Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So basically you approve the soviet crimes, killing hundreds of thousand of people by sending them to labour camps to siberia
Take a look at this picture. Off center and too the right about 1/2 way to the top you'll see a really bright dot. That's Moscow Russia. Look out to the right (eastward) and you'll see a band of scattered lights going almost the entire length to the Pacific Ocean. None of that was there 100 years ago. The Soviets built everything there and I mean EVERYTHING.
They took inhospitable wilderness and created a civilization. It came at a price, not anywhere as dear as the Native Americans paid for the one I live in today though. Lets not even go into what the righteous Europeans did in S America.
I don't know just what is fact and what is fiction when it comes to the Gulags but I do know for a fact that much of Siberia today was colonized in those times by people deported there. In the west real factual unbiased material on just what happened is hard to find as anything other than literature depicting the worst was not and will never be printed. With that in mind I am forced to take the stance that the end justifys the means because in my travels I have seen the result of that era in Soviet history.
Could they have done it differently? Probably. Was it right? No. Was in necessary? Yes.
Starting from the late 60s and on, economically the USSR was one-trick pony. It's main source of income was oil. The price of oil had gone through the roof starting with the Arab oil embargo in the early 70s, which very nicely coincided with the Soviets finding and developing some major Siberian oil and gas reserves in the late 60s. It was largely that oil that paid for the Soviet space program and military buildup of the 70s. And for much of their domestic spending and global involvement.
I disagree. The 60s was the heyday, most all Russians I have met have told me this. In the 70s it became apparent that it couldn't last forever and change was needed. They didn't change and things started to fall apart. the 70s were stagnant.
"To me, Russia is one of the world’s most fascinating places: 12 time zones of enigmatic vastness, unsurpassed natural beauty, a turbulent history, and a literary inheritance that could keep you supplied with masterpieces for a lifetime. I have been going there since the Eighties, spent decades struggling with its difficult language, made documentaries about it, and used it as inspiration for novels.
Since becoming a parent, I’ve often wondered when would be the right time to share my enthusiasm for Russia with my family. Until now, I’ve quailed at the logistical difficulty and the cost, and the impossibility of persuading my wife Hannah – who’s never been – that there’s more to a great holiday than a sunlounger and a colourful drink with an umbrella in it..."
I'd jump at the chance! In fact, I already sent a family member to Russia, gave her some info and basic alphabet and vocab list, and some other tips, and she had a blast! Aside from Moscow/Petersburg, she did some volunteer work on the Baikal trail, and had a wonderful experience with her Russian compartment-mates on the train en route to Baikal.
I take every opportunity to introduce people to Russia. What's not to like? Ok--don't answer that. I mean, it has a LOT to offer; very rich culturally, and lots of natural beauty. Wonderful museums. And the trains are the best! Nowhere else can you get a whole compartment, or even a shared compartment, without paying a small fortune. I'm told Europe stopped making trains with compartments about 30 years ago.
For that writer, it would be a piece of cake. He thinks it would be expensive, but if he went through the Writers' Union, he'd' be received like a brother, and he could probably get some homestays out of it. He'd have a radically different experience than if he went as a tourist. Radical in a good way.
I cannot enthuse enough about Russia!
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 09-07-2016 at 07:42 PM..
Nope, I wouldn't take my family to Russia on vacation.
I still consider Russia to be a great destination for a visit for singles/couples/groups just not families with children.
Now MOVING there to live with a family because of a job for example - that's a different story and yes, it would be ok.
Just because of this, precisely as the article states;
"here’s a museum Sylvie and Enzo would love, here’s a Dostoevskian alcoholic sprawled on the pavement; here’s an affordable family restaurant, here’s an inexplicably rude bus conductor; here’s a beautiful park, here’s a particularly vile squat toilet.'
I wouldn't like all the "unexpected" when you are with children on a visit. But when you live there, you figure all the routine, all those parks, "affordable family restaurants," all in and outs, and then you are in your comfort zone.
I wouldn't take pre-teens there. A lot of things can go wrong, the streets are not as safe as they could be for one. After say 14 or so I think it would be a good thing and very enjoyable and adventurous for them especially if you get them off the beaten path. Both my daughters learned a lot about how to adapt and deal with daily adversity there. Great experience and they enjoyed it immensely.
I disagree. The 60s was the heyday, most all Russians I have met have told me this. In the 70s it became apparent that it couldn't last forever and change was needed. They didn't change and things started to fall apart. the 70s were stagnant.
You read too much western media about it.
No, you just failed to carefully read what I said.
In the early 60s the Soviet economy was rapidly growing. More importantly, it was self-sustaining. It was a real growth.
In the mid to late 60s came the time of slowdowns and reversals, brought about in part by Khruschev's haphazard and hectic style of governing, and some very expensive and resource hungry projects that didn't produce the desired results. The economy reached it's peak point and the growth halted.
Then the Soviets discovered their vast oil and gas reserves and just about the same time, the price of oil skyrocketed. From that point on, most of the economic growth was being financed by oil money. All these huge car factories built in the early 70s, the major investments in military and space, the building spree, most of it was only possible because of the oil revenues. The Soviet economy ceased to be self sustainable, and once the price of oil dropped in the mid-80s, it was doomed.
So yes, the 60s were indeed the heyday. Even with all the problems that started to come to surface by the end of Khruschev's era, the 60s would probably still feel like the height of the Soviet society - although the real high point would've been around 62-64. After that, it was all unsustainable spending financed by oil sales, waiting tor the bubble to burst.
No, you just failed to carefully read what I said.
In the early 60s the Soviet economy was rapidly growing. More importantly, it was self-sustaining. It was a real growth.
I think it correlated with times of the mass resettlement of the country population into the cities and construction of a lot of new factories ( that's where the infamous "khrushevki" - the cheapest, low-quality "commi blocks" came in place - in order to satisfy the demands of resettled population.
Quote:
In the mid to late 60s came the time of slowdowns and reversals, brought about in part by Khruschev's haphazard and hectic style of governing, and some very expensive and resource hungry projects that didn't produce the desired results.
A lot has to be said about that, about who and what Khrushev was, and his style of governing, and most likely people he surrounded himself with. While listening to some of his official speeches, I have to agree with appraisal of my older folks in the family, that he was a hick, full of Soviet propaganda and thus lunatic ideas. So no surprise that a lot of his projects turned out to be nonsense, like his infamous campaign of raising corn and some other "reforms" he implemented.
You can read about them in more details here, in "agricultural policy" section.
Overall they had very low opinion about him and his professional qualities, and they've said that as brutal as Stalin was, he was no fool when it was coming to economy.
P.S. Had to post this excerpt from Wiki, since it's quite telling about Khrushev already when he was working under Stalin and reporting to him personally;
"The Soviet government sought to collect as much grain as possible in order to supply communist allies in Eastern Europe.[78]Khrushchev set the quotas at a high level, leading Stalin to expect an unrealistically large quantity of grain from Ukraine.[79] Food was rationed—but non-agricultural rural workers throughout the USSR were given no ration cards. The inevitable starvation was largely confined to remote rural regions, and was little noticed outside the USSR.[77] Khrushchev, realizing the desperate situation in late 1946, repeatedly appealed to Stalin for aid, to be met with anger and resistance on the part of the leader. When letters to Stalin had no effect, Khrushchev flew to Moscow and made his case in person. Stalin finally gave Ukraine limited food aid, and money to set up free soup kitchens.[80] However, Khrushchev's political standing had been damaged, and in February 1947, Stalin suggested that Lazar Kaganovich be sent to Ukraine to "help" Khrushchev.[81] The following month, the Ukrainian Central Committee removed Khrushchev as party leader in favor of Kaganovich, while retaining him as premier.[82]"
So there you go, yet later on Krushev would be the first one to point finger at Stalin, blaming him for ruthless policies, all while he was a willing participant, not to say instigator of atrocities on occasions.
So basically you approve the soviet crimes, killing hundreds of thousand of people by sending them to labour camps to siberia.
That was only one period in Soviet history under Stalin.
This is like saying you approve of US crimes, like slavery and deportations and killings of Native Americans.
Fact is, and this seems to bypass so many people; under the Soviet system, the former Russian Empire went from some backward, agrarian society that was incapable of carrying out the most basic of things, to an industrial and military super power in just a few decades.
That was only one period in Soviet history under Stalin.
This is like saying you approve of US crimes, like slavery and deportations and killings of Native Americans.
Fact is, and this seems to bypass so many people; under the Soviet system, the former Russian Empire went from some backward, agrarian society that was incapable of carrying out the most basic of things, to an industrial and military super power in just a few decades.
Yes, but at what expense? What about the alternatives; what if the Decembrists had succeeded in setting up a democracy? Russia had the know-how to develop and industrialize. It didn't need Stalin in order to achieve that. Without him, change might have been more gradual (or, not--we'll never know), but I don't think such extreme measures were necessary. And what about Lenin's role, with the New Economic Plan? His methods weren't so austere, yet gave some positive results.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
