what do you like or dislike about Russia?

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

Ukrainians are bad farmers >.>



I really don't like Moscow, it's a completely different place then St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk or Krasnoyarsk and might as well be known as a separate culture.

Oh really now? Than why where you so eager to steal it?
Next you'll probably say we're bad engineers and physicists (we did, afterall, build your space program for you just like the Niemcy did for Amerika after the war)

I grew up in [eastern] Ukraine, the people there are better machinists then farmers.

[Independent provincess]

I personally like it there alot

i dislike that they have thousands of spies in america

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I have always disliked the way the Czarist line was disposed of.

Completely? Efficiently? Quickly?

Inhumane, cruel, blood thirsty.

^This.

I can understand disposing of the Czar and the Czarina. But executing the children, was that necessary? Nicholas II himself had already signed a document ending the Czarist line. Why execute the kids too?

you always have to kill the children. They grow up

And what do you think they could've done? Their father abdicated the throne, and with it, the Romanov claim to it.

What difference does that make? He abdicaed because he had to

Do you know what 'to abdicate' means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication

The children were Romanov. By the very act of Nicholas II renouncing the Romanov claim to the throne, what do you think that implied? Besides that, the Russian people didn't want a Czarist government anymore. They wouldn't have let the children or any loyalists reinstate a Czarist line.

[Self--Esteem]

America and Russia need to be better buddies.

Didn't Gorbachev tried this in junction with Reagan?

Yep, and it didn't end too well for Russia, did it?

Tbh, I can't quite recall.

I'm just thinking of how the average Russian fared under Eltsin, and how the average American fared under Bush senior/Clinton.

Is a comparison even possible?

Sure it's possible. However that comparison is invalid. Russia was going through a fundamental transformation at the time. And that transformation, although painful led to a better Russia. The United States on the other hand kept going like they have been going for a while.

I was wondering because I don't think there was much of a change between administrations in the US. I understand, and before anyone jumps in with weapons raised, that there is a difference between Republican and Democrat. But there aren't dis paring differences in government policies. At least, I don't think there are. That, I guess, is not always the case with Russia.

It was a fairly radical change for Yeltsin to outlaw the CPSU when it had been the dominant part of Russian society for 60 years, yes.

I had no idea Yeltsin had outlawed the Communist Party.

He killed a good portion of the members of the Supreme Soviet who held up and refused to surrender to Yeltsin and friends.

He did? I am reading about the CPSU's dissolution and banning by Yeltsin but I can't find any evidence that he killed a good portion of it.

He didn't kill anyone. Some GKChP members died during a shoot out, I think.
The rest of the GKChP was put into jails and charged for high treason, but released by the end of 1992.

[Khyrta]

I dislike the way they stick their noses in everyone elses business

wrong thread...

true. i honestly thought it was th U.S that stuck their noses in everyone elses business.

As much as people don't like to admit it, that's a pretty much common set of behaviors amongst all of the great powers.

An exampe would be at the end of World War 1 (I learned this in school) the U.S like went inot Germany and forced their leaders to sign a treaty that said they were not alllowed to have a military whether or not they were being attacked. I could eb wrong or off on a couple points though

There's a very, very vague hint of the truth in your statement, but it's buried under some very substantial misunderstandings. At the close of World War One, the major allied powers (US, UK, France and Italy) convened at Versailles, outside of Paris. Each leader came in with a different goal. Woodrow Wilson, US President, wanted to reshape the global system into a liberal and progressive order; Georges Clemenceau deeply wanted to punish Germany; Lloyd George wanted to ensure the well being of the British Empire and Orlando wanted a pound of Austrian flesh to improve the Italian strategic situation.

The harsh measures against Germany, for instance, were largely the work of Messrs. Clemenceau, George and Orlando. Wilson, a starry eyed idealist, wanted the conference to adopt his 14 points, including the League of Nations and other such things. He spent most of the conference sacrificing his idealistic points, to get a League, and was eventually roped into signing on to the vindictive party that was the Treaty of Versailles.

The US Senate, though, never ratified the Treaty, and as a result, drew its own post-war Treaty with Germany.

So, in summary, it was the Allies, not the United States who imposed the harsh Versailles Treaty upon Germany, and the Versailles treaty capped the size of the German military--it didn't forbid Germany from having a military.

Hope this has been helpful.

Yeah that was very helpful. They didn't really touch on this is school a lot. Sorta like some of the other things they never taught us, and probably should have.

[Ingwil]

Likes: the literature (Dostoevsky, Gogol), the philosophy (Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Qunanbayuli), some of the movies (Brother), the idea of a Big Russian Soul, borscht and smetana

Dislikes: the gloomy and suspicious outlook on life (part of the idea of a Big Russian Soul), the militarism, the racism toward Turks and Asians in general

[Panzerjaeger]

I will have to find the footage again but there is footage of Russian troops loyal to Yeltsin firing on the Supreme Soviet and CPSU headquarters with tanks and automatic weapons.

Ok. I do find it funny that after the USSR disappeared, there have been a lot of political parties formed in Russia who claim they are the 'true' successors to the CPSU.

Meh I confused it with the Constitutional Crisis of 1993 where they slaughtered an ass ton of people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhQpLZcnDGY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis

Still points towards Yeltsin's heavy handedness to the CPSU and Communists who refuse to accept the new regime.

[Natapoc]

I've never been there so I'm not sure. I hear there are not allot of fresh fruits and vegetables in some places. I wouldn't like that.

Still it seems like a great country overall.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I will have to find the footage again but there is footage of Russian troops loyal to Yeltsin firing on the Supreme Soviet and CPSU headquarters with tanks and automatic weapons.

Ok. I do find it funny that after the USSR disappeared, there have been a lot of political parties formed in Russia who claim they are the 'true' successors to the CPSU.

Meh I confused it with the Constitutional Crisis of 1993 where they slaughtered an ass ton of people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhQpLZcnDGY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis

Still points towards Yeltsin's heavy handedness to the CPSU and Communists who refuse to accept the new regime.

I think Self--Esteem cleared it for me a few posts ago. Thanks for the links.

[Awracji]

If they didn't obtain the nuclear bomb, who knows if America would have stopped with nuking Japan.

...well considering it took them a couple years to get the bomb, I think the answer is yes.

meh, certain generals have lobbied for the possible use of nuclear weapons throughout later wars...especially the Korean war. Good thing Russia by then had a bomb.

I'm certain that wasn't the only consideration in rejecting it's use.

I would have actually preferred them suing the bomb, rather than letting the millions trapped in NK suffer as they do now.

Maybe you should add that list with Detroit and New Orleans...those poor folks are suffering too.

Hardly the same, if you can't understand the difference between being forced to stay in a nation of shit and indoctrinated so severely you have little recourse and being born to have food and clean after shoved into your mouth I suggest you stop posting now.

I sincerely doubt that the NK people would welcome your kind of generosity (mass "compassion" killings). Who are you to decide their fate? You were so quick to protect your own kind but I guess wiping out the NK is nothing to you.

Yes, killing one or two millions of their soldiers and the Chinese would hardly be a massacre compared to the horrors visited upon them by the past 50 years of KIm.

And, lots of laughs at 'protecting my own kind' protecting my own kind would be not getting involved in the squabbles of the inferiors, but rather closing our selves off to the fuckers, let them all rot I say. South Korea owes us bigtime.

The South Koreans aren't stupid enough to allow America to nuke NK anyways (even with that despot Kim in control). They carry the same blood and wouldn't allow some foreigners to dictate the complete destruction of their own kind. As for the South Koreans owing America anything, they've proven themselves when they fought alongside with American troops during the Vietnam war.

Sure, now, but we're talking at the height of the Korean war? We had 90% of the peninsula...

They were quite fine with us dictating the everything for long enough.

They fought in Vietnam, huh? I'm sure that totally makes up for ensuring their freedom with thousands of American lives even to this day.

I do believe there were quite a few Korean nationalists who did (albeit exasperation perhaps) consider asking MacArthur to use the bomb. And just as Lackadaisical says, the campaign had effectively pushed the bolszewikij back up into Manchuria, so it would have been of little loss as the enemies were more or less concentrated back into enemy territory.

If only Truman and his crew were truly serious about this campaign than Korea would have resulted in the liberation of both Hanguk and Rzonghła... But than again, there is a rumor floating about that during the world war Truman gave Stalin the bomb in the first place (and it would not be too hard to figure, given FDR's association with Bolszewiky i Fabiany)...

[Spetsnazastan]

I like it's military.

[CIB EMPIRE]

I personally like it there alot

I like their Soviet past and their possibly soviet future, i dislike their current panzy situation.

[Self--Esteem]

I personally like it there alot

I like their Soviet past and their possibly soviet future, i dislike their current panzy situation.

The people will slaughter both, Putin and Medvedev, before that could ever happen.

[Shofercia]

Like:
People, culture, history, military, education, leadership [certina parts about it], modernization, music.

Dislike:
Economics, justice system, music.

I agree with this, mostly.

Except for the music.

Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OFOPd6pgjI

Ukrainians have the best Putin song

I personally like it there alot

Ask the twenty plus million Ukrainians they killed.

First: that's not an actual fact
Second: wrong thread

That nagging feeling that it is actually being run by organised criminal gangs made up of ex-KGB and military people who won't hesitate to poison traitors with polonium or not investigate journalist deaths.

Fixed for you.

I have always disliked the way the Czarist line was disposed of.

Completely? Efficiently? Quickly?

Inhumane, cruel, blood thirsty.

Like the Tsar treated the Russian People? Karma's a bitch.

They think their better then America.

What country doesn't?

America and Russia need to be better buddies.

Didn't Gorbachev tried this in junction with Reagan?

Yep, and it didn't end too well for Russia, did it?

If freedom of speech, free travel and the torn down Berlin wall are your definition that something didn't end too well.

Berlin's not a Russian city. That ended with 3 million Russians dying of hunger and decease that were easily preventable under the Soviet Government. It ended with the break up of Russia, the rise of rabid racism and Fascism, and numerous wars. And Vlad Listev, the father of Russian Journalism, was assasinated for speaking freely. Travel, via mass transportation was relatively cheap in USSR, and more expensive in Russia. It didn't end well at all.

[Lackadaisical2]

Do you know what 'to abdicate' means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication

The children were Romanov. By the very act of Nicholas II renouncing the Romanov claim to the throne, what do you think that implied? Besides that, the Russian people didn't want a Czarist government anymore. They wouldn't have let the children or any loyalists reinstate a Czarist line.

Well at the time there were still White forces around, so I think it was reasonable to want to ensure that they the Romanovs wouldn't be around to act as a rallying cry.

[Lackadaisical2]

America and Russia need to be better buddies.

Didn't Gorbachev tried this in junction with Reagan?

Yep, and it didn't end too well for Russia, did it?

If freedom of speech, free travel and the torn down Berlin wall are your definition that something didn't end too well.

Berlin's not a Russian city. That ended with 3 million Russians dying of hunger and decease that were easily preventable under the Soviet Government. It ended with the break up of Russia, the rise of rabid racism and Fascism, and numerous wars. And Vlad Listev, the father of Russian Journalism, was assasinated for speaking freely. Travel, via mass transportation was relatively cheap in USSR, and more expensive in Russia. It didn't end well at all.

Maybe not as well for the Russians, but I think many people were pretty happy to be released from the yoke of the USSR.

[Sharfghotten]

Do you know what 'to abdicate' means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication

The children were Romanov. By the very act of Nicholas II renouncing the Romanov claim to the throne, what do you think that implied? Besides that, the Russian people didn't want a Czarist government anymore. They wouldn't have let the children or any loyalists reinstate a Czarist line.

Well at the time there were still White forces around, so I think it was reasonable to want to ensure that they the Romanovs wouldn't be around to act as a rallying cry.

Yes, but it wasn't really reasonable to murder them all and disfigure their bodies.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Do you know what 'to abdicate' means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication

The children were Romanov. By the very act of Nicholas II renouncing the Romanov claim to the throne, what do you think that implied? Besides that, the Russian people didn't want a Czarist government anymore. They wouldn't have let the children or any loyalists reinstate a Czarist line.

Well at the time there were still White forces around, so I think it was reasonable to want to ensure that they the Romanovs wouldn't be around to act as a rallying cry.

That could've been solved by re-educating the children. Besides, Alexei, the czarevich, was very ill with hemophilia. He posed no threat.

[Self--Esteem]

Like:
People, culture, history, military, education, leadership [certina parts about it], modernization, music.

Dislike:
Economics, justice system, music.

I agree with this, mostly.

Except for the music.

Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OFOPd6pgjI

Ukrainians have the best Putin song

I personally like it there alot

Ask the twenty plus million Ukrainians they killed.

First: that's not an actual fact
Second: wrong thread

That nagging feeling that it is actually being run by organised criminal gangs made up of ex-KGB and military people who won't hesitate to poison traitors with polonium or not investigate journalist deaths.

Fixed for you.

I have always disliked the way the Czarist line was disposed of.

Completely? Efficiently? Quickly?

Inhumane, cruel, blood thirsty.

Like the Tsar treated the Russian People? Karma's a bitch.

They think their better then America.

What country doesn't?

America and Russia need to be better buddies.

Didn't Gorbachev tried this in junction with Reagan?

Yep, and it didn't end too well for Russia, did it?

If freedom of speech, free travel and the torn down Berlin wall are your definition that something didn't end too well.

Berlin's not a Russian city. That ended with 3 million Russians dying of hunger and decease that were easily preventable under the Soviet Government. It ended with the break up of Russia, the rise of rabid racism and Fascism, and numerous wars. And Vlad Listev, the father of Russian Journalism, was assasinated for speaking freely. Travel, via mass transportation was relatively cheap in USSR, and more expensive in Russia. It didn't end well at all.

Prove to me that the Czar mistreated his people in the way soviets mistreated loyalists and everyone who disagreed. People should stop equating "doesn't care" to "mistreat". That's just a cynical, dependent view, imho.

And right. Berlin isn't a Russian city, but people to the east of it suffered from communism. People in the GDR, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Siberia, etc. The Berlin Wall was a monument of oppression.

[Self--Esteem]

No way any of the Romanovs could have posed a threat. I don't think anyone of them would have tried to retake the throne. Somehow, I think Nicolas II was happy to be released from this weightful burden of responsibility.

[Solyhniya]

Ukrainians are bad farmers >.>

I'd rather have it said that "Ukrainians are bad farmers" than "Ukrainians are backwards, rural countryfolk who can do nothing but farm the shit out of anything" xD

By the way, with a name like "Chernobyl-Pripyat" (two places in Ukraine) I would assume you are Ukrainian. Is this not true?

[Lackadaisical2]

Do you know what 'to abdicate' means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication

The children were Romanov. By the very act of Nicholas II renouncing the Romanov claim to the throne, what do you think that implied? Besides that, the Russian people didn't want a Czarist government anymore. They wouldn't have let the children or any loyalists reinstate a Czarist line.

Well at the time there were still White forces around, so I think it was reasonable to want to ensure that they the Romanovs wouldn't be around to act as a rallying cry.

Yes, but it wasn't really reasonable to murder them all and disfigure their bodies.

Well, murdering was probably a good idea, disfiguring I obviously can't defend much, maybe its good for demoralizing the enemy. *shrug*

[Lackadaisical2]

Do you know what 'to abdicate' means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication

The children were Romanov. By the very act of Nicholas II renouncing the Romanov claim to the throne, what do you think that implied? Besides that, the Russian people didn't want a Czarist government anymore. They wouldn't have let the children or any loyalists reinstate a Czarist line.

Well at the time there were still White forces around, so I think it was reasonable to want to ensure that they the Romanovs wouldn't be around to act as a rallying cry.

That could've been solved by re-educating the children. Besides, Alexei, the czarevich, was very ill with hemophilia. He posed no threat.

Again its not the kids themselves that are a threat, its what they symbolize.

[Indo-Iran]

The bad: A love for authoritarianism. Cultural chauvinism unrivaled in Europe.
The good: Great composers, good filmmakers, great painters.

[Awracji]

Ukrainians are bad farmers >.>

I'd rather have it said that "Ukrainians are bad farmers" than "Ukrainians are backwards, rural countryfolk who can do nothing but farm the shit out of anything" xD

By the way, with a name like "Chernobyl-Pripyat" (two places in Ukraine) I would assume you are Ukrainian. Is this not true?

Hmmm, true.