elmer here.

It's worse than that.

They still pull out icons of Stalin.

http://vkhokhl.blogspot.com/

This is part of the "now-you-see-it-now-you-don't" game that the russkies are playing.

All over blogs, the russkies will come out and say "Soviet Union was mistake, we are just Russians today."

In a pig's eye.

They throw hissie fits about - Soviet - memorials, and still worship Stalin and the Russo-Soviet empire.

Sick.

Very sick.

This is Hector,

This picture is merely a commemoration of the Red Army's victory of Hitler's fascism. Victory Day is an important holiday in Russia, it has nothing to do with modern day Russian politics. What flag were you expecting them to wave, the Czarist tri-color and the double headed eagle? An American flag, maybe? They waved Soviet flags because in case you forgot this victory was in the Soviet times, i.e a Red Army victory. It appears logical analysis isn't an anti-Russian bigot's strength.

This is Hector,

Kim, I took a look at the other photos, and noticed you didn't mention the sickening final one of U.S and Russian sailors on Victory Day displaying the U.S flag and the Russian tri-color flag. Obviously this would cut against the grain of your russophobia.

Many respects to the heroic soldiers of the Red Army who fought and died saving the world from fascism.

Then ask yourself this: Russia beat off the Germans in World War II and France surrendered to them. Which nation actually "won" the war? Which nation would YOU prefer to live in today?

I would prefer to live in a country that did not surrender in less than four weeks, while its firepower was the size of the enemy. If instead of the Soviet Union, France were present, the picture of today's world would not have been pretty. The "tragedy" of the Soviet Union would look like an out of this world paradise, given Soviet surrender and defeat in 1941 or 1942..

Are you proposing that we not celebrate those millions who fought and died for their country (they would have died and fought regardless of who was in power at that time; because they knew their independence was at stake)?

The country that won this victory is still here, the sons and grandchildren of those who fought are alive and well. Are you proposing Russia forget about its victory in 1812 over Napoleon, because that country is inexistent too. That we should erase our past,make the words "Soviet Union" taboo. To me that sounds like brainwashing.

I would like to see you come up to a veteran of the war and tell him that his or her celebration is over a fake cause. On the other hand,I would not be surprised if you have already done so.

elmer here.

The Red Army was in instrument of fascism.

The fact that one set of fascists, the Sovoks, defeated another set of fascists, the Nazis, is nothing to celebrate.

And the fact that Russia today uses its "victory over the German fascists" as part of its bullying tactics over former soviet republics is nothing to celebrate either.

It's more of the "now-we're-sovoks-now-we're-not" propaganda that russkies use today.

The Artificial Famine in Ukraine - well, that wasn't sovoks, that was Stalin.

But the russkies certainly do pull out the icons of Stalin in Crimea when they demonstrate against NATO, and cause all sorts of other unrest in Ukraine.

And the russkies, including the Russian Orthodox Church, certainly pull out the "moving sovok war memorials is immoral" when other countries decide they've had enough sovok workers' paradise memorials.

As in Estonia and as in Poland.

elmer here again.

The US soldiers were not carrying pictures of Stalin, as many russkies do.

Nor were they parading around with missiles and tanks.

And let the russkies remember their war dead - no problem with that.

The problem is that Russia turns "Victory Day" into something more - it's not a respectful remembrance of the dead, but a propaganda tool to justify the re-emergence of a russkie empire.

Including glorification of Stalin.

Including missile and tank parades.

What on earth does that have to do with remembering the war dead?

And that's what's sick.

And disrespectful to the war dead.

To the above post,

Show me one example of "glorification of Stalin" by the Kremlin in the May 9th celebration. Just one! I really would like to see it...

Thank you in advance.

elmer here.

Clever little russkie.

I didn't say the Kremlin - I said Russia.

But the Kremlin, working in its devious little ways, does nothing to discourage it.

In fact, when Zvirinovsky organizes his car caravans with Russian license plates into Crimea, Ukraine, to organize various demonstrations, the babushkas are all wearing icons of Stalin around their necks.

Here's your example:

http://vkhokhl.blogspot.com/

You are welcome.

This is a part of the dichotomy of history and historical experience in Eastern Europe that will never be resolved. I agree that Soviet communism, especially under Stalin and his successors, was a form of Russian fascism, a militaristic and xenophobic ideology (despite its internationalist rhetoric) whose underlying basis was the expansion of Russian imperial interests. The fact that it was a milder and less murderous form of fascism (at least to us) than Nazism still does not change the fact that the 1944-45 "liberation" of Eastern Europe by Soviet forces was merely, to us, a replacement of one foreign imperial rule for another. We had foreign armies stationed on our soil, our governments were puppet governments subservient to the interests of Moscow, and our activities were severely restricted under the weight of extremely invasive police states - again, directed from a foreign capital.

We truly ARE grateful for the 1944-45 liberations, and can even find some positives in the decades of Soviet occupation that could serve as reconciliatory bridges in our modern relations, but any basis for our modern relations must begin with a Russian understanding that the Soviet Union was, from its neighbors' perspective, just another predatory expansionist imperial power very much in the same league with the likes of Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, etc. We look at the behavior of the USSR in 1933-41, with its vigorous support for (local small but radical communist) groups trying to overthrow our governments, its constant Bismark-esque diplomatic threats to the Baltic states, Poland, Romania and Hungary over unresolved territorial issues; its wars of conquest with Finland and Poland in 1939; and its deal to divide Eastern Europe with Hitler in 1939-41; as very much unchanged and consistent with its behavior in 1944-91.

How would Russians feel if Germans wanted to celebrate their military heritage with a parade in Berlin that included modern re-enactors dressed as Nazi Wehrmacht soldiers? The feeling Eastern Europeans get when we see modern Moscow draped nostalgically in the old Soviet flag is only sightly less disturbing for us. If Russians ever wonder why the rest of the world remains unconvinced that Russia has given up its old imperialist past, well...

> Clever little russkie.
stupid little yank

> with the likes of Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy,
and bush's usa

you are nothing but bigots flocking to a bigot's hate dumpster

elmer here again.

Well, there it is.

The typical russkie attitude.

Other European countries have acknowledged the bad parts of their history and moved on.

Not so russkies.

They will simply and adamantly refuse to admit that the sovok union paradise was fascism, even MORE murderous than Nazism.

And - they refuse to admit that it was a failure, and then move on.

Russkies love misery - it makes them happy.

And - the people in Russia have agreed to be treated like idiots.

That makes them happy, too.

tomek - you have it exactly right.

I didn't say the Kremlin - I said Russia.

But the Kremlin, working in its devious little ways, does nothing to discourage it.

More than 95% of those with portraits of Stalin are grannies and grandpa's over 75. So in your opinion the Kremlin must use its OMON to snoop around the city tearing out portraits of Stalins out of the hands of these oldies. Stalin is part of Russia's history, and his crimes have been acknowledged by Russians, or in 1987-1991 by the Soviets.

You still did not manage to prove how the Kremlin hails Stalin through not taking away pictures of Stalin from the 50+ babushkas roaming around Moscow. If it did, you would be screaming that the "predatory" Putin regime is involved in human rights abuse.

We look at the behavior of the USSR in 1933-41, with its vigorous support for (local small but radical communist) groups trying to overthrow our governments, its constant Bismark-esque diplomatic threats to the Baltic states, Poland, Romania and Hungary over unresolved territorial issues; its wars of conquest with Finland and Poland in 1939; and its deal to divide Eastern Europe with Hitler in 1939-41; as very much unchanged and consistent with its behavior in 1944-91.

Tomek, In case you have forgotten (I presume you are Eastern European) your Western friends from 1936 and onwards had been appeasing Hitler, and sold off Czechoslovakia to him in 1938 without consulting Czechoslovakia. But somehow they seem painted golden in the "new" history of the World War II.

How would Russians feel if Germans wanted to celebrate their military heritage with a parade in Berlin that included modern re-enactors dressed as Nazi Wehrmacht soldiers?

I understand why Eastern Europe would feel disgusted with this display. The events if 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Prague were one of the worst acts of Soviet foreign policy in Europe.

But May 9th celebrates defeat over Nazi Germany; the fact that the Soviet Union performed its part on the Eastern front means that its history in that time will be celebrated. Erasing its contribution in that aspect from history is wrong. You must understand the pride the Russians feel about their victory; this is the only way I can explain it.

Clever, clever little Russkie.

You are very, very good at setting up straw men.

First, I did not claim, nor would I condone, the OMON invading peoples' houses to remove pictures of Stalin from grannies and grandpas.

That would be like - oh, gee, that would be like the sovok union. And the KGB. Invading peoples' houses for whatever reason they felt, including interrogating people about who was participating in religious services, and trying to pry the names of the priests or ministers and the local (secret - of course) congregation.

Second, noone is trying to erase history here.

The point is that if one is going to respectfully remember the war dead, then it ought to be done in a manner other than what looks like a resurrection of the sovok union.

And this business about Stalin - that, too, is part of the "now-you-see-it-now-you-don't" trickery of clever little russkies.

Example - countless times, I have heard clever littlel russkies shrieking and screaming about how the Artificial Famine, the Holodomor, was not Russia's fault.

"It was Stalin" they scream and shriek, "and he was not Russian."

So, apparently, Stalin, all by his lonesome, invaded Russia one evening, took over, and committed crimes, which russkies "acknowledge."

Rubbish.

And how many times over the past 3 years have I heard the word "stabilnost"?

"Stabilnost" means "we want the kind of sit-down-and-shut-up stability that Stalin had, when he ruled with torture and an iron first."

It also means a "managed" or "guided" democracy, and an "official" opposition.

Sort of like the "official" Russian Orthodox Church during the sovok union.

When it comes to government, russkies are absolutely, horridly schizoid.

elmer

See how many pictures of Stalin you can count.

And how many of those holding them are "over 75" grannies and grandpas.

See whether you can tell if the driver of the van with the HUGE poster of Stalin is "over 75."

Sick, disgusting little russkies.

http://vkhokhl.blogspot.com/

Sick, disgusting little russkies.

If you recall I never offended your backround, nationality, whatever it is. Pulling statements such as this is a pretty low form of arguing. If this is the attitude you take to debate, I am not surprised at the way foreigners like you are treated in Russia as low-life misinformed intellectuals.

"Stabilnost" means "we want the kind of sit-down-and-shut-up stability that Stalin had, when he ruled with torture and an iron first."

We do, and why is this a concern to you?

This is Hector,

Elmer, are you literally this ill-informed at to call the Red Army fascists? Goddamn, these russophobic bigots must be American patriots. The Red Army was a mulinational army, fighting for revolutionary internationalism (despite Stalin). If anything it is the U.S and British armies that have more in common with fascism. Look at the way U.S soldiers of color were treated, not to mention British slavery of India. The Red Army were fascists....only an American republican could possibly pull such a notion out of his rear end. Polish nationalists can whine all they want, but it falls on deaf ears until I start hearing their apologies to Russia for Pilsudski's Operation: Kiev.

this is elmer.

Hector - sovok fascism killed far more people than the Nazis ever did.

The Red Army was an instrument of sovok fascism, and its officers led from the rear.

The only multinational feature to it was that it was part of the Russo-sovok attempt to control the world.

Despite the fact that many, many nationalities did not want to be controlled by the russo-sovoks.

Not Hungary, not Germany, not Ukraine, not Poland, not Estonia, not Lithuania, not Latvia - not anyone.

You LIE, Hector.

Goodness knows why you want to glorify the fascist Red Army, and why you LIE.

This is Hector,

You really are a U.S patriotic moron, Elmer. "fascist Red Army", I would laugh if I knew you weren't serious. If you're refering to Stalin's brutal methods, let me tell you, boy, most of these victims were Communists (all the old Bolsheviks, Bela Kun, Jaan Anvelt, Leon Trotsky, Adolf Warski, Henryk Walecki, Wera Kostrzewa, Franz Koritschoner, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, 90% of the Communist Party of Poland, Communists whom criticized Stalin's pact with Hitler, Communists who criticized Stalin's alliance with the imperialists, need I go on?)

The Red Army was not a fascist army (obviously history was never your strong point, much less your inability to tell amries apart). The Red Army was not about racial domination or extermination (U.S, British, Nazi armies seem to qualify). Fascism is just another form of capitalism, so now you're going to call the Red Army capitalist?

The Red Army wanted to control the world? Did you read that on the back of a cereal box? On the contrary thanks to Stalin's program of appeasing Churchill and the U.S, Communist revolutions didn't occur or were sold out (Spanish Civil War, Greek Civil War, post-war France and Italy, Austria 1950). If you're going to call me a liar, you better be able to back it up without a bunch of useless blunt statements. The U.S and British armies most resemble the Nazis; THEY'VE killed, enslaved, and never hid their intentions to control the world. This was not the behavior of the Red Army. They were greeted as liberators in each country, if you look around the internet you can find these pictures. Read a book, kid! Maybe then you'll develop yourself further than just posting baseless and blunt opinionated statements of anti-Russian bigotry.

Tomek, In case you have forgotten (I presume you are Eastern European) your Western friends from 1936 and onwards had been appeasing Hitler, and sold off Czechoslovakia to him in 1938 without consulting Czechoslovakia. But somehow they seem painted golden in the "new" history of the World War II.

Western Europe also has its dark side and indeed, no one quite knew how to deal with Hitler in 1935-39, BUT Western Europe did not cut a deal to divide the continent with Hitler; the USSR did. And the fact that Stalin was able to keep his territorial gains from his Hitler pact after the war also endears Eastern Europeans to the USSR all the more… Another crucial point about this is that in the West today, its libraries and bookstores are filled with books examining in brutal detail the role the West played in the abandonment of Czechoslovakia in 1938; meanwhile, it was illegal for us to talk of what the USSR did with Hitler in 1939-41 in my school days, and I've yet to see a Russian history of the war since go into any detail on this period either. Seriously, I ask, can you name for me five (5) Russian historical monographs that deal exclusively with the Hitler Pact of 23. August, 1939; the Finnish War, the 17. September; the invasion of Poland; or the conquest of the Baltics and Bessarabia/Moldavia in 1940?

I understand why Eastern Europe would feel disgusted with this display. The events if 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Prague were one of the worst acts of Soviet foreign policy in Europe.

But May 9th celebrates defeat over Nazi Germany; the fact that the Soviet Union performed its part on the Eastern front means that its history in that time will be celebrated. Erasing its contribution in that aspect from history is wrong. You must understand the pride the Russians feel about their victory; this is the only way I can explain it.

Being proud of the accomplishments of the Soviet army in 1941-45 we understand; that's normal and while it still makes us a bit uneasy, well, we get it. It's maybe the same thing for the British or Spanish today when French re-enactors parade around in Napoleonic uniforms. The problem is that it doesn't just happen on 9. May -- and even that date is a Russian contention, refusing to acknowledge with his Western allies that the war actually ended on 8. May; I still have old commie-era posters with the Russian date... -- it happens all year round. Nor is it just "grannies" who invoke Soviet nostalgia, the current Russian government is active in doing so, both symbolically (like the current "Russian" national anthem) and in far more sinister terms, like Putin's re-centralization of power in Moscow (i.e., his hands) after Yeltsyn had devolved much authority to the oblasts. This is what worries us most, that even the Russian government seems to have got hung up on nostalgia for the days when Russia was a great power, when Moscow was feared and respected -- if not liked, at least respected. Putin's statement 2 or so years ago that the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century sent shock waves and much stress throughout Eastern Europe -- your former empire. For us, the collapse of the USSR in 1988-91, while bringing regional instability, was a magical and extremely fortuitous event, very much akin to 1918, the last time Eastern European peoples could seriously contemplate their own futures and freedom.

Elmer, are you literally this ill-informed at to call the Red Army fascists? Goddamn, these russophobic bigots must be American patriots. The Red Army was a mulinational army, fighting for revolutionary internationalism (despite Stalin). If anything it is the U.S and British armies that have more in common with fascism. Look at the way U.S soldiers of color were treated, not to mention British slavery of India. The Red Army were fascists....only an American republican could possibly pull such a notion out of his rear end. Polish nationalists can whine all they want, but it falls on deaf ears until I start hearing their apologies to Russia for Pilsudski's Operation: Kiev.

If the Red Army and the USSR were internationalists, why did we in Eastern Europe only have to learn Russian language, history and culture for so many decades? Why didn’t we ever gat to study Ukrainian, Estonian or Chechen as equally "Soviet" languages and cultures? Bullocks; the USSR was a Russian imperial project through and through, even if the occasional non-Russian (ironically, like Stalin himself, though he was a thorough Russian nationalist) made it big. Even tsarist Russia had Georgians (Gruzy), Poles and Ukrainians in its services; why should Soviet Russia be different?

As for Piłsudski, I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read this. It is a statement dripping with Russian nationalism. First of all, "Кіїв" was never a Russian city, so why should Poles apologise to Russians? It has been ruled by Khazars, Væringjar, Lithuanians, Poles and Russians, but it is very fundamentally a Ukrainian city. If you are harking back to the ancient Rus of Oleg, Volodymir and Jaroslav; well, modern Russians are as related to Rus as modern Italians can claim to be ancient Romans. Ukrainians and Belarussians are siblings to modern Russians, not children, and just as much derived from ancient Rus. If Poland need apologise to anyone for what Piłsudski did in 1920, it would be to Ukrainians, not the Russians who were busily trying to re-conquer Кіїв for their restored empire (Киев). Indeed, that was the point of what Piłsudski was doing, having settled Poland's differences with the Petljura regime he was trying to forestall the Red (Leninist Russian) invasion of Ukraine. He was under no illusions that Poland would ever be able to hold Кіїв (as a restoration of 16th-17 century "Kijów"). The shame for us Poles is not what happened in Кіїв, but that Piłsudski later broke the treaty with Ukraine and consented with Lenin to dividing Ukraine between us, in the Treaty of Riga of 1921. Simply said, Piłsudski joined Ukraine in a bid to fend off a Bolshevik Russian invasion of Ukraine, and in the end Piłsudski just abandoned the Ukrainians and compromised with Lenin; for that, we would pay dearly over the next several decades through poisoned relations with Ukrainians, and Piłsudski's later Sanacja Poland was morally compromised. And BTW, our history and school text books say as much and acknowledge Piłsudski's misdeeds.

Ultimately, for all this discussion, serious Russians need to acknowledge that Russia in the very least has a major PR problem, and not just in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, most Russians I've known have resorted to the assumption that anything negative for or about Russia must be the work of evil and dirty foreigners, and usually the CIA or M15 plot. I can assure you that Russia's image in Eastern Europe was not generated by the CIA or any secret Western super-organization; it is very home-grown. From the Eastern European perspective, the average Eastern European does not hate Russians or even wish them ill will. On the contrary, it is widely accepted that the only way we will ever achieve full security in order to develop our economies, even with NATO, is if Russia itself achieves some semblance of security and prosperity itself. No one can impose that security or prosperity on Russia from the outside; it has to be done by Russians themselves in Russia. The West is not a military threat to Russia anymore, there are no large, looming external factors that could undermine Russian internal economic and social development. Despite what Germans did in Poland only some 5-6 decades ago, modern Poles do not fear Germany and look to it as a positive influence on Poland's future. We have our differences and we both sometimes have our petty nationalists who are still stuck in the past, but overall, Polish-German relations are on the road to normalization. We need the same kind of relational development with Russia -- it is a sine quo non of our successful evolution into a modern "first world" country -- but the overwhelming sense throughout all of Eastern Europe is that Russia is too nostalgically self-absorbed with its own more powerful past to bother developing equal relationships with its former satellite states.

Western Europe also has its dark side and indeed, no one quite knew how to deal with Hitler in 1935-39, BUT Western Europe did not cut a deal to divide the continent with Hitler; the USSR did.

In your opinion giving Hitler the ability to annex Austria, take over Czechoslovakia, and lead it East, leaving Poland virtually no options to defend itself, is not splitting up Europe into spheres of influence?

Seriously, I ask, can you name for me five (5) Russian historical monographs that deal exclusively with the Hitler Pact of 23. August, 1939; the Finnish War, the 17. September; the invasion of Poland; or the conquest of the Baltics and Bessarabia/Moldavia in 1940?

I studied history in a Russain high school, and have had the chance to read many texts of prominent Russia, Western historains, as well as Churchill's memoirs, and other classic books and documents, openly available and highly regarded amongst those who are interested in the topic.

I give you below 5 Russian books published in the past 5 years concerning the issues you requested: (The linksare in Russia, but I guarantee they are true and honest)

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2202276/

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2619840/

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2698088/

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/1599167/

http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2918241/

First of all, "Кіїв" was never a Russian city

Thats a far-fetched argument. Kiev and Novogord were the cities that gave birth to Rus' and later Russia. Ukraine and Russia are extremely intertwined cultures; it saddens me when I see this aggressive desire for their separation.

Ultimately, for all this discussion, serious Russians need to acknowledge that Russia in the very least has a major PR problem, and not just in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, most Russians I've known have resorted to the assumption that anything negative for or about Russia must be the work of evil and dirty foreigners,

I completely agree with you; the image problem is serious and needs to be addressed by both historians, media people and organizations, as well as politicians

This is elmer.

And I'm with Tomek on this.

He has it right.

"The Third Front"? By Leo No-name?

Come on.

"Fascism is just another form of capitalism"?

Good neo-sovok rhetoric.

At any rate, to get back to the issue, I really don't see what role dragging out icons of Stalin have in a respectful remembrance of war dead.

And you russkies really ought finally to come to terms with the horrid governments you have had historically.

Stalin is dead and buried. You should leave him so.

This is Hector,

For Tomek: I said that the Red Army was internationalist not Stalin's bureacracy. The Red Army meaning the army itself not the leadership. The Red Army under Lenin, Trotsky, and Tukhachevsky did not promote Russian nationalism like the Czarist Army, but was an internationalist revolutionary army. Stalin did have a nationalistic policy, but this was not the practice of Bolshevism. Note: Stalin killed just about everyone of them. Despite Stalin's degeneration of the Soviet Union it was still a workers state, and by no means an imperialist one.

Your statements are truly absurd and reeks of the stench of Polish nationalism. Pilsudski attacked Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Byelorussia on orders from the USA and Britain. You say that the Red Army was already trying to establish an empire? This is one really had me cracking up. Lenin gave Poland their independence from the Russian empire that they yearned for for so long, and in return Pilsudski threw it back in his face. Symon Petliura and his clique were overthrown by the workers of the Ukraine as a result of the revolution; and Petliura formed an alliance with Pilsudki promising parts of the Ukraine that he wanted if he helped overthrow the Bolshevik government and restore his power. The multinational Red Army drove out Pilsudski and Petliura securing the workers democracy. Unfortunately, Pilsudski made a final counteroffensive in Warsaw, so in the end it was a stalemate. 50,000 Red Army soldiers perished in Pilsudki's camps, so don't even think about whining to me about Katyn. I'll tell you what Pilsudskiite trash need to apologize to the Russians for: the Polish 5th Rifle Division fighting alongside the Whites in the Russian Civil War supporting Aleksandr Kolchak. They sure made a big mistake, Mikhail Tukhachevsky and the Red Army surrounded the bastards at Krasnoyarsk practically forcing them to surrended after they lost 90% of their men. Pilsudski's imperialist dream of a Baltic "Miedzymorze" federation was no more. So Polish nationalists have no right to complain about "Soviet repression" until they pologize. Next time America and Britain call for an invasion of Russia, you guys you'll know to stay the hell out. One question for you: where did I make a statement in support of Russian nationalism?

To Elmer: If you call me on something back it up. But at this point your only strength seems to be playing cheeleader from Tomek.