what do you like or dislike about Russia?

[Self--Esteem]

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.

They didn't symbolize anything. They became regular citizens, after their father stepped back from the throne.

[Shofercia]

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?

I don't get why they executed anyone. The Czar ended the Czarist line, so it was unnecessary. He didn't commit genocide (other than what Lenists want us to believe) and neither did the Czarina. In fact, the Czarina was a major speaker for the poorer people and had a long standing friendship with Rasputin.

If there was reason to lynch anyone, it should have been the murderers of Rasputin.

He didn't commit genocide, true, and yet that's what history wants people to remember the last Romanov czar and czarina as, genocidal maniacs. I read an article on this, but it was such a long time ago I don't remember much of the particulars anymore. I have always wondered why, though, were they executed so brutally on the light that Nicholas II had already ended the line's claim to the throne with the act of abdication. He fully acknowledged the rise of the Bolcheviks and their government.

Murderers of Rasputin? I'm sorry, but Rasputin wasn't an "angel". He used to rape wives of noblemen for fun, harass noblemen and noblewomen repeatedly, and was only protected by the Tsarina. They killed him too nicely, I would've had him hung, drawn and quartered.

It's not about committing Genocide. The Tsar wasn't a racist pig. He led Russia into a disastrous war, that ended the Empire, because the people could take it no more. When you're working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, repeatedly, life ain't good. When you're at the front, cold, hungry, demoralized, ordered to charge machine guns with your bare hands, that ain't exactly top notch treatment. The Tsar needed to be killed to end the Royal Line once and for all. It's true, they didn't have to kill the girls, but everyone else deserved what they got.

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?

I don't get why they executed anyone. The Czar ended the Czarist line, so it was unnecessary. He didn't commit genocide (other than what Lenists want us to believe) and neither did the Czarina. In fact, the Czarina was a major speaker for the poorer people and had a long standing friendship with Rasputin.

If there was reason to lynch anyone, it should have been the murderers of Rasputin.

He didn't commit genocide, true, and yet that's what history wants people to remember the last Romanov czar and czarina as, genocidal maniacs. I read an article on this, but it was such a long time ago I don't remember much of the particulars anymore. I have always wondered why, though, were they executed so brutally on the light that Nicholas II had already ended the line's claim to the throne with the act of abdication. He fully acknowledged the rise of the Bolcheviks and their government.

It is Lenin's fault they were executed in this outmost brutal sense.

I just recently watched Hammer & Tickle, a documentary about the Soviets and the way humour in the USSR was handled.
The first part talks about Lenin and what a cynical monster he actually was. People swear that they have never seen him laughing a single day and thus he outlawed what little happiness remained in the Soviet Union.

I suppose he would fit the description of a genocidal maniac pretty well and have no doubts that a genocide would have been the outcome, if he didn't die weakened from those various heart attacks.

Didn't I already disprove your claim that humor was banned until 1970s, by showing you footage of a game show, centered around humor that was aired in 1965? Here's Lening smiling:



And Lenin ended his reign with the NEP, the New Economic Policy, which was by a longshot the most beningn economic policy of any Soviet leader, except Khruschev.

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.

Just another example of Yeltsin's respect for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly.

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.

While this may be true for the rabid nationalists, and states outside of the USSR under USSR's Colonial influence, (such as Poland,) most people in the former USSR are missing the good old days. When everyone had healthcare, when jobs were guaranteed, when we didn't have any wars, (except that one started and kept going, by the idiotic moron Brezhnev-Gorbachev team), when our Olympic Teams actually won medals, etc. 15 medals in Winter Olympics, that's just fucking pathetic. So it was good for Berlin, but USSR should've simply lifted the Iron Curtain, and crack down on rabid nationalism. Not through armed intervention, but through education.

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.

The Tsar got Russia involved in WWI, while his people were STARVING. The divide between the rich and poor in Russia, in 1917, was ATROCIOUS. The only that Russia lost to Japan in 1905, was because the Tsar FAILED to build a fucking railroad, BEFORE going to war, and sent in the Russian Navy to face Japanese on their turf, which was idiotic and unnecessary. He drove the Russians to revolt. If the people revolt against you - you are an extraordinarily shitty leader. The government was notoriously corrupt. If a rich person raped a poor man's daughter, all he had to do was to bribe the judge. It wasn't a good life. The people were already revolting, before the start of WWI.

I'm not denying that Berlin Wall was a symbol of oppression. However, people in Siberia, (since you mentioned it,) lived better under the USSR, than they do now. Of course you'd rather take the word of CNN, than of anyone actually living in Siberia. And I'd rather be forced to keep my mouth shut, than be forced to starve.

Also, video of Ukrainian Band, "Dress Code" singing about Putin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rhg1Ngz7y4 (it's in Russian)

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.

They were a symbol of oppression, and needed to disposed of. If it was me in charge, I'd take out the family, except the girls. Additionally, they repeatedly served as a rally symbol. Once they were gone, the Whites were dealth a massive morale blow.

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*

Ditto. I won't defend disfiguring either. It was unnecessary, and just plain fucked up.

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.

They didn't symbolize anything. They became regular citizens, after their father stepped back from the throne.

That's not what all the White Commanders were saying. They were still using God Save the Tsar as their rallying theme. Additionally some commanders were saying that as long as the Tsar was alive, God was on their side. Now let me see, what's an easy way to disprove that, maybe a bullet to the Tsar's head?

(edit: quote fixing)

[Lackadaisical2]

Here's Lening smiling:

I bet he just killed a kitten

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.

While this may be true for the rabid nationalists, and states outside of the USSR under USSR's Colonial influence, (such as Poland,) most people in the former USSR are missing the good old days.

Nations outside the USSR was exactly what I was thinking.

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.

They didn't symbolize anything. They became regular citizens, after their father stepped back from the throne.

That's not what all the White Commanders were saying. They were still using God Save the Tsar as their rallying theme. Additionally some commanders were saying that as long as the Tsar was alive, God was on their side. Now let me see, what's an easy way to disprove that, maybe a bullet to the Tsar's head?

^what he said.

[Self--Esteem]

Don't want to quote all your long post, so I reply without it.

1. Perhaps I was wrong by some years, then. But political humor definitely was outlawed under Lenin's and Stalin's reign. Here is the documentation to it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAf5vFep ... re=related

2. I would really like to know what produced this little smile on Lenin's face. But it is not necessarily said that it was a joke he smiled about.

3. I don't get my information from CNN. As a student, my mother served in Siberia. While she said nothing intentionally bad about it, she also mentioned that the people were poor (I know, the situation hasn't changed that much, but it is a proof that people wrongfully label Capitalism to be the fault for this poverty). Back then, there were many oil leckages, as people used to drill holes into the pipeline.

4 (reply to your claim about everyone having work). While this may be true, it definitely wasn't that workers paradise you want to label it. Millions of people died in work camps during Stalin's reign alone.

5. Bribery isn't exclusive to Capitalism. The USSR wasn't less corrupted than today's government.

6. What Yeltsin did was the right thing. Organisations opposing the right to free speech should not have this right themselves.


In addition: I would sincerely like it, if Communists could stop declaring their flawed politicians heroes. It's probably better for their own creditability, once the sole truth about their leaders has been revealed.

[Shofercia]

Don't want to quote all your long post, so I reply without it.

1. Perhaps I was wrong by some years, then. But political humor definitely was outlawed under Lenin's and Stalin's reign. Here is the documentation to it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAf5vFep ... re=related

2. I would really like to know what produced this little smile on Lenin's face. But it is not necessarily said that it was a joke he smiled about.

3. I don't get my information from CNN. As a student, my mother served in Siberia. While she said nothing intentionally bad about it, she also mentioned that the people were poor (I know, the situation hasn't changed that much, but it is a proof that people wrongfully label Capitalism to be the fault for this poverty). Back then, there were many oil leckages, as people used to drill holes into the pipeline.

4 (reply to your claim about everyone having work). While this may be true, it definitely wasn't that workers paradise you want to label it. Millions of people died in work camps during Stalin's reign alone.

5. Bribery isn't exclusive to Capitalism. The USSR wasn't less corrupted than today's government.

6. What Yeltsin did was the right thing. Organisations opposing the right to free speech should not have this right themselves.


In addition: I would sincerely like it, if Communists could stop declaring their flawed politicians heroes. It's probably better for their own creditability, once the sole truth about their leaders has been revealed.

1. You said all humor, not political humor. But even political humor was allowed during WWII, which was part of Stalin's reign. It was also allowed during NEP, which was part of Lenin's reign. That documentary is simply more anti-Russian propaganda.

2. First you said Lenin didn't smile. Now you claim that you'd like to know what produced the smile. Are you going to admit you were initially wrong? Stop trying to paint Lenin as some kind of a monster just because you disagree with his politics. This isn't the US Vice Presidential Debate.

3. While the people in Siberia were poor, they had the basic necessities. During Yeltsin's reign, some of the elderly froze to death due to lack of heating fuel. It was never this bad in post-WWII USSR.

4. I never said USSR was worker's paradise. I simply stated that life in the USSR was better than under Tsar Nicolas II, excepting WWII of course, due to the massive Nazi Invasion. Proof: under Nicolas II, the Russians REVOLTED. That doesn't happen very often.

5. Yes it was. Under Yeltsin, Russia was so corrupt, that the government actually considered making certain forms of stealing, legal. And that's just one example. Are you actually arguing that Yeltsin's Gov't. aka Russia's Mafia Gov't, was just as corrupt as the USSR's Gov't? http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/035.html, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/yelts ... 84824.html, http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5587, need more? Just Google "Yeltsin's Corruption" and enjoy a plethora of evidence. Please stop making comparisons that you clearly cannot back up.

6. What happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death?" Either there is Universal Freedom of Speech, or there isn't. And Yeltsin also had no trouble killing prominent journalists speaking out against his corruption.

7. What does this thread have to do with Communist Politicians being flawless? You wouldn't be happen to using this thread to take potshots at Communism, would you? And BTW, I'm not a Communist.

[Self--Esteem]

1. Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

2. I said he was humorless. You don't need humor to smile about the death of others or your own arrogance.

3. The fuel -- just like all other basic necessities -- started to become scarce long before Yeltsin. The planned economy failed and there was next to no progression. The only market that never failed was computers (like cheap Amstrad copycats)

4. True. The few times people revolted under the soviets, they were either shot to dead or sent to the next gulag.

5. Corruption in the USSR was just as worse. Especially under Brezhnev, corruption flourished. Which comes as no surprise, considering the horrendous bureaucracy.

6. People promoting oppression lose their right to free speech. And why shouldn't they? They never honoured it anyways.

7. It was a mere conclusion to my post, since I feel people are really putting those flawed soviets leaders on a pedestal.

[Panzerjaeger]

1. Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

Pfft everyone knows the Gulags were perpetrated by the Germans who invaded Siberia via Manchuria. Silly, silly man.

[Shofercia]

1. Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

2. I said he was humorless. You don't need humor to smile about the death of others or your own arrogance.

3. The fuel -- just like all other basic necessities -- started to become scarce long before Yeltsin. The planned economy failed and there was next to no progression. The only market that never failed was computers (like cheap Amstrad copycats)

4. True. The few times people revolted under the soviets, they were either shot to dead or sent to the next gulag.

5. Corruption in the USSR was just as worse. Especially under Brezhnev, corruption flourished. Which comes as no surprise, considering the horrendous bureaucracy.

6. People promoting oppression lose their right to free speech. And why shouldn't they? They never honoured it anyways.

7. It was a mere conclusion to my post, since I feel people are really putting those flawed soviets leaders on a pedestal.

1. First you said and I quote:

I just recently watched Hammer & Tickle, a documentary about the Soviets and the way humour in the USSR was handled.
The first part talks about Lenin and what a cynical monster he actually was. People swear that they have never seen him laughing a single day and thus he outlawed what little happiness remained in the Soviet Union.

Then I pointed out that Lenin allowed humor, and there's was quite a bit of happiness during NEP, thus discrediting you. You went ahead and claimed that the USSR was humorless till 1970. I posted a 1965 gameshow, based around humor. You then shifted your argument to political humor. I again discredited it by pointing out that during WWII and NEP, political humor was allowed.

Your response:

Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

When you're done rolling your eyes and arguing against strawmen, you may return to the thread. Your argument, and that horrendous' video's argument, that I have discredited, is that there was no political humor in the USSR. That is bullshit. After being discredited, instead of admitting that you are wrong like a man, you bring in Gulags? That's just plain sad.

2. Wow. Biased much? Lenin had a girlfriend, with whom he exchanged jokes. No one can talk about killing people 24/7. Even Hitler shared a few laughs with his generals. Your pathetic attempt to discredit Lenin based on your misguided perceptions of him, is a miserable failure.

3. Actually the bread stands were always doing well, and virtually everyone had basic commodities until the USSR fell apart.

4. Usually when people revolt anywhere, they are shot. I'm fairly certain the British were also shooting American Revolutionaries. And what was the Tsar's White Army doing? Baking cakes?

5. Erm no. Under Brezhnev the USSR did not sell its tank technology to the UK/US for a few million bucks. It wasn't nearly as bad.

6. So you are against universal free speech then? If your logic is to be applied, why should idiots have free speech? They'll usually fuck it up just as much as the CPSU if not more.

7. Apparently to you, saying that Lenin's NEP was a good policy is somehow putting Lenin on a pedestal. Russians listened to the West in the 1990's, and they got wars, disasters, famine, while Western Corporations made a killing. When Putin kicked some of these corporations out, the Western Media started whining about Putin destroying Democracy. What Democracy?! When, in the 20th century was Russia ever Democratic and not in a Revolution (1916-1922)? Don't you have to have Democarcy in order for Putin to destroy it? Or is Putin so cool, that he destroys things that don't exist?

And yet we have the esteemed western posters, such as Self-Esteem, lauding scum such as Yetlsin and Gorbachev, and calling Lenin "Genocidal". I think it's time for the Russian to think for themselves.

[Scott Tree]

Scott Trees top 10 reasons why its loves Russia here we go
Number Ten:

Mother Russia Jokes

Number Nine:

Land! Ya they have an ass ton

Number Eight:

Sputnik thank you for forcing the space age

Number Seven:

Being the test platform for communism so the rest of us could learn their mistakes
Before
After:

Number Six:

Stealth Aircraft Yes that right this guy Pyotr Ufimtsev worked it out thanks for doing the hard work for us.

Thanks guys

Number Five:

Recognizing this guy was a threat to humanity 20 years before America did by invading Afghanistan in the 80's

Number Four:

finding this basted body and sacking Berlin

Number Three:

An enemy you could trust not to launch, detonate, or use nuclear weapons possibility causing WWIII.

Number Two:

Vodka!!! If it’s not from Russia it tastes like crap.

And the Number One Reason is…:

Russian Women!!! YA! I have to say this is some of the best art I have even seen

And that is Scott Tree's Top 10

[Shofercia]

1. Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

Pfft everyone knows the Gulags were perpetrated by the Germans who invaded Siberia via Manchuria. Silly, silly man.

Wow. A double strawman to make a "wise" pun. That does not show wisdom. The initial argument was whether or not Russia had political humor under Lenin/Stalin. We all know Gulags were bad, but what does that have to do with the argument? When a source claims that there was no political humor in Russia, when there was, that source is anti-Russian propaganda. But sure, talk about Gulags if it makes you more comfy. Just don't whine when you get called out on it.

[Panzerjaeger]

1. Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

Pfft everyone knows the Gulags were perpetrated by the Germans who invaded Siberia via Manchuria. Silly, silly man.

Wow. A double strawman to make a "wise" pun. That does not show wisdom. The initial argument was whether or not Russia had political humor under Lenin/Stalin. We all know Gulags were bad, but what does that have to do with the argument? When a source claims that there was no political humor in Russia, when there was, that source is anti-Russian propaganda. But sure, talk about Gulags if it makes you more comfy. Just don't whine when you get called out on it.

Exhibit A: Russians have no sense of humor.
Exhibit B: Typical Soviet Apologist; But the GULAGS were mighty fine comrade and nobody died.

[Natapoc]

1. Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

Pfft everyone knows the Gulags were perpetrated by the Germans who invaded Siberia via Manchuria. Silly, silly man.

Wow. A double strawman to make a "wise" pun. That does not show wisdom. The initial argument was whether or not Russia had political humor under Lenin/Stalin. We all know Gulags were bad, but what does that have to do with the argument? When a source claims that there was no political humor in Russia, when there was, that source is anti-Russian propaganda. But sure, talk about Gulags if it makes you more comfy. Just don't whine when you get called out on it.

Exhibit A: Russians have no sense of humor.
Exhibit B: Typical Soviet Apologist; But the GULAGS were mighty fine comrade and nobody died.

Are you trying to be funny Panzerjaeger? Neither of your points even relate to his post. Did you notice that he is countering a clearly false claim?

Also where did he claim Gulags were "mighty fine" and that "nobody died" are you trying to troll?

[Swazderland]

They think their better then America.

they are, least they have culture

[Lackadaisical2]

They think their better then America.

they are, least they have culture

If I see another ignorant comment such as this I'm going to have to go burn all the music, novels and other cultural relics Americans have made.

[Risottia]

1. Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

2. I said he was humorless. You don't need humor to smile about the death of others or your own arrogance.

3. The fuel -- just like all other basic necessities -- started to become scarce long before Yeltsin. The planned economy failed and there was next to no progression. The only market that never failed was computers (like cheap Amstrad copycats)

4. True. The few times people revolted under the soviets, they were either shot to dead or sent to the next gulag.

5. Corruption in the USSR was just as worse. Especially under Brezhnev, corruption flourished. Which comes as no surprise, considering the horrendous bureaucracy.

6. People promoting oppression lose their right to free speech. And why shouldn't they? They never honoured it anyways.

7. It was a mere conclusion to my post, since I feel people are really putting those flawed soviets leaders on a pedestal.

1. First you said and I quote:

I just recently watched Hammer & Tickle, a documentary about the Soviets and the way humour in the USSR was handled.
The first part talks about Lenin and what a cynical monster he actually was. People swear that they have never seen him laughing a single day and thus he outlawed what little happiness remained in the Soviet Union.

Then I pointed out that Lenin allowed humor, and there's was quite a bit of happiness during NEP, thus discrediting you. You went ahead and claimed that the USSR was humorless till 1970. I posted a 1965 gameshow, based around humor. You then shifted your argument to political humor. I again discredited it by pointing out that during WWII and NEP, political humor was allowed.

Your response:

Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

When you're done rolling your eyes and arguing against strawmen, you may return to the thread. Your argument, and that horrendous' video's argument, that I have discredited, is that there was no political humor in the USSR. That is bullshit. After being discredited, instead of admitting that you are wrong like a man, you bring in Gulags? That's just plain sad.

2. Wow. Biased much? Lenin had a girlfriend, with whom he exchanged jokes. No one can talk about killing people 24/7. Even Hitler shared a few laughs with his generals. Your pathetic attempt to discredit Lenin based on your misguided perceptions of him, is a miserable failure.

3. Actually the bread stands were always doing well, and virtually everyone had basic commodities until the USSR fell apart.

4. Usually when people revolt anywhere, they are shot. I'm fairly certain the British were also shooting American Revolutionaries. And what was the Tsar's White Army doing? Baking cakes?

5. Erm no. Under Brezhnev the USSR did not sell its tank technology to the UK/US for a few million bucks. It wasn't nearly as bad.

6. So you are against universal free speech then? If your logic is to be applied, why should idiots have free speech? They'll usually fuck it up just as much as the CPSU if not more.

7. Apparently to you, saying that Lenin's NEP was a good policy is somehow putting Lenin on a pedestal. Russians listened to the West in the 1990's, and they got wars, disasters, famine, while Western Corporations made a killing. When Putin kicked some of these corporations out, the Western Media started whining about Putin destroying Democracy. What Democracy?! When, in the 20th century was Russia ever Democratic and not in a Revolution (1916-1922)? Don't you have to have Democarcy in order for Putin to destroy it? Or is Putin so cool, that he destroys things that don't exist?

And yet we have the esteemed western posters, such as Self-Esteem, lauding scum such as Yetlsin and Gorbachev, and calling Lenin "Genocidal". I think it's time for the Russian to think for themselves.

This thread is becoming a classical example of "much ado about nothing".
edit: with slight hints of a coming transformation into anti-Russian trolling... let's not, shall we?

[Swazderland]

yeah all right sorry for that misunderstanding

by culture i mean long lasting traditions
both america and australia both have none of that

[Swazderland]

They think their better then America.

they are, least they have culture

If I see another ignorant comment such as this I'm going to have to go burn all the music, novels and other cultural relics Americans have made.

including recession?

[Lackadaisical2]

They think their better then America.

they are, least they have culture

If I see another ignorant comment such as this I'm going to have to go burn all the music, novels and other cultural relics Americans have made.

including recession?

I didn't know we invented that one, but I'll burn it too, sure.

[Swazderland]

is anyone else getting this? (bet so)
but when your on this topic, some of the ads on the side are for russian dating sites

[Kingmakers]

In Soviet Russia, The nation state creates forums about disliking you!

[Shofercia]

1. Yea. Clearly anti-Russian propaganda. I am sure everything that happened WWII and post WWII was just a lie spun by the west. The people only pretended to be dead or end up in gulags.

Pfft everyone knows the Gulags were perpetrated by the Germans who invaded Siberia via Manchuria. Silly, silly man.

Wow. A double strawman to make a "wise" pun. That does not show wisdom. The initial argument was whether or not Russia had political humor under Lenin/Stalin. We all know Gulags were bad, but what does that have to do with the argument? When a source claims that there was no political humor in Russia, when there was, that source is anti-Russian propaganda. But sure, talk about Gulags if it makes you more comfy. Just don't whine when you get called out on it.

Exhibit A: Russians have no sense of humor.
Exhibit B: Typical Soviet Apologist; But the GULAGS were mighty fine comrade and nobody died.

Are you trying to be funny Panzerjaeger? Neither of your points even relate to his post. Did you notice that he is countering a clearly false claim?

Also where did he claim Gulags were "mighty fine" and that "nobody died" are you trying to troll?

Claims don't matter to those mad at me for telling the truth in Hitler's B-Day thread. And if I don't laugh at tasteless jokes, apparently I have no sense of humor. Sorry, but I prefer Carlin humor to tasteless humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxsMgCs ... re=related

They think their better then America.

they are, least they have culture

If I see another ignorant comment such as this I'm going to have to go burn all the music, novels and other cultural relics Americans have made.

But Americans burn their music anyways Granted, so do Russians. We've even reeducated that one idiot, and you guys made a rap song about it. We sometimes work well as a team: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gewdaLQ31lo

[Ulu Turan]

i dislike their imperial attitude in the countries of the former soviet union
i dislike their sense of lords
i dislike their forceful way of introducing lifestyle foreign to the former soviet union republics
i dislike their attempts to colonize the former soviet republics by settling russians and changing the demographic situation in whole regions
i dislike their attepts to influence the political situation and stop the normal development in the former soviet republics
i dislike their current attitude toward the minority groups and their intolerance of opposition thinking
i dont like their women, i will not soil my dick with them
i cant think of something i like about them

[LOLROFLCOPTERVV]

I like the fact that the women will have sex for a loaf of bread. Ironically most of them can make bread themselves.

[Ulu Turan]

I like the fact that the women will have sex for a loaf of bread. Ironically most of them can make bread themselves.

yes although i agree that the hunger makes you leave your morals and i somehow approve this, its true that they are very light women

[Mad hatters in jeans]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

if you like russia maybe that will alter your opinion a little.

but don't read it on a full stomach, it's rather sickening.