Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Russia today: two puzzles

kowalskil
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 7:29:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The 70th anniversary of the German attack on the Soviet Union was on June 21. On that occasion I visited many Russian websites. What a surprise to find that both communists and anticommunists glorify Stalin in today's Russia.

Communists remember him as a great Marxist ideologist, as Lenin's partner, as a leader responsible for collectivization of agriculture, for rapid industrialization, and for merciless destruction of traitors, especially within the communist party and the military, in the late 1930's. Briefly, they glorify him as the leader of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship, and as a military genius responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism.

The anticommunists also claim that Stalin was responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism. But they totally ignore his communist ideology, and the brutality he used to impose obedience. Logically, the attitude toward Stalinism should divide communists and anticommunists. But in reality it seems to unite them. How can this be explained?

And this is not the only puzzle. As some of you probably remember, I wrote a memoir about life in the Soviet Union during the first year of the war. It can be seen at

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu...

Thinking about the approaching 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War--that is how Russians refer to their experience during WWII--I sent the above link to perhaps as many as 20 editors of Russian newspapers, giving them permission to translate and publish my memoir. Not a single one responded. How can this be explained?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

My profile==> http://csam.montclair.edu...
.
.
Ludwik Kowalski, author of "Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality." <http://csam.montclair.edu...

http://csam.montclair.edu...

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

The more people know about proletarian dictatorship the less likely will we experience is. Please share the link with those who might be interested, especially with youn
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 6:23:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 7:29:43 PM, kowalskil wrote:
The 70th anniversary of the German attack on the Soviet Union was on June 21. On that occasion I visited many Russian websites. What a surprise to find that both communists and anticommunists glorify Stalin in today's Russia.

Communists remember him as a great Marxist ideologist, as Lenin's partner, as a leader responsible for collectivization of agriculture, for rapid industrialization, and for merciless destruction of traitors, especially within the communist party and the military, in the late 1930's. Briefly, they glorify him as the leader of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship, and as a military genius responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism.

The anticommunists also claim that Stalin was responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism. But they totally ignore his communist ideology, and the brutality he used to impose obedience. Logically, the attitude toward Stalinism should divide communists and anticommunists. But in reality it seems to unite them. How can this be explained?

And this is not the only puzzle. As some of you probably remember, I wrote a memoir about life in the Soviet Union during the first year of the war. It can be seen at

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu...

Thinking about the approaching 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War--that is how Russians refer to their experience during WWII--I sent the above link to perhaps as many as 20 editors of Russian newspapers, giving them permission to translate and publish my memoir. Not a single one responded. How can this be explained?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

My profile==> http://csam.montclair.edu...
.
.

This isn't really that much of a puzzle, for the sake of reference, let me explain to you how the British generally view someone...let's pick someone almost at random from the same era...someone like...Winston Churchill.

Now. Winston Churchill was a binge drinking (England has made various laws in an attepmpt to curb binge drinking in the last decade or so) cigar smoking. (Smoking in certain places is now illegal) in recognition of his wartime use of authority he was made an honorary citizen of the United States. (We tend to look at the States with mild contempt given the way they've treated us over the past twelve years or so) his ancestry includes at least one known Duke giving him links to the Royal Family. (a family that tends to split the country given it's role, the habits of many of it's members and their ideas about what's appropriate)

Churchill was forced to retire from his military position after the royal mess that was the battle of Gallipoli, when today most ministers cling to their jobs even if there's a friggin' bounty on their heads.

When he retired from the territorials he was fifty. That was n 1924. By the time men were storming the Normandy beaches, England was being led by a seventy-yer-old man who wanted to join the men attacking Fortress Europa. People in England these days are fuming because the retirement age is set to go from 65 to 68.

Churchill retired in 1964. Motherf*cker was ninety.

Churchill stood and if he were alive today, probably would stand for a variety of things that would infuriate the British public.

But SIR Churchill is still one of the best leaders we ever had, if for no other reason than the fact that he didn't much care for pomp and glory, the statue of him in London doesn't convey him on a horse or wielding a saber like the statues around him, if you didn't know who it was, you may mistake the statue as being of some random old man.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm moderately sure God is scared of Churchill.

You see, you don't have to agree with a leader's policies or opinions or actions, you don't even have to like their dress sense or facial hair. A good leader is not made a bad leader by the opinions of those around them, Winston was utterly reviled at the time and made numerous cock-ups socially and militarily that cost men lives and his authority credibility but it's only by looking at the situations he faced with the benefit of full context that we can say. "Rock on, old man"

Stalin was a monster, but, we in the west needed a monster in the fourties, we needed a monster to set loose against the monster already attacking us. Stalin's Red Army would win the war, ultimately, that doesn't change the fact that he was a monster, but credit where credit is due.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 6:31:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 6:23:35 AM, Veridas wrote:
At 7/25/2011 7:29:43 PM, kowalskil wrote:
The 70th anniversary of the German attack on the Soviet Union was on June 21. On that occasion I visited many Russian websites. What a surprise to find that both communists and anticommunists glorify Stalin in today's Russia.

Communists remember him as a great Marxist ideologist, as Lenin's partner, as a leader responsible for collectivization of agriculture, for rapid industrialization, and for merciless destruction of traitors, especially within the communist party and the military, in the late 1930's. Briefly, they glorify him as the leader of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship, and as a military genius responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism.

The anticommunists also claim that Stalin was responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism. But they totally ignore his communist ideology, and the brutality he used to impose obedience. Logically, the attitude toward Stalinism should divide communists and anticommunists. But in reality it seems to unite them. How can this be explained?

And this is not the only puzzle. As some of you probably remember, I wrote a memoir about life in the Soviet Union during the first year of the war. It can be seen at

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu...

Thinking about the approaching 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War--that is how Russians refer to their experience during WWII--I sent the above link to perhaps as many as 20 editors of Russian newspapers, giving them permission to translate and publish my memoir. Not a single one responded. How can this be explained?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

My profile==> http://csam.montclair.edu...
.
.

This isn't really that much of a puzzle, for the sake of reference, let me explain to you how the British generally view someone...let's pick someone almost at random from the same era...someone like...Winston Churchill.


Now. Winston Churchill was a binge drinking (England has made various laws in an attepmpt to curb binge drinking in the last decade or so) cigar smoking. (Smoking in certain places is now illegal) in recognition of his wartime use of authority he was made an honorary citizen of the United States. (We tend to look at the States with mild contempt given the way they've treated us over the past twelve years or so) his ancestry includes at least one known Duke giving him links to the Royal Family. (a family that tends to split the country given it's role, the habits of many of it's members and their ideas about what's appropriate)

Churchill was forced to retire from his military position after the royal mess that was the battle of Gallipoli, when today most ministers cling to their jobs even if there's a friggin' bounty on their heads.

When he retired from the territorials he was fifty. That was n 1924. By the time men were storming the Normandy beaches, England was being led by a seventy-yer-old man who wanted to join the men attacking Fortress Europa. People in England these days are fuming because the retirement age is set to go from 65 to 68.

Churchill retired in 1964. Motherf*cker was ninety.

Churchill stood and if he were alive today, probably would stand for a variety of things that would infuriate the British public.

But SIR Churchill is still one of the best leaders we ever had, if for no other reason than the fact that he didn't much care for pomp and glory, the statue of him in London doesn't convey him on a horse or wielding a saber like the statues around him, if you didn't know who it was, you may mistake the statue as being of some random old man.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm moderately sure God is scared of Churchill.

You see, you don't have to agree with a leader's policies or opinions or actions, you don't even have to like their dress sense or facial hair. A good leader is not made a bad leader by the opinions of those around them, Winston was utterly reviled at the time and made numerous cock-ups socially and militarily that cost men lives and his authority credibility but it's only by looking at the situations he faced with the benefit of full context that we can say. "Rock on, old man"

Stalin was a monster, but, we in the west needed a monster in the fourties, we needed a monster to set loose against the monster already attacking us. Stalin's Red Army would win the war, ultimately, that doesn't change the fact that he was a monster, but credit where credit is due.

You're seriously comparing a revisionist look at Churchill versus Stalin and the justification in having a favorable and merited positive perspective of the two?
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 7:35:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 6:31:30 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/26/2011 6:23:35 AM, Veridas wrote:
At 7/25/2011 7:29:43 PM, kowalskil wrote:
The 70th anniversary of the German attack on the Soviet Union was on June 21. On that occasion I visited many Russian websites. What a surprise to find that both communists and anticommunists glorify Stalin in today's Russia.

Communists remember him as a great Marxist ideologist, as Lenin's partner, as a leader responsible for collectivization of agriculture, for rapid industrialization, and for merciless destruction of traitors, especially within the communist party and the military, in the late 1930's. Briefly, they glorify him as the leader of the Soviet proletarian dictatorship, and as a military genius responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism.

The anticommunists also claim that Stalin was responsible for the Soviet victory over fascism. But they totally ignore his communist ideology, and the brutality he used to impose obedience. Logically, the attitude toward Stalinism should divide communists and anticommunists. But in reality it seems to unite them. How can this be explained?

And this is not the only puzzle. As some of you probably remember, I wrote a memoir about life in the Soviet Union during the first year of the war. It can be seen at

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu...

Thinking about the approaching 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War--that is how Russians refer to their experience during WWII--I sent the above link to perhaps as many as 20 editors of Russian newspapers, giving them permission to translate and publish my memoir. Not a single one responded. How can this be explained?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

My profile==> http://csam.montclair.edu...
.
.

This isn't really that much of a puzzle, for the sake of reference, let me explain to you how the British generally view someone...let's pick someone almost at random from the same era...someone like...Winston Churchill.


Now. Winston Churchill was a binge drinking (England has made various laws in an attepmpt to curb binge drinking in the last decade or so) cigar smoking. (Smoking in certain places is now illegal) in recognition of his wartime use of authority he was made an honorary citizen of the United States. (We tend to look at the States with mild contempt given the way they've treated us over the past twelve years or so) his ancestry includes at least one known Duke giving him links to the Royal Family. (a family that tends to split the country given it's role, the habits of many of it's members and their ideas about what's appropriate)

Churchill was forced to retire from his military position after the royal mess that was the battle of Gallipoli, when today most ministers cling to their jobs even if there's a friggin' bounty on their heads.

When he retired from the territorials he was fifty. That was n 1924. By the time men were storming the Normandy beaches, England was being led by a seventy-yer-old man who wanted to join the men attacking Fortress Europa. People in England these days are fuming because the retirement age is set to go from 65 to 68.

Churchill retired in 1964. Motherf*cker was ninety.

Churchill stood and if he were alive today, probably would stand for a variety of things that would infuriate the British public.

But SIR Churchill is still one of the best leaders we ever had, if for no other reason than the fact that he didn't much care for pomp and glory, the statue of him in London doesn't convey him on a horse or wielding a saber like the statues around him, if you didn't know who it was, you may mistake the statue as being of some random old man.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm moderately sure God is scared of Churchill.

You see, you don't have to agree with a leader's policies or opinions or actions, you don't even have to like their dress sense or facial hair. A good leader is not made a bad leader by the opinions of those around them, Winston was utterly reviled at the time and made numerous cock-ups socially and militarily that cost men lives and his authority credibility but it's only by looking at the situations he faced with the benefit of full context that we can say. "Rock on, old man"

Stalin was a monster, but, we in the west needed a monster in the fourties, we needed a monster to set loose against the monster already attacking us. Stalin's Red Army would win the war, ultimately, that doesn't change the fact that he was a monster, but credit where credit is due.

You're seriously comparing a revisionist look at Churchill versus Stalin and the justification in having a favorable and merited positive perspective of the two?

You're seriously implying that modern days views of someone from that era isn't revisionist regardless of where they lived in the world and deny our innate ability to view past leaders in a different light to the people they led at the time?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 7:50:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 7:35:02 AM, Veridas wrote:
Stalin was a monster, but, we in the west needed a monster in the fourties, we needed a monster to set loose against the monster already attacking us. Stalin's Red Army would win the war, ultimately, that doesn't change the fact that he was a monster, but credit where credit is due.

You're seriously comparing a revisionist look at Churchill versus Stalin and the justification in having a favorable and merited positive perspective of the two?

You're seriously implying that modern days views of someone from that era isn't revisionist regardless of where they lived in the world and deny our innate ability to view past leaders in a different light to the people they led at the time?

The net character of a man should be taken into consideration when making a judgment, and the net character and accomplishment of Churchill's is good, and the net character and accomplishment of Stalin was bad by any moral judgment, including his comrades at the time. Not just bad, but 'monsterous', and i don't think anyone would call Churchill a monster. I am very forgiving of an individuals foibles, but there is a point where foible becomes a malignant threat to society.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 6:18:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 7:50:56 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/26/2011 7:35:02 AM, Veridas wrote:
Stalin was a monster, but, we in the west needed a monster in the fourties, we needed a monster to set loose against the monster already attacking us. Stalin's Red Army would win the war, ultimately, that doesn't change the fact that he was a monster, but credit where credit is due.

You're seriously comparing a revisionist look at Churchill versus Stalin and the justification in having a favorable and merited positive perspective of the two?

You're seriously implying that modern days views of someone from that era isn't revisionist regardless of where they lived in the world and deny our innate ability to view past leaders in a different light to the people they led at the time?

The net character of a man should be taken into consideration when making a judgment, and the net character and accomplishment of Churchill's is good, and the net character and accomplishment of Stalin was bad by any moral judgment, including his comrades at the time. Not just bad, but 'monsterous', and i don't think anyone would call Churchill a monster. I am very forgiving of an individuals foibles, but there is a point where foible becomes a malignant threat to society.

Nobody called Churchill a monster, and you're overlooking the fact that Stalin not only fought off an immense Nazi force that, man for man, tank for tank, plane for plane, his army couldn't beat, but he did so in the most stubborn way possible. Scorched Earth policy probably stopped Germans from acquiring and using everything from roads, shelters, stores and outposts to grain fields and factories. In addition to that, Stalin did not know that the Germans were coming, he should have known, the intelligence was there, but he didn't. Part of Germany's Alliance with Russia was the monthly transits, by train, of immense quantities of grain from Russia to Germany, we're talking Millions of tons every year. German forces passed one of these trains as they entered Russia, it was going one way, the Germans the other.

Stalin was an absolute monster, and so was Hitler, but both men did good things. Hitler brought Germany out of a Euro-imposed economic deadlock set by the treaty of Verssailes, and his policies would pave the way for Germany to become one of the most powerful European economies even now. Stalin, meanwhile, took so much punishment and took so much pressure off the western front, and then went and beat everone else into Germany, and into Berlin.

The people of Russia clearly seem to like the guy according to the original post, just as modern day brits revere CHurchill despite him being horribly unpopular at the time.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?