what do you like or dislike about Russia?

[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.

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?

Yes I was trying to be funny as was my original post but Shofercia for some reason took Germans running the GULAGs seriously.

[Chakforia]

Like:
Women
Food
Women
Progress made in the past 10 years
Women


Dislike:
Weather

[United South-Africa]

They think their better then America.

They are better than America - and I'm no big fan of Russia either...

[The Black Plains]

I love the fact that I don't live there.

[Awracji]

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

But they DO support and are very close allies with those who would...

[Awracji]

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

I am in agreement with pretty much everything you said (especially about their use of immigration and colonization to change demographics). Are you Turqestani by any chance? I support a united Turqestan too, like I do with united Slawija (Ukrajina and Qazaqstan are honorary brothers through Stalin's terrors).

[Self--Esteem]

@Shofercia

1. You pointed out that all kinds of humor are allowed. How nice of you. How about proving it? Which will be pretty difficult, considering all the political prisoners.

2. Any facts to that girlfriend story? I know he was married but can you possibly prove that they both had the great humor you are claiming they had? Also, I do not try to discredit him. I try to stop those attempts of humanizing him. He was an anti-democratic tyrant and history proves it.

3. I brought up gulags because they contradict you. Are you really that naive to think that only criminals ended up in the gulags?

4. Saying that "everyone had basic commodities" is a backhanded way of telling someone that they didn't even have enough toilet paper.

5. Only that the revolution was long over then. Why were people shot in 1949? Why in 1968? Why through all those years inbetween? I seriously don't know how someone with a clear mind could defend that position.

6. Who the hell cares for the military? Was that all this damned Soviet Russia was about? People lacked necessities and could only get them through bribery. Which is far worse than selling some old, outdated tanks.

7. If you deny other's the right to freedom of speech, you should be stripped of your right to do it. Simple logic. Only fanatics could be against it.


Can you actually prove any of the things you said? Because I seriously doubt you are old enough to know first hand (as in actually seeing it yourself) how the breadstands looked in the 1920s or how people were persecuted during the earlier years. So evidence (history books, interviews with people who lived during that reign, etc) would be great.

[The Blaatschapen]

I personally like it there alot

*reacting to OP*

Yes, I liked it a lot too when I was there. Nice country, cold weather some beautiful cities and even more beautiful girls. Very interesting history too.. I should go back there someday

What I dislike is their domestic politics and lack of freedoms.

[Shofercia]

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.

You mean countries commit crimes during warfare
And other countries, during the Cold War, make up bullshit about them?
And countries that just threw off the yoke of Soviet opression might have people that overdramatize?
And Wikipedia isn't a Russian-Friendly encyclopedia? http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikipediametric

Wow, I learned so much new stuff today! Way to judge the entire tree by several bad apples.

Should I, using your logic, judge all Americans by Bush? All Brits by Brown? Or, to expand your "stellar" logic, all white people by Hitler?

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?

Yes I was trying to be funny as was my original post but Shofercia for some reason took Germans running the GULAGs seriously.

I did?! Can you show me where I said that? Or is that just something else you made up? And btw, Nazis didn't run Gulags, as Gulags were too nice by Nazi standards. They had gas chambers. Personally, I prefer Gulags over gas chambers, but I'm biased, being Russian and all

@Shofercia

1. You pointed out that all kinds of humor are allowed. How nice of you. How about proving it? Which will be pretty difficult, considering all the political prisoners.

2. Any facts to that girlfriend story? I know he was married but can you possibly prove that they both had the great humor you are claiming they had? Also, I do not try to discredit him. I try to stop those attempts of humanizing him. He was an anti-democratic tyrant and history proves it.

3. I brought up gulags because they contradict you. Are you really that naive to think that only criminals ended up in the gulags?

4. Saying that "everyone had basic commodities" is a backhanded way of telling someone that they didn't even have enough toilet paper.

5. Only that the revolution was long over then. Why were people shot in 1949? Why in 1968? Why through all those years inbetween? I seriously don't know how someone with a clear mind could defend that position.

6. Who the hell cares for the military? Was that all this damned Soviet Russia was about? People lacked necessities and could only get them through bribery. Which is far worse than selling some old, outdated tanks.

7. If you deny other's the right to freedom of speech, you should be stripped of your right to do it. Simple logic. Only fanatics could be against it.


Can you actually prove any of the things you said? Because I seriously doubt you are old enough to know first hand (as in actually seeing it yourself) how the breadstands looked in the 1920s or how people were persecuted during the earlier years. So evidence (history books, interviews with people who lived during that reign, etc) would be great.

1. I showed you a video of a game show involving humor. I can also cite "Vasily Terkin" the excellent and humorous novel of WWII. You do understand that in the USSR, you could become a political prisoner for other things, besides humor, right? Like belonging to the Menshevik Party.

2. You don't like his politics, so you're dehumanizing him. What do you know about Lenin, aside from the propaganda that you watched about him? He actually had a wife, I said girlfriend, just to show everyone that you don't do any research. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSkrupskaya.htm In the article, there's a photo of Krupskaya and Lenin sharing a laugh. Here's a book that pretty much discredits everything you said about Lenin: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Reminiscences-L ... 867&sr=1-1 And you know what else? It's written with a sense of humor.

3. No, I read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. Here is my point #3

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

How do the Gulags contradict that? I said virtually everyone, never said everyone. Seems like you're just attacking a strawman again. Yes Gulags were bad. Good strawman. Can we move on now?

4. The had plenty of toilet paper. Are you naive enough to think that Russians wouldn't figure out to use "Pravda" for toilet paper? It was "soft, strong and throughoutly absorbant". Seriously, stop your empty bashing, it's getting old.

5. People were shot in 1949 as a result of inner squabbling with the Politburo, and in 1968 because Brezhnev was a moron. People make mistakes and others get shot. That doesn't mean there's a revolution. And I think the 1968 Prague Spring was a disaster. But just because it was a disaster, doesn't mean that it was done to suppress a revolution.

6. Apparently everyone. You kinda need a military to survive. Iraq had virtually no military. Iran has a military. Which country got invaded? Additionally, you are confusing bribery and the black market. Those two are not the same. In terms of bribery, the rich, those who have the highest ability to bribe, win. A black market works just like any market, where anyone can buy supplies. It's called the black market, not the black auction for a reason, but it seems in your hatred for the USSR you managed to confuse the two.

7. But how do you classify a fanatic? Someone who holds views on free speech opposite to those of your own? Then aren't you just silencing the opposition, like Stalin?

You want evidence? Well the Soviet Movies for one, pretty much agreed that NEP was great. There are a series of books written about WWII. An example is Gabe Temkin's, who actually fought in the Red Army and later became a professor in a college in America, would be his book, My Just War. If you can show me that you actually have an open mind, I'll try to look for other sources. The breadstands didn't change much between 1920 and 1990. They sell bread. I never argued that people weren't persecuted. I've admitted that Gulags were bad, that Collectivization didn't help, that the purges were worse, and that Stalin shouldn't have taken "his part" of Eastern Europe in 1939.

However Gulags wasn't the only thing active in the USSR. We also had sports, great movies, tons of sport facilities, plenty of jobs available, safe neighborhoods, etc. By focusing on the bad, you miss the good. And when you get old, if you're only focusing on the bad, you'll understand that you wasted your life.

[Self--Esteem]

I will reply later (gotta go to bed) but just to clear up one thing:

I did my research, hence I said he was married (had a wife).

[Conserative Morality]

Likes:

The Accents
The Putin Jokes

Dislikes:

The aggressive foreign policy, we're supposed to be the only Superpower 'round these parts.

[Dyakovo]

Like: Nothing.

Dislike: People, Government, Food, Music, History.

What is wrong with the Russian people and food?

Russian people aren't good food?

[Dyakovo]

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?

Because it eliminated all claim to the throne.

[Dyakovo]

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?

Because it eliminated all claim to the throne.

[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?

Because it eliminated all claim to the throne.

Nicholas II had already abdicated all claim to the throne by signing his abdication act, his claim and that of his children. No Romanov could lay claim to the Russian czarist throne. It was over. The czarevich Alexei was incredibly sick and most certainly he would've died before the majority of age. The Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne.

[Allbeama]

The dictator could be problematic...

But I love the women!

[Dyakovo]

Nicholas II had already abdicated all claim to the throne by signing his abdication act, his claim and that of his children. No Romanov could lay claim to the Russian czarist throne. It was over. The czarevich Alexei was incredibly sick and most certainly he would've died before the majority of age. The Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne.

And what guarantee did the Bolsheviks have that no-one would try to re-install the Romanov line? Much simpler to eliminate that potential (albeit unlikely) possibility by eliminating the Romanovs entirely.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Nicholas II had already abdicated all claim to the throne by signing his abdication act, his claim and that of his children. No Romanov could lay claim to the Russian czarist throne. It was over. The czarevich Alexei was incredibly sick and most certainly he would've died before the majority of age. The Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne.

And what guarantee did the Bolsheviks have that no-one would try to re-install the Romanov line? Much simpler to eliminate that potential (albeit unlikely) possibility by eliminating the Romanovs entirely.

The fact that the entire royal family was thrown helter skelter. And and that the Russian people would not tolerate a monarchy anymore. If the Bolshevik had any worries about the children, they could have easily re-educate them. I can see the need, although I do not approve of it, of eliminating the czar and the czarina. But the kids? Nope.

[Dyakovo]

Nicholas II had already abdicated all claim to the throne by signing his abdication act, his claim and that of his children. No Romanov could lay claim to the Russian czarist throne. It was over. The czarevich Alexei was incredibly sick and most certainly he would've died before the majority of age. The Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne.

And what guarantee did the Bolsheviks have that no-one would try to re-install the Romanov line? Much simpler to eliminate that potential (albeit unlikely) possibility by eliminating the Romanovs entirely.

The fact that the entire royal family was thrown helter skelter. And and that the Russian people would not tolerate a monarchy anymore. If the Bolshevik had any worries about the children, they could have easily re-educate them. I can see the need, although I do not approve of it, of eliminating the czar and the czarina. But the kids? Nope.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the problem would not necessarily have been the kids wanting to restart the line, but more of someone wishing to use them as tools...
Killing them eliminated the possibility of either happening.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Nicholas II had already abdicated all claim to the throne by signing his abdication act, his claim and that of his children. No Romanov could lay claim to the Russian czarist throne. It was over. The czarevich Alexei was incredibly sick and most certainly he would've died before the majority of age. The Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne.

And what guarantee did the Bolsheviks have that no-one would try to re-install the Romanov line? Much simpler to eliminate that potential (albeit unlikely) possibility by eliminating the Romanovs entirely.

The fact that the entire royal family was thrown helter skelter. And and that the Russian people would not tolerate a monarchy anymore. If the Bolshevik had any worries about the children, they could have easily re-educate them. I can see the need, although I do not approve of it, of eliminating the czar and the czarina. But the kids? Nope.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the problem would not necessarily have been the kids wanting to restart the line, but more of someone wishing to use them as tools...
Killing them eliminated the possibility of either happening.

What you fail to understand is that the Bolshevik wouldn't have allowed such a thing to happen. Neither would've the rest of the people. They were fed up with the Imperial ruling. The rest of the royals, although seething, were silenced.

[Dyakovo]

Nicholas II had already abdicated all claim to the throne by signing his abdication act, his claim and that of his children. No Romanov could lay claim to the Russian czarist throne. It was over. The czarevich Alexei was incredibly sick and most certainly he would've died before the majority of age. The Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne.

And what guarantee did the Bolsheviks have that no-one would try to re-install the Romanov line? Much simpler to eliminate that potential (albeit unlikely) possibility by eliminating the Romanovs entirely.

The fact that the entire royal family was thrown helter skelter. And and that the Russian people would not tolerate a monarchy anymore. If the Bolshevik had any worries about the children, they could have easily re-educate them. I can see the need, although I do not approve of it, of eliminating the czar and the czarina. But the kids? Nope.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the problem would not necessarily have been the kids wanting to restart the line, but more of someone wishing to use them as tools...
Killing them eliminated the possibility of either happening.

What you fail to understand is that the Bolshevik wouldn't have allowed such a thing to happen.¹ Neither would've the rest of the people.² They were fed up with the Imperial ruling.³ The rest of the royals, although seething, were silenced.⁴

1: You are assuming that it would have been up to them... The Bolsheviks were not unopposed.
2: Maybe not in 1918. But what if the White Guard had been able resist the Red Army more effectively?
3: Again, not everyone was.
4: In part due to there no longer being a royal family...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Nicholas II had already abdicated all claim to the throne by signing his abdication act, his claim and that of his children. No Romanov could lay claim to the Russian czarist throne. It was over. The czarevich Alexei was incredibly sick and most certainly he would've died before the majority of age. The Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne.

And what guarantee did the Bolsheviks have that no-one would try to re-install the Romanov line? Much simpler to eliminate that potential (albeit unlikely) possibility by eliminating the Romanovs entirely.

The fact that the entire royal family was thrown helter skelter. And and that the Russian people would not tolerate a monarchy anymore. If the Bolshevik had any worries about the children, they could have easily re-educate them. I can see the need, although I do not approve of it, of eliminating the czar and the czarina. But the kids? Nope.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the problem would not necessarily have been the kids wanting to restart the line, but more of someone wishing to use them as tools...
Killing them eliminated the possibility of either happening.

What you fail to understand is that the Bolshevik wouldn't have allowed such a thing to happen.¹ Neither would've the rest of the people.² They were fed up with the Imperial ruling.³ The rest of the royals, although seething, were silenced.⁴

1: You are assuming that it would have been up to them... The Bolsheviks were not unopposed.
2: Maybe not in 1918. But what if the White Guard had been able resist the Red Army more effectively?
3: Again, not everyone was.
4: In part due to there no longer being a royal family...

1- Was there an opposition, a strong one, to the Bolshevik after they seized power?
2- The fact is the White Guard wasn't able to resist. The Bolshevik didn't need to execute the children.
4- Irrelevant. The abdication edict had already been signed, the Romanov couldn't lay claim to the throne.
5- Wrong, the core was dead, but not the rest of the family.

[Dyakovo]

Nicholas II had already abdicated all claim to the throne by signing his abdication act, his claim and that of his children. No Romanov could lay claim to the Russian czarist throne. It was over. The czarevich Alexei was incredibly sick and most certainly he would've died before the majority of age. The Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne.

And what guarantee did the Bolsheviks have that no-one would try to re-install the Romanov line? Much simpler to eliminate that potential (albeit unlikely) possibility by eliminating the Romanovs entirely.

The fact that the entire royal family was thrown helter skelter. And and that the Russian people would not tolerate a monarchy anymore. If the Bolshevik had any worries about the children, they could have easily re-educate them. I can see the need, although I do not approve of it, of eliminating the czar and the czarina. But the kids? Nope.

What you don't seem to be getting is that the problem would not necessarily have been the kids wanting to restart the line, but more of someone wishing to use them as tools...
Killing them eliminated the possibility of either happening.

What you fail to understand is that the Bolshevik wouldn't have allowed such a thing to happen.¹ Neither would've the rest of the people.² They were fed up with the Imperial ruling.³ The rest of the royals, although seething, were silenced.⁴

1: You are assuming that it would have been up to them... The Bolsheviks were not unopposed.
2: Maybe not in 1918. But what if the White Guard had been able resist the Red Army more effectively?
3: Again, not everyone was.
4: In part due to there no longer being a royal family...

1- Was there an opposition, a strong one, to the Bolshevik after they seized power?
2- The fact is the White Guard wasn't able to resist. The Bolshevik didn't need to execute the children.
3- Irrelevant. The abdication edict had already been signed, the Romanov couldn't lay claim to the throne.
4- Wrong, the core was dead, but not the rest of the family.

1: It did take the Red Army 3 years to defeat the White Guard...
2: Yes, but it brings up the question of: If they had a symbol (such as the children) to rally around (i.e. someone specific to reinstall, especially someone perfectly suited to being a puppet) would their resistance have been more effective? A: Possibly.*
3: Not not irrelevant. You are assuming that because things went they way they did after the Romanov's were that would have to have gone the same way if they hadn't been killed.*
4: True, sorry. Should have said immediate family.

*Mind you, I agree that they most likely would have gone the same way, the white movement was horribly disorganized, and it is unlikely that anything would have been strong enough incentive for them to get sufficiently organized.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

1- Was there an opposition, a strong one, to the Bolshevik after they seized power?
2- The fact is the White Guard wasn't able to resist. The Bolshevik didn't need to execute the children.
3- Irrelevant. The abdication edict had already been signed, the Romanov couldn't lay claim to the throne.
4- Wrong, the core was dead, but not the rest of the family.

1: It did take the Red Army 3 years to defeat the White Guard...
2: Yes, but it brings up the question of: If they had a symbol (such as the children) to rally around (i.e. someone specific to reinstall, especially someone perfectly suited to being a puppet) would their resistance have been more effective? A: Possibly.*
3: Not not irrelevant. You are assuming that because things went they way they did after the Romanov's were that would have to have gone the same way if they hadn't been killed.*
4: True, sorry. Should have said immediate family.

*Mind you, I agree that they most likely would have gone the same way, the white movement was horribly disorganized, and it is unlikely that anything would have been strong enough incentive for them to get sufficiently organized.

1: But they were defeated because, as you mention on your last statement, the White Guard movement was very disorganized.
2: Not if, as I have already said several times, the children were re-educated. Aside from that, you fail to take notice of the fact that the Grand Duchesses couldn't lay claim to the throne, even if there were the unlikely possibility of puppetry. The czarevich was sick, so sick that even his father had scratch him off as heir to the throne.
3: No, it is irrelevant because you keep overseeing the fact that the Russian people would not, ever again, permit the resurgence of a Czarist Russia.
4: That's why you need to check your sources before you make a claim.

[Dyakovo]

3: No, it is irrelevant because you keep overseeing the fact that the Russian people would not, ever again, permit the resurgence of a Czarist Russia.
4: That's why you need to check your sources before you make a claim.

3: Easy to say considering the Bolsheviks won... If somehow the White Movement had gotten its act together and managed to win it might have been a different story.
4: No, that's why I should be more careful and clear with my phrasing.