were apparently
not unrelated, as collectivization increased separatist and nationalist
sentiment, just as nationalist sentiment increased resentment and
resistance toward the Soviet system and its collectivization program).
Evidently,the undesirable Ukrainians turned out to be a rather
high percentage of the population.
I doubt Stalin particularly cared if some Russians, or "good"
Ukrainians
for that matter, were lost in the process of eradicating the
troublesome
Ukrainians. To remove a cancer, one may have to remove some good
skin.
Or just cut off the entire appendage. It's the guillotine cure for
migraines.
The famine took a disproportionate toll on Ukraine, so it's deceptive
to
equalize the effects in Russia and Ukraine. The fact that there were
losses in Russia in no way vindicates Stalin of his guilt in attempting
to destroy the Ukrainian nation.
Zenon M. Feszczak
Philosopher ex nihilo
hil...@connect.ab.ca
m1la...@aol.com (M1Lachko) wrote:
>This message of yours (Henrietta) is reprehensible! I cannot find words
the
>wounds of Ukraine. It wasn't their fault that Stalin tried to kill them
>all. As for the saving of children, if the Russian Soviets were so
>Examine your heart- in saying these things aren't you siding with the
>Stalinists and in that way making yourself just as bad, and almost
p o l u b o g
>
>Dan Korolev wrote:
>
>> pol...@direct.ca (p o l u b o g) writes:
>> >In article <316D8E...@ro.com>, csource <cso...@ro.com> says:
>
>> >>Wonder what a dragon fly would taste like?
>> >>Things that make you go "hmmmmm...."
>> Well, "hmmmmm..." is better than "mmmmm..."
>
>> >bush, covered with shit all-over it...
>> I gather you are not very enthusiastic about the way Dragon Flies taste, are
>> you?
>> Or is it a clever metaphore about DragonFly's personality: raspberry inside,
>> all covered with sh....t on the outside?
>> Poludan
>
>
>I was always under the impression that it was dung inside and dung outside!
>As my best friend once said, "Out of the heart the mouth speaks".
>
>Regards, Dan K.
Dan, you would've understant what was implied when I said about
covering rasperry bush with one's shit, if you knew some Russian
colloquialism.
Polubog.
p o l u b o g
Dan, you are not only an outsider, a "foregner" [out of line] in this
newsgroup, you are also an abnoxious and stupid ignoramus, full of
hatred and shit which falls out of your torn ass and mouth as soon as
you attempt to show up in public. Why is it so? Just BECAUSE you are
trying to be a bigger asshole than you really are? Are you really so
incorigible?
Please do not e-mail me your response.
Poolubog.
Charles Trew
Henrietta Thomas (h...@wwa.com) writes:
>
> The 1930's famine in USSR was not, IMO, a genocide against the Ukrainian
> people, the reason being that the peasantry was affected throughout the
> entire country. In the Stavropol region of South Russia, where Gorbachev
> was born in 1931, the people were both Russian and Ukrainian. The famine
> alone took the lives of a full 1/3 of the population of that area. Gail
> Sheehy reports in her book, "The Man Who Changed The World," that some
> people were so weak, they dispensed with separate burials and just dumped
> two or three bodies in one grave. We need to remember that the Russians
> suffered just as much as anyone else. Then maybe we'll stop blaming them
> for things they didn't do.
This is sad.
Your obviously have not studied Soviet State Security operations at
all. Soviet units went into Ukraine and took all of the food they could
and destroyed what they could not. Animals were shot, not just at homes
and farms but also out of the trees. The idea was to starve Ukraine.
That's genocide.
It's tiring to hear people bemoan how much the Russians suffered.
It's true they did. It's also true that they precipitated much of the
suffering for themselves and others.
Please quit apologizing for them. It's unbecomming.....
csource
> The 1930's famine in USSR was not, IMO, a genocide against the Ukrainian
> people, the reason being that the peasantry was affected throughout the
> entire country.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Stalin (who, for the record, was
Georgian, not Russian) set out to exterminate the Ukrainians because they refused
two things that struck at their national identity: Collectivization and
Russification.
> We need to remember that the Russians
> suffered just as much as anyone else.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! True, Russians suffered.
But not like the people of Ukraine.
> Then maybe we'll stop blaming them for things they didn't do.
The Russian people are not to blame.....the Soviet government is, Stalin in
particular.
Again, I suggest to you - visit Ukraine. Visit Russia.
Then you will be a believer.
Sincerely,
Dave
p o l u b o g
>
>Stalin (who, for the record, was Georgian, not Russian) set out to
>exterminate the Ukrainians
Not that I am pro-(or against) Stalin, but I'm yet to see the evidence
of him killing of any individual [personally]. There were individuals,
who performed all the atrocities and genocide against other individuals,
mainly on the basis of their valnurability (not nationality, racial or
religious differences - as you attempting to disseminate), just because
they were not able to defend themselves for different reasons but mainly--
because they could not resist to overpowered mercenaries.
>because they refused two things that struck at their national identity:
>Collectivization and Russification.
There isn't any "national" identity as such between all the Tchurkis
of former greater Russian Empire. They were suggested of being created
after it's dismantling, because in fact Ukraine (in Russian for
"outskirts" as part of former Great Russian Empire) became independent
country (Republic) only after bolshevks illegally came to power but as
"member" of created alliance (the USSR).
>
>> We need to remember that the Russians
>> suffered just as much as anyone else.
Everybody of all-sorts of denominations ("nationalities", races,
religious or cultural dissimiraties and different beleifs), who
were valnurable to military aggression and economic chaos, are indeed
suffered very much. Now you are trying to identify them in order to
justify your own malicious intents.
>
>WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! True, Russians suffered.
>But not like the people of Ukraine.
>
>> Then maybe we'll stop blaming them for things they didn't do.
>
>The Russian people are not to blame.....the Soviet government is, Stalin in
>particular.
>
>Again, I suggest to you - visit Ukraine. Visit Russia.
>Then you will be a believer.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Dave
Dave, former Russians, together with the rest of the Tchurkis, are still
suffering now just because the economic system of Tchurkia is built on
exploitation of concentration camps labor. You are probably heard of
the GULAG - as tool of oppression and genocide, which has grown an still
is growing in tigonometric progression in order to create economy,which'
would compete with the better part of the world.
Polubog.
Dave
>
> I doubt Stalin particularly cared if some Russians, or "good" Ukrainians
> for that matter, were lost in the process of eradicating the
> troublesome Ukrainians. To remove a cancer, one may have to remove some good
> skin. Or just cut off the entire appendage. It's the guillotine cure for
> migraines.
>
> The famine took a disproportionate toll on Ukraine, so it's deceptive
> to equalize the effects in Russia and Ukraine. The fact that there were
> losses in Russia in no way vindicates Stalin of his guilt in attempting
> to destroy the Ukrainian nation.
>
> Zenon M. Feszczak
> Philosopher ex nihilo
Zenon, I wonder why some "people" on this newsgroup are actually trying to make
it look like the famine is a "Ukrainian invention." It boggles my mind. Those
people belong in the same class as the poor, uneducated souls who believe the
lies about how Hitler's killing of Jews never happened.
I stumbled across an ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT of a Central Committee meeting from 1992,
which is made available on the 'net due to the opening of Soviet archives. The truth
of this matter is right there to be seen in its native Russian, as the committee
ordered "sanctions" against Ukrainian villages which resisted the collection of
grain. I will find the address for it if you are interested. Too bad Henrietta
can't read Russian!
Sincerely,
Dave
Dave
>
> That's inaccurate. Russification was never an issue;
Sure it was. Why do you think that most citizens of the former
Soviet republics speak Russian? Why is it that a lot of Ukrainians
can't even speak Ukrainian? Because they were FORCED (not "encouraged")
to be Russified. Ukrainian nationalism stood against this, among other
things like the grain collection issue, and that's why Stalin crushed
them.
> in fact, Soviet rulers often encouraged nationalism in republics of SU.
Sure, like the Russians are now encouraging nationalism in Chechnya, like
the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan, etc.
> You need to read more on history of SU, "csource" (why you're not
> using your real name, BTW ? Are you afraid to stand behind your opinions?)
Me? Afraid? What a joke. "Csource" is the i.d. of my company's computer
(Central Source, Inc.). I'm at home now, so I use my name here, either "Dave"
or my full name, David R. Swafford. Satisfied?
> And I would suggest not to be a believer, but rely on facts. I
> am aware that my suggestion will be lost on nationalists who
> rave here in their blind, irrational rage, looking for enemies
> to justify their own hostility.
What on earth are you talking about? Raging nationalists? Who do you
think I am? You see a refutation of misinformation as "blind, irrational
rage?"
If you want facts, I suggest that you read the recently-opened Soviet
archives. I can get you the address if you want it. There are actual
minutes of Central Committee meetings at the national and local levels
which offer your facts concerning these issues. I assume you read Russian,
yes?
Sincerely,
Dave
Dave
>
> ]Why don't YOU go and read a book about what Stalin and his lieutenants did
> ]to cause the Ukrainians to eat anything they could find?
>
> A year or so ago in Rostov-on-Don Russia
> was executed an Ukrainian, whose name was Chikatilo
> who was the worst serial killer recorded in the
> contemporary history. In 1980-ies (which is far
> later after Stalin and "his lietenants" died) that
> Ukrainian killed and ATE more than 50 people (mostly
> young kids) on the Ukraine and Southern Russia.
What's this deranged individual got to do with the genocide
of 10 million Ukrainian people by Stalin? Totally out of
context. It's like saying all Americans are little Jeffrey Dahmers.
Totally absurd.
> I wonder why Russia still tolerates that Ukrainian
> s***hole on its borders?
Yeah, why is that? Isn't Russia powerful enough just to go in
there and kick butt? Oh, wait, I forgot.....the Russians are too
busy holding off the mighty hordes of Chechnya. My mistake.
> I would just ordered to nuke the Ukraine into Stone Age.
> And I bet the whole Progressive Mankind would appreciate this act.
> Its really sucks to live side by side with some
> miserable, filthy, degenerate s***hole populated
> by some 50 mln of hungry and desperate beggars who are
> really ready to eat everything they could find.
Well, I suppose that if you're in America, you don't have to worry
about that anymore, do you? Then shut up!
You need to get hooked up with Ted Kazynski. I bet he could give you
that little "nudge" you need to go right on over the edge.
And if I were the Russian president, I would think twice before
nuking Ukraine. I'll bet they have a few nuclear surprises of their
own waiting for just such an occasion.
Besides, all of the fallout would blow over onto Russia anyway. So
**POOF!** There goes YOUR logic......
Henrietta Thomas
: Zenon M. Feszczak wrote:
: >
: > I doubt Stalin particularly cared if some Russians, or "good" Ukrainians
: > for that matter, were lost in the process of eradicating the
: > troublesome Ukrainians. To remove a cancer, one may have to remove
: > some good skin. Or just cut off the entire appendage. It's the
: > guillotine cure for migraines.
: >
: > The famine took a disproportionate toll on Ukraine, so it's deceptive
: > to equalize the effects in Russia and Ukraine. The fact that there were
: > losses in Russia in no way vindicates Stalin of his guilt in attempting
: > to destroy the Ukrainian nation.
: Zenon, I wonder why some "people" on this newsgroup are actually trying to
: make it look like the famine is a "Ukrainian invention." It boggles my
: mind. Those people belong in the same class as the poor, uneducated
: souls who believe the lies about how Hitler's killing of Jews never
: happened.
: I stumbled across an ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT of a Central Committee meeting from
: 1992, which is made available on the 'net due to the opening of Soviet
: archives. The truth of this matter is right there to be seen in its
: native Russian, as thea committee ordered "sanctions" against Ukrainian
: villages which resisted the collection of grain. I will find the
: address for it if you are interested. Too bad Henrietta can't read
: Russian!
I have not answered Zenon's article yet, because I wanted to see what I
could find in the library that would deal with some of his comments. But I
really would be most interested in the ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT of a Central
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Committee meeting from 1992, which ordered "sanctions" against Ukrainian
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
villages which resisted the collection of grain. And I think B.N. Yeltsin
would be, too.
Nobody on this newsgroup ever said the famine was a "Ukrainian
invention." All that has been said is that it affected people in all parts
of the country, not just Ukraine. If you don't believe that, ask the
survivors who currently live in Southern Russia and in the "black earth"
belt which stretches from European Russia to Novosibirsk. This is not a
simplistic question capable of simplistic answers. And I hope to get more
information on it. Meanwhile, I wish you'd stop your demonizing in this
newsgroup.
Andrej Gorkovenko
mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>Dave (mba...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
>]
>] >
>] > That's inaccurate. Russification was never an issue;
>]
>] Sure it was. Why do you think that most citizens of the former
>] Soviet republics speak Russian? Why is it that a lot of Ukrainians
>] can't even speak Ukrainian? Because they were FORCED (not "encouraged")
>] to be Russified. Ukrainian nationalism stood against this, among other
>] things like the grain collection issue, and that's why Stalin crushed
>] them.
>
> in republics of SU always have had a n instruction on native language.
> You are speaking from the position of ignorance.
I lived in Bereznjaki microdistrict (microrajon) in Kiev. This district was
settled by former peasants from Kiev region, who arrived in Kiev during 60-70.
Their first language was ukraine. There were five scools in microdistrict, but only
one was ukraine. It was really politics of russification.
Regards.
Charles Trew
Dave (mba...@hiwaay.net) writes:
>
> If you want facts, I suggest that you read the recently-opened Soviet
> archives. I can get you the address if you want it. There are actual
> minutes of Central Committee meetings at the national and local levels
> which offer your facts concerning these issues. I assume you read Russian,
> yes?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dave
Excellent remarks, Dave. The pro-Soviet idiot has his head up
his ass. I believe the Russian term "inter-clown" as in international
clown, applies very well here.....
Charles Trew
Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) writes:
>
> That is completely untrue. No one was "forced" to speak Russian. Schools
> in republics of SU always have had a n instruction on native language.
> You are speaking from the position of ignorance.
You're a lying sack of shit, Mike.
No one could be such an idiot on purpose, you're clearly spreading
disinformation in classic, Soviet style.
The appropriate term for this is: vranyo.
You're lying, we know your lying, and you know we know. Yet you
continue this shit. Shove it, bozo. Nobody with any brains is buying.
Yury Mukharsky
<Dragon Fly wrote:
<>
<> ]Why don't YOU go and read a book about what Stalin and his lieutenants did
<> ]to cause the Ukrainians to eat anything they could find?
<>
<> A year or so ago in Rostov-on-Don Russia
<> was executed an Ukrainian, whose name was Chikatilo
<> who was the worst serial killer recorded in the
<> contemporary history. In 1980-ies (which is far
<> later after Stalin and "his lietenants" died) that
<> Ukrainian killed and ATE more than 50 people (mostly
<> young kids) on the Ukraine and Southern Russia.
See, this shows that there are people who are more distinguished than Dragon's
grandpa was.
Anyways,on unrelated note: how about this statement:
"Only raving lunatik will argue with raving lunatik for more than a month"
Especially under subject line like it wasthis thread had.
I think it should be included in FAQ of every UseNet group.
Yury
Henrietta Thomas
English language articles]
Dave (mba...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
: Michael Kagalenko wrote:
: >
: > That's inaccurate. Russification was never an issue;
: Sure it was. Why do you think that most citizens of the former
: Soviet republics speak Russian? Why is it that a lot of Ukrainians
: can't even speak Ukrainian? Because they were FORCED (not "encouraged")
: to be Russified. Ukrainian nationalism stood against this, among other
: things like the grain collection issue, and that's why Stalin crushed
: them.
I read a book on Soviet treatment of nationalities written by a German
research (no, I don't remember the title), and he said that during 1920's,
Bolsheviks went out of their way to teach all people in their native
language, publishing thousands of books in 80 different languages, even
inventing languages for those who didn't have a written form, and also had
a crash program to train native language teachers. This program was scaled
back quite a bit in the 1930's, but bilingual education continued in the
non-Russian republics all the way up to the late 1970's. Then, Brezhnev
and his friends started pushing Russian language more and more, and there
were public protests in the non-Russian republics. One story this writer
told was how Shevardnadze averted a showdown between the center and
Georgian college instructors over the language issue. If you want, I'll
look up the title of this book next time I go to the library.
: > in fact, Soviet rulers often encouraged nationalism in republics of SU.
: Sure, like the Russians are now encouraging nationalism in Chechnya, like
: the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan, etc.
No comment. You are just being sarcastic here.
: > You need to read more on history of SU, "csource" (why you're not
: > using your real name, BTW ? Are you afraid to stand behind your
: > opinions?)
: Me? Afraid? What a joke. "Csource" is the i.d. of my company's computer
: (Central Source, Inc.). I'm at home now, so I use my name here, either
: "Dave" or my full name, David R. Swafford. Satisfied?
I am puzzled. Kagalenko responded to "csource," and you respond as "Dave."
Are you and "csource" one and the same? If so, I think you should stick to
one handle in this newsgroup.
: > And I would suggest not to be a believer, but rely on facts. I
: > am aware that my suggestion will be lost on nationalists who
: > rave here in their blind, irrational rage, looking for enemies
: > to justify their own hostility.
: What on earth are you talking about? Raging nationalists? Who do you
: think I am? You see a refutation of misinformation as "blind, irrational
: rage?"
I do not think Mr. Kagalenko attempted to mislead you. He was trying to
tell you some things he knows about the Soviet Union. But your reaction
was so strong, he might have thought you were just another Ukrainian
nationalist American in cahoots with Voronka, Korolyshyn, Rycar and
Company.
: If you want facts, I suggest that you read the recently-opened Soviet
: archives. I can get you the address if you want it. There are actual
: minutes of Central Committee meetings at the national and local levels
: which offer your facts concerning these issues. I assume you read Russian,
: yes?
If I were M. Kagalenko, I would take offense at that.
Aaron
Some people have been saying that the famine that Stalin ordered
was an attempt to wipe out Ukrainians. I hardly think that is the
case. Stalin never made attempts, he just did. If he wanted
Ukrainians killed off, he would have had the red army do mass
executions. Why would he stop killing them, if he wanted them dead? I
think it was solely for the purpose of eliminating resistance to
collectivization. The Ukrainians were notably more resistant to the
reforms; therefore they suffered more. BTW, the Soviet archive
documents online via the Library of Congress have been translated into
english.
GRycar
Where did you learn your history? Russification was never an
issue in Ukraine? The communists encouraged Nationalism! Wow! So much for
Soviet education and its main intent stupidity. You were a good student
Regards
George
PS So much for filtered brains
Vizitei
Anyone who lived in the former USSR does not need German research to tell
us that Russians went all out to rusify all republics. Its so obvious that
any earnest discussions seem silly. In Moldova, while forcing russian as a
primary language, they went as far as having the locals change their
Romanian alphabet to Cyrrilic.
Henrietta, thanks for pointing out sarcasm for all of us. Keep up the good
work.
Regards,
Vizitei
Henrietta Thomas
Zenon M. Feszczak (Fesz...@sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: In article <4krmjf$g...@kirin.wwa.com>
: h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
: >
: > The 1930's famine in USSR was not, IMO, a genocide against the Ukrainian
: > people, the reason being that the peasantry was affected throughout the
: > entire country. In the Stavropol region of South Russia, where Gorbachev
: > was born in 1931, the people were both Russian and Ukrainian. The famine
: > alone took the lives of a full 1/3 of the population of that area. Gail
: > Sheehy reports in her book, "The Man Who Changed The World," that some
: > people were so weak, they dispensed with separate burials and just dumped
: > two or three bodies in one grave. We need to remember that the Russians
: > suffered just as much as anyone else. Then maybe we'll stop blaming them
: > for things they didn't do.
: All good and fine, except the two dispute motivations for the famine in
: Ukraine are not mutually exclusive. The collectivization program was
: one motivation, the obliteration of Ukrainian nationalism was another.
: This latter was not genocide - the idea was not to kill all Ukrainians,
: only those who had some active nationalistic sentiment (along with those
: who resisted collectivization, and these two tendencies were apparently
: not unrelated, as collectivization increased separatist and nationalist
: sentiment, just as nationalist sentiment increased resentment and
: resistance toward the Soviet system and its collectivization program).
: Evidently,the undesirable Ukrainians turned out to be a rather
: high percentage of the population.
: I doubt Stalin particularly cared if some Russians, or "good"
: Ukrainians for that matter, were lost in the process of eradicating the
: troublesome Ukrainians. To remove a cancer, one may have to remove
: some good skin. Or just cut off the entire appendage. It's the
: guillotine cure for migraines.
: The famine took a disproportionate toll on Ukraine, so it's deceptive
: to equalize the effects in Russia and Ukraine. The fact that there
: were losses in Russia in no way vindicates Stalin of his guilt in
: attempting to destroy the Ukrainian nation.
I was not attempting to vindicate Stalin of anything. But I still don't
think the aim was to "eradicate troublesome Ukrainians" or "destroy the
Ukrainian nation." It was part of an overall strategy to collectivize and
industrialize the nation and destroy all opposition in one giant "shock
therapy" approach. That it had a greater impact on Ukraine than in other
areas of the country should not be used to minimize the impact in those
other areas.
I have two books now to read which may shed more light on the matter: "The
Best Sons of th Fatherland" (1987), which tells the story of the 25,000
cadres who were the vanguard of collectivization, and "Stalin's Peasants"
(1994), which gives a comprehensive look at the entire program and the
peasants' reaction to it. It will take me a week or so to go through them,
and I will report what I have learned back to s.c.r.
Henrietta
Henrietta Thomas
: Some people have been saying that the famine that Stalin ordered
: was an attempt to wipe out Ukrainians. I hardly think that is the
: case. Stalin never made attempts, he just did. If he wanted
: Ukrainians killed off, he would have had the red army do mass
: executions. Why would he stop killing them, if he wanted them dead? I
: think it was solely for the purpose of eliminating resistance to
: collectivization. The Ukrainians were notably more resistant to the
: reforms; therefore they suffered more. BTW, the Soviet archive
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: documents online via the Library of Congress have been translated into
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: english.
^^^^^^^
Thank you. I plan to take a look at some of them. I've also come across
some more recent books on collectivization in my local library. I think we
have a lot more to learn about what happened then, not only in Ukraine,
but in the rest of the country as well.
Robert Whisler
>
> Some people have been saying that the famine that Stalin ordered
>was an attempt to wipe out Ukrainians. I hardly think that is the
>case. Stalin never made attempts, he just did. If he wanted
>Ukrainians killed off, he would have had the red army do mass
>executions. Why would he stop killing them, if he wanted them dead? I
I've got several problems with this opinion. I agree with you that Stalin did
not order the famine to wipe out the Ukrainians, but I don't agree with your
assertion that if he wanted to, he would have done it.
Genocide is not an easy policy to carry out, especially of a whole nation.
Remember, the world knew of famine in Ukraine, even if the facts were
obscured by Stalin's propaganda machine and certain weak-willed Western
journalists. Stalin felt it necessary to counter the negative reports by
touring Western ambassadors through the country's farms, which were
always specially selected, stocked, and staffed with "loyal" subjects.
Countering the bad press about Ukraine would have been difficult to do
if there were no Ukrainians there. Plus, we're talking about the wholesale
murder of millions of people if the Red Army went in and started shooting.
Something like that could never have been repressed, no matter how
closed the country.
>think it was solely for the purpose of eliminating resistance to
>collectivization. The Ukrainians were notably more resistant to the
>reforms; therefore they suffered more. BTW, the Soviet archive
>documents online via the Library of Congress have been translated into
>english.
Ukrainians were among the staunchest opponents of Stalin's policies,
but they did not necessarily suffer more because of it. I'm almost positive
that the number of Kazakhs who died under collectivization exceeded that
of Ukrainians.
So what explains Stalin's policy of deliberate famine in Ukraine? I think
it has something to do with Ukraine's hesitant but growing sentiment for
sovereignty. Ukraine's leadership, quite foolishly, took the Soviet
constitution, with its articles about collective leadership of the Soviet
Union and its voluntary nature, quite seriously. Moreover, during the Russian
civil war, there was a very effective Ukraine insurgent movement led by
Nestor Makhno who gave trouble to both the Whites and Reds (although his
rag-tag "army" was subsequently crushed by the Red Army).
I don't know why Stalin also targeted the quiescent Kazakhs (Cossacks?).
But Stalin did not control everything and everybody. He may have wanted to
subject and rule, but he may not have been able to determine the trajectory
that his policies would travel.
-Robert
oO Robert Whisler <ca...@dcez.com>
oO Center for Eurasian, Russian, & East European Studies
oO Georgetown University - Washington, DC
GRycar
Stalin did want to destroy all Ukrainians. He hated Ukrainians and
insisted that it was the Ukrainians who were the main impediment to the
successfull implementation of Russian communism.Simply stated he wanted to
kill them all but just could not do it. Ukrainians had a backbone and I
trust that it was in Western Ukraine were the Red army after much
unsuccess simply refused to fight the Ukrainian Nationalists. Stalin went
nuts, sent in the NKVD 750,000 of the scum but could not defeat 40,000
Ukrainian Nationalists in an area populated by no more than 5,000,000
people. Needless to say, when he considered depopulating Ukraine, it was
explained to him that such an attempt would simply awaken all of Ukraine
and then kaput for his quagmire of evil.
By the way, the Ukis won. The NKVD, KGB, the zkb the whole damned
alphabet could not help him agains a small number of brave and free men.
So much for Stalins power of no good.
Regards
George
Charles Trew
Henrietta Thomas (h...@wwa.com) writes:
> I was not attempting to vindicate Stalin of anything. But I still don't
> think the aim was to "eradicate troublesome Ukrainians" or "destroy the
> Ukrainian nation." It was part of an overall strategy to collectivize and
> industrialize the nation and destroy all opposition in one giant "shock
> therapy" approach. That it had a greater impact on Ukraine than in other
> areas of the country should not be used to minimize the impact in those
> other areas.
>
> I have two books now to read which may shed more light on the matter: "The
> Best Sons of th Fatherland" (1987), which tells the story of the 25,000
> cadres who were the vanguard of collectivization, and "Stalin's Peasants"
> (1994), which gives a comprehensive look at the entire program and the
> peasants' reaction to it. It will take me a week or so to go through them,
> and I will report what I have learned back to s.c.r.
>
> Henrietta
While your at it, try "Harvest of Sorrow," by Robert Conquest.
Eduard Ponarin
> So what explains Stalin's policy of deliberate famine in Ukraine? I think
> it has something to do with Ukraine's hesitant but growing sentiment for
> sovereignty.
It is explained by the fact that Ukraine is in the black earth region
where the peasant were the richest and the most reluctant to go into
socialist collective farms. The famine also occurred in the black
earth regions of Russia.
> Moreover, during the Russian civil war, there was a very effective
> Ukraine insurgent movement led by Nestor Makhno who gave trouble to
> both the Whites and Reds (although his rag-tag "army" was
> subsequently crushed by the Red Army).
Nestor Makhno was an ally of the Red Army which indeed crushed him
after he had done his service. Makhno battled against the Whites, but
also against Ukrainian nationalist forces (Petljura) which he
successfully defeated at Ekaterinoslav.
> I don't know why Stalin also targeted the quiescent Kazakhs
> (Cossacks?).
The Cossacks and the Kazakhs are distinct groups. The former are
Slavic (Russian and Ukrainian) and Christian, the latter are Turkic
and Muslim. Both groups were hit in the 1920's for different reasons.
(The Cossacks were hit for their heavy participation in the Civil War
on the White side and perhaps also for their pre-revolutionary cruelty
towards the revolutionaries. The Kazakhs for their attempt to secede.)
--
Ed Ponarin,
e...@umich.edu
THESE OPINIONS MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER
csource
> I read a book on Soviet treatment of nationalities written by a German
> research (no, I don't remember the title), and he said that during 1920's,
> Bolsheviks went out of their way to teach all people in their native
Why is it that there are so many of you people out there trying to defend
the "benevolent Soviets" who cared so much for the people they oppressed?
The Bolsheviks were among the most reprehensible of the social dregs of the
world. They went out of their way to do only one thing: to make slaves out
of people. And one way to insure the quelching of any hint of nationalism
is to kill the national language of a people.
> : Sure, like the Russians are now encouraging nationalism in Chechnya, like
> : the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan, etc.
>
> No comment. You are just being sarcastic here.
Your "no comment" says a lot. There is no refutation of facts.
> I am puzzled. Kagalenko responded to "csource," and you respond as "Dave."
> Are you and "csource" one and the same? If so, I think you should stick to
> one handle in this newsgroup.
Thank you, O Guru of Newsgroup Appropriateness.....
What difference does it make to you if I call myself "Dave" or "csource" or
"Jack Sprat?" Truth is truth, and a newspaper is a newspaper, no matter the
name of the "delivery boy."
Why don't you give your precious "one handle" advice to your mentor, Dragon
Fly/Viznyuk?
> I do not think Mr. Kagalenko attempted to mislead you. He was trying to
> tell you some things he knows about the Soviet Union. But your reaction
> was so strong, he might have thought you were just another Ukrainian
> nationalist American in cahoots with Voronka, Korolyshyn, Rycar and
> Company.
Well, I don't think that he was trying to mislead me, either. But I am sick
of people defending the Soviet government when they should be lobbying for
reparations of human rights violations. It's about time some more people had
a "strong reaction."
> : I assume you read Russian, yes?
>
> If I were M. Kagalenko, I would take offense at that.
Well, if he did, he hasn't contacted me to say so. My assumption was not
meant to be an insult. Mr. Kagalenko's name suggests that he is of Russian
or Ukrainian descent, so I was merely trying to find out if my suggestion
of reading the material was an idle one.
And by the way, you are not Mr. Kagalenko. So why don't you go run along
and curl up with a nice little Russian grammar book, and then we'll talk....
Sincerely,
Dave/David/csource/Jack Sprat/Whatever-Else-You-Want-Me-To-Be
csource
csource
Panikovsky
> Anyways,on unrelated note: how about this statement:
>
> "Only raving lunatik will argue with raving lunatik for more than a month"
Well, i'd respectfully disagree. The raving lunatics are the some of the
best reading that scr has to offer of late. Why should there be term limits
for playing with lunatics?
What some call an argument, others might call a simple series of
contradictions, to paraphrase a classic. Or, they might be arguing on "spare
time", to continue the quote. How long have you been talking to Rostyk, btw?
> Especially under subject line like it wasthis thread had.
that i missed. what was it?
> Yury- PMS
--
sig goes here.
GRycar
Did Maxno ever fight against Petlura? I was never aware of this.
This is stange, or is it one of your prevarications? Ekatinsburg? Wow.
Interesting.
Regards
George
Got you!
Henrietta Thomas
GRycar (gry...@aol.com) wrote:
: Aaron;
First, there is not now, and never has been, any such thing as "Russian
communism." Second, I think you are confusing the 1930's with the 1940's
in USSR.
In the 1930's, Stalin conducted a national campaign against the peasantry
to force them to bend to his will and acknowledge the authority of the
government. Millions of people died as a result. But in the 1940's, Stalin
took revenge only on certain groups of people alleged to have committed
some kind of treason during WWII. Most of these people were deported away
from European Russia, but the Ukrainians were not because, Khrushchev
said, there were too many of them.
As for hating Ukrainians, that is nothing new. So far as I know, Stalin
didn't like any ethnic group, not even his own. He was, in short, an
equal opportunity destroyer.
Henrietta
Posting from soc.culture.russian
h...@wwa.com
Robert Whisler
>In article <4le064$k...@news.cais.com> ca...@dcez.com (Robert Whisler) writes:
>It is explained by the fact that Ukraine is in the black earth region
>where the peasant were the richest and the most reluctant to go into
>socialist collective farms. The famine also occurred in the black
>earth regions of Russia.
I thought about this too, but only a _part_ of Ukraine (the eastern part)
contains the black-earth region. As far as I know, Stalin's imposed famine
struck the entire country.
>> Moreover, during the Russian civil war, there was a very effective
>> Ukraine insurgent movement led by Nestor Makhno who gave trouble to
>> both the Whites and Reds (although his rag-tag "army" was
>> subsequently crushed by the Red Army).
>
>Nestor Makhno was an ally of the Red Army which indeed crushed him
>after he had done his service. Makhno battled against the Whites, but
>also against Ukrainian nationalist forces (Petljura) which he
>successfully defeated at Ekaterinoslav.
"Ally" may be too strong a word, even if Makhno had co-operated with the Red
Army always, which he did not. Makhno was an anarchist at heart, and so
did not necessarily feel an affinity for the Reds. Any "alliance" between the
two was (and was bound to be) short-lived.
By 1920, Makhno was actively persecuting Bolshevik grain requisitioners and
attacking Red Army outposts.
(BTW, my source for this is William Chamberlin's _The Russian Revolution_, vol
II. The book was written in 1935, but is still a classic. Nonetheless, there
may be newer information).
>
>> I don't know why Stalin also targeted the quiescent Kazakhs
>> (Cossacks?).
>
>The Cossacks and the Kazakhs are distinct groups. The former are
>Slavic (Russian and Ukrainian) and Christian, the latter are Turkic
>and Muslim. Both groups were hit in the 1920's for different reasons.
>(The Cossacks were hit for their heavy participation in the Civil War
>on the White side and perhaps also for their pre-revolutionary cruelty
>towards the revolutionaries. The Kazakhs for their attempt to secede.)
I didn't mean to imply that the Kazakhs were or are Cossacks. What I meant
was that Stalin targeted the Kazakh population for its Cossack element.
I had never heard that the Kazakhs had attempted to secede. I always
understood they did very little to resist the encroachment of Soviet power.
Can you elaborate?
UJWompa
writes:
>I read a book on Soviet treatment of nationalities written by a German
>research (no, I don't remember the title), and he said that during
1920's,
>Bolsheviks went out of their way to teach all people in their native
>language, publishing thousands of books in 80 different languages, even
>inventing languages for those who didn't have a written form, and also
had
>a crash program to train native language teachers. This program was
scaled
>back quite a bit in the 1930's, but bilingual education continued in the
>non-Russian republics all the way up to the late 1970's.
Soviet nationalities policy was opportunistic and quick to evolve. In the
early days minorities could be supported culturally if there was a
possibility of co-opting them politically. The political atmosphere
changed from year to year. Some minorities eventually had their new
written language changed from Latin to Cyrillic alphabets, and then
deemphasized altogether. Any nationality perceived of as a threat was
always treated harshly - more and more groups fell into this category over
time. In the 1920's, however, there was much more emphasis on class war
and less on nationality.
In the beginning, there were actually some positive steps taken on behalf
of some "proletarian" Northern nationalities who had been exploited under
the Tsars in the way that tribal indigenous peoples are usually abused.
After a decade or two, however, the traditional exploitation returned in a
new and updated form.
The overt ethnic cleansing process reached a peak under Stalin, who died
before instituting a rumored final solution for the Jews and the Baltic
peoples. Stalin was a non-Russian, but had inherited an empire full of
potentially troublesome indigenous minority nationalities. Periodically,
they needed to be culled - casualty rates for target nationalities reached
50% in cases such as that of the Tatars. This, however, is a well-known
topic.
Experts still argue about the extent to which the Ukrainian famine was
first and foremost an anti-Ukrainian act. This gets tricky. If you look at
resistance to Russian imperial rule over the centuries, it usually started
on the southern and eastern periphery in minority or mixed-population
areas - peasant revolts routinely started in or spread to the Volga basin,
for example. Facing strong peasant resistance through the 1920's, the
regime may well have simply decided that collectivization (and Soviet rule
generally) would not succeed without breaking the back of the peasants in
certain areas with a tradition of resistance to central rule. Of
necessity, this would mean harsh sanctions against Ukrainians, as well as
Finno-Ugric minorities in the Volga basin, the Bashkirs, et al. The
strategy was expensive in terms of human life, but it broke the back of
regional traditions of resistance that partly owed their persistence to
the existence of minority populations.
As the USSR evolved into a more industrialized society, cultural and
economic marginalization of minorities reached a peak - probably under
Brezhnev. What is sad is that many indigenous minorities are still
marginalized today, and suppressed when they become inconvenient.
Sometimes they get in the way of "progress", when they live in
oil-producing areas. Sometimes, they get in the way of the local power
structure. Many are co-opted, as in the Russian-dominated regional
governments that pay lip service to minorities after whom the "autonomous
republics" are named. There is a new possibility for minorities to assert
themselves despite ethnic Russian opposition, but the process of
marginalization has generally succeeded in quelling dissent. Contact with
other indigenous peoples around the world would probably do wonders for
self-awareness, but the only foreign language most Russian Federation
minority peoples speak is Russian.
Henrietta Thomas
: Henrietta Thomas wrote:
:
: > I read a book on Soviet treatment of nationalities written by a German
: > research (no, I don't remember the title), and he said that during 1920's,
: > Bolsheviks went out of their way to teach all people in their native
: Why is it that there are so many of you people out there trying to defend
: the "benevolent Soviets" who cared so much for the people they oppressed?
: The Bolsheviks were among the most reprehensible of the social dregs of the
: world. They went out of their way to do only one thing: to make slaves
: out of people. And one way to insure the quelching of any hint of
: nationalism is to kill the national language of a people.
[snip].... balance of mainly offensive post deleted
Dear csource, Dave, or whoever you are,
This is the third time I've read this garbage in soc.culture.russian. This
newsgroup is NOT a garbage dump. It is for discussion of Russian culture
and history. The place to dump on the Soviets is in one of the Soviet
newsgroups. Talk.politics.soviet would be best, I think; it is already
dead. I will meet you there just as soon as you cancel these articles you
have posted in s.c.r. Readers of this newsgroup have better things to do
than to watch the two of us trade insults.
Followups set to talk.politics.soviet.
GRycar
Duplicity is as duplicity does. Please do become somewhat more
informed using non prevaricatory sources. I trust that you cannot do this
because same may not be in compliance with your preconcieved and false
notions of actuality.
Yes there was substantial effort to destroy Ukrainans after
the second world war. Kruschev was put in charge and given the task of
destroing all resistance in Ukraine and failed. You duplicious twerp, and
you are aware that Stalin actualy considered depopulating Ukraine but was
advised about the impossibility of doing so by Kruschev who was not a
Ukrainan. Evil is always insidous and as such built on the untruth as you
make lucid so well.
Robert Whisler
>Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>
>> I read a book on Soviet treatment of nationalities written by a German
>> research (no, I don't remember the title), and he said that during 1920's,
>> Bolsheviks went out of their way to teach all people in their native
>> language [Remaining Baloney Snipped]
>
>Why is it that there are so many of you people out there trying to defend
>the "benevolent Soviets" who cared so much for the people they oppressed?
>The Bolsheviks were among the most reprehensible of the social dregs of the
>world. They went out of their way to do only one thing: to make slaves out
>of people. And one way to insure the quelching of any hint of nationalism
>is to kill the national language of a people.
Yes, the Bolsheviks did make slaves out of people, but the previous post is
on the whole correct: the Bolsheviks _did_ teach people in their native
languages in the 1920s (whether they "went out of their way" is another
question).
But to state a fact like this is not to defend the "benevolent Soviets." It
is more likely an attempt to get at truth, no matter how irritating it may be
to comfortable convictions.
The majority of Bolsheviks were reprehensible ideologists who consistently
applied just one of their principles: the end justifies the means. But not a
few of them sought to implement their policies by education and persuasion,
which reflected a belief that the masses were simply ignorant and could be
converted to socialism by non-violent means. Moreover, Lenin had fought hard
to assert the right of the non-Russian peoples of the former Russian empire to
secede or voluntarily join the Soviet Union. Of course, this policy was later
reversed by Stalin, who did eventually subjugate the non-Russians into a
revival of the former empire.
I think the history of the Bolsheviks in Russia and elsewhere is more complex
than first appears. In any case, attacking the messenger, instead of the
message (like you did above), is a poor method of expressing your opinion.
p o l u b o g
I think he is right, it's a valuable waste of time of getting information.
I'd say that anything that is written as an educational or informational
material about Tchurkestan (in both languages) is a BS. There was never
a communism in former Russia,as it taught in universities and schools.'Tis
a traditional "oppressive, military dictatorship" for more than 500 years.
This political system existed long before the term "fascism" (for it) was
invented in language. Now everybody fights it, but nobody knows what
is it. Term became just another label for potential victims of GULAG
Industry and is used for unfair discrimination and unjust percecution
in order to justify a brutal exploitation in concentration camps - the
traditional stronghold of a primitive Tchurkian economy. Today majority
of people are being deceived that political system in Russia is
"a biggest democracy on this planet". Nothing has changed, though.
Polubog.
Dan K.
> In article <317C35...@ro.com>, csource <cso...@ro.com> wrote:
> >Henrietta Thomas wrote:
> >> I read a book on Soviet treatment of nationalities written by a German research (no, I don't remember the title), and he said that during 1920's,
Bolsheviks went out of their way to teach all people in their native
> >> language [Remaining Baloney Snipped]
> >Why is it that there are so many of you people out there trying to defendthe "benevolent Soviets" who cared so much for the people they oppressed?
The Bolsheviks were among the most reprehensible of the social dregs of the
world. They went out of their way to do only one thing: to make slaves out
of people. And one way to insure the quelching of any hint of nationalism
> >is to kill the national language of a people.
> Yes, the Bolsheviks did make slaves out of people, but the previous post is
> on the whole correct: the Bolsheviks _did_ teach people in their native
> languages in the 1920s (whether they "went out of their way" is another
> question).
> But to state a fact like this is not to defend the "benevolent Soviets." It is more likely an attempt to get at truth, no matter how irritating it may be
> to comfortable convictions.
> The majority of Bolsheviks were reprehensible ideologists who consistently
> applied just one of their principles: the end justifies the means. But not a few of them sought to implement their policies by education and persuasion,
which reflected a belief that the masses were simply ignorant and could be
converted to socialism by non-violent means. Moreover, Lenin had fought hard
to assert the right of the non-Russian peoples of the former Russian empire to
secede or voluntarily join the Soviet Union. Of course, this policy was later
> reversed by Stalin, who did eventually subjugate the non-Russians into a
> revival of the former empire.
> I think the history of the Bolsheviks in Russia and elsewhere is more complex than first appears. In any case, attacking the messenger, instead of the
message (like you did above), is a poor method of expressing your opinion.
-Robert
oO Robert Whisler <ca...@dcez.com>
oO Center for Eurasian, Russian, & East European Studies
> oO Georgetown University - Washington, DC
Robert,
You must be knew to this bulletin board, otherwise you would know
that Henrietta as well as many other Russians
consistently supports the old soviet line on history,
sociology, ethnology, etc. regardless of whether or not there may be
some truth in the matter, and always act as apologists for Russia's
neo colonialist behavior towards her neighbors.
The FACT is that the Russian people whether we like it or not are still
not content with the loss of their empire and the loss of the status,
despicable or otherwise, associated with that status. The FACT is that
the Russian people are suporting politicians who are clamoring for a
restoration of the Russian empire in one form or another. It is evident
that the Russian people want a return to being the "master" race in a
neo Russian empire be it nationalistic ala Zhirinovsky or neo-soviet
ala Zyuganov.
Both these alternatives are unacceptable to the newly independent nations
of the former SU with the exception of the Belarusyns. As many American
political scientists have noted on more than one occasion, Russia can
not be both imperialistic and democratic.
Regards, Dan K.
Oscar Ugarriza
I understand originally the people without a written language had it done
by Stalin's nationality commisariat using the Latin alphabet as a better
tool but subsequently changed to the Russian alphabet in an effort to
speed up the Russianization process of the 40's.
Oscar Ugarriza
leso...@gate.net
"KISS THE FROG, BABY!"
Dragon Fly
}
} [soc.culture.baltics removed from headers]
}
} lionking (fro...@oanet.com) wrote:
} : In article <4k4hhl$n...@news1.infinet.com>, Dragon Fly <df...@infinet.com>
} : says:
} : >
} : >Ever wondered why it was so
} : >that neither Irish during great famine in Ireland in 1840-ies,
} : >nor even Somalis during famine in 1992-1993
} : >were ever spotted eating their own children?
}
} : > But the Ukrainians did!!!!
} : >
} : >Eyewitness accounts tell the horrific stories of
} : >Ukrainians cannibalizing on their own
} : >children during Ukrainian famine 1932-1933.
} : >
} : >In fact, the practice of eating their own
} : >children was so spread on the Ukraine that
} : >horrified Red Army officers were ordering
} : >soldiers to take Ukrainian children and put
} : >them in a special wards which were guarded
} : >against adult Ukrainians.
} : >
} : >Really, Ukrainians are probably very special, in a sense...
}
} : What kind of cheap drugs are you on?
} : You are one twisted bastard. Possibly it could have happened in isolated
} : incidents, just as it could have happened in Ireland
} : or anywhere else, but to say that the Russian pigs were protected Ukrainian
} : children is insance. I'm sure Stalin wanted to protect the Ukrainian
} : children, while at the same starve the rest of Ukraine. Why don't you go
} : to school and read a book. You fucking idiot.
} : You probably think that Chernobyl was caused due to a microwave exploding.
} : Your a real brainiac.
}
} I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
} the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
} protect children.
That's true, Henrietta!
You can find a terrifying witness accounts in many Russian
publications about Ukrainians cannibalizing on their own
children in 1932-1933. I remember reading one Ogoniok
article written by one witness (Ukrainian migrant in Leningrad)
who came to visit his native Ukrainian village just to find that
all children were eaten by adult Ukrainians.
Cordially,
Dragon
} In the article following the one to which you responded,
} Dragon says to read Ogoniok for August, 1994. I do not have access to this
} publication, and don't know Russian anyway, but maybe someone will verify
} this as the source of Dragon's information before we go around accusing
} him of telling lies again.
Aaron
>Why is it that there are so many of you people out there trying to
>defend the "benevolent Soviets" who cared so much for the people they
>oppressed? The Bolsheviks were among the most reprehensible of the
>social dregs of the world. They went out of their way to do only one
>thing: to make slaves out of people. And one way to insure the
>quelching of any hint of nationalism is to kill the national language
>of a people.
There is no doubt that Stalin and Brezhnev cared little for the
people they ruled. It is questionable how much Khrushchev cared.
Lenin thought he was doing what was best for his people. However,
without Khrushchev, Andropov, and Gorbachev the nationalist movements
would have surely been crushed. Not all Soviet leaders had it in for
the minorities of the Soviet Union. I wouldn't call any of the Soviet
leaders, except Gorbachev, benevolent. Certainly there were
achievments made by the Soviets. Those being industrialization and
education. Without that industrialization, German would be the number
one language of the world. Note: I'm not defending Stalin or Brezhnev
or Soviet human rights policy. I am well aware that the Soviets
continued the Tsarist policy of Russification.
>Well, I don't think that he was trying to mislead me, either. But I
>am sick of people defending the Soviet government when they should be
>lobbying for reparations of human rights violations. It's about time
>some more people had a "strong reaction."
Reparations? Given to who by whom? The Soviet government no
longer exists, certainly you can't demand payment from them. If
Ukraine really wanted reparations, they could expropriate all of the
former communists' houses on the Crimean shores.
belka real
[...]
: As many American
: political scientists have noted on more than one occasion, Russia can
: not be both imperialistic and democratic.
Is it just me, or is this sentence hilariously funny indeed?
: Regards, Dan K.
J. Nicholas KATTCHEE
>
> [newsgroups and followups trimmed]
>
> GRycar (gry...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Aaron;
> : Stalin did want to destroy all Ukrainians. He hated Ukrainians and
> : insisted that it was the Ukrainians who were the main impediment to the
> : successfull implementation of Russian communism.Simply stated he wanted to
> : kill them all but just could not do it. Ukrainians had a backbone and I
> : trust that it was in Western Ukraine were the Red army after much
Just goes to show that even today the Red Army can resist
orders by their leaders when it comes to aggression against
their own people. See what's happening in Chechnia. The Red
Army, with all its reputed might can not (or does not want to)
flush out a handful of rebels. But when it meant to defend
THEIR country, the Red Army accomplished heroic deeds as in
WWII.
Nicholas
Charles Trew
Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) writes:
> ] You're a lying sack of shit, Mike.
> ] No one could be such an idiot on purpose, you're clearly spreading
> ]disinformation in classic, Soviet style.
> ] The appropriate term for this is: vranyo.
> ]
> ] You're lying, we know your lying, and you know we know. Yet you
> ]continue this shit. Shove it, bozo. Nobody with any brains is buying.
> "Oh, Canada" ...
>
> *PLONK*
Guess what, inter-clown?
I'm not Canadian and I'm not in Canada.
Isn't the internet fun?
Nice try, ace.
Robert Whisler
>Robert,
>
>You must be knew to this bulletin board, otherwise you would know
>that Henrietta as well as many other Russians
>consistently supports the old soviet line on history,
>sociology, ethnology, etc. regardless of whether or not there may be
>some truth in the matter, and always act as apologists for Russia's
>neo colonialist behavior towards her neighbors.
Yes, I'm relatively new here, but I can tell an ad hominum attack when I see
it. If this Ms. Thompson is really an apologist for Russian imperialism, fer
cryin'-out-loud, SHOW us why her views are wrong with RELEVANT FACTS. In
other words, as I stated in a previous post, attack the message, not the
messenger.
>The FACT is that the Russian people whether we like it or not are still
>not content with the loss of their empire and the loss of the status,
>despicable or otherwise, associated with that status.
There is some truth to this assertion, but I would not call it a FACT.
Opinion polls consistently show that revival of the former Soviet Union does
not rank high on the list of the average Russian's concerns. I have no doubt
that some Russians want to scratch that imperialist itch, but they are not
the majority.
>The FACT is that
>the Russian people are suporting politicians who are clamoring for a
>restoration of the Russian empire in one form or another. It is evident
>that the Russian people want a return to being the "master" race in a
>neo Russian empire be it nationalistic ala Zhirinovsky or neo-soviet
>ala Zyuganov.
There is even less truth in this "FACT" than in the previous one. I had the
good fortune of being in Russia during last December's parliamentary
elections. There were many issues, but I never saw a party campaign for a
return "to being the 'master' race in a neo Russian empire". The closest
any (officially registered) party came to such a platform was the "My
Fatherland" party, which maybe got 1% of the vote. The Congress of Russian
Communities, a party formed "to protect the rights of Russian-speakers in the
near-abroad," totally bombed in the voting. As far as Zhirinovsky and
Zyuganov go, their campaigns focused primarily on domestic issues.
One does hear noises made by Russian politicians about reconstituting the
Soviet Union. Moreover, the Russian government often acts in a heavy-handed
and hypocritical manner toward the other former Soviet republics. But as the
Russian Duma found out recently, there appears to be little desire in the
"near-abroad" to rejoin. And judging the by apathetic popular response to the
Duma resolution repudiating the break-up of the USSR, it appears that Russians
themselves are still little concerned with the issue. Any quick review of the
major speeches by Russia's politicians reveals that domestic issues are
garnering overwhelming attention.
>Both these alternatives are unacceptable to the newly independent nations
>of the former SU with the exception of the Belarusyns.
Agreed.
>As many American
>political scientists have noted on more than one occasion, Russia can
>not be both imperialistic and democratic.
Neither can any other country that I'm aware of...
Do you claim that Russia is acting in an imperialist manner? If so, be
careful that you think over what imperialism means. In my opinion, Russia may
be acting chauvenistic, but not imperialistic.
Kirill Shcheglov
>
> Dan K. (dkoro...@ezdial.com) wrote:
> ]Robert Whisler wrote:
> ]> >is to kill the national language of a people.
> ]> Yes, the Bolsheviks did make slaves out of people, but the previous post is
> ]> on the whole correct: the Bolsheviks _did_ teach people in their native
> ]> question).
> ]> But to state a fact like this is not to defend the "benevolent Soviets." It is more likely an attempt to get at truth, no matter how
irritating it may be
> ]> to comfortable convictions.
> ]> The majority of Bolsheviks were reprehensible ideologists who consistently
> ]> applied just one of their principles: the end justifies the means. But not a few of them sought to implement their policies by education
and persuasion,
> ] which reflected a belief that the masses were simply ignorant and could be
> ] converted to socialism by non-violent means. Moreover, Lenin had fought hard
> ] secede or voluntarily join the Soviet Union. Of course, this policy was later
> ]> reversed by Stalin, who did eventually subjugate the non-Russians into a
> ]> revival of the former empire.
> ]> I think the history of the Bolsheviks in Russia and elsewhere is more complex than first appears. In any case, attacking the messenger,
instead of the
> ] message (like you did above), is a poor method of expressing your opinion.
> ] oO Robert Whisler <ca...@dcez.com>
> ] oO Center for Eurasian, Russian, & East European Studies
> ]> oO Georgetown University - Washington, DC
> ]
> ]Robert,
> ]
> ]You must be knew to this bulletin board, otherwise you would know
> ]that Henrietta as well as many other Russians
> ]consistently supports the old soviet line on history,
> ]sociology, ethnology, etc. regardless of whether or not there may be
> ]some truth in the matter, and always act as apologists for Russia's
> ]neo colonialist behavior towards her neighbors.
>
> Ms.Thomas. Ukrainian nationalists like korolishin are so completely
> blinded by their prejudices that they are totally unable to
> appreciate anyone disagreeing with them. Indeed, there is not
> a single person who criticised korolishin and likes and was not
> labeled by them some sort of Satan incarnate.
>
> (rest of inanities eliminated)
>
> --
> LAWFUL,adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
I'd like to add to that those guys seem to be
somewhat intellectually challenged. They view the world in
black and white, with the naivette appropriate to a 8 year old boy.
There can be no constructive dialogue with such a person.
Dan K.
> Dan K. (dkoro...@ezdial.com) wrote: [...]
> : As many American
> : political scientists have noted on more than one occasion, Russia can
> : not be both imperialistic and democratic.
> Is it just me, or is this sentence hilariously funny indeed?
> : Regards, Dan K.
It must be you, the situation in Chechnya IMHO is not at all funny
and neither are the imperialistic platforms of Zhirinovsky, Zyuganov
or indeed Russia's current prime minister.
Regards, Dan K.
Dan K.
> In article <317D63...@ezdial.com>, "Dan K." <dkoro...@ezdial.com> wrote:
> >Robert,
> >You must be knew to this bulletin board, otherwise you would know
> >that Henrietta as well as many other Russians
> >consistently supports the old soviet line on history,
> >sociology, ethnology, etc. regardless of whether or not there may be
> >some truth in the matter, and always act as apologists for Russia's
> >neo colonialist behavior towards her neighbors.
> Yes, I'm relatively new here, but I can tell an ad hominum attack when I see
> it. If this Ms. Thompson is really an apologist for Russian imperialism, fer
> cryin'-out-loud, SHOW us why her views are wrong with RELEVANT FACTS. In
> other words, as I stated in a previous post, attack the message, not the
> messenger.
We have been for the past months, what facts do you want? Copies of past posts?
What subjects?
> >The FACT is that the Russian people whether we like it or not are still
> >not content with the loss of their empire and the loss of the status,
> >despicable or otherwise, associated with that status.
> There is some truth to this assertion, but I would not call it a FACT.
> Opinion polls consistently show that revival of the former Soviet Union does
> not rank high on the list of the average Russian's concerns. I have no doubt
> that some Russians want to scratch that imperialist itch, but they are not
> the majority.
Wrong Robert! I love the way you phrase your remark! No, if a Russian is
starving and his kids are starving or his son is murdering women and children
in Chechnya, EXTENSION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE (Russia is still
an empire you know, in FACT it is called a federation) or as you put it a
revival of the Soviet Union may not be his first priority. Nevertheless if
you ask that same Russian if it was a mistake to disband the Soviet Union
and if you ask him if Russia has lost prestige with the loss of the empire
and if he would like to see Russia return to the status which it had you
will get a very different answer and that is why Zyuganov is consistantly
higher in the popularity opininion polls than Yeltsin. And it is a FACT
that Yeltsin has replaced almost all of his reforminst advisors and ministers
with those who are neo expansionist or who want to take a hard line against
their NIS neighbors. If you do not know these simple facts then you must have
been in hiding somewhere in your ivory tower at Georgetown.
> >The FACT is that
> >the Russian people are suporting politicians who are clamoring for a
> >restoration of the Russian empire in one form or another. It is evident
> >that the Russian people want a return to being the "master" race in a
> >neo Russian empire be it nationalistic ala Zhirinovsky or neo-soviet
> >ala Zyuganov.
> There is even less truth in this "FACT" than in the previous one. I had the
> good fortune of being in Russia during last December's parliamentary
> elections. There were many issues, but I never saw a party campaign for a
> return "to being the 'master' race in a neo Russian empire". The closest
> any (officially registered) party came to such a platform was the "My
> Fatherland" party, which maybe got 1% of the vote. The Congress of Russian
> Communities, a party formed "to protect the rights of Russian-speakers in the
> near-abroad," totally bombed in the voting. As far as Zhirinovsky and
> Zyuganov go, their campaigns focused primarily on domestic issues.
As I alluded above one must not only look at the main focus but also at all of
the side issues. How many times must you and Henrietta have Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky
tell you that they want to reconquer their newly independent neighbors
before you believe them. Must they yell this in your deaf ears day and
night? Why are Poland, Hungry, Ukraine, Chech Republic and the Baltics
taking Russia's expansionist rhetoric seriously. And why are you not??????
Nice and safe here in North America isn't it?
> One does hear noises made by Russian politicians about reconstituting the
> Soviet Union.
For you it may be noises, but for the people of Eastern Europe they are
extremely loud threats and the reason they all want to get into NATO
as soon as possible. Want more facts???
> Moreover, the Russian government often acts in a heavy-handed
> and hypocritical manner toward the other former Soviet republics.
Well I am glad that you recognize that.
> But as the Russian Duma found out recently, there appears to be
> little desire in the "near-abroad" to rejoin.
So you think that that would stop Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky if they came into
power?
> And judging the by apathetic popular response to the
> Duma resolution repudiating the break-up of the USSR, it appears that Russians
> themselves are still little concerned with the issue. Any quick review of the
> major speeches by Russia's politicians reveals that domestic issues are
> garnering overwhelming attention.
But have they repudiated their expansionist remarks and plans? If you have
been paying attention, it is widely reported by various news sources that
Zyuganov especially says one thing when there is a Western audience and
quite another when he is in the heart of Mother Russia. Or are these
reports false? Facts please!
> >Both these alternatives are unacceptable to the newly independent nations
> >of the former SU with the exception of the Belarusyns.
> Agreed.
> >As many American
> >political scientists have noted on more than one occasion, Russia can
> >not be both imperialistic and democratic.
> Neither can any other country that I'm aware of...
> Do you claim that Russia is acting in an imperialist manner? If so, be
> careful that you think over what imperialism means. In my opinion, Russia may
> be acting chauvenistic, but not imperialistic.
Russia still is an Empire, that is why it is called the Russian Federation,
that is why the Chechens want to get out of it since they never joined
neither it nor the Russian Empire nor the Soviet Union of their own free will!
> -Robert
Regards, Dan K.
Dan K.
> Needless to say, that is completely untrue characterisation of Ms.Thomas. Ukrainian nationalists like korolishin are so completely
blinded by their prejudices that they are totally unable to
appreciate anyone disagreeing with them. Indeed, there is not
a single person who criticised korolishin and likes and was not
> labeled by them some sort of Satan incarnate.
C'mon now Michael,
never Satan incarnate, maybe Sovok occasionally, but then
you know better maybe Satan incarnate is a synonymn for you. (:->)
Regards, Dan K.
Aaron
>Robert,
>
>You must be knew to this bulletin board, otherwise you would know
>that Henrietta as well as many other Russians
>consistently supports the old soviet line on history,
>sociology, ethnology, etc. regardless of whether or not there may be
>some truth in the matter, and always act as apologists for Russia's
>neo colonialist behavior towards her neighbors.
>
>still not content with the loss of their empire and the loss of the
>FACT is that the Russian people are suporting politicians who are
>clamoring for a restoration of the Russian empire in one form or
>another. It is evident that the Russian people want a return to being
>the "master" race in a neo Russian empire be it nationalistic ala
>Zhirinovsky or neo-soviet ala Zyuganov.
>
>many American political scientists have noted on more than one
>occasion, Russia can not be both imperialistic and democratic.
>
You know you and a group of others continually insult certain
people. I can see debating, which is what these groups are for.
However, I thought everyone knew that you don't insult an opponent,
because it only makes your argument seem flawed.
First of all, you are completely disregarding human psychology.
People, in times of trouble, will flock behind the banners of those who
provide easy solutions. It is hard to put a face on economic
depression. People like Zhirnovsky and Zuganov give it a face, so
people can focus. Hardly anyone blames the German public for Nazi
Germany, but they elected them and they participated in their murders.
If Russia had an economy greater than that of the Soviet days, they
wouldn't care about expansion. Read Jung, it might help you better
understand human psychology. You can't blame Russians; you can only
blame the people who manipulate others emotions, like Zhirnovsky and
Zuganov. It seems that you are taking on a form of scape-goatism. You
tend to blame the Russian people as a whole for everything. See how
easy it is to fall in that trap.
Imperialism and Democracy can coexist, and they often do. Germany,
Italy, France, The United Kingdom, Japan, and even the U.S. have all
gone throught imperialist phases, yet all were and are democracies. If
you need better explanations of all these examples, I can give it to
you.
Kirill Shcheglov
Pi**ish mnogo......
Elliot Pyatetsky
I totally disagree with what you said on how we shouldn't blame people
for the actions of their leaders. Yes it's true that there are many
examples in history when leaders caused major problems in societies
(Stalin, Hitler, etc), but it doesn't mean that people have to follow.
In my opinion, people have to be critical of what is going on in the
society (that's what separates intellectuals from ignorant) and not
blindly agree to whatever is being done to them.
elliot
Vizitei
Here..here for DanK....
Henrietta and her blind friends would do well by listening more and
talking less. But what would you expect from soviet groupies.
Cheers,
Vizitei
Vizitei
Aaron wrote:
>
> You know you and a group of others continually insult certain
>people. I can see debating, which is what these groups are for.
>However, I thought everyone knew that you don't insult an opponent,
>because it only makes your argument seem flawed.
> First of all, you are completely disregarding human psychology.
> People, in times of trouble,...... etc. etc.
Aaron debate..don't preach. The trouble wiith Henrietta and her friends
(like you) is that they preach. When you preach to people who are more
than you do on the subject, be prepared to be "insulted".
Regards,
Vizitei.
Henrietta Thomas
: I totally disagree with what you said on how we shouldn't blame people
Dear Elliot,
I am currently involved in a self-imposed project to compare Robert
Conquest's "Harvest of Sorrow" with "Stalin's Peasants," a more recent
work on the acts and doings of the Soviet government in the early 1930's.
I would suggest that you do the same. It might help change your attitude
toward people who "blindly agree to whatever is being done to them."
GRycar
Eliot;
You are correct in that individuals are, no must be, responsible for
their own actions. But to act volitionaly the individual must first be
free in order to be able to decide and act accordingly. The freedom that
I refer to starts in mens hearts and must be tempered by reason. The above
the Ancient Greeks caled virtue and insisted that it was this quality that
made them the only civilized people in the world. Needless to say, they
were correct.
Judging our century by the above what are people who are not free?
This is a good issue to develope. The value of freedom and
specificaly what is it to be free?
Regards
George
GRycar
Kagalenko et el;
Mentaly challenged are Ukrainians who value their
freedom and respect the virtues of their country? Is that all you can say?
Is this the level of your interlocutation and the limits of your reason?
Well,perhaps, given your obvious erudition, you can
inform us all on the evils of Ukrainian Nationalism. More specificaly,
kindly tell us who it is that the Ukrainian Nationalists harmed that did
not attempt to bring them death. Please inform us what were and are the
evil goals of Ukrainian Nationalists that makes them so onorous to you?
Regards
George
GRycar
Katcee;
Ukraine was not the Red Army soldiers country. It is true that
25% of this army of slaves was Ukrainian however it was to the credit of
Suxevycz that he did not consider it advantageous for Ukraine to inflict
needless slauther upon the Russians. Needless to say his tactics worked
magnificently and yes there is union between all decent men who are
capable of seeing the good and as such support it.
The tactic was to make life more advantageous then death. It
worked.
Regards
George
Henrietta Thomas
Robert Whisler (ca...@dcez.com) wrote:
: In article <317D63...@ezdial.com>, "Dan K." <dkoro...@ezdial.com>
: wrote:
: >Robert,
: >
: >You must be knew to this bulletin board, otherwise you would know
: >that Henrietta as well as many other Russians
: >consistently supports the old soviet line on history,
: >sociology, ethnology, etc. regardless of whether or not there may be
: >some truth in the matter, and always act as apologists for Russia's
: >neo colonialist behavior towards her neighbors.
: Yes, I'm relatively new here, but I can tell an ad hominum attack when I
: see it. If this Ms. Thompson is really an apologist for Russian
: imperialism, fer cryin'-out-loud, SHOW us why her views are wrong with
: RELEVANT FACTS. In other words, as I stated in a previous post, attack
: the message, not the messenger.
Thank you, Robert Whisler, for asking Dan K. to back up his assertions
with facts. It is something we all need to do more often to have good
discussions.
I do hope you will stay with this newsgroup and not let the flames
disturb you. We need people like you to step in from time to time and
help us get a little better perspective on things. There are some
excellent Russian posters here you will enjoy talking to.
I agree with your assessment of Russian priorities. I posted an article
not long ago reporting on a survey done which showed that high priority is
on the economy, crime rate, and Chechnya rather than on restoring USSR.
The nostalgia appears to be a longing for stability rather than a longing
for another dictatorship. Plus they are mad at the reformers for the mess
they've made. That seems like a perfectly normal reaction to me.
Henrietta Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com
Eric
In article <4lppba$a...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
wrote:
>Robert Whisler (ca...@dcez.com) wrote:
>: In article <317D63...@ezdial.com>, "Dan K."
<dkoro...@ezdial.com>
>: wrote:
>
>: >Robert,
>: >
>: >You must be knew to this bulletin board, otherwise you would know
>: >that Henrietta as well as many other Russians
>: >consistently supports the old soviet line on history,
>: >sociology, ethnology, etc. regardless of whether or not there may
be
>: >some truth in the matter, and always act as apologists for Russia's
>: >neo colonialist behavior towards her neighbors.
>
>: Yes, I'm relatively new here, but I can tell an ad hominum attack
when I
>: see it. If this Ms. Thompson is really an apologist for Russian
>: imperialism, fer cryin'-out-loud, SHOW us why her views are wrong
with
>: RELEVANT FACTS. In other words, as I stated in a previous post,
attack
>: the message, not the messenger.
>
>Thank you, Robert Whisler, for asking Dan K. to back up his assertions
Henrietta,
I've been enjoying your interventions on this group for awhile now.
Unfortunately I can't say so much for the rest of the Newsgroup.
Coming from Compuserve where forums are moderated, I find the
unrestrained flaming, ethnic slurs and libels posted here to be a
reasonable justification for the concept of censorship of the Internet.
However, my question is, do you know of a group that has hard news
and analysis downloads like CompuServe's Soviet Crisis Newsclips?
(Reuters, AP, ITAR-TASS etc.?). Prefer English, but Russian if
necessary (long articles in Russian journalese are a bit of a strain,
WHEN are they going to learn to get to the point in para. 1 ??).
(Subject for essay question: Do Russians EVER get to a point?)
Eric Morse
David R. Swafford
Dragon Fly wrote:
> In fact, the practice of eating their own
> children was so spread on the Ukraine that
> horrified Red Army officers were ordering
> soldiers to take Ukrainian children and put
> them in a special wards which were guarded
> against adult Ukrainians.
Can you provide hard proof that this is so? So that's why your mighty Soviet
Union was overrun by the Nazis. They were so busy protecting poor Ukrainan
children from their parents. Get real.
> } I believe it is true that some Ukrainians resorted to cannibalism during
> } the 1930's famine. It may also be true that Soviet soldiers tried to
> } protect children.
I see that you have infected your "disciple" Henrietta with your propaganda.
Soviet soldiers were too busy worrying about getting shot by the Germans or
by Western Ukrainian rebels to protect children whom Stalin had ordered them
to starve anyway. What a contradiction! "Kill those insubordinate Ukrainians,
but spare their children." What is wrong with this picture?
> That's true, Henrietta!
No, that's trash, Henrietta....
> You can find a terrifying witness accounts in many Russian
> publications about Ukrainians cannibalizing on their own
> children in 1932-1933.
Where are these accounts? And even if they are true,why do you suppose they had
to eat anything they could find? Because your Soviet government created this famine to
kill them, the Ukrainians. They would even execute a Ukrainian child if they found
him/her with grain in their pockets! Protect them? Give us all a break....
Sincerely,
Dave
p o l u b o g
In article <4l846d$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, db...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (
Charles Trew) says:
>
>
>Michael Kagalenko (mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu) writes:
>>
>> That is completely untrue. No one was "forced" to speak Russian. Schools
>> in republics of SU always have had a n instruction on native language.
>> You are speaking from the position of ignorance.
>
> You're a lying sack of shit, Mike.
> No one could be such an idiot on purpose, you're clearly spreading
>disinformation in classic, Soviet style.
> The appropriate term for this is: vranyo.
>
> You're lying, we know your lying, and you know we know. Yet you
>continue this shit. Shove it, bozo. Nobody with any brains is buying.
>
>
>
shallow, uneducated and ignorant opinion. On top of it, you are being
very abnoxious by calling one a liar without contradicting one with
your own arguments. So, the smell is coming from you, not from Mike.
So-called "Ukrainian" language is a tongue, which Russians spoke over
100 yrs ago. Even my grandparents, who never have been to that part of
the world, livng in the region of Ural mountains, used the same jargon
as contemporary Okrainians use. Evolution of language is a very natural
process and it would be unwise not to take this in consideration.
I would also ad to Mike's valuable information (for you) that everyone,
who has a decent education (or wishes to receive one) in Tchurkestan
(all of the territory of former Russian Empire, including large part of
contemporary Poland), must know Russian language simply on one innocent
basis that textbooks are written in Russian.
Polubog.
Dan K.
Henrietta Thomas wrote:
> Thank you, Robert Whisler, for asking Dan K. to back up his assertions
> with facts. It is something we all need to do more often to have good
> discussions.
Yes, Henrietta your above statement is one of the reasons that the
Americans who post here consider you disgusting. You have learned well
from your soviet mentors. Rather is it not we who present facts and
you who presents old soviet propaganda.
Today it is fun to play with you because Ukraine is a free and independent
country. You and your sovok friends can sing all you want. Everyone
today knows that Ukrainians are not Russians. When I was in school
people like you would tell me that Ukrainians were really Russians and
did not want independence, they would say that the Ukrainians were very
happy to be soviets because Moscow said so. Well the Ukrainians made
liars out of all you soviet apologists. (:->)
> I do hope you will stay with this newsgroup and not let the flames
> disturb you. We need people like you to step in from time to time and
> help us get a little better perspective on things. There are some
> excellent Russian posters here you will enjoy talking to.
Yes, like Dung Fly and Tereshchenko,
Yes, stay Robert and join Henrietta's fan club. (:->)
> Henrietta Thomas
Regards, Dan K.
Aaron
In <4lmo4h$h...@vccnorth24.its.rpi.edu> pya...@vccnorth24.its.rpi.edu
(Elliot Pyatetsky) writes:
>
>
>I totally disagree with what you said on how we shouldn't blame people
>for the actions of their leaders. Yes it's true that there are many
>examples in history when leaders caused major problems in societies
>(Stalin, Hitler, etc), but it doesn't mean that people have to follow.
>In my opinion, people have to be critical of what is going on in the
>society (that's what separates intellectuals from ignorant) and not
>blindly agree to whatever is being done to them.
>
I didn't say leaders, I said people who manipulate others emotions.
Some intellectuals can see past some maneuvers, but noone is immune
from these kind of manipulations. When you are desperate people can
play you like a fiddle, yes even you. Why do you think fat pills and
cream sell so well? When people are desperate they seek easy means to
solve their problems, even one that would otherwise seem outlandish. A
desperate person is not at the helm, his desire is. Here is an analogy
you might be able to relate to. When you are just starving for food,
eating a whole bunch of sweets or a load of burritos may sound good.
However, a couple of hours later the indigestion sets in and you
realize how unwise the decision was, but at the time you were not
thinking clearly. Now let us say that a person convined you to eat the
burritos. He was manipulating you. Do you blame yourself or him for
the decision? Had he not played on your desire, you would have most
likely made a better decision.
Robert Whisler
In article <317EBC...@ezdial.com>, "Dan K." <dkoro...@ezdial.com>
wrote:
>> Yes, I'm relatively new here, but I can tell an ad hominum attack when I see
>> it. If this Ms. Thompson is really an apologist for Russian imperialism, fer
>> cryin'-out-loud, SHOW us why her views are wrong with RELEVANT FACTS. In
>> other words, as I stated in a previous post, attack the message, not the
>> messenger.
>
>We have been for the past months, what facts do you want? Copies of past posts?
>What subjects?
In the post I read from you responding to Ms. Henrietta, you didn't respond to
her assertion that the Bolsheviks taught non-Russian peoples in their native
tongues. All I read was a tirade about "people defending Bolsheviks."
[BTW, you _still_ have not come up with any evidence that refutes her
assertion, which I back up in part.]
In other words, there were no facts and no evidence in your post. It simply
contained invectives and innuendo. Maybe you've done better in previous
posts. I don't know. I only responded to what I saw.
>Wrong Robert! I love the way you phrase your remark! No, if a Russian is
>starving and his kids are starving or his son is murdering women and children
>in Chechnya, EXTENSION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE (Russia is still
>an empire you know, in FACT it is called a federation) or as you put it a
>revival of the Soviet Union may not be his first priority.
It's not even a priority. I'd say it's barely a concern.
>Nevertheless if
>you ask that same Russian if it was a mistake to disband the Soviet Union
>and if you ask him if Russia has lost prestige with the loss of the empire
>and if he would like to see Russia return to the status which it had you
>will get a very different answer
How many would say that? Like I said before, in my experience with a Russian
election campaign, the issue of reintegration of the former USSR was barely
mentioned. Those who pursued it did not do well, to say the least.
To claim that Zyuganov's popularity is based on his position on restoring the
USSR is a bad reading of Russian politics. Who primarily supports Zyuganov?
Pensioners. Why? Because pensioners' standard of living has declined most
dramatically as a result of Yeltsin's reforms. Pensioners associate
Zyuganov's Communist Party as the key means for restoring the system under
which they lived quite decent lives (nevermind, however, that everyone else
suffered under that system).
>and that is why Zyuganov is consistantly
>higher in the popularity opininion polls than Yeltsin.
Well, not anymore. A recent CNN poll place Yeltsin slightly ahead of
Zyuganov. While Yeltsin's recent surge may be attributable to some talk about
re-integration of the former Soviet republics, as well as the recent accord
with Belarus', it's more likely that the massive campaign to hand out
government largesse has had the greater impact. But, according to your views
Yeltsin's recent surge should not have happened at all. If Russians were so
gung-ho about restoration of the USSR, the Duma's March 15 annullment of the
dissolution of the USSR should have translated into a wave of support for the
Communists, who sponsored the measure. Sorry. It appears that just the
opposite has occurred.
>And it is a FACT
>that Yeltsin has replaced almost all of his reforminst advisors and ministers
>with those who are neo expansionist or who want to take a hard line against
>their NIS neighbors.
What ministers who have recently taken positions in Yeltsin's government and
who are neo-expansionist or who want to take a hard line against Russia's NIS
neighbors do you have in mind?
Perhaps you have the new Foreign Minister, Yevgenii Primakov, in mind? (If
not, then who else?) Well, here is a report on Mr. Primakov's reaction to the
Duma's March 15th vote, from the Jamestown Monitor (http://www.jamestown.org)
DUMA VOTE SEEN AS FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER. In the wake of Sunday's Duma vote
annulling the 1991 disbandment of the USSR, Russia's Foreign Ministry has
scrambled to reassure foreign governments while several political moderates
have accused the Communists -- who spearheaded the Duma action -- of harming
Russian national interests. Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov said
yesterday that he had sent instructions to Russian ambassadors to make clear
to their host governments that the Duma vote carried no legal force. Similar
explanations will be given to international organizations. Primakov charged
that the vote was "undermining the legal basis for the existence of the
Russian state" and creating "a legal mess in Russia's relations with other
countries." He said the vote would "torpedo" objective trends toward
integration in the CIS, drive the Baltic States to seek NATO membership even
more intensely, and "provide additional arguments" for westerners who back
the inclusion of eastern European states in NATO. (Interfax, March 18)
If Mr. Primakov was a neo-expansionist as you imply, then he should
have heralded the Duma vote. Sorry. It appears that you're wrong here too.
>If you do not know these simple facts then you must have
>been in hiding somewhere in your ivory tower at Georgetown.
HAHA! Ivory tower? I wish. Try a mud hut (i.e., I'm just a graduate student
at Georgetown).
>> >The FACT is that
>> >the Russian people are suporting politicians who are clamoring for a
>> >restoration of the Russian empire in one form or another. It is evident
>> >that the Russian people want a return to being the "master" race in a
>> >neo Russian empire be it nationalistic ala Zhirinovsky or neo-soviet
>> >ala Zyuganov.
>> near-abroad," totally bombed in the voting. As far as Zhirinovsky and
>> Zyuganov go, their campaigns focused primarily on domestic issues.
>
>As I alluded above one must not only look at the main focus but also at all of
>the side issues. How many times must you and Henrietta have Zyuganov and
> Zhirinovsky
>tell you that they want to reconquer their newly independent neighbors
>before you believe them. Must they yell this in your deaf ears day and
>night?
Where has Zyuganov *ever* said that he intends to "reconquer" Russia's NIS
neighbors? Please, tell me. It should be easy for you to give me a source
since, according to you, he does it many times.
In fact, one of the few references that I have found on the Communist Party's
position of reintegration is the following from the Jamestown Monitor
(http://www.jamestown.org):
COMMUNISTS BACKTRACK. A Duma press spokesman grudgingly acknowledged that
the Duma was likely to comply with the request [to retract the March 15th
vote annulling the dissolution of the USSR]. Communist party leader
Gennady Zyuganov tried to play down the event, telling a press conference
March 19 that Yeltsin's reaction was "hysterical" and that the Communist
party was wedded to the principle of the peaceful and voluntary
reconstruction of the Soviet Union. (Interfax, Russian Television, March 19)
Zyuganov sounded bemused and aggrieved: the platform on which the Communist
party fought the December 1995 parliamentary elections promised
unambiguously to "denounce the Belovezhye accords [disbanding the USSR and
creating the CIS] and create the conditions necessary for the stage-by-stage
restoration of a single Union state on a voluntary basis." (Sovetskaya
Rossiya, August 31, 1995)
As far as Zhirinovsky is concerned, I am truly puzzled. Mr. Zhirinovsky is a
man known for his outrageous behaviour and comments. But it appears that you
take everything he says quite seriously. I don't know if Mr. Zhirinovsky has
ever said he intends to reconquer the ex-Soviet republics, but let's assume
for simplicity's sake that he has. If your assertion (taken from above) that
the "Russian people want a return to being the 'master' race in a neo Russian
empire" is true, then we'd expect Mr. Zhirinovsky to lead every other
presidential contender by a *wide* margin. Sorry. But last time I checked,
polls place Mr. Zhirinovsky's support in the single digits.
>Why are Poland, Hungry, Ukraine, Chech Republic and the Baltics
>taking Russia's expansionist rhetoric seriously. [?]
There are several reasons:
1. Russia's and the Soviet Union's role in conquering these nations in the
past. Even if Russia was democratic and capitalist (which it is not), and if
some of its leading politicians abstained from making threatening noises,
mainly directed at Estonia (which they don't), I believe these countries would
*still* seek NATO integration. It's going to take a long time before
justified mistrust in Russia subsides.
2. Russia's instability. I have argued that very few people in Russia
actually want a forced revival of the former Soviet empire, and, of those,
even fewer are willing to pay the immense social, political, military, and
financial cost of actually realizing their dreams. BUT, there is always a
small chance that some crazed lunatic general will decide to take matters in
his own hands. Given that the costs of joining NATO are small relative to the
benefits, why not join NATO?
3. As a broader effort to join European political and economic institutions.
This is a dream these states have had for a long time.
>And why are you not??????
You might as well ask, Why aren't you afraid of an attack from Canada? I just
assign the chances of a Russian attack a very low probability.
>Nice and safe here in North America isn't it?
From Russian ICBMs? And remember, I'm in Washington, DC, which would
probably the first place to be hit by a Russian nuclear assault.
>But have they repudiated their expansionist remarks and plans? If you have
>been paying attention, it is widely reported by various news sources that
>Zyuganov especially says one thing when there is a Western audience and
>quite another when he is in the heart of Mother Russia. Or are these
>reports false? Facts please!
I quite aware of what Russian politicians have been saying, much to the
detriment of your "FACTS," and I still don't agree with what you say.
Politicians often say something purely for domestic consumption without any
intention on following through on their statements. I think you're the first
person I've met who takes at face value what politicians (especially those
engaged in an election campaign) say.
>> Do you claim that Russia is acting in an imperialist manner? If so, be
>> careful that you think over what imperialism means. In my opinion, Russia
> may
>> be acting chauvenistic, but not imperialistic.
>
>Russia still is an Empire, that is why it is called the Russian Federation,
>that is why the Chechens want to get out of it since they never joined
>neither it nor the Russian Empire nor the Soviet Union of their own free will!
You didn't answer my question...
It's an open question whether Russia is an empire or not. In some ways it is.
But it's also clear from the spate of agreements with the central government
that many of the non-Russian republics (*very* few of which have their titular
nationalities as a majority) have, for better or worse, decided to cast their
lot with Russia. If Russia was an empire held together only by force, you'd
be seeing a lot more Chechnyas.
p o l u b o g
>Union of their own free will!
>
Dan, You must be joined this discussion quite recently because you are
still using term Russia, rather then Tchurkia in your references.
For your information, fSU should be called Tchurkia (as a result my
recent survey) and every resident of it is a Tchurka, as a national
of that country. Unfortunately, they have not yet received passports,
confirming their current nationality, but the current leaders of Tchurkia
ought to supplement them with proper documents, corresponding to a new
name of their country.
Because the old name did not correspond to present inhabitants of
Russia, there is an alternate name have been created: Tchurkestan.
Simpler version is also suitable: Tchurkia.
Because of it's genocidal economy, based on the wide exploitation of
concentration camp labor, it is more appropriate to call the land the fSU
a Tchurkia, which better reflects the race of it's population and culture.
Name for Ukraine also has changed accordingly to Tchurkian Okraina.
Byelorussia has became Byelotchurkia, republics of Bultic Sea are
renamed to Bultchurkia and Moldavia is called Molchurkia now.
There isn't such a thing as "English-speaking" people in the FSU. They
all speak in Russian language and very few do speak in official language
of their independent republic (or "national" autonomic region), as a
second language. Very small percentage of them pick-up a poor command
of English language in school, if the school has English as compulsory
subject in it's curriculum.
About the Tchetchenyan Autonomous District: you are rignt about it when
said it "never joined" to Tchurkia, but only on one basis that it never
existed before it was CREATED in oreder to build a new "nation" in 1920-2.
Current situation in Grozny could be compared to rebellion in Waco, though.
Difference would be in the scale of the whole operation: the power of the
forces on both sides are (or almost) even, the stakes are higher, the
lands are vaster. Instead of a compound, you are looking at .4 million
population city, with main industry of oil-processing and oil-distribution
plants. Forget the racial dissimilarities, religious and cultural
differences: they are all Tchurkis, who are all speak the same (Russian)
language and majority do not practice any religion (with the background
of atheist education), caught-in between feud of highly powered military
forces, implementing contemporary weapons on both sides. Also, forget
about all sorts of freedoms, as in Tchurkestan only military oppressive
dictatorship can only offer a full-time employment in concentration camps. In other words, one can tell that unless you on the side of powerful you are
a slave.
I'd say that anything that is written as an educational or informational
material about Russia (in both languages) is a BS. There was never
a communism in Russia, as it taught in universities and schools. 'Tis
a traditional "oppressive, military dictatorship" for more than 500 years.
This political system existed long before the term "fascism" (for it) was
invented in language. Now everybody fights it, but nobody knows what
is it. Term became just another label for potential victims of
Incarceration Industry and is used for unfair discrimination and unjust
percecution in order to justify a brutal exploitation in concentration
camps - traditional stronghold of a primitive Russian economy. Today
majority of people are being deceived that political system in Russia
is "a biggest democracy on this planet". Nothing has changed, though.
There is no democracy in Tchurkia as of now. Here facts only.
I hope you will get better outlook with information a gave you. If you
disagree with some of the above, though, you must give me an argument,
based on reliable material and I will be happy to discuss with you your
point of view.
Regards,
Polubog.