Your intimate feeling toward Russians

This supposed challenge makes no sense. Even if I could make sense of it, I'd win anyway. Like I said, remember your place - you asked for an intimate feeling and you got it.

Constantine. you asked for my feelings and you got the first few things that came to my mind. If you can't live with Russia's popular stereotype abroad then tough luck, don't ask people for their opinion.
Also, your defence of your country is pathetic. I've met plenty of Russians who are eloquent spokesmen and can argue these points but all you can do is say something along the lines of "well, not as much as Poland, so there" like a petulent 13 year old girl.
I can therefore only conclude that these points are valid.

Vot der'mo (oh sh&t)! And who are you? Mixed Irish-Scottish, suppose it's the same. This is the same as if Ukranians would proclamated themself as a different nation appart Russians, just nonsense! So, your native language is English hence you are Englishman. Undoubtly!



Firstly, he was a gay. It is nothing wrong in loving men, but he was a real wh*re. Once he was unmercifully beaten by soldiers for sexial harassment (you could judge it reading how eagerly he is portraing handsom Russian men!)

Secondly, his observations on Russian customs are always smattering and prejudiced against Russia and therefore abselutely wrong.



IMHO, Tyrany always produces perfect cultural treasures, opposite to democratic regimes.



Let fix it once and forever. Sure Russia was among those powers who divided not Poland but Rzhech Pospolita. But it was totally not our fault, because Catherine II just had yielded to threats of Prussia and Austria who had thought that the influence of Russia had been too strong. That was real initiators of the Partitions. Catherin thought about Poland as formally independent state with huge russian influence, as a protective aria against Prussia and Austria. And the insertion of formerly Polish lands (too backwarded in fact) was a real burden for state finaces.

As for murders, I suppose you meant revolution of 1794 under leading of Kostushko!
But I want to remind you the all this murders (battle at Praga) had thei roots in the mass killing of Russian harnison in Varshav one year earlier. Our soldiers just wanted to revenge the fate of their brothers.

No, murders as in the ethnic cleansing of Ukraine by Russia in 1933 where 3 million Ukrainnians were killed by starvation.

Nope,my "native" language has no relation to the english language.About the same as Russian and Nigerian.....Heres an idea,learn about the outside world before you comment and dont expect,following your example,others to know all about russia...
Well if thats the case I dont think Id trust him as a good source on Russia,he's obviously deluded :)

Typical subservient Russian mentality.

Come on dont be so rediculouse. Really, the starvation had took place in 30-ths but of course it wasn't a ethnic killing because the same starvation was in Russian Volga region with Russian population. To think about starvations as a ethnic cleaning just a nonsense. Because it was just the same phenomenon as during Enclosure period in Eangland. Simply the industrialisation demanded free workers who was only among peasatry. After this circumstances the whole structure of russian society were changed drastically. Being peasant country before we rebuilded ourself in industrial power with the aid of the same workers who was peasants previously and had settled at the cities after starvations.

So the peasant farmers in Ukraine were deliberately starved off their land to work in the factories? Well, now you put it like that it sounds perfectly reasonable and not at all like a form of ethnic cleansing.

Do you think so, well appart from you groundless statement that this is typical Russian subservient mentality, could you give me any example cultural inheritance borne in democracy? I don't think so!



Aha! Indeed! Sure it wasn't simple starvation, but historoeconomical necessity.

And the mass-murder of Polish elites after the Soviets' attack of Poland hand-in-hand with Hitler in 1939 was just a bit of harmless social engineering. What a relief.
What's scary is what a twisted version of history they still teach in Russian schools. I suppose Stalin was just misunderstood, and in fact forced by western imperialists to whack a few million of his countrymen.
BTW, maybe you should ask some Ukrainians about their national identity before you spout off about it here.
One more thing - I don't think too many people worry about what your German tsarina did in the 18th century, but there are still people alive who experienced Stalin's good deeds on their own skin.

You'll have to rephrase that as I dont understand the question. If you're asking whether democracy has ever produced great culture then I am going to be selecting from a very limited pool of options as democracy has existed in relatively few countries for a relatively short period of time. Also, the cultural impact of anything can only be judged sometime after it has occurred therefore the selection is limited further.

Well, anything that came from Ancient Greece I suppose. Can you give me any that have come from totalitarian states?

Imho, I should add that it is my own point of view. All Russian history books in the schools theach the same things as Polish (that Stalin was a tyrant) but without Polish groundless.



It wasn't supposed that it must be a relief, but ulike you I am trying to think without mixing of my feeling with real roots of historical process. You think about such pesons like Stalin only as if they were just a maniacs, but instead all their deeds were caused by some circumstanses and had much more sense then simple thirst of blood.



Of course we shouldn't. Naturally the will say - We are the Nation, but both of us know that it isnt true.

Off course their deeds were caused by something else then simple thirst of blood... Their deeds served their ego and were committed to give them more power, it made a lot of sense to them and people that wanted power with them. That could really be also true for Dracula, who knows?

And in your opinion that justifies them? Hitler's actions were motivated by far more than simple thirst for blood, too. Are you going to defend him and the Germans of that time, too?


Now that genuinely is a relief. In fact, Stalin's crimes against Poles were only a small fraction of his total, so I'm not surprised that history books outside Poland don't concentrate on them.

Oh, thats ok then.

Actually you can't speak about Ancient Greece as a democracy, because it wasn't an united state, there was democratic states, oligarhical and real tyranies (most of all previous). Moreover even democracy in such states as Athens was temorary event, Athens had its own famaly of tyrants, Periandrs. But sure we hardly can consider all democratic states in Greece as democracy in modern understanding becouse of such institution as slavedom.
Contrary, I can point out alot of states with tyranical government which gave birth fore a perfect patterns of culture - Imperial Rome, Ancient Greece, Byzanty, France (Louis XIV) and so on. I didnt include Russia because of modesty.



It is perfectly wrong oppinion. Power is just a tool.

ConstantineK - don't go and justify misdeeds and immoral behavior, it is not right. This type of thinking leads only to more abuse. The only thing I would say that behaviors of Stalin and his likes doesn't mean that Russians are this same way... and off course they are not so aren't the Germans now or half a century ago.

You say "Power is just a tool", but it depends how you use it... it separates good from bad. If we want to remain human we have to know the difference!

Well, that's just the kind of attitude I expect from the citizen of a nation unable to rouse itself from crime and alcoholism without a psychopathic tyrant at the helm.

Sure no, it cant justify them but it can explain one thing - "Why". And of corse not in the simple form "Why"-"Because" but with more sufficient arguments.

Explanation is not enough, furthermore it is very naive to think that "the explanation" is the only reason that drove their actions. Real humans know the borderline that one should not cross. Don't go there man, it is wrong thinking! Einstein once said that the only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits (only a metaphore)

This was the argument I expected you to make- ask for examples of democratic states that have had a culturally positive impact and then when people name them say that they arent really democratic. It would be easier if you defined democracy first.

Just no comments....



But cancellor Mr. von Bismark said that history is made by sword and blood. Think he was more expiriensed in the questions of power.

Man, just open your mind. You don't have to prove the worthiness of a nation through justification of their "evil" sons. When you do that, you justify immoral actions; it is simply wrong. Learn from the past so its tragedies will not happen again. It is impossible that in the course of history everything will go just right, there will be terrible mistakes, but if people keep justifying them instead of learning from them there will be no progress. I know Russia has a lot of historical events that she can be really proud of, don't you know that? Why do you keep hammering on things that are really bad and keep trying to make them look good or justified. There is no need for it... furthermore it is harmfull.

Explanation is fine for understanding events, but if you're asking people about their feelings, don't be surprised if they give them to you, or that they don't think that mass killings are something to just pass over because they know why they happened. The fact that you know why these things happened doesn't mean they were inevitable.


This is getting a bit OT, but in fact there have been many tyrranical states that have produced nothing of value whatsoever. Same with democracies - some produce fluff, and some manage quite well. There are those who would suggest that post-WWII America and mid-20th century France were no slouches in the culture game. More to the point I don't think you can attribute the quality of Russia's cultural output to its tyrannical governments.

Actualy, the true explanation about more fertility of tyranical regimes on the cultural field exist. Just a purt of population is released from day by day work to create something abstract and cultural, as we can see in Ancient Rome, where rich people could create literature and art at the expence of slaves' work.

So it's the same as it has been in Russia for centuries.

Well, I cannot deny it. You are right! It was only a necessity. Serfdome as a mean to attach people to land, to prevent their dispertion over immense territory of russia

Yeah, there is always a neccessity of one sort or another.

That theory doesn't stand much scrutiny. You don't need tyranny or slaves to have a leisure class, as today's USA and Western Europe amply illustrate. Besides, some of history's most important creators were hardly aristocratic do-nothings.