|
Post by sarmat on Jun 22, 2008 3:06:14 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 22, 2008 15:18:40 GMT 3
It's a fact and I don't deny that. I'm not saying that the Soviets were so good. What I'm saying is that you can't say that they were "worse than Nazist" Communists as a whole were worse than nazis. compare what Stalin, Lenin, Mao & Pol Pot did to their people compared to what Franco, Mussolini did. Mao even killed much more peopel than Hitler but there were also much more CHinese than Europeans. i was merely comparing Nazis and Communists, not Germany vs Soviet Union. Hitler (incl Göbbels) was an exception, also he was not Fascist but National Socialist. peopel always say Nazsi wanted this and that, this is also what Hitler hismelf claimed in his book, but it is unrealistic as a whole and what Hitler actually did (alliances with supposedly inferior races, hudnreds of thosuands of foreign volunteers, creatign countries liek Slovakia & Croatia). yous aid you can't judge the USSR by Stalin. i say you can't judge Germany based on Hitler. only Hitler and Göbbels really belived in wholesale extermiantion of Jews and slavery of inferior races, all others were just blidn followers or opportunists. after Hitlers death, Nazi Germany would have changed a smuch as the USSR after Stalin.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 22, 2008 15:20:03 GMT 3
all Volga Germans here at work (aged around 50) believed this and said this is what they had learned in school until i challenged them about this (and won) ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 22, 2008 15:35:27 GMT 3
Excuse me for calling your Bavarian, but the point is not whether you are a Bavarian or not, but how u distinguish the ethnicity and sub ethnicity. The features which in your view make Cossacks a separate people from Russians totally are applicable to the German ethnic group. bavarians etc are not just subgroups, they are individual tribes like Lombards, Goths, Franks. the reason that they are so close now si that they lived in the same cultural and political entity for centuries. as for Cossacks, you can considder them a subgroup, but i wouldn't because they are much different and also heavily mixed with Turkic people. maybe those were only individual Gulags but i know what i saw, youc an't deny that many Cossacks who supported Whites suffered repressions by the Reds. that many Germans also belonged to thsi wa snew to me, maybe they were mostly Baltic Germans. UPA were the only true Ukrianian Army in ww2 and they fought both occupation Armies from beginnign to end. Nazis had an Ukrianian Waffen SS Division which was later called Ukrainian liberation Army and also Soviets had numerous Ukrainian soldiers and particularly Generals. i can't udnerstand how they supported the Soviet regime after the Holodomor in the 30s, maybe they have a very short memory or liek being abused. it is clear Ukraine was heavily targeted by the Nazis because it was supposed the first area of settlement by German colonists. yes i agree with you, but a Red regime in Germany would have been much worse for us and maybe for the rest of europe as well. fortunately the Reds were defeated in the aftermath of the end of ww1 revolutions in Germany. i don't agree on Slavs, facts are heavily against this and i think this propaganda was the reason why the Soviet regime had so much support. first, Slavs in Germany, called Sorbs wer enever target of Hitelr in any way, they were considdered Germans and there was no difference bewteen them and Germanic Germans. second, mayn Poles were declared Germans and forced to serve in the wehrmacht. Czechs were more subject to repression, they suffered under Reinhard Heydrich and many Czehc girls who looked Aryan were selected for Aryan breedign programms. this was brutal but you can't say it was hate. Slovaks, like Croatians were allies of the Nazi regime. only Poles and Slavs of the Soviet Union really suffered heavily under Nazis but not Slavs in general. the lesser evil were Nazis and many people realized this. this is the essence of what i'm writing here.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 22, 2008 15:39:59 GMT 3
there are always two sides: what people say they do and what they really do. Nazis always said they are the superior race and hate everyoen else, but what they did was quite inconsitent with their own claims. the Soviet Union was quite different. they claimed equality of all races and fair treatment, but this is in comlete contrast to what they really did. most people only judge others on what they claim and say, not on what they really do. this is particularly important in politics. this is the very reason why idiots end up ruling a nation in democraties.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 22, 2008 20:42:12 GMT 3
It's a fact and I don't deny that. I'm not saying that the Soviets were so good. What I'm saying is that you can't say that they were "worse than Nazist" Communists as a whole were worse than nazis. compare what Stalin, Lenin, Mao & Pol Pot did to their people compared to what Franco, Mussolini did. Mao even killed much more peopel than Hitler but there were also much more CHinese than Europeans. i was merely comparing Nazis and Communists, not Germany vs Soviet Union. Hitler (incl Göbbels) was an exception, also he was not Fascist but National Socialist. peopel always say Nazsi wanted this and that, this is also what Hitler hismelf claimed in his book, but it is unrealistic as a whole and what Hitler actually did (alliances with supposedly inferior races, hudnreds of thosuands of foreign volunteers, creatign countries liek Slovakia & Croatia). yous aid you can't judge the USSR by Stalin. i say you can't judge Germany based on Hitler. only Hitler and Göbbels really belived in wholesale extermiantion of Jews and slavery of inferior races, all others were just blidn followers or opportunists. after Hitlers death, Nazi Germany would have changed a smuch as the USSR after Stalin. I don't judge Germany based on Hitler and I repeated several times that I was talking only about Nazists. Of course Franco and Mussolini regimes where much less brutal than Nazist, but they actually have another name i.e. fascists. Cocnerning the facts, I think millions of killed Poles, Czechs, Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians etc. are enough evidence about the Nazi attitude to Slavs. Hitler created those states: Slovakia and Croatia simply because he used the ancient Roman principles divide & impero. Before the war even Poland helped him against the Czechs and he was happy about this. Then he concluded the alliance with the "Jewish USSR" just because it benefited him for the time being. Of course he used the same strategy in the conquered nations, cause by dividing it's much easier to control. Besides, during all the war period there were resistand fighters in all of those countries like Croatia (Tito was also Croat BTW, howcome he fought against an "independent country" of Croatia) the same was in Slovakia. There were a lot of Slovak units on the Eastern front which defected to the Russians and the whole Slovak army was later created there. Also Hitler cut the territory and moved the people as he wanted. He did the same to Romania as Stalin, by giving Translivania to Hungary and than a lof Romanians had to forcibly resettle. This one of the reasons that Romanians didn't have any problems when the time came to fight against their former "allies." Bulgaria, refused to send any troops against the USSR at all and Hitler had to take it. About the comparison I thought we are comparing here the Soviet USSR system under Stalin and Nazi Germany. So, just if we take absolute numbers more people were killed or died as a result of Nazi rule than ther result of Stalin rule. If you take relative numbers, you'll see that Nazists were able to almost complitely exterminate some ethnicities like Jews or substantially harm some like Poles and Belorussians. Stalin killed millions as well but Hitler was a champion in this competition. Pol Pot, Mao etc. are different animals. Besides, their systems were quite different from the Soviet because of this there was a conflict between China and the USSR, which again was never as "evil" after Stalin died. It's also the fact that the Khmer rouge were destroyed by the Soviet backed Vietnamese communistis. And yes, about the ideology Communist ideology is much more humane in theory than the Nazi ideology in theory. Because according to it all the people are equal, but Nazist divided everything to superior and inferior. But of course, what was in the USSR under Stalin was not a communism at all (which btw I believe is impossible to achieve) but a prison, though USSR still had a more positive role as a whole than the Nazist Germany.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 22, 2008 20:46:51 GMT 3
all Volga Germans here at work (aged around 50) believed this and said this is what they had learned in school until i challenged them about this (and won) ;D. If you read the encyclopedia article, you see that it's based on the one book of a Soviet historian published in 1945 and the history of the USSR published in 1956. So, I really don't know what kind of school your friends attended I also met a lot of people in Russia who believed that Catherine sold Alaska. But it doesn't mean that they learned this in the school, it just means that they didn't learn well in the school and that history was definitely not on the list of their favorite subjects. Most likely they never learned at all. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Jun 22, 2008 21:06:09 GMT 3
I think that enslaving all other races, was not ever possible and Hitler must knew that.
I really wonder if he ever thought that it will someday happen.
Even extermination of all jews from whole world was not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 25, 2008 13:26:18 GMT 3
I have to agree with Sarmat on this: Soviet was better then Nazism
Also, Cossacks were not Russians, my ancestors were Cossack, and they were Tatar. My grandmother looks slavic due to my ancestors not thinking who they were penetrating (screwing too many Rus chicks), but her heart is completely 110% Altaic Tatar at present. She sets an example for my whole family to follow. And as we are nomads - we have no excuse in regards to foreign assimilation. Hard quote, but with her influence I was born and raised in Australia and still a nomad HA!
Ne ways the realities of Russian attempts to destroy roots and cultures is real, you can't deny that. They are already proving themselves f**ked by attempting to claim the expansion into Siberia as Russian expansion. I know for sure from my own grandmother's words that we expanded for the Muscovites, they couldn't expand for s**t. Soviet history tries and tries to destroy that. However all this still is better then Nazism.
Nowadays, all it takes is education, and one can stand strong in the midst of assimilation. Individual Russians are still very good people (skinheads only comprise 0.02% of their population - and yes, that's a statistic), it's their government which is f**ked.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 26, 2008 21:00:17 GMT 3
The whole point is that Cossacks are a "military class" not really an ethnicity. They were like "samurais of the Russian steppes" if you will. There are Tatar, Bashkir, Kalmyk, Buriat Cossacks. All of them are Cossacks, yet they belong to the different ethnicities. There are Tatar Cossacks, Nagaibaks. Some also sometimes want to distinguish them in a separate ethnicity (the same case is with the Christian Tarars, Kriashens) yet all of them are Tatars. The first RussianCossacks undoubtely were Turks, this is a fact. My own ancestor was Nogai BTW. But with centuries Russian Slavs overwhelmed and Tatar blood melted in the Slavic blood; Cossacks became a part of Russian ethnos. The same as for example, Britons or Normans became the parts of the French ethnos. Concerning the other ethnicities like Tatars, Bashkirs, Kalmyks etc. at the different stages of their history some of them were accepted in the Cossack military class and were awarded corresponding privileges, however it didn't change their ethnicity in any way. Could you also clarify, the point about the Russian expansion in Siberia? I didn't get it. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 26, 2008 22:29:16 GMT 3
The whole point is that Cossacks are a "military class" not really an ethnicity. They were like "samurais of the Russian steppes" if you will. no they are both, thats already what i said in the beginning. Cossacks only later became a military class, before that they were subject to no one. you can't be a military class if there are no other classes. a class society needs other classes otherwise there are no classes as such. compare to Gurkhas, Apache scouts, bengal Horse etc...thats the principle of what the british empire called "martial races". there are numerous examples for that in history and Cossacks are not special.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 27, 2008 1:46:00 GMT 3
Sarmat,
Volga-Bulgar/Siberian expansion was done by Cossacks - not Russians.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 27, 2008 6:33:54 GMT 3
no they are both, thats already what i said in the beginning. Cossacks only later became a military class, before that they were subject to no one. you can't be a military class if there are no other classes. a class society needs other classes otherwise there are no classes as such. compare to Gurkhas, Apache scouts, bengal Horse etc...thats the principle of what the british empire called "martial races". there are numerous examples for that in history and Cossacks are not special. Before they really were a bunch of outcasts and freedom loving serfs basically from everywhere. Which is simply witnessed by their Turkic name which mean free men. They simply were a social, but not an ethnic group. However, already by the end of the 16th century most of these "free men," were former Russian serfs and were ethnically Russian. Already in the 17th century in the Moscow state, Cossacks are considered as a special class of the Moscovite society. They took the part in Zemsky Sobors i.e. "The Assemblies of the land" in other words in the Russian feudal parlaiments. Note that only "Russian" subjects (not Tatars, Bashkirs etc.)were allowed to take part in these assemblies. Cossacks not only didn't reject participation in the Zamskys Sobors, but actualy were actively taking part in it. Cossacks deputies there are listed together with the deputies from "nobles," "merchants," "peasants," "strelets (riflemen)" and other social groups of the Muscovite state. All these prove that Cossacks from the very early stage of their history considered themselves to be a part of the Muscovite/Russian state and ethnically the same people of this state. Their status in this state later got only more institutionalized with time. Have you also read the "Tale of the Azov siege of the Don Cossacks" in 1641. Cossacks there directly say that they are "natural subjects of the Moscow state," "that they are part of Rus, although they escape from their to Don from slavery." I suggest you to read it. It's a very interesting document.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 27, 2008 6:42:38 GMT 3
Sarmat, Volga-Bulgar/Siberian expansion was done by Cossacks - not Russians. I'm still a bit confused. First of all, what is Volga-Bulgar expansion? Bulgars were destroyed by Mongols. The lands of Kazan Khanate which was located on the former lands of the Volga-Bulgar state were conquered by the Russian tsar Ivan IV in the 16th century, there was no any "Cossack expansion" in this regard. Secondly, you didn't explain me why Cossacks are not Russians? Or you meant that the expansion was conducted mainly by Tatar Cossacks? As I already said, there are Russian, Tatar, Bashkir, Buriat and even Yakut Cossacks.But most of them are Russians. What is exactly you point.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 27, 2008 9:21:29 GMT 3
Let me reword it - expansion INTO Siberia
The name Cossack itself derives from Turkic. Cossacks were not Russians. The Tsars and Cossacks were also both independent from each other. Cossacks BECAME Russians and Russified Turks eventually but they were Turkic at first. That's my point.
For Slavic Russians to claim eastward expansion into the steppes is the same thing as Sino Chinese claiming westward expansion into the steppes. Both countries inherited their modern day territories by nomads fighting nomads.
Both countries say the same thing, Chinese go "Sure, the Manchus were nomads and could fight other nomads but many of the soldiers in expansion were Han Chinese". Russians go "Sure, the Tatars were nomads and could fight other nomads but many of the soldiers in expansion were Rus Cossacks" Same sh*t, still nomads fighting nomads.
|
|