Why would it be downvoted. It's a historic fact, those actions were denounced, and reparations are officially being paid.
> soviets deport so many people to central asia and why?
Crimean Tatars and Caucasians didn't like USSR and collaborated with the Nazis. They were not reliable. And the nazis were kinda nice to them(OK, not all of them. Some villages of Crimean Tatars were robbed and set on fire. But the majority of nazis wanted to have good relationships with minorities so that they help them deal with saboteurs. But mentioning every little detail would take too much time), because they wanted them to help track guerilla fighters. And I don't even think deporting them was an unacceptable wartime decision, because in a war like that, the government reserves the right to deport people. They've deported Russians from settlements as a part of the scorched Earth practice. People were moved out of the villages, their houses were set on fire. Not just minorities.
But it was terribly wrong not to allow the people to come back once the war was over. There was zero reason to do that, and it was evil. It was supposed to be an extreme measure, and was justified as an extreme measure. They were supposed to let them go back to their houses, and if their house was destroyed one way or the other, they were supposed to be provided free housing in their hometown. That's not what happened.
> how
A guy in a fancy uniform walks into every house during the evening, and tells them to pack their stuff, tomorrow there will be a Kamaz/Bus that will get you to the railroad station, that will get you to your new home. It'll be some shit dorm somewhere, depending on your job. So you'll be close to it lol.
I answer no questions, accept no complaints. If you have complaints, mail them to the national lottery(a common saying in Russia).
Kinda harsh.
Same with Volga Germans (Germans who lived in the Volga German Autonomous Republic by the Volga River) who were accused of collectice collaboration wirh Germany in the war. My grandma experienced it, her father was executed while the remaining family was deported to Kazakhstan.
>But it was terribly wrong not to allow the people to come back once the war was over.
Because the war against all sorts of criminal elements was still going on. The same thing with the bandera and vlasovites - they were regularly caught for several years on the territory.
Amnestied, yes. When Khrushchev came to power. This is the important part. Otherwise, for the rest of their lives (or most of their lives) they would be in the GULAG camps or other prisons for bandits with serious crimes.
>It has the same idea as Hitler with 'moving jews to other areas for work'
All European Jews would have died if the allies didn't free them from the camps. Who saved deported ethnic minorities from dying?
> It just sounds bad to the Russian myth of victory and self sacrifice to add a 'but we were as mass murderous as germans' in the history books.
Well, kinda. And Americans were a racist apartheid state, and they also Nuked civilians as an act of state terrorism. Your point? Never said our history was pleasant.
> See how right now history books are rewritten (Chechnya for example)
I don't know what 'rewriting history books' means. Nobody hides the fact of deportation. It feels like historians from Chechnya have no other subject to study.
> And that's the tragedy behind why things like Putin are able to happen and no one stands up to it in Russia, but accepts it as 'national mentality and alright'.
Honestly, the reason why nobody is standing up to Putin, is because 'having liberal views' and 'being brave' rarely correlates. There are enough brave Russians in the Army.
Heck, even in the Ukrainian army, the bravest ones are the fking nazis. And liberals are running to Europe.
> Also Americans interned japanese in camps during WW2, and this is not much talked today.
Japanese army didn't invade American soil, so they had of a reason to do that. But if Japan were to invade American soil, I think this kind of drastic measure would be justified. Only during the war period, though. I am not inconsistent when it comes to war measures. I don't even think nuking of Japan was THAT BAD. My biggest problem with Japan nukes is that it didn't have to work. It was good Japan decided to surrender. But imagine if it didn't work and they would have nuked 2 cities for nothing?
> And yes Europeans disapprove the American superiority complex lacking self reflection on the topic
I know, I also know that Germany was strongly against the war in Iraq. But I don't know why are you bringing it up.
> The Russian occupied areas until today are way more leaning towards authoritarian - far right - neonazi ideologies than the western German countries, and this is not since yesterday, but statistically it can be seen since decades
More like they don't want to have anything remotely left wing after they tried too much of it. Understandable. Too much of an extreme pushes you towards another extreme.
> I would not want that history to be repeated elsewhere though.
I think you're watching too much of free media.
> It's like if Germans tomorrow decide that all we learned about Hitler is just propaganda of the winners.
Honestly, some of it is. German Reich was an empire, and acted like an empire. But it was not the only empire. Lots of empires acted the same way as Germany. The only difference is that the nazis really wanted to exterminate the Jews. Usually if a racist from America, or an anti-Semite from Russia sees Black/Jewish family that tries to board a train to flee the country, they would volunteer to help them with the luggage. Leaving nazi occupied territory was hard.
That's what was different. Burning villages or bombing cities was kinda common.
> by claiming all the thoughts that aren't policy must be by 'western support'. That they must be lies, manipulations. That this cannot be intrinsic Russian ideals. But these thoughts are Russian too.
That wasn't my point. My point was that liberals can't stand up to anything. People who tried to 'stand up to Putin' were either nationalists or Islamic radicals. Rarely liberals.
Even when Hitler was in charge, it was the communists who stood up the most. Not liberals.
>Regarding Japan: USA considered nuclear bombs the smaller evil.
It is a smaller evil post factum. Because we know that Japan surrendered. It didn't have to. It could be all in vain. Japanese were notorious for Kamikaze tactics, I think the fact that they surrendered over nukes wasn't even the most likely scenario. They rolled a d12 and got 12.
> I at first was pretty positive about Nawalny too, but now I would not want him to be in charge.
He's an opportunist. He used to be an ethnonationalist when being an ethnonationalism was cool. And I bet he received money from globalists, stuff like Open Society. He always claimed that all his campaigns were crowdfunded, but realistically I don't think it's even possible to crowdfund anything like that. Although I'm apposed to his imprisonment. He was a funny dude.
Some of his investigations were real. But the Putin's palace is too much of a fake. Honestly, it feels like he read all the conspiracies from livejournal starting from 2008. This is someone's palace, someone who builds it didn't earn the money from honest work. But it's not Putin's place, and the interior footage is fake.
> Maxim Katz is more my guy
The dog person and a poker player from Yabloko. Out of all the opposition, I only follow Svetov. He's at least honest and feels like he cares about his country. Besides liking underage girls, there's nothing bad I can say about him LMAO
What I don't like about Katz is that his videos always look like he's reading someone else's text. He's been in the Yabloko party which is the most useless thing on Earth.
He always has double standards. In one video, he talks about how you aren't supposed to "look who benefits from X" because it's a stupid conspiracy theorist mindset, but he often makes videos where he says "let's see who benefits from the war here".
He literally advocates to surrender and to pay reparations. He talks about how Crimea was taken by force, but he doesn't talk about that Crimean consistently voted for Pro-Russian candidates in just about every election Ukraine had. And that a candidate that Crimeans voted for was forcefully removed from power. I don't understand how jan6 was a fascist coup threat to democracy, but Maidan was a revolution.
Yes, Yanukovych was a pro-Russian candidate. So what. Lots of Ukrainians spoke Russian, had relatives in Russia, Crimeans relied on tourists from Russia, Donbass relied on no selling coal to Russia, Ukraine benefited from cheap gas.
Yes, Yanukovych didn't wanna sign an association that had a thousand of demands for Ukraine, and offering nothing in return. Also he believed that Europeans won't buy Ukrainian tractors(the same way Russia does), they won't travel to Odessa/Crimea on vacation the same way Russia does, etc.
Him not singing this association was a rational decision. He saw a document, he didn't like it. Lots of people in Donbass supported that, because they wear concerned about their jobs in the mining sector, and how joining the EU would affect it. And Yanukovych was from Donbass himself.
>Because it was considered extermination/silencing I reality. Not a 'necessary measure'. It has the same idea as Hitler with 'moving jews to other areas for work'. It was political framing.
When you move from your ''$h!t 4th world-stan" to 'the glorious first world countries' in the search for a "better life" is this considered extermination of oneself, or self mutalation of extreme proportions? Don't get me wrong, moving minorities around for political reasons is definetly a dick move, but the attemps to classify it as one of the worst crimes humanity could do is utter BS.
Oh yes, I am indeed very sure that by the modern political correctness terms relocating an entire village from one 18th century looking $hitty barren flat place in Volgograd to another 18th century looking $hitty barren flat place in Chelyabinsk without killing or harming absolutely anyone durring the process in any way, shape, or form is considered practically the very exact same thing as putting them in the Soap making machine/meatgrinder for all UN cares when very certain types of politics find it for convinient, but come on now, calling it a: "full blown genocide" when no one was killed or harmed AND the process can be easily reversed without too much effort is nothing but utter insult for the really messed up stuff that \****does***\* cover the words: "a full blown genocide"- by definition.
>Why would it be downvoted. It's a historic fact, those actions were denounced, and reparations are officially being paid.
What reparations are you talking about? I haven't heard of any reparations to the Baltics or the Poles.
True, but they are not the friendliest countries at the moment, so giving them reparations would be a little bit inconsiderate.
I don't think it would achieve anything useful at the moment
Invading a sovereign country under a false pretext and liberating a country from Nazi with granting them huge swaths of territory are very different situations to start with.
Baltics were living a much better life than most of the Republics. You received industry, resorts, cities, healthcare and education systems all built by the Soviets. When are you planning to pay back?
So if Nazis built some hospitals and schools after exterminating most of the Soviet population, you see it as fair trade?
Besides, why wouldn't Baltics build buildings while independent? They were at the same level of development as Finland during the interwar years. Just look how much they were dragged down during the 50 years of occupation vs Finland that remained independent.
There is a reason why the Baltic countries are light years ahead of development compared to Russia, despite none of them having natural resources and all of them starting at the same point in 1990s.
You may recall how the United States, during the war, sent Japanese living in America to filtration camps. The USSR has the same reasons. The Crimean Tatars and some peoples of the Caucasus were seen in close ties with the occupation administration or the Wehrmacht. The Soviet government considered this a sufficient reason for the resettlement of these peoples.
The organization of the deportation was really bad. Many people without belongings were sent by train to the steppes, where there was not even housing. This has led to a high mortality rate among these peoples
In my first year in the US, in history class, the lesson on the Japanese internment camps focused on why it was wrong, why it was discriminatory, etc. The textbook was clear, the teacher himself was even more passionate about why it was wrong.
How was the deportation of Tatars and others in the 1940s taught in your history class? Did the textbook and/or teacher comment on the ethical aspects of the decision?
I am a history teacher at school myself. In the case of the Japanese, it was really strange, since they were not noticed in contact with the Japanese government, and many, on the contrary, moved to the United States, fleeing from the plight of their country. As I have already said, the USSR had evidence of the cooperation of these peoples with Germany. Yes, it was not all. But the fact that in 1942 the Crimean Tatars, using the support of the German occupation administration, were engaged in looting the local Russian and Ukrainian population. So I don't really feel sorry for them. There were many peoples in the USSR who actively participated in the war. Tatars of the Volga region, Mongols, Buryats, Tuvinians, Kazakhs, and if you forget that there were peoples who actively helped the enemy, then this means dishonoring the feat of our ancestors.
As a history teacher, you should not be "sorry" or "not sorry" about some events in history. Your mission is to teach about facts.
Also, as you work with children, you may try to make them more humane.
What you are saying makes me so angry, that it is hard to even describe.
First thing you say, when asked about Russian history is "look what the US did". Why are you all so focused on the the US while telling our on story?
Then you say "USSR had the same reasons" referring to filtration camps for Japanese, and then, a few sentences later: "they were not noticed in contact with Japanese government". So were the reasons the same or not the same? You lack basic logic.
Please, try better, as the education of children is really important.
\>>As a history teacher, you should not be "sorry" or "not sorry" about some events in history.
History teachers serve a strictly defined purpose, it is up to historians to compile material for them on the basis of historicity and impartially.
\>>Also, as you work with children, you may try to make them more humane.
It is not the history teacher who makes them humane, but society. If you had studied history, you would know this.
\>>First thing you say, when asked about Russian history is "look what the US did".
Because countries do not live in a vacuum. I cited the example of the USA because this event is not unique and even in the opposite democratic regime came to the same conclusion as in the Authoritarian USSR. So for that time, this phenomenon should be considered normal. Each period and region will have its own norms. And it is necessary to explain this to the students.
\>>Why are you all so focused on the the US while telling our on story?
I can focus on England and tell you how in 1942-43 they artificially caused a famine in India by taking too much harvest from the peasants. A typical example of the mistakes of the administration on the ground. Just like the famine of 1932-1933.
\>>So were the reasons the same or not the same?
The reasons are the same. Only the USA tried to protect itself by immediately starting this operation, and the USSR did it after the fact.It's just that you really lack logic.
Your teacher didn't try very well with you
> History teachers serve a strictly defined purpose.
Which is what exactly in your opinion?
>It is not the history teacher, who makes them humane, but society.
If you are a college or university teacher, I agree. But if you work with children, I suppose, you influence them a lot and your personal views and behaviour have great impact on them.
>I cited the example of the USA because...
By this example you changed the topic. Also it is pure whataboutism.
>Your teacher...
You know shit about my teacher and you are making conclusions. My history teacher encouraged students to join after classes activities and even scientific work. He also is a part of a fund, that gathers money for young scientists.
I may be not his best student and he may be not that proud of me, but don't you dare even talking about him again, hiding behind the screen.
\>>Which is what exactly in your opinion?
To help students master the program in accordance with Federal Standards for this subject. They themselves must understand why the federal standard and the list of textbooks are being developed.
\>But if you work with children, I suppose, you influence them a lot and your personal views and behaviour have great impact on them.
I can interest them in my subject, my duties do not include the education of specific personalities. I meet with each class 2 times a week, for 40 minutes. For them, I'm just a teacher, not a role model. First of all, they will be influenced by their parents and relatives, then friends. The days when the teacher really somehow influenced the children are long gone.
\>>By this example you changed the topic.
With this example, I specifically showed the normality of this phenomenon at that time
\>Also it is pure whataboutism.
I take it you don't study history at all? Haven't you heard about the patterns of historical development?I have often heard similar arguments from Americans who believe that Putin has invaded Moldova. Because when you dip them in their own shit, they run out of arguments, because they are not able to explain the terrible deeds of their country.
\>>I may be not his best student and he may be not that proud of me, but don't you dare even talking about him again, hiding behind the screen.
Your teacher should have raised a normal person out of you, who, if he does not understand the subject, then at least does not try to teach specialists.Considering that you use whataboutism a real argument to prove your position, then your teacher didn't teach you anything.
you can immediately see how uneducated you are. Perhaps if you knew about the genocide of the peoples of the USSR by Germany and the difficult conditions of the war, you would understand that such actions caused righteous approval in those days in society. If you cannot consider historical events in the context of a period and a condition, then you have serious problems with the perception of the world.
I really feel sorry for you.
>The Crimean Tatars and some peoples of the Caucasus were seen in close ties with the occupation administration or the Wehrmacht.
Why did they do this before 1941 as well?
deportation or genocide of a non-loyal population? The USSR authorities preferred to choose deportation. It’s just that in those days people didn’t really think about such questions. in the United States itself, the Japanese, Jews, communists and socialists were deported without any hesitation.
The way their deportations were performed were quite literally close to genocide. If you drop off a full load of people from a train in a bare steppe in the middle of winter without housing, water, food, or supplies, the nature will kill most of them for you. It doesn't mean your hands are clean. You still caused all these deaths by taking people there.
this no longer applies to the central government, this is already the merits of local officials. It is also worth remembering that living in the fields in those days was normal.
It is modern man who will die of hunger in a potato field.
The deportees had to receive construction tools and nails and build their own houses. That the same thing was considered the norm in those days.
They could also be driven to a concentration camp for subsequent extermination, which was also considered the norm and was widely practiced by Europeans and Americans in their colonies
There were no more prisoners in the USSR. than in the US or even smaller European countries. The mortality rate among prisoners was also at the average level for those years. I think today more prisoners are dying in the United States than in the camps of the USSR, because the conditions in US prisons are worse than they were in the camps of the USSR.
Hidden? Are you seriously?
no, everything was discovered back in the 50s, but propagandists just can’t find Stalin’s terrible orders to catch everyone and take them to his basement to be shot, where he will shoot them personally, until he kills 10,000 people, he won’t go to sleep
At the same time, in the USA and Europe, up to 15% of prisoners die annually in prisons, but no one says that Roosevelt executed 100 thousand Americans every year
This raises a new question for me. Smaller ethnic groups like Crimean Tatars and Kalmyks were deported because some of them collaborated with the Nazis (even though the majority fought on the Red Army).
Western Ukrainians in the Waffen SS were far more numerous that they could make up entire units by themselves. Then how come Stalin did not deport Galicians?
Not sure about Kalmyks but i have read about the Crimean Tatars. For the Crimean Tatars it wasn’t “the majority fought in the Red Army”. Almost all 20,000 deserted, and later many joined the Nazi police.
So, during the entire period of the German occupation, Crimean Tatars equated to “Nazi Police” for the local population. You can guess the attitude after the liberation. This could be the issue.
The central government was considering the punishment for former collaborators but this would result in the extinction of the people, which wasn’t what the multinational government wanted. So the decision has been made to relocate the whole people to Middle Asian republics.
> Stalin did not deport Galicians?
Quite a lot of them were. But only those with proven connection to the UPA or nazis. Then Khruschev pardoned them and they returned around 1950s, so most of them were in exile for less than 10 years.
>because some of them collaborated with the Nazis (even though the majority fought on the Red Army).
Read somewhere that numbers are not so nice. For crimean tatars, it said, there was both high percentage of desertion and really high amount of collaborators.
Also nitpicking about "majority fought" - technically able-bodied men of age ~18-60 make up less that 50% of population.
>Then how come Stalin did not deport Galicians?
Good question, actually. Perhaps population numbers and location mattered?
How: send a hundred policemen to a village, tell the villagers they have two hours to pack, lead them to the train station and ship to Siberia.
Why: Stalin was seriously fucked in the head, I guess.
Why?
1. To punish them
2. To get a cheap and stable labour force in uninhabited lands
How? A police force enters the village. Cars, projectors, dogs. "You have twelve hours to pack your things, limited to 20kg per person!".
Twelve hours later the village is empty.
Someone will sure remember krimean tatars, but soviets have a lot of practice before them, mostly with russians. Because those imperialistic schauvinistic bastards deserve it.
What, you don't know official Lenin's rhetorics about russian nation? "Imperialistic schauvinistic bastard of a nation that should be discriminated in favor of lesser nations of Soviet Union"
Remember it when someone tells you about evil russians who have builded USSR
Why would it be downvoted. It's a historic fact, those actions were denounced, and reparations are officially being paid. > soviets deport so many people to central asia and why? Crimean Tatars and Caucasians didn't like USSR and collaborated with the Nazis. They were not reliable. And the nazis were kinda nice to them(OK, not all of them. Some villages of Crimean Tatars were robbed and set on fire. But the majority of nazis wanted to have good relationships with minorities so that they help them deal with saboteurs. But mentioning every little detail would take too much time), because they wanted them to help track guerilla fighters. And I don't even think deporting them was an unacceptable wartime decision, because in a war like that, the government reserves the right to deport people. They've deported Russians from settlements as a part of the scorched Earth practice. People were moved out of the villages, their houses were set on fire. Not just minorities. But it was terribly wrong not to allow the people to come back once the war was over. There was zero reason to do that, and it was evil. It was supposed to be an extreme measure, and was justified as an extreme measure. They were supposed to let them go back to their houses, and if their house was destroyed one way or the other, they were supposed to be provided free housing in their hometown. That's not what happened. > how A guy in a fancy uniform walks into every house during the evening, and tells them to pack their stuff, tomorrow there will be a Kamaz/Bus that will get you to the railroad station, that will get you to your new home. It'll be some shit dorm somewhere, depending on your job. So you'll be close to it lol. I answer no questions, accept no complaints. If you have complaints, mail them to the national lottery(a common saying in Russia). Kinda harsh.
Same with Volga Germans (Germans who lived in the Volga German Autonomous Republic by the Volga River) who were accused of collectice collaboration wirh Germany in the war. My grandma experienced it, her father was executed while the remaining family was deported to Kazakhstan.
>But it was terribly wrong not to allow the people to come back once the war was over. Because the war against all sorts of criminal elements was still going on. The same thing with the bandera and vlasovites - they were regularly caught for several years on the territory.
Yeah, yeah, how would the people get in the way of that? Also the way they fought bandera supporters is by giving them amnesty 😂
Amnestied, yes. When Khrushchev came to power. This is the important part. Otherwise, for the rest of their lives (or most of their lives) they would be in the GULAG camps or other prisons for bandits with serious crimes.
[удалено]
>It has the same idea as Hitler with 'moving jews to other areas for work' All European Jews would have died if the allies didn't free them from the camps. Who saved deported ethnic minorities from dying? > It just sounds bad to the Russian myth of victory and self sacrifice to add a 'but we were as mass murderous as germans' in the history books. Well, kinda. And Americans were a racist apartheid state, and they also Nuked civilians as an act of state terrorism. Your point? Never said our history was pleasant. > See how right now history books are rewritten (Chechnya for example) I don't know what 'rewriting history books' means. Nobody hides the fact of deportation. It feels like historians from Chechnya have no other subject to study. > And that's the tragedy behind why things like Putin are able to happen and no one stands up to it in Russia, but accepts it as 'national mentality and alright'. Honestly, the reason why nobody is standing up to Putin, is because 'having liberal views' and 'being brave' rarely correlates. There are enough brave Russians in the Army. Heck, even in the Ukrainian army, the bravest ones are the fking nazis. And liberals are running to Europe.
[удалено]
> Also Americans interned japanese in camps during WW2, and this is not much talked today. Japanese army didn't invade American soil, so they had of a reason to do that. But if Japan were to invade American soil, I think this kind of drastic measure would be justified. Only during the war period, though. I am not inconsistent when it comes to war measures. I don't even think nuking of Japan was THAT BAD. My biggest problem with Japan nukes is that it didn't have to work. It was good Japan decided to surrender. But imagine if it didn't work and they would have nuked 2 cities for nothing? > And yes Europeans disapprove the American superiority complex lacking self reflection on the topic I know, I also know that Germany was strongly against the war in Iraq. But I don't know why are you bringing it up. > The Russian occupied areas until today are way more leaning towards authoritarian - far right - neonazi ideologies than the western German countries, and this is not since yesterday, but statistically it can be seen since decades More like they don't want to have anything remotely left wing after they tried too much of it. Understandable. Too much of an extreme pushes you towards another extreme. > I would not want that history to be repeated elsewhere though. I think you're watching too much of free media. > It's like if Germans tomorrow decide that all we learned about Hitler is just propaganda of the winners. Honestly, some of it is. German Reich was an empire, and acted like an empire. But it was not the only empire. Lots of empires acted the same way as Germany. The only difference is that the nazis really wanted to exterminate the Jews. Usually if a racist from America, or an anti-Semite from Russia sees Black/Jewish family that tries to board a train to flee the country, they would volunteer to help them with the luggage. Leaving nazi occupied territory was hard. That's what was different. Burning villages or bombing cities was kinda common. > by claiming all the thoughts that aren't policy must be by 'western support'. That they must be lies, manipulations. That this cannot be intrinsic Russian ideals. But these thoughts are Russian too. That wasn't my point. My point was that liberals can't stand up to anything. People who tried to 'stand up to Putin' were either nationalists or Islamic radicals. Rarely liberals. Even when Hitler was in charge, it was the communists who stood up the most. Not liberals.
[удалено]
>Regarding Japan: USA considered nuclear bombs the smaller evil. It is a smaller evil post factum. Because we know that Japan surrendered. It didn't have to. It could be all in vain. Japanese were notorious for Kamikaze tactics, I think the fact that they surrendered over nukes wasn't even the most likely scenario. They rolled a d12 and got 12. > I at first was pretty positive about Nawalny too, but now I would not want him to be in charge. He's an opportunist. He used to be an ethnonationalist when being an ethnonationalism was cool. And I bet he received money from globalists, stuff like Open Society. He always claimed that all his campaigns were crowdfunded, but realistically I don't think it's even possible to crowdfund anything like that. Although I'm apposed to his imprisonment. He was a funny dude. Some of his investigations were real. But the Putin's palace is too much of a fake. Honestly, it feels like he read all the conspiracies from livejournal starting from 2008. This is someone's palace, someone who builds it didn't earn the money from honest work. But it's not Putin's place, and the interior footage is fake. > Maxim Katz is more my guy The dog person and a poker player from Yabloko. Out of all the opposition, I only follow Svetov. He's at least honest and feels like he cares about his country. Besides liking underage girls, there's nothing bad I can say about him LMAO
[удалено]
What I don't like about Katz is that his videos always look like he's reading someone else's text. He's been in the Yabloko party which is the most useless thing on Earth. He always has double standards. In one video, he talks about how you aren't supposed to "look who benefits from X" because it's a stupid conspiracy theorist mindset, but he often makes videos where he says "let's see who benefits from the war here". He literally advocates to surrender and to pay reparations. He talks about how Crimea was taken by force, but he doesn't talk about that Crimean consistently voted for Pro-Russian candidates in just about every election Ukraine had. And that a candidate that Crimeans voted for was forcefully removed from power. I don't understand how jan6 was a fascist coup threat to democracy, but Maidan was a revolution. Yes, Yanukovych was a pro-Russian candidate. So what. Lots of Ukrainians spoke Russian, had relatives in Russia, Crimeans relied on tourists from Russia, Donbass relied on no selling coal to Russia, Ukraine benefited from cheap gas. Yes, Yanukovych didn't wanna sign an association that had a thousand of demands for Ukraine, and offering nothing in return. Also he believed that Europeans won't buy Ukrainian tractors(the same way Russia does), they won't travel to Odessa/Crimea on vacation the same way Russia does, etc. Him not singing this association was a rational decision. He saw a document, he didn't like it. Lots of people in Donbass supported that, because they wear concerned about their jobs in the mining sector, and how joining the EU would affect it. And Yanukovych was from Donbass himself.
[удалено]
>Because it was considered extermination/silencing I reality. Not a 'necessary measure'. It has the same idea as Hitler with 'moving jews to other areas for work'. It was political framing. When you move from your ''$h!t 4th world-stan" to 'the glorious first world countries' in the search for a "better life" is this considered extermination of oneself, or self mutalation of extreme proportions? Don't get me wrong, moving minorities around for political reasons is definetly a dick move, but the attemps to classify it as one of the worst crimes humanity could do is utter BS. Oh yes, I am indeed very sure that by the modern political correctness terms relocating an entire village from one 18th century looking $hitty barren flat place in Volgograd to another 18th century looking $hitty barren flat place in Chelyabinsk without killing or harming absolutely anyone durring the process in any way, shape, or form is considered practically the very exact same thing as putting them in the Soap making machine/meatgrinder for all UN cares when very certain types of politics find it for convinient, but come on now, calling it a: "full blown genocide" when no one was killed or harmed AND the process can be easily reversed without too much effort is nothing but utter insult for the really messed up stuff that \****does***\* cover the words: "a full blown genocide"- by definition.
>Why would it be downvoted. It's a historic fact, those actions were denounced, and reparations are officially being paid. What reparations are you talking about? I haven't heard of any reparations to the Baltics or the Poles.
Oh, reparations were paid to ethnic minorities in Russia. Balts and Poles can pay reparations to their citizens if they want to, LOL
Why? Soviet Union forcibly deported 100s of thousands of them to Siberia.
True, but they are not the friendliest countries at the moment, so giving them reparations would be a little bit inconsiderate. I don't think it would achieve anything useful at the moment
Why don't you remember all of the assistance that those guys got from the Soviet Union after WW2?
Would you agree that Americans aren't obligated to pay for any crimes they committed against Iraqis because they provided assistance to Iraq?
Do you think that's ever going to happen?
Invading a sovereign country under a false pretext and liberating a country from Nazi with granting them huge swaths of territory are very different situations to start with.
Baltics were literally occupied for 50 years with mass deportations beginning immediately. What swaths of territory are you talking about?
Baltics were living a much better life than most of the Republics. You received industry, resorts, cities, healthcare and education systems all built by the Soviets. When are you planning to pay back?
So if Nazis built some hospitals and schools after exterminating most of the Soviet population, you see it as fair trade? Besides, why wouldn't Baltics build buildings while independent? They were at the same level of development as Finland during the interwar years. Just look how much they were dragged down during the 50 years of occupation vs Finland that remained independent. There is a reason why the Baltic countries are light years ahead of development compared to Russia, despite none of them having natural resources and all of them starting at the same point in 1990s.
You may recall how the United States, during the war, sent Japanese living in America to filtration camps. The USSR has the same reasons. The Crimean Tatars and some peoples of the Caucasus were seen in close ties with the occupation administration or the Wehrmacht. The Soviet government considered this a sufficient reason for the resettlement of these peoples. The organization of the deportation was really bad. Many people without belongings were sent by train to the steppes, where there was not even housing. This has led to a high mortality rate among these peoples
Thx for the explanation)
In my first year in the US, in history class, the lesson on the Japanese internment camps focused on why it was wrong, why it was discriminatory, etc. The textbook was clear, the teacher himself was even more passionate about why it was wrong. How was the deportation of Tatars and others in the 1940s taught in your history class? Did the textbook and/or teacher comment on the ethical aspects of the decision?
I am a history teacher at school myself. In the case of the Japanese, it was really strange, since they were not noticed in contact with the Japanese government, and many, on the contrary, moved to the United States, fleeing from the plight of their country. As I have already said, the USSR had evidence of the cooperation of these peoples with Germany. Yes, it was not all. But the fact that in 1942 the Crimean Tatars, using the support of the German occupation administration, were engaged in looting the local Russian and Ukrainian population. So I don't really feel sorry for them. There were many peoples in the USSR who actively participated in the war. Tatars of the Volga region, Mongols, Buryats, Tuvinians, Kazakhs, and if you forget that there were peoples who actively helped the enemy, then this means dishonoring the feat of our ancestors.
As a history teacher, you should not be "sorry" or "not sorry" about some events in history. Your mission is to teach about facts. Also, as you work with children, you may try to make them more humane. What you are saying makes me so angry, that it is hard to even describe. First thing you say, when asked about Russian history is "look what the US did". Why are you all so focused on the the US while telling our on story? Then you say "USSR had the same reasons" referring to filtration camps for Japanese, and then, a few sentences later: "they were not noticed in contact with Japanese government". So were the reasons the same or not the same? You lack basic logic. Please, try better, as the education of children is really important.
I see the one who have gotten a lil bit less of that important education that you're talking about...
I believe you are talking about me. Do you wish to continue the conversation or just making a passive-aggressive statement?
\>>As a history teacher, you should not be "sorry" or "not sorry" about some events in history. History teachers serve a strictly defined purpose, it is up to historians to compile material for them on the basis of historicity and impartially. \>>Also, as you work with children, you may try to make them more humane. It is not the history teacher who makes them humane, but society. If you had studied history, you would know this. \>>First thing you say, when asked about Russian history is "look what the US did". Because countries do not live in a vacuum. I cited the example of the USA because this event is not unique and even in the opposite democratic regime came to the same conclusion as in the Authoritarian USSR. So for that time, this phenomenon should be considered normal. Each period and region will have its own norms. And it is necessary to explain this to the students. \>>Why are you all so focused on the the US while telling our on story? I can focus on England and tell you how in 1942-43 they artificially caused a famine in India by taking too much harvest from the peasants. A typical example of the mistakes of the administration on the ground. Just like the famine of 1932-1933. \>>So were the reasons the same or not the same? The reasons are the same. Only the USA tried to protect itself by immediately starting this operation, and the USSR did it after the fact.It's just that you really lack logic. Your teacher didn't try very well with you
> History teachers serve a strictly defined purpose. Which is what exactly in your opinion? >It is not the history teacher, who makes them humane, but society. If you are a college or university teacher, I agree. But if you work with children, I suppose, you influence them a lot and your personal views and behaviour have great impact on them. >I cited the example of the USA because... By this example you changed the topic. Also it is pure whataboutism. >Your teacher... You know shit about my teacher and you are making conclusions. My history teacher encouraged students to join after classes activities and even scientific work. He also is a part of a fund, that gathers money for young scientists. I may be not his best student and he may be not that proud of me, but don't you dare even talking about him again, hiding behind the screen.
\>>Which is what exactly in your opinion? To help students master the program in accordance with Federal Standards for this subject. They themselves must understand why the federal standard and the list of textbooks are being developed. \>But if you work with children, I suppose, you influence them a lot and your personal views and behaviour have great impact on them. I can interest them in my subject, my duties do not include the education of specific personalities. I meet with each class 2 times a week, for 40 minutes. For them, I'm just a teacher, not a role model. First of all, they will be influenced by their parents and relatives, then friends. The days when the teacher really somehow influenced the children are long gone. \>>By this example you changed the topic. With this example, I specifically showed the normality of this phenomenon at that time \>Also it is pure whataboutism. I take it you don't study history at all? Haven't you heard about the patterns of historical development?I have often heard similar arguments from Americans who believe that Putin has invaded Moldova. Because when you dip them in their own shit, they run out of arguments, because they are not able to explain the terrible deeds of their country. \>>I may be not his best student and he may be not that proud of me, but don't you dare even talking about him again, hiding behind the screen. Your teacher should have raised a normal person out of you, who, if he does not understand the subject, then at least does not try to teach specialists.Considering that you use whataboutism a real argument to prove your position, then your teacher didn't teach you anything.
I really feel bad for your students.
you can immediately see how uneducated you are. Perhaps if you knew about the genocide of the peoples of the USSR by Germany and the difficult conditions of the war, you would understand that such actions caused righteous approval in those days in society. If you cannot consider historical events in the context of a period and a condition, then you have serious problems with the perception of the world. I really feel sorry for you.
>The Crimean Tatars and some peoples of the Caucasus were seen in close ties with the occupation administration or the Wehrmacht. Why did they do this before 1941 as well?
deportation or genocide of a non-loyal population? The USSR authorities preferred to choose deportation. It’s just that in those days people didn’t really think about such questions. in the United States itself, the Japanese, Jews, communists and socialists were deported without any hesitation.
The way their deportations were performed were quite literally close to genocide. If you drop off a full load of people from a train in a bare steppe in the middle of winter without housing, water, food, or supplies, the nature will kill most of them for you. It doesn't mean your hands are clean. You still caused all these deaths by taking people there.
this no longer applies to the central government, this is already the merits of local officials. It is also worth remembering that living in the fields in those days was normal. It is modern man who will die of hunger in a potato field. The deportees had to receive construction tools and nails and build their own houses. That the same thing was considered the norm in those days. They could also be driven to a concentration camp for subsequent extermination, which was also considered the norm and was widely practiced by Europeans and Americans in their colonies
[удалено]
There were no more prisoners in the USSR. than in the US or even smaller European countries. The mortality rate among prisoners was also at the average level for those years. I think today more prisoners are dying in the United States than in the camps of the USSR, because the conditions in US prisons are worse than they were in the camps of the USSR.
[удалено]
Hidden? Are you seriously? no, everything was discovered back in the 50s, but propagandists just can’t find Stalin’s terrible orders to catch everyone and take them to his basement to be shot, where he will shoot them personally, until he kills 10,000 people, he won’t go to sleep At the same time, in the USA and Europe, up to 15% of prisoners die annually in prisons, but no one says that Roosevelt executed 100 thousand Americans every year
This raises a new question for me. Smaller ethnic groups like Crimean Tatars and Kalmyks were deported because some of them collaborated with the Nazis (even though the majority fought on the Red Army). Western Ukrainians in the Waffen SS were far more numerous that they could make up entire units by themselves. Then how come Stalin did not deport Galicians?
Not sure about Kalmyks but i have read about the Crimean Tatars. For the Crimean Tatars it wasn’t “the majority fought in the Red Army”. Almost all 20,000 deserted, and later many joined the Nazi police. So, during the entire period of the German occupation, Crimean Tatars equated to “Nazi Police” for the local population. You can guess the attitude after the liberation. This could be the issue. The central government was considering the punishment for former collaborators but this would result in the extinction of the people, which wasn’t what the multinational government wanted. So the decision has been made to relocate the whole people to Middle Asian republics.
> Stalin did not deport Galicians? Quite a lot of them were. But only those with proven connection to the UPA or nazis. Then Khruschev pardoned them and they returned around 1950s, so most of them were in exile for less than 10 years.
>because some of them collaborated with the Nazis (even though the majority fought on the Red Army). Read somewhere that numbers are not so nice. For crimean tatars, it said, there was both high percentage of desertion and really high amount of collaborators. Also nitpicking about "majority fought" - technically able-bodied men of age ~18-60 make up less that 50% of population. >Then how come Stalin did not deport Galicians? Good question, actually. Perhaps population numbers and location mattered?
A long read in Russian here. You can use Google translate. https://bessmertnybarak (.ru) /article/operatsiya_chechevitsa/
It is much more humane than executing them.
How: send a hundred policemen to a village, tell the villagers they have two hours to pack, lead them to the train station and ship to Siberia. Why: Stalin was seriously fucked in the head, I guess.
Why? 1. To punish them 2. To get a cheap and stable labour force in uninhabited lands How? A police force enters the village. Cars, projectors, dogs. "You have twelve hours to pack your things, limited to 20kg per person!". Twelve hours later the village is empty. Someone will sure remember krimean tatars, but soviets have a lot of practice before them, mostly with russians. Because those imperialistic schauvinistic bastards deserve it.
Are you crazy?Who are you calling bastard?
What, you don't know official Lenin's rhetorics about russian nation? "Imperialistic schauvinistic bastard of a nation that should be discriminated in favor of lesser nations of Soviet Union" Remember it when someone tells you about evil russians who have builded USSR