TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What was the last great Russian leader since 1917?
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]


Posted by star-traveller on Feb-07-2007 08:18:

quote:
Originally posted by Aquadyne
A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic -- Joseph Stalin

Death is relative. Every president in U.S. history has caused the death of people, every ruler of Russia has done the same. The actions of just about notable leader in the world have resulted in deaths.

If your moral absolutes immediately make you condemn any leader who has caused death then we have no great leaders at all. And that's just not true.


I agree with you on that.


Posted by Magnetonium on Feb-07-2007 11:21:

quote:
Originally posted by Aquadyne
A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic -- Joseph Stalin

Death is relative. Every president in U.S. history has caused the death of people, every ruler of Russia has done the same. The actions of just about notable leader in the world have resulted in deaths.

If your moral absolutes immediately make you condemn any leader who has caused death then we have no great leaders at all. And that's just not true.


You have really no concept of ruined lives. I think its about time for me to cut down on the forums time, I have many more important things to do than wasting time chatting with crazy people who support Stalin.

Haunted understands this. The point is, Russia in 1995, let's say, had little to show for the communist oppression 50, 25, 10 years before. When Soviet Union ended, everything collapsed like a stack of cards because thats what oppressive governments do - when the fall, people dont beg for them to come back and continue the destruction. Look in Iraq - only a few selected soldiers fought when Americans invaded. Thats dictatorship - when most people nod and hail you, but when you lose power, you lose the country. Soviet Union nearly destroyed Russia, YEAH, IF RUSSIA WAS "STILL" ONE OF THE GREATEST MILITARY POWERS, HOW COME THEY FAILED TO HOLD CHECHNYA IN EARLY 1990S??? How come they lost Afghan war??? How come if Stalin was so great he was denounced by communist party after his death??? Alright, enough ...


Posted by metalgearsolid on Feb-07-2007 14:07:

quote:
Originally posted by Haunted
body counts don't matter?
it's people like you that are poisoning the world, total disregard for human life. self-absorbed in his own ego and tribe mentality. read a history book man, isn't it time we stopped killing each other?

i have no respect for any leader who has such an ego that he views people as just numbers. i bet you'd feel different if you were living in the soviet era and Stalin decided to kill your whole family because your cousins grandfather didn't support the party.

so detatched from reality aren't you. with such fucked up values.

and you morons are arguing over whether he killed 20 or 2 million? 1 life is enough. it isn't? pretend it's your mother. what then?
Ok you got me completly wrong. Look at how many people Alexander killed or the Roman empire killed? The Romans wiped out an entire people in one day or they killed tens of thousands in a single battle. That was common happenings when you fought against the Romans.
Look I wasn't saying it was all good im just saying look at how history regards these people/empires. I don't have an ego that big. If I did than I would have declared myself emperor of this forum and I have yet to do just that(you know its a joke-napolean anyone?).
I have a friend whose grandfather lost his family to Stalin alone. So I know what it feels like but you know what? It doesn't matter because people soon forget about the past and only the historians remember what happened. Give it 100yrs and when people talk back into the past they will remember Stalin as a good leader who defeated the nazis and industrialized a peasant country in less than 5yrs. And also who murdered people just out of paranoia. Yes, historians will say that was bad but look back at history and just look at all the rulers who have done the same. Guess what? MANY OF THEM HAVE!
I want peace among people but we are not ready for that. If we were than there wouldn't be any extremist groups like skinheads, religion, or any secret society for that matter. People don't want peace and that is a fact. George Orwell said, "Switzerland had 500yrs of peace and brotherly love and all they invented was the koko clock and Italy had two hundred yrs of violence, rape and war and they developed the renansance and something else."..ok th quote went something like that. But its just peoples mentality. War brings a lot of human achievements and peace doesn't. Just the truth.


Posted by Magnetonium on Feb-08-2007 01:05:

quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Ok you got me completly wrong. Look at how many people Alexander killed or the Roman empire killed? The Romans wiped out an entire people in one day or they killed tens of thousands in a single battle. That was common happenings when you fought against the Romans.
Look I wasn't saying it was all good im just saying look at how history regards these people/empires. I don't have an ego that big. If I did than I would have declared myself emperor of this forum and I have yet to do just that(you know its a joke-napolean anyone?).
I have a friend whose grandfather lost his family to Stalin alone. So I know what it feels like but you know what? It doesn't matter because people soon forget about the past and only the historians remember what happened. Give it 100yrs and when people talk back into the past they will remember Stalin as a good leader who defeated the nazis and industrialized a peasant country in less than 5yrs. And also who murdered people just out of paranoia. Yes, historians will say that was bad but look back at history and just look at all the rulers who have done the same. Guess what? MANY OF THEM HAVE!
I want peace among people but we are not ready for that. If we were than there wouldn't be any extremist groups like skinheads, religion, or any secret society for that matter. People don't want peace and that is a fact. George Orwell said, "Switzerland had 500yrs of peace and brotherly love and all they invented was the koko clock and Italy had two hundred yrs of violence, rape and war and they developed the renansance and something else."..ok th quote went something like that. But its just peoples mentality. War brings a lot of human achievements and peace doesn't. Just the truth.


Yeah, wars do bring achievements for a rich few ... no wonder they call it a golden billion, the developed world of western europe and north america, while the rest live mostly in terrible condition. Thats what slavely is, it never really left. Today it is camouflaged by world economy, cheap labour in China, Asia, South America ... while we live in luxury, over 4 billion people live on 2 dollars a day or less. Just like Romans. Except it was slavery back then, today its masked by economy. Soviet Union was no different. The brass lived in luxury, while common citizen waited for years even for a flat, a car. And lacking even proper medicine, luxuries ...

Read a great book called A brief history of globalization by Alex MacGillivray.

Compare Soviet achievements to primitive dictatorships: a large number of people are forced to construct a beautiful town to commemorate the dictator's greatness. Large number of people die building it. When he dies and regime weakens, people revolt and the city is pillaged, destroyed. At the end, everything's ruined. Thats the story of alll dictatorships, they all have similar endings. Soviet Union was one, though it didnt end violently because the decision to end the dictatorship was mostly unilaterial.

Plus, huge gaps between rich and poor are present primarily in dictatorships. America is heading that way, as their gap between rich and poor is growing. The "progress" is done by the dictator for HIS glory, not the glory of the people as in the Soviet Union's case. People were expendable. In democratic societies, the true ones, the progress is done by the people for the people. Stalin didnt do that. And thats why his system was designed to fail. Communism set Russia back 100 years. Industrialization would have been achieved in Russia anyway, in 50 years probably. Plus Nazis would have unlikely risen to power and risen the way they did if it wasnt for Stalin's sale of military equipment, and training of Nazi generals on Soviet land because both military buildup and training was forbidden within Germany.

Plus, Russian Empire would have neutralized Nazi Germany in 1930s when Hitler entered Rhineland, invaded Checkoslovakia. Russians would have seen that as illegal military buildup and responded, as they did on at least one occassion against Ottoman Empire in 1880s, for example. Russian Empire did not have a habit of waiting when its neighbour built up arms and invaded neighbouring lands against agreements, this would have been perceived a threat to Russia, while Soviets were just sleeping and ingoring the intelligence reports which would have been taken seriously by Russian Empire. At that point German military machine was relatively weak anyhow.


Posted by metalgearsolid on Feb-08-2007 01:45:

Look what is happening in Russia, just goes to show how degenerate the Russian people are:
quote:

Russia's unwanted babies in hospital limbo
By Patrick Jackson
BBC News

Mobile phone video of babies in a Russian hospital with sticking plaster apparently covering their mouths made headlines around the world but the plight of the otkazniki - the infants abandoned by their mothers in hospital - goes much deeper.

For Maxim Gareyev, editor of Yekaterinburg's parenting newspaper Yeka-mama, the story which broke at Hospital No 15 was no great surprise.

"We get confidential letters and private messages from officials and others about babies being maltreated in hospitals but nobody wants to speak out because they don't want to lose their jobs or they fear for their reputations," he told the BBC News website.

Mr Gareyev has little to say about the "gagging" case, pointing out that city prosecutors are conducting a criminal investigation.

The hospitals make space for these babies but the problem is that in the first year of life a baby needs to be cuddled, it needs to be talked to

Maxim Gareyev
Editor of Yekaterinburg newspaper Yeka-mama

But what he can talk about is the circumstances of the babies, because it is something he knows well from both his newspaper's own reporting and his charity work to help them.

Babies officially taken into care by the state on the grounds that their parents are unfit to rear them are usually out of hospital and in a children's home within a few days of birth, says Mr Gareyev.

But otkazniki are often left behind in hospitals for months, awaiting a vacancy. If a carer is not found, they will be packed off to orphanages at the age of three.

And their experiences during those first years of life may mark them permanently.

Nowhere to go

The reported events at Hospital No 15 are a first for Carel de Rooy, the Unicef representative in Russia and Belarus, but the issue of otkazniki is one that he has long been pushing for the Russian authorities to address.

RUSSIA'S ORPHANS
730,000 children growing up without biological parents
only 10% are orphans in the true sense of the word
75% grow up in families (guardianship, foster care, patronage and adoption)
186,000 grow up in institutions
Between 50,000 and 250,000 children live on the streets
source: Unicef

"Hospital staff are trained to care for the sick - they are not trained to deal with the cognitive and emotional development of babies," he told the BBC News website.

"This has serious implications both for the development and long-term health of the child."

Given the potential for damage to these babies' make-up, why do they get left in hospital? The answer, Maxim Gareyev explains, is lack of resources.

"We simply do not have enough children's homes in Sverdlovsk [the region around Yekaterinburg] and Russia in general," he says.

"These babies get left in hospitals but there are no funds or trained medical staff or special facilities for caring for them.

"Of course, the hospitals make space for these babies but the problem is that in the first year of life a baby needs to be cuddled, it needs to be talked to, if it is to develop as a human being."

Overworked nurses

Charities have stepped in to do what they can for the babies. Olga Bizimova, a 27-year-old married mother of two, became a volunteer in Yekaterinburg's Little Stork group because she felt sorry for them.


Kirill, two months, featured in a Yeka-mama report on otkazniki

"We buy disposable nappies and baby food," she told the BBC News website.

"We visit our local hospital. We give the babies a bath, we dress them and, if we get permission, we take them out for walks. Then we come back and we play games and feed them."

She also once visited Hospital No 15, which treats infectious diseases, and she had the impression that it was a "good, clean hospital where the kids are looked after well".

"The only problem was that the nurses in charge of them had an awful lot of work to do looking after sick children and simply did not have the time to look after the abandoned babies too," she says.

When Mrs Bizimova was at No 15, she was warned that some of the babies could have infectious diseases.

The city has a children's home specially equipped for treating such children but it is currently full, she says.

Carel de Rooy notes that the situation of children infected with HIV/Aids in Russia is particularly serious, with some babies "lingering in hospitals for 18 months or more".

Culprits

About 730,000 children are growing up in Russia without their biological parents, of whom only 10% are orphans in the true sense of the word, according to Unicef.

It is not the job of hospital staff to care for babies full-time

Maxim Gareyev
Editor of Yekaterinburg newspaper Yeka-mama

Almost 75% of them grow up in families through guardianship, foster care, patronage or adoption but that leaves about 186,000 children growing up in institutions.

For volunteer Olga Bizimova, the main reasons why mothers give up their babies are lack of money and living-space along with problems such as alcoholism.

Mr de Rooy agrees that Russia's economic growth has "unfortunately not translated into support for the poorest families".

But he also calls on the state to allow mothers more time to decide about keeping their children and invest in training for families, which "costs less in the long run than care in state institutions".

Maxim Gareyev finds a positive in the investigation at Hospital No 15: hospital staff have been given a "good scare" which will make them more careful about babies, he says.

Yet he is worried that a successful prosecution may only mask the longer-term problem of babies left neglected in hospitals.

"I for one could not bring myself to condemn outright any nurse that is convicted - it is not the job of hospital staff to care for babies full-time," he says.

"I am afraid that she may be used here as a scapegoat when the real culprit is our state."



Bastard Russians and you can't blame this on Stalin, Mags.


Posted by Magnetonium on Feb-08-2007 02:02:

quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Look what is happening in Russia, just goes to show how degenerate the Russian people are:


Bastard Russians and you can't blame this on Stalin, Mags.


Thank you, Soviet Union! Actually, the problems began with the communists, they ruined the country, and when it collapsed, and all money was stolen, the country ripped open, in early 1990s these same communists creeped back to power. Why is it Stalin's fault - well, he started this sequence of problems in Russia. In Soviet Union many parents drank their lives away, and many children grew up without parents in special soviet institutions (like Internaat, emphasis on aa - Russian person would know what I am talking about). There was serious abuse within the family. When Soviet Union collapsed, the drinking problems, social instability became obvious as the government no longer had the funds. All the problems just spilled out open view. Just like under Soviet rule it was forbidden to talk about Chernobyl, it became a big topic again in 1991. And for victims of political regression, term coined for today's Russia, these people, victims were finally able to properly mourn their lost relatives, in Soviet times forced to shut up or be exiled to Siberia or gulag. It was very bad living in Soviet Union outside of denial and force feeding propaganda, it all turned out to be lies. Lenin turned out not to be the father of Russia either. I was 8 years old in 1991, very confused, upset, cheated when teachers were embarrassed and confused on teaching us, using the soviet books and notes because new Russian government didnt give enough funds for schools, so we had to be reminded that some stuff in the books was not true. It was very bad times ...


Posted by tyos on Apr-24-2007 11:49:

quote:
Originally posted by Dopey
I think the highest guestimate is 9 million. More realistically it was around 3 or 4.


you probably haven't heard of his actions against Ukraine?

around 14 million people were starved to death....


Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.