How the Russians remember it!
henry alminas
This exchange is taken from a Russian
English-language forum. I have eliminated
all names/code names etc.
Perhaps the title should be: "Paradise lost".
Best - - Henry
Queston:
Do you any recollections about the life in the U.S.S.R?
Have you been there as a child or as an adult?
What was your experience? Please write in detail. I am not
Russian or ex-Soviet. I am from India
doing research on the life of the ordinary people in the U.S.S.R.
According to my wife, who is Russia, life was like this:
Free education, housing, electricity, gas, heating, water, child
care, annual holidays, Dachs, medicines and hospitals, subsidized
travel and transport.
When I mention these to the Western people they laugh, nobody
believes it.
So I invite the Russians and former citizens of the U.S.S.R to
contribute as much as you can. This is your chance to demonstrate
what the life used to be in the U.S.S.R. rather than reading
only the propaganda of the Western writers.
Answer:
I am lucky to remember the life in Soviet Union of 70-80s.
All that your wife said is true. These were the Soviet high
standards of living. When the people from the West start
talking about the high standards of living in USA comparing
the Soviet life they do not realize that they compare two
very different things.
The Soviet people mostly did not have personal cars but they
did not need them in large cities where there were public
transport. They stayed in lines in the shops but not because
they were hungry but because they wanted to buy more goods
of better quality.
They were not poor as it is often stated, nearly everyone had
the money on their bank accounts (that were lost during
Perestroyka), these savings were in addition to the garanted
pensions for the old.
There were no unemployment, everyone was garanted by the
working place; it was not possible to imagine even that a
person could find himself in a desparate situation without
work and means for life.
There were no rich but there were no poor, hungry, homeless.
The child care was great. Children and their education were
under the control of the state. There were no problem where
to go on holidays - the children were provided by the places
in the summer camps for the miser payment or sometimes for
free (if there were several children in the family.
You did not have the need to worry about the medical insurance
or to ask for the voluntary donations for the extremely needed
operation. Everything needed was provided.
The goods for the children had special discounts, so that to buy
the goods for children (clothes, food, books, toys) was affordable
for every family even with many children.
There were special social programs for the families with many
children, securing maternity and stimulating it. The working place
was kept for the women during the time when they stayed at
home before childbirth (three months) and after it (2-3 years).
Besides it, the women was payed for staying at home and raising
th child. This year was incuded into the seniority.
The period of (free!)education was also included into seniority that
determined the amount of pension in old age.
The theaters and museums had the special educational programs
for the youth. The access to the culture was very easy and free.
The price for the tickets was affordable for everyone.
The people were protected by the labour laws preventing the
overwork, so that they had lots of free time. They could spend
this free time for their pleasure they read plenty of books, visited the
art exhibitions, had hobbies expressing their creativity, went for sports.
It was a norm to be informed about the new books that the famous
authors published, new exhibitions, performances. The new
publications were broadly discussed among the friends.
People could stand in lines through all day and night to buy the
tickets for the new performance of the theater or for the exhibition.
In the far village the people read books and were able to come to the
large cities at their holidays to visit the museums and theaters. I often
got surprised that the person who came from the Far Easy of SU
was ofren more informed about the cultural news that happened in
St.Petersburg than I was living there.
It was not very easy to travel abroad but it was very easy and cheap
to travel inside the great country that was the Soviet Union.
There were no ethnic conflicts and I had Georgian, Armenian, Uzbek,
Moldavian friendsa and had no problems discussing cultural difference
. I do not say about Ukrainians and Belorusssians - they were part of
the family ties, because most of Russians had Ukrainian or Belorussian
relatives.
Well, this is what comes to my mind at once. I can say tha I was lucky
to have the Soviet childhood and youth. I regret that I am not able to
provide the same careless and happy life to my child in a new system.
Alexei
However...
"henry alminas" <halm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gWJCc.105050$eu.68776@attbi_s02...
>
>
> Answer:
> I am lucky to remember the life in Soviet Union of 70-80s.
>
> All that your wife said is true. These were the Soviet high
> standards of living. When the people from the West start
> talking about the high standards of living in USA comparing
> the Soviet life they do not realize that they compare two
> very different things.
>
> The Soviet people mostly did not have personal cars but they
> did not need them in large cities where there were public
> transport. They stayed in lines in the shops but not because
> they were hungry but because they wanted to buy more goods
> of better quality.
If you're talking about economy -- not liberties -- it was good. Low prices
for goods I remember as a kid. That's funny I can still recall prices for
bread (0.22 rubles) and milk (0.42 roubles). One rouble went a long way. A
three-minute phone call cost 0.02 roubles. There was enough food at that
time. Only at the time of perestroika (in 1986-88), we've experienced food
shortage of sorts. The (Latvian) government, in order to preserve its
market, began issuing the stamps for sugar and soap.
Abd he's right. Most people didn't have personal cars... nor did they stay
in line in shops. If you wanted to get something that was a rarity in the
Soviet market, say Marlboro cigarettes, you'd go to someone you know instead
of going to the shop.
>
> They were not poor as it is often stated, nearly everyone had
> the money on their bank accounts (that were lost during
> Perestroyka), these savings were in addition to the garanted
> pensions for the old.
>
My family did have money on their bank accounts. There was also a state
insurance policy we bought. By the time I was 18, I was supposed to have
recieved 1,000 roubles. But due to the inflation and the demise of the
coutry, no one really honored that policy.
> There were no unemployment, everyone was garanted by the
> working place; it was not possible to imagine even that a
> person could find himself in a desparate situation without
> work and means for life.
>
> There were no rich but there were no poor, hungry, homeless.
I only remember seeing homeless people on the streets of Riag in the late
80s -- once again during the times of Perestroika.
>
> The child care was great. Children and their education were
> under the control of the state. There were no problem where
> to go on holidays - the children were provided by the places
> in the summer camps for the miser payment or sometimes for
> free (if there were several children in the family.
I attended a camp one summer. My mom, who worked at REF, could afford to
send me for two weeks. I believe it was heavily subsidesed by the
government. My mother could also take a three-week paid vacations from her
job. Something that Americans cannot, unless they don't want to keep their
jobs.
>
> You did not have the need to worry about the medical insurance
> or to ask for the voluntary donations for the extremely needed
> operation. Everything needed was provided.
Medical care was free. I can attest to that. As was the education all the
way through university.
>
> The goods for the children had special discounts, so that to buy
> the goods for children (clothes, food, books, toys) was affordable
> for every family even with many children.
Don't know about that one.
>
> There were special social programs for the families with many
> children, securing maternity and stimulating it. The working place
> was kept for the women during the time when they stayed at
> home before childbirth (three months) and after it (2-3 years).
> Besides it, the women was payed for staying at home and raising
> th child. This year was incuded into the seniority.
This is alomost true today in Latvia t least. You get off a few months
before and a few months after the pregnancy. I found the difference between
US and back home -- even in that same France -- when my wife was pregnant.
It was tough to get recovered in 13 weeks.
>
> The period of (free!)education was also included into seniority that
> determined the amount of pension in old age.
Don't know about that.
>
> It was not very easy to travel abroad but it was very easy and cheap
> to travel inside the great country that was the Soviet Union.
It was easy to travel within the USSR. It was not easy to travel abroad. My
mom said you had to visit a socialit country three times before they let you
to go into a capitalist country.
>
> There were no ethnic conflicts and I had Georgian, Armenian, Uzbek,
> Moldavian friendsa and had no problems discussing cultural difference
> . I do not say about Ukrainians and Belorusssians - they were part of
> the family ties, because most of Russians had Ukrainian or Belorussian
> relatives.
Name one ethnic conflict that took place in the Soviet Union prior to
Gorbachev?
Having said all that, I do not intend to justify the bloody regime that it
was. I believe most people want a safe, healthy environment to grow up in.
And to some, economic security is far more important than political
freedoms. For a totalitarian government to exist, it had to provide for its
people; otherwise, it would have caused a revolt.
Does it make your blood boil, Henry, that Soviet economy was not as bad as
you saw it from the hills of Colorado?
Aleks
Vello Kala
Vello
----- Original Message -----
From: "henry alminas" <halm...@comcast.net>
>
> Answer:
> I am lucky to remember the life in Soviet Union of 70-80s.
>
> All that your wife said is true. These were the Soviet high
> standards of living. When the people from the West start
> talking about the high standards of living in USA comparing
> the Soviet life they do not realize that they compare two
> very different things.
They do were totally different, it's like discussing where a panda-bear
feels more comfortably - in zoo or in forest.
>
> The Soviet people mostly did not have personal cars but they
> did not need them in large cities where there were public
> transport. They stayed in lines in the shops but not because
> they were hungry but because they wanted to buy more goods
> of better quality.
NOOO! Personal car was desirable like moviestar position. As few managed to
get personal wheels, guy with car was much better the others - target of
desire, yelousness and hate.
>
> They were not poor as it is often stated, nearly everyone had
> the money on their bank accounts (that were lost during
> Perestroyka), these savings were in addition to the garanted
> pensions for the old.
It's the most strange thing. Remembering past I really remember, that I was
almost never out of money and I never count whats the cost of things I buy.
But if I count prices I pay then and now with salary I get then and now,
numbers show I can buy much more now. Ansver is in short supply of anything
in SU. If there is just salt, milk and cheapest meat in shops - and cheapest
end clothing and everything - for sure you feel himself rich, you even can't
imagine that there are also other quality levels in the world. Being alive
was relatively cheap - getting one inch better - almost unreachable.
Probably army is good for basic understanding: you get your clothes and
housing free, but it means not that you are wealthy. Pöörness in SU wasn't
this way that you have no money to buy what you want - you get small money,
but good supply in shops were even much more smaller.
>
> There were no unemployment, everyone was garanted by the
> working place; it was not possible to imagine even that a
> person could find himself in a desparate situation without
> work and means for life.
Basically true. Even more, guy who don't work ends up in jail:-)
>
> There were no rich but there were no poor, hungry, homeless.
Basically true
>
> The child care was great. Children and their education were
> under the control of the state. There were no problem where
> to go on holidays - the children were provided by the places
> in the summer camps for the miser payment or sometimes for
> free (if there were several children in the family.
Yes, but was it great? Summer camps were places for military training from
age 7.
>
> You did not have the need to worry about the medical insurance
> or to ask for the voluntary donations for the extremely needed
> operation. Everything needed was provided.
NOOO. Well, medical care was free and medicaments cheap. But even mediocre
level treatment was for party people only, trough "hospital no 4" system -
special hospitals for people listed as sitting or potential leaders on local
and state level.
>
> The goods for the children had special discounts, so that to buy
> the goods for children (clothes, food, books, toys) was affordable
> for every family even with many children.
Basically true, but the choice was miserable.
>
> There were special social programs for the families with many
> children, securing maternity and stimulating it. The working place
> was kept for the women during the time when they stayed at
> home before childbirth (three months) and after it (2-3 years).
> Besides it, the women was payed for staying at home and raising
> th child. This year was incuded into the seniority.
Not payed, how much I remember, but counted as working time when you
retired.
>
> The period of (free!)education was also included into seniority that
> determined the amount of pension in old age.
Yes.
>
> The theaters and museums had the special educational programs
> for the youth. The access to the culture was very easy and free.
> The price for the tickets was affordable for everyone.
For sure. It was one mean to brainwash people.
>
> The people were protected by the labour laws preventing the
> overwork, so that they had lots of free time. They could spend
> this free time for their pleasure they read plenty of books, visited the
> art exhibitions, had hobbies expressing their creativity, went for sports.
Popular joke from that time: Govt will act like he pays some salary to us,
so we act like we are working.
>
> It was a norm to be informed about the new books that the famous
> authors published, new exhibitions, performances. The new
> publications were broadly discussed among the friends.
Yes, as there was so small amount of new literature available.
>
> People could stand in lines through all day and night to buy the
> tickets for the new performance of the theater or for the exhibition.
True.
>
> In the far village the people read books and were able to come to the
> large cities at their holidays to visit the museums and theaters. I often
> got surprised that the person who came from the Far Easy of SU
> was ofren more informed about the cultural news that happened in
> St.Petersburg than I was living there.
I think it is affordable now, too??
>
> It was not very easy to travel abroad but it was very easy and cheap
> to travel inside the great country that was the Soviet Union.
It was almost impossible to get abroad - and there was no choice: when it
was possible to take a trip to Bulgaria or East Germany you was in seventh
heaven don't even thinking that probably Hungary or Poland would be also
interesting. About prices in Soviet Union. Plane ticket from Estonia to
Black Sea - 60 roubles, medium salary - 180 roubles (start of eighties).
Today: airfare to Mediterranean - 4000 kroons, medium salary - 7500 kroons.
A bit cheaper in Soviet days. NB! airfares were dotated in SU - goal was to
keep alive large system of "civilian" airfleet for military purposes.
>
> There were no ethnic conflicts and I had Georgian, Armenian, Uzbek,
> Moldavian friendsa and had no problems discussing cultural difference
> . I do not say about Ukrainians and Belorusssians - they were part of
> the family ties, because most of Russians had Ukrainian or Belorussian
> relatives.
Yes, coz SU was a state for one nation: people who think differently sit in
jails.
>
> Well, this is what comes to my mind at once. I can say tha I was lucky
> to have the Soviet childhood and youth. I regret that I am not able to
> provide the same careless and happy life to my child in a new system.
>
It is hard to compare, where the life is cheaper, in jail with granted roof
over head and cheap meal tree times a day or in freedom were one must make
his living by himself. In my young years jeans was thing young people
desired. A pair of western jeans costs 1,5 medium month salary if you buy
them from second-hand shop. But what I realize only now, much higher cost of
that system was reality when owning jeans - or empty coca-cola bottle - was
something to be proud of. There were special shops for party functioneers -
if you know somebody from "nomenklatura", you gan get from him a bottle of
whisky or pair of jeans probably. If to compare with to-day, any gasoline
station have 100 times better selection of drinks and food then any
"nomenklatura" shop, unreachable for ordinary people in Soviet times, not to
say about regular shops.
More. I remember one tourist trip to Bulgaria. Best services and shops were
there for hard currency only. And ouur group starts to call such a places as
places for "human beings": "look, what a nice beach - oh, sorry, not for us,
for human beings only..." In no way I want to grow my kids in such a
environment. But probably I'm a bit unfair as for Estonians SU was
occupation regime at first, what economy they bring, it was second matter...
So probably russians in this newsgroup are more prepared for balanced
opinion.
Best,
Vello
MirTopolskiRex
1) In SU, only a tiny minority had a feeling they would live in prison -
after all people could travel freely all across the huge SU (well,
except for Gulag and military zones). Vast majority didn't give a crap
about abstract freedom. Nowadays the Russians face more travel
restrictions due to foreign visas and local national unrest ... and
still don't give a crap about abstract freedom. Now make your math.
2) In SU, only a tiny minority thought in national(ist) terms - vast
majority just didn't give a crap and lived happily without nationalism.
Generally speaking, it's all about relative numbers. Virtually all
witnesses claim that in those "golden" Soviet 1970s more lived better
and less were oppressed than in post-"communist" Russia. Notably it's
not about capitalism vs socialism - rather, about wild nationalism,
chaos and real poverty vs fake brotherhood, law and order. That's why at
the moment in Russia communists are 'out', but Prez autocracy is 'in'.
Vello Kala wrote:
> My experience with Soviet life was long enough to put my opinions here
>
> Vello
> ----- Original Message -----
>
Ladzius
Than again, the agriculture and the food supply in the Baltic
republics was always significantly better than in in the rest of SU.
All you could buy in a foodstore in a provincial Russian city in ,
say, mid 80-ties would be: bread, groats, 2-3 sorts of canned fish,
and vodka. For meat, poultry, milk, vegs you'd go to the market and
pay three- or fivefold.
> > They were not poor as it is often stated, nearly everyone had
> > the money on their bank accounts (that were lost during
> > Perestroyka), these savings were in addition to the garanted
> > pensions for the old.
> >
> My family did have money on their bank accounts. There was also a state
> insurance policy we bought. By the time I was 18, I was supposed to have
> recieved 1,000 roubles. But due to the inflation and the demise of the
> coutry, no one really honored that policy.
>
That money was a fake, like many other things in the SU. There was
very little what you could buy with it freely in the shops. First you
needed to find someone who'd have an access to goods. So there was a
widespread system of "blat" - unofficial relations, bartering,
bribering, etc. And in order to enter that "secondary market" people
would steal from their workplace, if there was something worth
stealing. Thus the simpliest and dirtiest job at a meat processing
plant was extremely sought-after, while, say, engineering was for
loosers.
> > There were no unemployment, everyone was garanted by the
> > working place; it was not possible to imagine even that a
> > person could find himself in a desparate situation without
> > work and means for life.
> >
> > There were no rich but there were no poor, hungry, homeless.
>
> I only remember seeing homeless people on the streets of Riag in the late
> 80s -- once again during the times of Perestroika.
>
Of course there were rich, and there were poor. To see the poor you'd
need to go to some remote village in Russia or Central Asia. And rich
lived in their nomenklatura ghettos - with special housing, hospitals,
shops, etc, and, significantly, no proletariat to spoil the picture.
> >
<snip>
> >
> > You did not have the need to worry about the medical insurance
> > or to ask for the voluntary donations for the extremely needed
> > operation. Everything needed was provided.
>
> Medical care was free. I can attest to that. As was the education all the
> way through university.
>
But if you wanted decent treatment you'd pay the doctor unofficially.
<snip>
> >
> > It was not very easy to travel abroad but it was very easy and cheap
> > to travel inside the great country that was the Soviet Union.
>
> It was easy to travel within the USSR. It was not easy to travel abroad. My
> mom said you had to visit a socialit country three times before they let you
> to go into a capitalist country.
>
Above all traveling abroad was humiliating: you needed zillions of
authorisations from where you lived, from there you worked, you'd be
examined whether you understand party policies and international
situation good enough "to rebuff ideoligical provocation" and every
little bureaucrat who'd bear a grudge against you could turn you away
a. Then you'd need to stand endless queues to change some money
because official rate was so unrealistic, that all
the worker's and farmer's state could scrap for you were about 100$.
And when finally abroad, you'd economise on everything, and fry eggs
on hotel smoothing-iron to bring your kid a chewing-gum or a T-shirt.
> >
> > There were no ethnic conflicts and I had Georgian, Armenian, Uzbek,
> > Moldavian friendsa and had no problems discussing cultural difference
> > . I do not say about Ukrainians and Belorusssians - they were part of
> > the family ties, because most of Russians had Ukrainian or Belorussian
> > relatives.
>
> Name one ethnic conflict that took place in the Soviet Union prior to
> Gorbachev?
>
Name me one ethnic conflict that didn't originate or hasn't been
worsened in soviet times.
> Having said all that, I do not intend to justify the bloody regime that it
> was. I believe most people want a safe, healthy environment to grow up in.
> And to some, economic security is far more important than political
> freedoms. For a totalitarian government to exist, it had to provide for its
> people; otherwise, it would have caused a revolt.
>
> Does it make your blood boil, Henry, that Soviet economy was not as bad as
> you saw it from the hills of Colorado?
>
> Aleks
Soviet economy was bad, especially when seen from inside ( and being
able to comprehend what one sees, of course ;-).
Ladzius
Alexei
"Ladzius" <ladz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d7cb8e7.04062...@posting.google.com...
My responsibility as the son was to go shopping for necessities: bread and
milk. And I hardly ever had to stand in line until the late 80s. I don't
know much about the store shelves in Russia, because I never lived there. I
lived in Riga. Do you have a first-hand experience on shopping in a
provincial Russian town?
>
>
> > > They were not poor as it is often stated, nearly everyone had
> > > the money on their bank accounts (that were lost during
> > > Perestroyka), these savings were in addition to the garanted
> > > pensions for the old.
> > >
> > My family did have money on their bank accounts. There was also a state
> > insurance policy we bought. By the time I was 18, I was supposed to have
> > recieved 1,000 roubles. But due to the inflation and the demise of the
> > coutry, no one really honored that policy.
> >
>
> That money was a fake, like many other things in the SU.
What makes that money fake? Was it because it was *different* than in the
West? Please explain.
> There was
> very little what you could buy with it freely in the shops. First you
> needed to find someone who'd have an access to goods. So there was a
> widespread system of "blat" - unofficial relations, bartering,
> bribering, etc. And in order to enter that "secondary market" people
> would steal from their workplace, if there was something worth
> stealing. Thus the simpliest and dirtiest job at a meat processing
> plant was extremely sought-after, while, say, engineering was for
> loosers.
I mentioned the system of "blat" -- I didn't use that name -- as in "seeking
a person who's got the stuff". But you *could* do without it.
>
>
>
> > > There were no unemployment, everyone was garanted by the
> > > working place; it was not possible to imagine even that a
> > > person could find himself in a desparate situation without
> > > work and means for life.
> > >
> > > There were no rich but there were no poor, hungry, homeless.
> >
> > I only remember seeing homeless people on the streets of Riag in the
late
> > 80s -- once again during the times of Perestroika.
> >
> Of course there were rich, and there were poor. To see the poor you'd
> need to go to some remote village in Russia or Central Asia. And rich
> lived in their nomenklatura ghettos - with special housing, hospitals,
> shops, etc, and, significantly, no proletariat to spoil the picture.
Please tell me: did *you* live in "some remote village in Russia or Central
Asia"? What is the basis of your claim? I can only tell you what I
experienced. My family lived in probably one of the poorest districts of
Riga: Sarkandaugava. Our apartment was in the house with no plumbing or hot
water. The toilet was in the outhouse. We were on the waiting list for a
better apartment for a decade. And we never considered ourselves poor.
Do you know of any homeless people in SU?
>
> > >
> <snip>
> > >
> > > You did not have the need to worry about the medical insurance
> > > or to ask for the voluntary donations for the extremely needed
> > > operation. Everything needed was provided.
> >
> > Medical care was free. I can attest to that. As was the education all
the
> > way through university.
> >
> But if you wanted decent treatment you'd pay the doctor unofficially.
Define "decent". I think it's still very much a part of culture among older
people to "reward" a doctor for his or her services with a bottle of vodka
or a box of candy, but it was rarely money. But the bottom line is: medical
treatment was free. No one was going to keep you home if you could not
afford to pay for a hospital. If you needed a surgery, you didn't have to
afford it. And the amount you'd spend on "gifts" for doctors was far less
than what it costs today.
>
> <snip>
> > >
> > > It was not very easy to travel abroad but it was very easy and cheap
> > > to travel inside the great country that was the Soviet Union.
> >
> > It was easy to travel within the USSR. It was not easy to travel abroad.
My
> > mom said you had to visit a socialit country three times before they let
you
> > to go into a capitalist country.
> >
> Above all traveling abroad was humiliating: you needed zillions of
> authorisations from where you lived, from there you worked, you'd be
> examined whether you understand party policies and international
> situation good enough "to rebuff ideoligical provocation" and every
> little bureaucrat who'd bear a grudge against you could turn you away
> a. Then you'd need to stand endless queues to change some money
> because official rate was so unrealistic, that all
> the worker's and farmer's state could scrap for you were about 100$.
> And when finally abroad, you'd economise on everything, and fry eggs
> on hotel smoothing-iron to bring your kid a chewing-gum or a T-shirt.
I can understand the training you had to go through. Because a police state
must be able to control its citizens. I remember the exchange rate between
USD and a SU rouble: $1 = 0.53 roubles. It's not much different than 1 USD =
0.60 lats. Are both of those rates unrealistic? And the system in the SU was
different: the government set the rates, not the market place.
>
>
> > >
> > > There were no ethnic conflicts and I had Georgian, Armenian, Uzbek,
> > > Moldavian friendsa and had no problems discussing cultural difference
> > > . I do not say about Ukrainians and Belorusssians - they were part of
> > > the family ties, because most of Russians had Ukrainian or
Belorussian
> > > relatives.
> >
> > Name one ethnic conflict that took place in the Soviet Union prior to
> > Gorbachev?
> >
>
> Name me one ethnic conflict that didn't originate or hasn't been
> worsened in soviet times.
I can name you at least one conflict that didn't originate in the Soviet
times:
Chechnya (goes way back to the 1800s)
Now what about those ethnic conflicts during the SU times before 1985?
>
>
> > Having said all that, I do not intend to justify the bloody regime that
it
> > was. I believe most people want a safe, healthy environment to grow up
in.
> > And to some, economic security is far more important than political
> > freedoms. For a totalitarian government to exist, it had to provide for
its
> > people; otherwise, it would have caused a revolt.
> >
> > Does it make your blood boil, Henry, that Soviet economy was not as bad
as
> > you saw it from the hills of Colorado?
> >
> > Aleks
>
> Soviet economy was bad, especially when seen from inside ( and being
> able to comprehend what one sees, of course ;-).
What was bad about it? Was it bad in comparison to, say, US economy?
Aleks
Ladzius
> "Ladzius" <ladz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1d7cb8e7.04062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Alexei" <al...@altaboutlatvia.com> wrote in message
> news:<cbfuop$ijt$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > > I don't remember much about the life in the USSR. I was only 16 in
> 1991...
> > >
> > >
> > If you didn't have to stay in queues, than your mom did it for you.
> > Than again, the agriculture and the food supply in the Baltic
> > republics was always significantly better than in in the rest of SU.
> > All you could buy in a foodstore in a provincial Russian city in ,
> > say, mid 80-ties would be: bread, groats, 2-3 sorts of canned fish,
> > and vodka. For meat, poultry, milk, vegs you'd go to the market and
> > pay three- or fivefold.
>
> My responsibility as the son was to go shopping for necessities: bread and
> milk. And I hardly ever had to stand in line until the late 80s. I don't
> know much about the store shelves in Russia, because I never lived there. I
> lived in Riga. Do you have a first-hand experience on shopping in a
> provincial Russian town?
> >
Yes I do, I grew up there. Have you ever heard of "kolbasnaja
elektrichka" - russian term from 70-ties and 80-ties to describe
chronically overloaded commuter trains from Russian province to
Moscow&Leningrad with people coming to buy food ?
> > > > They were not poor as it is often stated, nearly everyone had
> > > > the money on their bank accounts (that were lost during
> > > > Perestroyka), these savings were in addition to the garanted
> > > > pensions for the old.
> > > >
> > > My family did have money on their bank accounts. There was also a state
> > > insurance policy we bought. By the time I was 18, I was supposed to have
> > > recieved 1,000 roubles. But due to the inflation and the demise of the
> > > coutry, no one really honored that policy.
> > >
> >
> > That money was a fake, like many other things in the SU.
>
> What makes that money fake? Was it because it was *different* than in the
> West? Please explain.
>
Because it wasn't a universal means of payment - you'd often barter
some goods or services, same things would cost different, dependent
on what kind of access you had to them, you couldn't freely exchange
it for foreign currency.
> > There was
> > very little what you could buy with it freely in the shops. First you
> > needed to find someone who'd have an access to goods. So there was a
> > widespread system of "blat" - unofficial relations, bartering,
> > bribering, etc. And in order to enter that "secondary market" people
> > would steal from their workplace, if there was something worth
> > stealing. Thus the simpliest and dirtiest job at a meat processing
> > plant was extremely sought-after, while, say, engineering was for
> > loosers.
>
> I mentioned the system of "blat" -- I didn't use that name -- as in "seeking
> a person who's got the stuff". But you *could* do without it.
> >
You *could* do without money, house, traveling, healthy teeth, good
education, decent clothes or food, but that's not how most people
imagine their life.
> >
> >
> > > > There were no unemployment, everyone was garanted by the
> > > > working place; it was not possible to imagine even that a
> > > > person could find himself in a desparate situation without
> > > > work and means for life.
> > > >
> > > > There were no rich but there were no poor, hungry, homeless.
> > >
> > > I only remember seeing homeless people on the streets of Riag in the
> late
> > > 80s -- once again during the times of Perestroika.
> > >
> > Of course there were rich, and there were poor. To see the poor you'd
> > need to go to some remote village in Russia or Central Asia. And rich
> > lived in their nomenklatura ghettos - with special housing, hospitals,
> > shops, etc, and, significantly, no proletariat to spoil the picture.
>
> Please tell me: did *you* live in "some remote village in Russia or Central
> Asia"? What is the basis of your claim? I can only tell you what I
> experienced. My family lived in probably one of the poorest districts of
> Riga: Sarkandaugava. Our apartment was in the house with no plumbing or hot
> water. The toilet was in the outhouse. We were on the waiting list for a
> better apartment for a decade. And we never considered ourselves poor.
If you could compare your living conditions with those in Europe or
USA you might have changed your mind.
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > > You did not have the need to worry about the medical insurance
> > > > or to ask for the voluntary donations for the extremely needed
> > > > operation. Everything needed was provided.
> > >
> > > Medical care was free. I can attest to that. As was the education all
> the
> > > way through university.
> > >
> > But if you wanted decent treatment you'd pay the doctor unofficially.
>
> Define "decent". I think it's still very much a part of culture among older
> people to "reward" a doctor for his or her services with a bottle of vodka
> or a box of candy, but it was rarely money. But the bottom line is: medical
> treatment was free. No one was going to keep you home if you could not
> afford to pay for a hospital. If you needed a surgery, you didn't have to
> afford it. And the amount you'd spend on "gifts" for doctors was far less
> than what it costs today.
> >
Yes I can define your "decent". It means that a nurse wouldn't just
walk on by leaving your grandfather for days in a pool of feces after
difficult operation.
> > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > It was not very easy to travel abroad but it was very easy and cheap
> > > > to travel inside the great country that was the Soviet Union.
> > >
> > > It was easy to travel within the USSR. It was not easy to travel abroad.
> My
> > > mom said you had to visit a socialit country three times before they let
> you
> > > to go into a capitalist country.
> > >
> > Above all traveling abroad was humiliating: you needed zillions of
> > authorisations from where you lived, from there you worked, you'd be
> > examined whether you understand party policies and international
> > situation good enough "to rebuff ideoligical provocation" and every
> > little bureaucrat who'd bear a grudge against you could turn you away
> > a. Then you'd need to stand endless queues to change some money
> > because official rate was so unrealistic, that all
> > the worker's and farmer's state could scrap for you were about 100$.
> > And when finally abroad, you'd economise on everything, and fry eggs
> > on hotel smoothing-iron to bring your kid a chewing-gum or a T-shirt.
>
> I can understand the training you had to go through. Because a police state
> must be able to control its citizens. I remember the exchange rate between
> USD and a SU rouble: $1 = 0.53 roubles. It's not much different than 1 USD =
> 0.60 lats. Are both of those rates unrealistic? And the system in the SU was
> different: the government set the rates, not the market place.
> >
Oh dear! The difference is that you can change as many lats to dollars
as you want, and SU had no dollars to change for ruobles ! I can not
explain it more clearly, I am afraid ;-)
> >
> > > >
> > > > There were no ethnic conflicts and I had Georgian, Armenian, Uzbek,
> > > > Moldavian friendsa and had no problems discussing cultural difference
> > > > . I do not say about Ukrainians and Belorusssians - they were part of
> > > > the family ties, because most of Russians had Ukrainian or
> Belorussian
> > > > relatives.
> > >
> > > Name one ethnic conflict that took place in the Soviet Union prior to
> > > Gorbachev?
> > >
> >
> > Name me one ethnic conflict that didn't originate or hasn't been
> > worsened in soviet times.
>
> I can name you at least one conflict that didn't originate in the Soviet
> times:
I wrote "didn't originate or hasn't been worsened"
>
> Chechnya (goes way back to the 1800s)
> Now what about those ethnic conflicts during the SU times before 1985?
Would you argue that deportation of all Chechens in corpore in 1943
hadn't worsened the situation ?
Had the soviets not carried out extensive colonisation and
russification policies in Latvia and Estonia, I am sure there were no
ethnic tensions there today.
>
> >
> >
> > > Having said all that, I do not intend to justify the bloody regime that
> it
> > > was. I believe most people want a safe, healthy environment to grow up
> in.
> > > And to some, economic security is far more important than political
> > > freedoms. For a totalitarian government to exist, it had to provide for
> its
> > > people; otherwise, it would have caused a revolt.
> > >
> > > Does it make your blood boil, Henry, that Soviet economy was not as bad
> as
> > > you saw it from the hills of Colorado?
> > >
> > > Aleks
> >
> > Soviet economy was bad, especially when seen from inside ( and being
> > able to comprehend what one sees, of course ;-).
>
> What was bad about it? Was it bad in comparison to, say, US economy?
>
> Aleks
It was not vialble. It was ineffective. It couldn't sufficiently
provide the people with basic things. It was wasteful. It was
ecologically disastrous.
So , what was bad about it ?
Ladzius
Alexei
"Ladzius" <ladz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d7cb8e7.04062...@posting.google.com...
> > > > I don't remember much about the life in the USSR. I was only 16 in
> > 1991...
> > > >
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > If you didn't have to stay in queues, than your mom did it for you.
> > > Than again, the agriculture and the food supply in the Baltic
> > > republics was always significantly better than in in the rest of SU.
> > > All you could buy in a foodstore in a provincial Russian city in ,
> > > say, mid 80-ties would be: bread, groats, 2-3 sorts of canned fish,
> > > and vodka. For meat, poultry, milk, vegs you'd go to the market and
> > > pay three- or fivefold.
> >
> > My responsibility as the son was to go shopping for necessities: bread
and
> > milk. And I hardly ever had to stand in line until the late 80s. I don't
> > know much about the store shelves in Russia, because I never lived
there. I
> > lived in Riga. Do you have a first-hand experience on shopping in a
> > provincial Russian town?
> > >
>
> Yes I do, I grew up there. Have you ever heard of "kolbasnaja
> elektrichka" - russian term from 70-ties and 80-ties to describe
> chronically overloaded commuter trains from Russian province to
> Moscow&Leningrad with people coming to buy food ?
I have never heard of such a thing. I actually have been in Russia only
three times in my entire life: once in Moscow and twice in St. Pete, so I've
absolutely no idea what life was like in the country. Maybe this is another
reason why Russia's Russians are different from, say Latvia's Russians :)
>
> > > > > They were not poor as it is often stated, nearly everyone had
> > > > > the money on their bank accounts (that were lost during
> > > > > Perestroyka), these savings were in addition to the garanted
> > > > > pensions for the old.
> > > > >
> > > > My family did have money on their bank accounts. There was also a
state
> > > > insurance policy we bought. By the time I was 18, I was supposed to
have
> > > > recieved 1,000 roubles. But due to the inflation and the demise of
the
> > > > coutry, no one really honored that policy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That money was a fake, like many other things in the SU.
> >
> > What makes that money fake? Was it because it was *different* than in
the
> > West? Please explain.
> >
> Because it wasn't a universal means of payment - you'd often barter
> some goods or services, same things would cost different, dependent
> on what kind of access you had to them, you couldn't freely exchange
> it for foreign currency.
I agree that you couldn't freely exchange the money, but Soviet economy was
not a free-market economy. It was not the market that dictated the price of
goods or, in this case, currency, but rather the government. This is why I
think you're comparing apples and oranges.
As far as the money on a bank account goes: it was real money. It collected
interested in the state bank and you could widthraw it and use it for
purchases, if you so wished.
>
>
some blat deleted
> > >
> > >
> > > > > There were no unemployment, everyone was garanted by the
> > > > > working place; it was not possible to imagine even that a
> > > > > person could find himself in a desparate situation without
> > > > > work and means for life.
> > > > >
> > > > > There were no rich but there were no poor, hungry, homeless.
> > > >
> > > > I only remember seeing homeless people on the streets of Riag in the
> > late
> > > > 80s -- once again during the times of Perestroika.
> > > >
> > > Of course there were rich, and there were poor. To see the poor you'd
> > > need to go to some remote village in Russia or Central Asia. And rich
> > > lived in their nomenklatura ghettos - with special housing, hospitals,
> > > shops, etc, and, significantly, no proletariat to spoil the picture.
> >
> > Please tell me: did *you* live in "some remote village in Russia or
Central
> > Asia"? What is the basis of your claim? I can only tell you what I
> > experienced. My family lived in probably one of the poorest districts of
> > Riga: Sarkandaugava. Our apartment was in the house with no plumbing or
hot
> > water. The toilet was in the outhouse. We were on the waiting list for a
> > better apartment for a decade. And we never considered ourselves poor.
>
> If you could compare your living conditions with those in Europe or
> USA you might have changed your mind.
And once again: we're comparing the Soviet-style government-ruled economy to
the more or less free market economies. Incidentally, my mother-in-law said
when she was growing up the conditions were fairly similar to my childhoods.
Go figure!
>
> > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > You did not have the need to worry about the medical insurance
> > > > > or to ask for the voluntary donations for the extremely needed
> > > > > operation. Everything needed was provided.
> > > >
> > > > Medical care was free. I can attest to that. As was the education
all
> > the
> > > > way through university.
> > > >
> > > But if you wanted decent treatment you'd pay the doctor unofficially.
> >
> > Define "decent". I think it's still very much a part of culture among
older
> > people to "reward" a doctor for his or her services with a bottle of
vodka
> > or a box of candy, but it was rarely money. But the bottom line is:
medical
> > treatment was free. No one was going to keep you home if you could not
> > afford to pay for a hospital. If you needed a surgery, you didn't have
to
> > afford it. And the amount you'd spend on "gifts" for doctors was far
less
> > than what it costs today.
> > >
>
> Yes I can define your "decent". It means that a nurse wouldn't just
> walk on by leaving your grandfather for days in a pool of feces after
> difficult operation.
Never had that experience when my grqandfather was in the hospital. The
feces were always taken care of. Here, in the US, they'll ask for your
insurance card before the feces are cleaned up :)
And since there was no freedom of movement, as we talked about earlier, why
would a good Soviet citizen need foreign currency?
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There were no ethnic conflicts and I had Georgian, Armenian,
Uzbek,
> > > > > Moldavian friendsa and had no problems discussing cultural
difference
> > > > > . I do not say about Ukrainians and Belorusssians - they were part
of
> > > > > the family ties, because most of Russians had Ukrainian or
> > Belorussian
> > > > > relatives.
> > > >
> > > > Name one ethnic conflict that took place in the Soviet Union prior
to
> > > > Gorbachev?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Name me one ethnic conflict that didn't originate or hasn't been
> > > worsened in soviet times.
> >
> > I can name you at least one conflict that didn't originate in the Soviet
> > times:
> I wrote "didn't originate or hasn't been worsened"
> >
> > Chechnya (goes way back to the 1800s)
> > Now what about those ethnic conflicts during the SU times before 1985?
>
> Would you argue that deportation of all Chechens in corpore in 1943
> hadn't worsened the situation ?
> Had the soviets not carried out extensive colonisation and
> russification policies in Latvia and Estonia, I am sure there were no
> ethnic tensions there today.
>
I am sure there would have been. Inasmuch as there were some tensions in the
interwar period.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Having said all that, I do not intend to justify the bloody regime
that
> > it
> > > > was. I believe most people want a safe, healthy environment to grow
up
> > in.
> > > > And to some, economic security is far more important than political
> > > > freedoms. For a totalitarian government to exist, it had to provide
for
> > its
> > > > people; otherwise, it would have caused a revolt.
> > > >
> > > > Does it make your blood boil, Henry, that Soviet economy was not as
bad
> > as
> > > > you saw it from the hills of Colorado?
> > > >
> > > > Aleks
> > >
> > > Soviet economy was bad, especially when seen from inside ( and being
> > > able to comprehend what one sees, of course ;-).
> >
> > What was bad about it? Was it bad in comparison to, say, US economy?
> >
> > Aleks
>
> It was not vialble. It was ineffective.
The Soviet economy didn't have to be effective, because it was not market
based, but rather a plan-based economy. A manufacturer would produce as many
gadgets as the government told him to. Once again, you're comparing it with
US economy.
> It couldn't sufficiently
> provide the people with basic things.
It did. If you wanted anemneties, then you'd have to look elsewhere.
Aleks
henry alminas
<<snip>>>
Predictably the Russians have very different memories
of the past, and gratefully gone, russkie paradise than
the Balts. I have not lived under the russkie system
but the people I talked to - extensively - in Lithuania
sounded like Ladzius and certainly not like Alex.
In that the russkies have such a uniform opinion of
those "happy" times it is valid to assume that what
one sees there between them and the Balts is an
innate cultural difference.
Choice, freedom - appears to be of no concern to the Russinas
in any of their evaluations. The "full stomach" (ignoring
quality of filler) is the overriding concern. Beyond that
is the fact that the individual need *not* think about his
own or his children's future. The state does it for you!
Indeed - if the state can not forbid you to think about
it - it can certainly prevent you from actually acting on
your thoughts. Thus all you have to do relative to
children is to "pop" them - the state will do the rest.
All day indoctrination from infancy through.... ?
It seems to have worked on the Russians - even
unto this post-Soviet generation...
Quite an educational thread.
Best - - Henry
MirTopolskiRex
>
> Predictably the Russians have very different memories
> of the past, and gratefully gone, russkie paradise than
> the Balts. I have not lived under the russkie system
> but the people I talked to - extensively - in Lithuania
> sounded like Ladzius and certainly not like Alex.
> In that the russkies have such a uniform opinion of
> those "happy" times it is valid to assume that what
> one sees there between them and the Balts is an
> innate cultural difference.
>
> Choice, freedom - appears to be of no concern to the Russinas
> in any of their evaluations. The "full stomach" (ignoring
> quality of filler) is the overriding concern. Beyond that
> is the fact that the individual need *not* think about his
> own or his children's future. The state does it for you!
> Indeed - if the state can not forbid you to think about
> it - it can certainly prevent you from actually acting on
> your thoughts. Thus all you have to do relative to
> children is to "pop" them - the state will do the rest.
> All day indoctrination from infancy through.... ?
> It seems to have worked on the Russians - even
> unto this post-Soviet generation...
>
> Quite an educational thread.
Pagan gods be praised - even most pitiful creatures can learn a tiny bit
of great cosmic wisdom! However note that the scheme above is applicable
to all cultures and folks. The only real difference between Soviet Balts
and Soviet Russians (to take this bold example) was that the former ones
could not fully identify themselves and their kids with Stalin-made
virtual soviet-russian "glorious past" (also think of Cuba to better
grasp the point). It was merely a fault of his late-socialist reverends
who forgot the newcomers. Just poor agitprop.
Dmitry
> > elektrichka" - russian term from 70-ties and 80-ties to describe
> > chronically overloaded commuter trains from Russian province to
> > Moscow&Leningrad with people coming to buy food ?
>
> I have never heard of such a thing. I actually have been in Russia only
> three times in my entire life: once in Moscow and twice in St. Pete, so I've
> absolutely no idea what life was like in the country. Maybe this is another
> reason why Russia's Russians are different from, say Latvia's Russians :)
I've spent 4 months in Nizhnij Novgorod in 1981 (then called Gorky),
the one where Saharov was sent. I went there to study and left after
4 months because I couldn't bear the atmosphere any more. It was
dull, full of people from surrounding provinces searching for food and
killings every night by some criminal gang.
Uno Hu
> > > > If you didn't have to stay in queues, than your mom did it for you.
> > > > Than again, the agriculture and the food supply in the Baltic
> > > > republics was always significantly better than in in the rest of SU.
> > > > All you could buy in a foodstore in a provincial Russian city in ,
> > > > say, mid 80-ties would be: bread, groats, 2-3 sorts of canned fish,
> > > > and vodka. For meat, poultry, milk, vegs you'd go to the market and
> > > > pay three- or fivefold.
> > > My responsibility as the son was to go shopping for necessities: bread
> and
> > > milk. And I hardly ever had to stand in line until the late 80s. I don't
> > > know much about the store shelves in Russia, because I never lived
> there. I
> > > lived in Riga. Do you have a first-hand experience on shopping in a
> > > provincial Russian town?
> > > >
> >
> > Yes I do, I grew up there. Have you ever heard of "kolbasnaja
> > elektrichka" - russian term from 70-ties and 80-ties to describe
> > chronically overloaded commuter trains from Russian province to
> > Moscow&Leningrad with people coming to buy food ?
>
> I have never heard of such a thing. I actually have been in Russia only
> three times in my entire life: once in Moscow and twice in St. Pete, so I've
> absolutely no idea what life was like in the country. Maybe this is another
> reason why Russia's Russians are different from, say Latvia's Russians :)
>
> I agree that you couldn't freely exchange the money, but Soviet economy was
> not a free-market economy. It was not the market that dictated the price of
> goods or, in this case, currency, but rather the government. This is why I
> think you're comparing apples and oranges.
> As far as the money on a bank account goes: it was real money. It collected
> interested in the state bank and you could widthraw it and use it for
> purchases, if you so wished.
> >
> >
> > If you could compare your living conditions with those in Europe or
> > USA you might have changed your mind.
>
> And once again: we're comparing the Soviet-style government-ruled economy to
> the more or less free market economies. Incidentally, my mother-in-law said
> when she was growing up the conditions were fairly similar to my childhoods.
> Go figure!
I figure you lie.
> > Yes I can define your "decent". It means that a nurse wouldn't just
> > walk on by leaving your grandfather for days in a pool of feces after
> > difficult operation.
>
> Never had that experience when my grqandfather was in the hospital. The
> feces were always taken care of. Here, in the US, they'll ask for your
> insurance card before the feces are cleaned up :)
You could always do it yourself, of course.
> > > I can understand the training you had to go through. Because a police
> state
> > > must be able to control its citizens. I remember the exchange rate
> between
> > > USD and a SU rouble: $1 = 0.53 roubles. It's not much different than 1
> USD =
> > > 0.60 lats.
Of course it is different. A rouble is worth almost nothing.
One usd is worth (app) .55 Lats.
> Are both of those rates unrealistic? And the system in the SU
> was
> > > different: the government set the rates, not the market place.
> > > >
> >
> > Oh dear! The difference is that you can change as many lats to dollars
> > as you want, and SU had no dollars to change for ruobles ! I can not
> > explain it more clearly, I am afraid ;-)
>
> And since there was no freedom of movement, as we talked about earlier, why
> would a good Soviet citizen need foreign currency?
Don't know. But ask the majority of russians who horded them in their
mattresses. Since you didn't know that - you begin to sound like a
fake, alexei.
And since you are not a Latvian, and now begin to appear to be a fake
russian as well.. what are you? From new york?
> The Soviet economy didn't have to be effective, because it was not market
> based, but rather a plan-based economy.
Economics that aren't effective are innefective. Innefective economics
is bad.
> A manufacturer would produce as many
> gadgets as the government told him to. Once again, you're comparing it with
> US economy.
Which is the world standard.
> It did. If you wanted anemneties, then you'd have to look elsewhere.
> Aleks
Where? East Germany?
Uno Hu
Alex Larkin
Killing is dull for you? Or was it dull because of killing, Mr
Kindness?
Anyway, Gorky in 1981 was much safer than the place you live RIGHT
NOW. So don't spread some bullshit.
Alex.
Alex Larkin
> "Ladzius" <ladz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1d7cb8e7.04062...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > I don't remember much about the life in the USSR. I was only 16 in
> 1991...
> > > > >
> <snip>
> > > > >
> > elektrichka" - russian term from 70-ties and 80-ties to describe
> > chronically overloaded commuter trains from Russian province to
> > Moscow&Leningrad with people coming to buy food ?
>
> I have never heard of such a thing. I actually have been in Russia only
> three times in my entire life: once in Moscow and twice in St. Pete, so I've
> absolutely no idea what life was like in the country. Maybe this is another
> reason why Russia's Russians are different from, say Latvia's Russians :)
>
I lived in Crimea, Moscow region, and Sumy (Ukraine) Life was pretty
much the same everywhere. I don't remember hungry Soviets searching
for food like Zombies in a "Living Dead" movies. But what do I know, I
smoked "vatra" and "prima" at 13, so maybe I missed something.
> >
> > If you could compare your living conditions with those in Europe or
> > USA you might have changed your mind.
>
> And once again: we're comparing the Soviet-style government-ruled economy to
> the more or less free market economies. Incidentally, my mother-in-law said
> when she was growing up the conditions were fairly similar to my childhoods.
> Go figure!
You don't see him comparing public schools in SU and USA!
Unfortunately I went to Lafayette P.S. in Brooklyn, NY, for a while.
Pure horror, especially for a new Russian speaking resident in a
country, almost forgot all English that I learned in Russia.
> >
snip
> >
> > Yes I can define your "decent". It means that a nurse wouldn't just
> > walk on by leaving your grandfather for days in a pool of feces after
> > difficult operation.
>
> Never had that experience when my grqandfather was in the hospital. The
> feces were always taken care of. Here, in the US, they'll ask for your
> insurance card before the feces are cleaned up :)
>
My friend was in a car accident, was taken to the hospital, they
really didn't treat him that much. But hey he got nice $16 000 bill in
a mail.
Alex.
> snip
> Aleks
Ladzius
Pinning for "soviet paradise lost" very often dissembles the pinning
for the empire lost. Empty shelves, miserable wages, absecence of
freedom was/still is considered a price woth paying for a (false, of
course)feeling of belonging to the "rulers of 1/6th of the Earth".
Best,
Ladzius
Alexei
>
> "Alexei" <al...@altaboutlatvia.com> wrote in message
> news:cbju9m$109n$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Ladzius" <ladz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1d7cb8e7.04062...@posting.google.com...
>
> <<snip>>>
>
>
> Predictably the Russians have very different memories
> of the past, and gratefully gone, russkie paradise than
> the Balts.
I would never call the USSR a paradise. Nor would I want to go back to that.
> I have not lived under the russkie system
> but the people I talked to - extensively - in Lithuania
> sounded like Ladzius and certainly not like Alex.
> In that the russkies have such a uniform opinion of
> those "happy" times it is valid to assume that what
> one sees there between them and the Balts is an
> innate cultural difference.
Nor would I call those times "happy."
>
> Choice, freedom - appears to be of no concern to the Russinas
> in any of their evaluations. The "full stomach" (ignoring
> quality of filler) is the overriding concern. Beyond that
> is the fact that the individual need *not* think about his
> own or his children's future. The state does it for you!
Henry, did you know that according to one of the pre-EU polls, 70 percent --
if not mistaken -- of residents of Latvia would sacrifice their personal
freedoms if it helps to develop better economic conditions. Surely not all
of those are Russians!
> Indeed - if the state can not forbid you to think about
> it - it can certainly prevent you from actually acting on
> your thoughts. Thus all you have to do relative to
> children is to "pop" them - the state will do the rest.
> All day indoctrination from infancy through.... ?
> It seems to have worked on the Russians - even
> unto this post-Soviet generation...
Sure, Henry, I would never deny the indoctrination by the Soviet
authorities. And because of my own experiences, I see a lot of
indoctrination within the American society as well.
Aleks
>
>
>
>
Vello Kala
1)I don't know did germans feel they live in nazi hell 1933-1945. But for
sure it was hell for occupied nations. As I have never been in Russia more
then week at time I can't put my opinions up as russian ones. But be sure
"abstract" freedom was important for vast majority in occupied countries.
btw, there is no such a thing as "abstract freedom": it is just freedom - or
lack of freedom:-)
2) For less educated layers in Russian society there just wasn't national
problems in SU. What they get in school was knowledge that all nations in SU
are happy with leading role of russians. About number of people thinking by
red books and people able to think independently - I just can't know. But
again if to compare with germans, I think it was easier for jews, polacks,
russians, frenchmen to understand the real face of nazi state. For germans
it was more tricky and asks more brains from every individual.
3) unhappily scb is more about fighting wars in the past then to build
future where all nations incl balts and russians could live in peace and
friendship. But one must understand: speaking about Nazi crimes IS NOT
atacking german nation - and the same about SU and russians. I'm sure there
are people in Germany who still remember that there was no unemployment in
nazi state and Germany (and Soviet Union) were probably sole nations running
economically upwards in time of world crisis. But they are smart enough to
keep mouth shut as price of that "success" was tragedy for others.
4) Mir, I don't think "vast majority" of any nation would prefere to change
freedom to a bit more cream on piece of bread. It would be the end of human
progress and probably all human civilisation.
Best,
Vello
Message 15 in thread
From: MirTopolskiRex (2472...@onlinehome.de)
Subject: Re: How the Russians remember it!
View this article only
Newsgroups: soc.culture.baltics
Date: 2004-06-25 02:57:35 PST
MirTopolskiRex
>
> 3) unhappily scb is more about fighting wars in the past then to build
> future where all nations incl balts and russians could live in peace and
> friendship.
Yup. The whole post-cold-war world just can't live in peace.
> But one must understand: speaking about Nazi crimes IS NOT
> atacking german nation - and the same about SU and russians.
Absolutely not. There are 3 crucial distinctions:
A) The 3d Reich was a legal successor of Weimar Germany. SU was no legal
successor of Romanov Russia.
B) Nazi crimes have been committed in the name of German nation. Soviet
crimes - in the name of international communism.
C) SU was not defeated militarily like Hitler's Germany. In contrary, it
peacefully collapsed and granted independence to most members, including
Russia and the Baltic states. Hence Russia has no exclusive obligations
to apologize for all soviet crimes.
> I'm sure there
> are people in Germany who still remember that there was no unemployment in
> nazi state and Germany (and Soviet Union) were probably sole nations running
> economically upwards in time of world crisis. But they are smart enough to
> keep mouth shut as price of that "success" was tragedy for others.
It's endlessly more complicated.
> 4) Mir, I don't think "vast majority" of any nation would prefere to change
> freedom to a bit more cream on piece of bread.
I'd like to see at least one bold example.
Vello Kala
"MirTopolskiRex" <2472...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:cbn1v4$505$1...@online.de...
> Vello Kala wrote:
>
> > But one must understand: speaking about Nazi crimes IS NOT
> > atacking german nation - and the same about SU and russians.
>
> Absolutely not. There are 3 crucial distinctions:
> A) The 3d Reich was a legal successor of Weimar Germany. SU was no legal
> successor of Romanov Russia.
Try to be serious - we are talking about to-day germany and nazi one, not
about Weimar times and you know it perfectly well.
> B) Nazi crimes have been committed in the name of German nation. Soviet
> crimes - in the name of international communism.
In reality, world will judge one by his acts, not by words. What's a
difference, if german nazis or russian commies had done their job under name
of Chist - or Devil? Or Mickey Mouse? Job was the same and that is what
counts.
> C) SU was not defeated militarily like Hitler's Germany.
It's true and due it ending up with dark past was easier for germans then
it is for russians. But once it must be done - for future of Russia as
honorable state.
In contrary, it
> peacefully collapsed and granted independence to most members, including
> Russia
I have a lot of friends in Moscow and St. Peterburg, and by them for most
russians "independence day" is a joke. Russia was last time unidependent in
times of Mongol invasion - and even then just partly. For sure there would
be a point to celebrate victory over communists - but then you must rename
the day.
>and the Baltic states. Hence Russia has no exclusive obligations
> to apologize for all soviet crimes.
For sure (or at last by me) Russian Federation have no OBLIGATION to
apologize for crimes commited by Russian state, no matter who leads it. We
do perfectly well without that "Sorry, guys, it was wrong". I'm also sure
that JURIDICALLY nobody can't blame Bundesrepublik Deutschland for nazi
crimes. Germans wanted to say sorry for themselves - to became again a
members of normal world where icecream for your kid is much more important
then "social theories" created by lunatic criminals:-) A day when you will
understand that will be day when Russia and russians will be greeted with
friendly smiles again all over the world - even in Easten Europe.
>
> > 4) Mir, I don't think "vast majority" of any nation would prefere to
change
> > freedom to a bit more cream on piece of bread.
>
> I'd like to see at least one bold example.
Take here one hopefully bold enough - there is more then 200 states in the
world, not just one from pole to pole...:-)
If you look to the past, you can't find too much of friends of Russia
there - just few countries depending on Russia in particular timeframe - and
a lot of "friends" created by Moscow himself and standing just as long as
they feel Kalashnikov on his back. Think why it is this way. We cant
overwrite the past but we can learn from the bygone times - to have more
friends in future world.
Dmitry
> > I've spent 4 months in Nizhnij Novgorod in 1981 (then called Gorky),
> > the one where Saharov was sent. I went there to study and left after
> > 4 months because I couldn't bear the atmosphere any more. It was
> > dull, full of people from surrounding provinces searching for food and
> > killings every night by some criminal gang.
>
> Killing is dull for you? Or was it dull because of killing, Mr
> Kindness?
It was dull because it was dull. May be you can post some examples of
how exciting the life was in Gorky?
> Anyway, Gorky in 1981 was much safer than the place you live RIGHT
> NOW.
In the place where I live "right now" lots of people are out all
night, in Goky in 1981 the streets were empty after 6pm. In every
place of work, schools etc. people were warned not to come out after
dark.
> So don't spread some bullshit.
Weak argument, Alex. You don't know what you are talking about, do
you?
>
> Alex.
Eugene Holman
lora...@cs.com (Uno Hu) wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Of course it is different. A rouble is worth almost nothing.
> One usd is worth (app) .55 Lats.
Jumpin' Jehosephat! Uno Hu[i] has finally learned something about the
relation between lats and dollars.
If one USD is worth 0.55 lats, that means that the lats-to-the-dollar-rate
(= how many lats it takes to buy a dollar) is 0.55. As I have been stating
here for years.
<deletions>
EH/
MirTopolskiRex
>"MirTopolskiRex" wrote:
>>Vello Kala wrote:
>
>>>But one must understand: speaking about Nazi crimes IS NOT
>>>atacking german nation - and the same about SU and russians.
>>
>>Absolutely not. There are 3 crucial distinctions:
>>A) The 3d Reich was a legal successor of Weimar Germany. SU was no legal
>>successor of Romanov Russia.
>
> Try to be serious - we are talking about to-day germany and nazi one, not
> about Weimar times and you know it perfectly well.
I'm absolutely serious. Here is the West nothing is more serious than
the law of heritage - both in historical and material sense. German
evolution: Bismarck 2d Reich -> Weimar Republik -> Hitler 3d Reich ->
1st Bundesrepublik -> 2d Bundesrepublik (after reunification). Every
single step of transition was legitimate. 'Nazi Germany' is US-made fast
food ... to compare with SU-made 'Democratic Germany' aka DDR.
>>B) Nazi crimes have been committed in the name of German nation. Soviet
>>crimes - in the name of international communism.
>
> In reality, world will judge one by his acts, not by words. What's a
> difference, if german nazis or russian commies had done their job under name
> of Chist - or Devil? Or Mickey Mouse? Job was the same and that is what
> counts.
There were some similarities in implementation (see e.g. Solz's
Archipelago Gulag), but national question was treated differently. And
certainly your "russian commies" weren't true Russians. Neither by
ideology (re: western Marxism) nor by culture (re: Orthodox Christians)
nor by blood (re: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev etc.). Their only
common projective point was Russian language. Now take Liberia and blame
Englishmen for Liberian civil slaughter ...
>>C) SU was not defeated militarily like Hitler's Germany.
>
> It's true and due it ending up with dark past was easier for germans then
> it is for russians. But once it must be done - for future of Russia as
> honorable state.
Try to explain it clearly.
>> In contrary, it
>>peacefully collapsed and granted independence to most members, including
>>Russia
>
> I have a lot of friends in Moscow and St. Peterburg, and by them for most
> russians "independence day" is a joke. Russia was last time unidependent in
> times of Mongol invasion - and even then just partly. For sure there would
> be a point to celebrate victory over communists - but then you must rename
> the day.
LOL. And my friends and not-so-friendly informants from Moscow and St.
Pete celebrate the collapse of foreign communist yoke and don't give a
crap about medieval Mongol this or that. The Russians are no Germans ya
know ... they just don't care about law ...
>>and the Baltic states. Hence Russia has no exclusive obligations
>>to apologize for all soviet crimes.
>
> For sure (or at last by me) Russian Federation have no OBLIGATION to
> apologize for crimes commited by Russian state,
SU was not a Russian state.
> no matter who leads it. We
> do perfectly well without that "Sorry, guys, it was wrong". I'm also sure
> that JURIDICALLY nobody can't blame Bundesrepublik Deutschland for nazi
> crimes.
LOL^2. Many blame and some get German money for Hitler's sins.
> Germans wanted to say sorry for themselves - to became again a
> members of normal world where icecream for your kid is much more important
> then "social theories" created by lunatic criminals:-) A day when you will
> understand that will be day when Russia and russians will be greeted with
> friendly smiles again all over the world - even in Easten Europe.
LOL^3. U don't know much about Germans, do U?
>>>4) Mir, I don't think "vast majority" of any nation would prefere to
>>> change freedom to a bit more cream on piece of bread.
>>
>>I'd like to see at least one bold example.
>
> Take here one hopefully bold enough - there is more then 200 states in the
> world, not just one from pole to pole...:-)
AFAIK they all prefer bread ... just pick your favorite one and we'll
estimate its freedom/bread coefficient.
> If you look to the past, you can't find too much of friends of Russia
> there - just few countries depending on Russia in particular timeframe - and
> a lot of "friends" created by Moscow himself and standing just as long as
> they feel Kalashnikov on his back. Think why it is this way. We cant
> overwrite the past but we can learn from the bygone times - to have more
> friends in future world.
LOL^4. U don't know much about future world, do U?
John Anderson
"Vello Kala" <vell...@hot.ee> skrev i meddelandet
news:40dbe37f$1...@news.estpak.ee...
> My experience with Soviet life was long enough to put my opinions here
>
> Vello
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "henry alminas" <halm...@comcast.net>
>
> > talking about the high standards of living in USA comparing
> > the Soviet life they do not realize that they compare two
> > very different things.
When hypothesizing about the past, we shouldn't make comparisons between
SU and US. North America is not the same as Northern Europe. Had the Baltics
been left alone, they would sooner have shared the Scandinavian welfare
society ideal than turned themselves into some sort of 'little Americas'.
This means that all the social security, education, culture etc. that you
might be missing from good old USSR would have been available in a
democratic Estonia as well. In addition you would have had freedom and
Volvos...
John
Vello Kala
>>>>Vello Kala wrote:
>>>>But one must understand: speaking about Nazi crimes IS NOT
>>>>atacking german nation - and the same about SU and russians.
>>>Absolutely not. There are 3 crucial distinctions:
>>>A) The 3d Reich was a legal successor of Weimar Germany. SU was no legal
>>>successor of Romanov Russia.
>
>> Try to be serious - we are talking about to-day germany and nazi one, not
>> about Weimar times and you know it perfectly well.
>I'm absolutely serious. Here is the West nothing is more serious than
>the law of heritageNonsense - both in historical and material sense. German
>evolution: Bismarck 2d Reich -> Weimar Republik -> Hitler 3d Reich ->
>1st Bundesrepublik -> 2d Bundesrepublik (after reunification). Every
>single step of transition was legitimate. 'Nazi Germany' is US-made fast
>food ... to compare with SU-made 'Democratic Germany' aka DDR.Two big
mistakes: 1) "evolution" from Third Reich to Bundesrepublik was an good
thing, but no way legitimate. It was done with "help" od foreign troops and
germans had not much to say about that.
>>>B) Nazi crimes have been committed in the name of German nation. Soviet
>>>crimes - in the name of international communism.
>
>> In reality, world will judge one by his acts, not by words. What's a
>> difference, if german nazis or russian commies had done their job under
name
>> of Chist - or Devil? Or Mickey Mouse? Job was the same and that is what
>> counts.
>There were some similarities in implementation (see e.g. Solz's
>Archipelago Gulag), but national question was treated differently. Not only
national question. Different approach was also in technics used - german one
was more sophisticated. But what it changes? Killing is killing.>And
>certainly your "russian commies" weren't true Russians. Neither by
>ideology (re: western Marxism) nor by culture (re: Orthodox Christians)
>nor by blood (re: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev etc.). Their only
>common projective point was Russian language. Now take Liberia and blame
>Englishmen for Liberian civil slaughter ...It's choice of any nation will
he find his rulers himself or let "varyags" on the captain's seat.
>>>C) SU was not defeated militarily like Hitler's Germany.
>
>> It's true and due it ending up with dark past was easier for germans then
>> it is for russians. But once it must be done - for future of Russia as
>> honorable state.
>Try to explain it clearly.I will try. Imagine, that you and I are sitting
in dinner table with other newsgroup posters. Both of us have two cutlets on
plate. Now I push my fork into your cutlet and put it in my mouth. My logic:
now I have 3 cutlets, you only one - I am winner. Reality: I get the cutlet
but lost all positive renome - and it is possible to get it back just in one
way: showing thatI understad that was I did was wrong.I tried to make it as
simple as possible. If you still don't catch up, please say, I will try
again with bigger font and shorter words.
>>> In contrary, it
>>>peacefully collapsed and granted independence to most members, including
>>>Russia
>
>> I have a lot of friends in Moscow and St. Peterburg, and by them for most
>> russians "independence day" is a joke. Russia was last time unidependent
in
>> times of Mongol invasion - and even then just partly. For sure there
would
>> be a point to celebrate victory over communists - but then you must
rename
>LOL. And my friends and not-so-friendly informants from Moscow and St.
>Pete celebrate the collapse of foreign communist yoke and don't give a
>crap about medieval Mongol this or that. The Russians are no Germans ya
>know ... they just don't care about law ...Nobody cares 10 000 years ago:-)
It is our responsibility to help them to catch up!
btw, I don't think russians are so far in past, just they need chance.
>>>and the Baltic states. Hence Russia has no exclusive obligations
>>>to apologize for all soviet crimes.
>
>> For sure (or at last by me) Russian Federation have no OBLIGATION to
>> apologize for crimes commited by Russian state,
>SU was not a Russian state.Who's? Who was as occupant in Russia? Green men
from Mars?
>> no matter who leads it. We
>> do perfectly well without that "Sorry, guys, it was wrong". I'm also sure
>> that JURIDICALLY nobody can't blame Bundesrepublik Deutschland for nazi
>> crimes.
>LOL^2. Many blame and some get German money for Hitler's sins.Yes, but with
no juridical base. Have an idea, why germans give that money away?
>> Germans wanted to say sorry for themselves - to became again a
>> members of normal world where icecream for your kid is much more
important
>> then "social theories" created by lunatic criminals:-) A day when you
will
>> understand that will be day when Russia and russians will be greeted with
>> friendly smiles again all over the world - even in Easten Europe.
>LOL^3. U don't know much about Germans, do U?I think I know a bit, 700
years of coexistence in Estonia let some tracks in our nature:-)
>>>>4) Mir, I don't think "vast majority" of any nation would prefere to
>>>> change freedom to a bit more cream on piece of bread.
>>
>>>I'd like to see at least one bold example.
>
>> Take here one hopefully bold enough - there is more then 200 states in
the
>> world, not just one from pole to pole...:-)
>AFAIK they all prefer bread ... just pick your favorite one and we'll
>estimate its freedom/bread coefficient.Who "we"? Same "we" who decides,
what was good and what was bad for all nations in Eastern Europe". Food is
essential for both frog and human - but human, whos first and only target in
life is to get mouth full, lives like a frog with no future.
>> If you look to the past, you can't find too much of friends of Russia
>> there - just few countries depending on Russia in particular timeframe -
and
>> a lot of "friends" created by Moscow himself and standing just as long as
>> they feel Kalashnikov on his back. Think why it is this way. We cant
>> overwrite the past but we can learn from the bygone times - to have more
>> friends in future world.
>LOL^4. U don't know much about future world, do U?U don't just find enough
words to give some answer, do U?But, in sad case, you'll right and my post
was 50 years too early. In this case - sorry!
Randy McDonald
> Vello Kala wrote:
> >"MirTopolskiRex" wrote:
> >>Vello Kala wrote:
>
> >>>But one must understand: speaking about Nazi crimes IS NOT
> >>>atacking german nation - and the same about SU and russians.
> >>
> >>Absolutely not. There are 3 crucial distinctions:
> >>A) The 3d Reich was a legal successor of Weimar Germany. SU was no legal
> >>successor of Romanov Russia.
> >
> > Try to be serious - we are talking about to-day germany and nazi one, not
> > about Weimar times and you know it perfectly well.
>
> I'm absolutely serious. Here is the West nothing is more serious than
> the law of heritage - both in historical and material sense. German
> evolution: Bismarck 2d Reich -> Weimar Republik -> Hitler 3d Reich ->
> 1st Bundesrepublik -> 2d Bundesrepublik (after reunification). Every
> single step of transition was legitimate. 'Nazi Germany' is US-made fast
> food ... to compare with SU-made 'Democratic Germany' aka DDR.
Actually, no.
<http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Weimar.html>
"Hitler proceeded to transform the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian
dictatorship. The National Socialist "revolution" was accomplished in
gradual steps by using legal and semilegal methods as well as terror
and persuasion. The NSDAP endeavored initially to establish National
Socialist hegemony within the state. In this process, the old
conservative-nationalist elite, while partially preserved, was
subordinated to Nazi control. The state bureaucratic apparatus and the
army, however, were retained, and the country's economic and social
structure remained largely unchanged.
Because the government did not have a parliamentary majority,
Hindenburg called for the dissolution of the Reichstag and set March 5
as the date for new elections. A week before election day, the
Reichstag building was destroyed by fire. The Nazis, who presumably
had set fire to the building themselves, blamed the fire on the
communists, and on February 28 the president, invoking Article 48 of
the constitution, signed a decree that enabled the Nazis to quash the
political opposition. Authorized by the decree, the SA arrested
socialist and liberal leaders as well as a large number of communists.
State governments lacking a National Socialist majority were dissolved
and subordinated to control by the central government. In March Hitler
presented the Enabling Act to the Reichstag. The Reichstag, purged and
intimidated, passed the act by a vote of 441 to 84, thereby according
Hitler's cabinet dictatorial powers for a period of 4 years.
Hitler used the Enabling Act to implement Gleichschaltung (forced
political coordination), the policy of subordinating all independent
institutions and organizations to Nazi control. The state bureaucracy
and the judiciary were purged of "non-Aryans," and all members were
obliged to swear an oath of personal loyalty to the führer. The Secret
State Police (Geheime Staatspolizei--Gestapo) was created, and the
People's Tribunal was established to deal with cases of treason. State
governments were dismissed and replaced by Reich governors directly
responsible to Hitler. Trade unions were dissolved, political parties
other than NSDAP were disbanded, and the NSDAP was purged of its
social-revolutionary wing. In July Germany was legally declared a
National Socialist one-party state.
After Hindenburg's death in August 1934, Hitler promulgated a law that
combined the offices of the president and the chancellor. The law
violated the Enabling Act, but it was subsequently sanctioned by
national plebiscite. Thus, in the pseudolegal fashion characteristic
of Nazi tactics, Hitler established himself as German führer. The army
swore an oath of allegiance pledging unconditional obedience to him,
and Heinrich Himmler's Guard Detachment (Schutzstaffel--SS) replaced
the SA as Hitler's private army. Nazi leadership was drawn from the
lowermiddle class and, according to some estimates, came from
nonPrussian regions such as Bavaria."
> [deletia]
>
> There were some similarities in implementation (see e.g. Solz's
> Archipelago Gulag), but national question was treated differently. And
> certainly your "russian commies" weren't true Russians. Neither by
> ideology (re: western Marxism) nor by culture (re: Orthodox Christians)
> nor by blood (re: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev etc.). Their only
> common projective point was Russian language. Now take Liberia and blame
> Englishmen for Liberian civil slaughter ...
Actually, Liberia was an American quasi-colony.
> [deletia]
>
> >>and the Baltic states. Hence Russia has no exclusive obligations
> >>to apologize for all soviet crimes.
> >
> > For sure (or at last by me) Russian Federation have no OBLIGATION to
> > apologize for crimes commited by Russian state,
>
> SU was not a Russian state.
No. But it was Russian-dominated.
> {DELETIA}
Later,
Randy
MirTopolskiRex
>MirTopolskiRex wrote:
>>
>>German
>>evolution: Bismarck 2d Reich -> Weimar Republik -> Hitler 3d Reich ->
>>1st Bundesrepublik -> 2d Bundesrepublik (after reunification). Every
>>single step of transition was legitimate. 'Nazi Germany' is US-made fast
>>food ... to compare with SU-made 'Democratic Germany' aka DDR.
>
> Actually, no.
What "no"? As usual you don't hesitate to read the contents.
> <http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Weimar.html>
>
> "Hitler proceeded to transform the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian
> dictatorship. [flush]
So what? He was selected the Chancellor in full accordance with the
Weimar constitution. Power transition perfect. Amen.
>>There were some similarities in implementation (see e.g. Solz's
>>Archipelago Gulag), but national question was treated differently. And
>>certainly your "russian commies" weren't true Russians. Neither by
>>ideology (re: western Marxism) nor by culture (re: Orthodox Christians)
>>nor by blood (re: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev etc.). Their only
>>common projective point was Russian language. Now take Liberia and blame
>>Englishmen for Liberian civil slaughter ...
>
> Actually, Liberia was an American quasi-colony.
Therefore I wrote 'Englishmen' - not 'the Yanks'. Comprende?
>>SU was not a Russian state.
>
> No. But it was Russian-dominated.
Not even this. First "ethnic Russian" on top of SU was its last ruler
Gorby. Well, some argue about Andropov, but that guy did not last long.
MirTopolskiRex
>>"MirTopolskiRex" wrote:
>>>Vello Kala wrote:
>>
>>>>C) SU was not defeated militarily like Hitler's Germany.
>>
>>>It's true and due it ending up with dark past was easier for germans then
>>>it is for russians. But once it must be done - for future of Russia as
>>>honorable state.
>
>>Try to explain it clearly.I will try. Imagine, that you and I are sitting
>
> in dinner table with other newsgroup posters. Both of us have two cutlets on
> plate. Now I push my fork into your cutlet and put it in my mouth. My logic:
> now I have 3 cutlets, you only one - I am winner. Reality: I get the cutlet
> but lost all positive renome - and it is possible to get it back just in one
> way: showing thatI understad that was I did was wrong.I tried to make it as
> simple as possible. If you still don't catch up, please say, I will try
> again with bigger font and shorter words.
Please try to improve your English and clarify the connections to the
original statement "SU was not defeated militarily like Hitler's Germany".
> [weird stuff eleted]
henry alminas
"Weird stuff" coming from Mirsky is indeed funny.
Talk about the ultimate "artiste" in the use of convoluted
verbiage saying absolutely nothing. Rather reminds me
of the "Swedish chef" on the long-gone muppet show.
As I recall that creature was just as pompous as Mirsky
as well.
Best - - Henry
Alexei
"Vello Kala" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:40def07b$1...@news.estpak.ee...
> Correction of corrections
>
>
> 3) unhappily scb is more about fighting wars in the past then to build
> future where all nations incl balts and russians could live in peace and
> friendship. But one must understand: speaking about Nazi crimes IS NOT
> atacking german nation - and the same about SU and russians. I'm sure
there
> are people in Germany who still remember that there was no unemployment in
> nazi state and Germany (and Soviet Union) were probably sole nations
running
> economically upwards in time of world crisis. But they are smart enough to
> keep mouth shut as price of that "success" was tragedy for others.
Bravo, Vella!!!
Aleks
MirTopolskiRex
>
> "Weird stuff" coming from Mirsky is indeed funny.
> Talk about the ultimate "artiste" in the use of convoluted
> verbiage saying absolutely nothing. Rather reminds me
> of the "Swedish chef" on the long-gone muppet show.
>
> As I recall that creature was just as pompous as Mirsky
> as well.
Perhaps I can help poor Henry, pompous Mirsky and Swedish chef. That's
my reply of 27.06.2004 19:59 to an old-fashioned attempt to equalize
crimes and punishments of the Third Reich and contemporary Germany on
the one hand, and the ones of SU and contemporary Russia on the other hand:
"There are 3 crucial distinctions:
A) The 3d Reich was a legal successor of Weimar Germany. SU was no legal
successor of Romanov Russia.
B) Nazi crimes have been committed in the name of German nation. Soviet
crimes - in the name of international communism.
C) SU was not defeated militarily like Hitler's Germany. In contrary, it
peacefully collapsed and granted independence to most members, including
Russia and the Baltic states. Hence Russia has no exclusive obligation
to apologize for all soviet crimes."
Learn these clauses, bet to your pagan gods and hey, one day you'll
grasp the meaning!
MirTopolskiRex
>>
> "evolution" from Third Reich to Bundesrepublik was an good
> thing, but no way legitimate. It was done with "help" od foreign troops and
> germans had not much to say about that.
Absolutely legitimate. First Bundes-Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was well
known in Weimar political scene (in Köln and beyond). He was always in
opposition to both NSDAP (the "nazis") and DKP (the "commies") and as
such he had the right and privilege to restore law and order in the
aftermath of WW2 - with or without foreign help.
Vello Kala
Well, John,
I think most of estonians share ideals of welfare state, Helsinki and
Stockholm are closest capitals to us - and by fare not only
geographically:-)There were some reasons why we started like squotters
in american west. First - it is tricky to build welfare state with
nothing in pockets what for sure was the case 10-13 years ago. There
was just nothing for buildup of state soc. security system. Second,
word "socialism" sounds weird due to SU memories for estonians. Third,
former communists make attempts to cover under soc-dem flag - and
potential electorate of real soc-dem party was occupied by populist
Keskerakond. Fourth, due lack of local politics with democratical
experience, all our state leadrs have been 25-35 years old - in this
age one just don't know that there is need for medical help and what's
a thing is live after retirement. One important thing more: in fear of
corruption (what was normal way of life in SU) we tried to make state
as "small" as possible thinking that market divides money more fairly
then iindividuals in state apparatus, probably prone to corruption.
For the same we run currency board - from fear, that in other case
value of Kroon may became object of political manipulations.
Looking back now I don't think choice was wrong - what we get is the
more dynamical economy in all former East European states - and
leadership in "new technologies". It is right that difference in
incomes is too big in Estonia, but if we compare living standards of
retired people in Estonia and other former E-European states we can
notice that it is much higher then in states starting from the same
base 13 years ago (Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Byelorus, Moldova,
Russia etc), higher then in states who were much richer of us
(Romania, Bulgaria) and on level or rapidly catching up with states
much richer of us 13 years ago (Poland, Hungary, Czech). "American"
start was to accumulate some GDP for state buildup. Now this goal is
reached - and I think day Estonia turns more left is not far. Clear
show of that was our latest election process for EU parliament with
triomphant win of soc-dem Toomas Hendrik Ilves. Toomas spent his young
years in Sweden and is clear "importer" of Nordic welfare state to
Estonia. When social democrates succseeded to "steal" lefist
electorate from populist Keskerakond, Estonian political "environment"
will be close to something that: 60:40 for soc-dem against liberals.
Best,
Vello
John Anderson
Your summary of what has happened during the second independence certainly
corresponds with my impressions as an observer from the other shore of our
common Laht. I'm also not denying that all this was probably for the benefit
of Estonia and its future, even if many individual citizens have suffered.
But I was actually referring to Estonia's _first_ independence and to
where it was headed had not Stalin interferred. In the 30s, Estonia was
already better off than Finland, and without the foreign invasion(s) your
country would probably have developed into something much more appealing
than today's Sweden.
Regards,
John
Vello Kala
"John Anderson" <fer...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
But we still can make it?:-)
Best,
Vello
J. Anderson
No doubt about that!
Uno Hu
> > SU and US. North America is not the same as Northern Europe. Had the Baltics
> > been left alone, they would sooner have shared the Scandinavian welfare
> > society ideal than turned themselves into some sort of 'little Americas'.
> > This means that all the social security, education, culture etc. that you
> > might be missing from good old USSR would have been available in a
> > democratic Estonia as well. In addition you would have had freedom and
> > Volvos...
> > John
Sorry to bust yer bubble comrade Anderson/Jason, but it just ain't so.
Latvia not only was headed up by Ulman who had been an economics
lecturer in a Nebraska USA, university, but Latvia's very constitution
was modeled after the US's.
The idea of a all-enveloping EU socialist nursery - such as you
promote - was not even on the radar screen at the time.
vell...@hot.ee (Vello Kala) wrote in message
> Well, John,
> I think most of estonians share ideals of welfare state, Helsinki and
> Stockholm are closest capitals to us - and by fare not only
> geographically:-)There were some reasons why we started like squotters
> in american west.
???
> First - it is tricky to build welfare state with
> nothing in pockets what for sure was the case 10-13 years ago. There
> was just nothing for buildup of state soc. security system. Second,
> word "socialism" sounds weird due to SU memories for estonians. Third,
> former communists make attempts to cover under soc-dem flag - and
> potential electorate of real soc-dem party was occupied by populist
> Keskerakond. Fourth, due lack of local politics with democratical
> experience, all our state leadrs have been 25-35 years old - in this
> age one just don't know that there is need for medical help and what's
> a thing is live after retirement. One important thing more: in fear of
> corruption (what was normal way of life in SU)
Also a normal way of life in the EU.
> we tried to make state
> as "small" as possible thinking that market divides money more fairly
> then iindividuals in state apparatus, probably prone to corruption.
> For the same we run currency board - from fear, that in other case
> value of Kroon may became object of political manipulations.
> Looking back now I don't think choice was wrong - what we get is the
> more dynamical economy in all former East European states
That's debatable. Both Latvia and Lithuania have larger rates of
growth than does Estonia.
> - and
> leadership in "new technologies". It is right that difference in
> incomes is too big in Estonia, but if we compare living standards of
> retired people in Estonia and other former E-European states we can
> notice that it is much higher then in states starting from the same
> base 13 years ago (Latvia, Lithuania,
That's incorrect. Latvia provides larger pensions than does Estonia.
>Ukraine, Byelorus, Moldova,
> Russia etc), higher then in states who were much richer of us
> (Romania, Bulgaria) and on level or rapidly catching up with states
> much richer of us 13 years ago (Poland, Hungary, Czech). "American"
> start was to accumulate some GDP for state buildup. Now this goal is
> reached - and I think day Estonia turns more left is not far.
It already is. You have former communists in office.
> Clear
> show of that was our latest election process for EU parliament with
> triomphant win of soc-dem Toomas Hendrik Ilves. Toomas spent his young
> years in Sweden and is clear "importer" of Nordic welfare state to
> Estonia. When social democrates succseeded to "steal" lefist
> electorate from populist Keskerakond, Estonian political "environment"
> will be close to something that: 60:40 for soc-dem against liberals.
> Best,
> Vello
Good luck on your welfare state.
Uno Hu
Alexei
"Uno Hu" <lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:9dff2144.04062...@posting.google.com...
> > "John Anderson" <fer...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote
> > > When hypothesizing about the past, we shouldn't make comparisons
between
> > > SU and US. North America is not the same as Northern Europe. Had the
Baltics
> > > been left alone, they would sooner have shared the Scandinavian
welfare
> > > society ideal than turned themselves into some sort of 'little
Americas'.
> > > This means that all the social security, education, culture etc. that
you
> > > might be missing from good old USSR would have been available in a
> > > democratic Estonia as well. In addition you would have had freedom and
> > > Volvos...
> > > John
>
> Sorry to bust yer bubble comrade Anderson/Jason, but it just ain't so.
> Latvia not only was headed up by Ulman who had been an economics
> lecturer in a Nebraska USA, university, but Latvia's very constitution
> was modeled after the US's.
Woo. Not so fast, my uber-patriotic friend, merely because Mr. Ulmanis spent
seven years in the US teaching -- of all things -- agriculture at a
University in Nebraska does not mean that Latvia's constitution is modeled
after the US. There are many a difference between the two:
1. Bicameral Congress in the US, Unicameral parliament in Latvia -- perhaps,
Ulmanis based it on Nabraska's constitution, since it's the only state in
the country with in a single-chambered assembly.
2. The way a president is elected in both countries is very different.
3. Latvia's President has a much less authority than US president.
4. Where's the prime minister for the US government??
Just to name a few.
Aleks
Vello Kala
Dear friend,
have any idea what legitimacy means? By you, if I will organize coup d'etat
in Russia (with some help from US or not,) I as a new ruler of Russia would
be fully legitimate as I was a bit konwn at least in one corner of SU and
have been always in opposition to communist party?
MirTopolskiRex
> "MirTopolskiRex" wrote:
>>
>>known in Weimar political scene (in Köln and beyond). He was always in
>>opposition to both NSDAP (the "nazis") and DKP (the "commies") and as
>>such he had the right and privilege to restore law and order in the
>>aftermath of WW2 - with or without foreign help.
>
> Dear friend,
> have any idea what legitimacy means?
Hey buddy, I know everything I'm talking about. And much more! :-)
> By you, if I will organize coup d'etat
> in Russia (with some help from US or not,) I as a new ruler of Russia would
> be fully legitimate as I was a bit konwn at least in one corner of SU and
> have been always in opposition to communist party?
Not that I fully understand your French, but again, there is huge
difference between Germany and Russia. In particular, there was no
living bridge through SU between Romanov Russia and contemporary Russia
- hence no Russian Adenauer in sight. Time gap was just too large ...
Randy McDonald
> Randy McDonald wrote:
> >MirTopolskiRex wrote:
> >>
> >>German
> >>evolution: Bismarck 2d Reich -> Weimar Republik -> Hitler 3d Reich ->
> >>1st Bundesrepublik -> 2d Bundesrepublik (after reunification). Every
> >>single step of transition was legitimate. 'Nazi Germany' is US-made fast
> >>food ... to compare with SU-made 'Democratic Germany' aka DDR.
> >
> > Actually, no.
>
> What "no"? As usual you don't hesitate to read the contents.
I think you've too narrow a focus.
> > <http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Weimar.html>
> >
> > "Hitler proceeded to transform the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian
> > dictatorship. [flush]
>
> So what? He was selected the Chancellor in full accordance with the
> Weimar constitution. Power transition perfect. Amen.
He was elected Chancellor, yes, and given the authority to act within
constitutional boundaries. I suspect that this didn't include burning
down the German parliament building as part of a vast and complicated
piece of street theatre. It certainly didn't include the
legitimization of the assassinations and attacks on hundreds if not
thousands of Germans both before and after his party's election and
his personal appointment.
The Nazi Party came to power in an atmosphere of remarkably diffused
political violence, manipulating public opinion through acts of
terrorism. The 1933 transition in Germany was hardly any more
legitimate than the 1917-1918 transition in Russia.
> >>There were some similarities in implementation (see e.g. Solz's
> >>Archipelago Gulag), but national question was treated differently. And
> >>certainly your "russian commies" weren't true Russians. Neither by
> >>ideology (re: western Marxism) nor by culture (re: Orthodox Christians)
> >>nor by blood (re: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev etc.). Their only
> >>common projective point was Russian language. Now take Liberia and blame
> >>Englishmen for Liberian civil slaughter ...
> >
> > Actually, Liberia was an American quasi-colony.
>
> Therefore I wrote 'Englishmen' - not 'the Yanks'. Comprende?
Actually, no. England /= Britain, for instance--Britain is a composite
state, including England as its single largest components, but also
including Scotland and Wales, before 1921 all of Ireland, after 1921
only Northern Ireland. The various Canadian, Australasian, and South
African colonies of settlement were operated under principles of
British jurisprudence, but they were never legally part of
Britain--the failure to integrate them may have been inevitable, and
was also responsible for the failure of the imperial federation
movement.
Americans, however, are _not_ English, any more than Mexicans are
Spanish. The two largest post-colonial nations of North America
certainly do owe quite alot to their colonizing nations, but they've
been politically--and increasingly, culturally--independent for two
centuries or so. For most of the first century of the United States of
America's existence, America was an opponent of British imperial
goals, to the point of risking war; for the second century, America
collaborated in the quiet draw-down of the British Empire.
> >>SU was not a Russian state.
> >
> > No. But it was Russian-dominated.
>
> Not even this. First "ethnic Russian" on top of SU was its last ruler
> Gorby. Well, some argue about Andropov, but that guy did not last long.
Ah, so it's the _métèques_ who are responsible for the Russian Empire;
the pure-blooded Russians, doubtless, would have sternly opposed all
acts of Russian imperialism, even towards those peoples who they
happened to consider as Russian, or who inhabited lands which should
be Russian.
Later,
Randy
MirTopolskiRex
>MirTopolskiRex wrote:
>>
>>>"Hitler proceeded to transform the Weimar Republic into a totalitarian
>>>dictatorship. [flush]
>>
>>So what? He was selected the Chancellor in full accordance with the
>>Weimar constitution. Power transition perfect. Amen.
>
> He was elected Chancellor, yes,
No, he was *selected* by Prez Hindenburg according to the Weimar
constitution - and rightly so, because Hitler's NSDAP won more votes
than any other political party.
> and given the authority to act within
> constitutional boundaries. I suspect that this didn't include burning
> down the German parliament building as part of a vast and complicated
> piece of street theatre.
That Reichstag brand was Nazi job is merely a speculation. Historians
are still divided as to who was behind. Official verdict claimed it was
Genosse van der XYZ from communist Rot Front. This, in turn, gave Hitler
the right to ban left parties (ask Henry why) and establish his
dictatorship.
> The Nazi Party came to power in an atmosphere of remarkably diffused
> political violence, manipulating public opinion through acts of
> terrorism.
Sure. If you were Hindenburg you should have done the same and select
Hitler.
> The 1933 transition in Germany was hardly any more
> legitimate than the 1917-1918 transition in Russia.
LOL. German transition was plain legitimate. But Russian transition of
1917-18 was plain illegitimate. The Duma was just dissolved by Lenin and
Trotsky.
> [weird stuff deleted]
>
>>>>SU was not a Russian state.
>>>
>>>No. But it was Russian-dominated.
>>
>>Not even this. First "ethnic Russian" on top of SU was its last ruler
>>Gorby. Well, some argue about Andropov, but that guy did not last long.
>
> Ah, so it's the _métèques_ who are responsible for the Russian Empire;
> the pure-blooded Russians, doubtless, would have sternly opposed all
> acts of Russian imperialism, even towards those peoples who they
> happened to consider as Russian, or who inhabited lands which should
> be Russian.
Who cares about Russian imperialism? We're talking about SU, don't we?
Dmitry
>
> I lived in Crimea, Moscow region, and Sumy (Ukraine) Life was pretty
> much the same everywhere. I don't remember hungry Soviets searching
> for food like Zombies in a "Living Dead" movies. But what do I know, I
> smoked "vatra" and "prima" at 13, so maybe I missed something.
"severnye" were only 6 kopeek. You have missed something, people from
Pskov used to come to Riga for food shopping, they were desperate. I
also remember, whilst staying in Gorky, people from surrounding
villages were searching for bread. In both cases they used big sacks.
> My friend was in a car accident, was taken to the hospital, they
> really didn't treat him that much. But hey he got nice $16 000 bill in
> a mail.
Instead, fuel, guns and hamburgers are cheap in US.
>
> Alex.
>
> > snip
> > Aleks
Vello Kala
>
> "severnye" were only 6 kopeek. You have missed something, people from
> Pskov used to come to Riga for food shopping, they were desperate. I
> also remember, whilst staying in Gorky, people from surrounding
> villages were searching for bread. In both cases they used big sacks.
>
Was also via versa. A lot of estonians made shopping trips to Slantsy, small
mining city on the russian shore of lake Peipus. City had some friendship
status with one city in Finland (don't remember, what city) and there was
some western clothing - normal underwear, jeans sometimes(!!:-)) etc. It was
really small city and sometimes I met 5-6 estonian buses there, and a lot of
cars with estonian plates. But really, soviet life was poor on exitement and
possibilities to try yourself, just staying alive was no problem - at least
in Baltics. But real shortage of foodstuff (not quality, but quantity
problem) appears just in second half of eighties.
MirTopolskiRex
> Was also via versa.
I guess vice versa? Don't you in Estonia learn Latin at school? (Just
curious - nothing personal.)
Peters
> after all people could travel freely all across the huge SU (well,
> except for Gulag and military zones).
That's not what my Latvian relatives have said about travel in the
Soviet Union. More like if you did not have your papers in order
authorizing your visit wherever you were, do not pass GO, do not
collect 200 roubles, go directly to jail.
Peters