There is one little fact. History is always written by the winners. Why do history books in so many countries differ? Of course, Stalin’s actions were cruel. But do you know who were the first to suffer his wrath? I’ll tell you. Those were the one’s who killed the tzar, the one’s who ordered that even though he gave up his power. Most who were killed were traitors to the state. And even during the war a lot of people who had sided with the nazis, yes, the officers were killed, but their families, sent away… deported… to far corners of the country, away from the war. Nazis burned and killed all those who were captured.

Did you know that no matter how much bad can be said about Stalin, he wasn’t interested in ‘sex for fun’, the green worn soldier mantle was the most luxurious thing he had in his wardrobe, everything else was rags, managed to educate and teach millions of people i just a few years, and even when his own son, a soldier was captured by the nazis, and they wanted a relative of Hitler back, a leutenant. He didn’t commit the exchange, because he wouldn’t exchange a leutenant for a foot soldier.

Point is: those were very dire times. And in very dire times very dire decisions must be taken. Treaty of Versailles literally condemned the nation of Germany to pathetic existence, which in turn gave Hitler, a manic depressive persona with enough charisma and courage but one who was a horrible person, the leeway to rise to power. Because the nation of Germany didn’t approve the lackadaisical dancing their leaders were doing in front of everyone else around them. Because everyone had their own pride. If the Treaty of Versailles would have been more merciful, more humane, then he wouldn’t have risen to power. In all ays, no matter how charismatic he was, his latter activities were horrifying to all: but to serve and die pathetically under the heel of people who deem themselves superior and righteous was not acceptable either.

Do you know what my estonian teacher once said? It’s a very, very famous ‘saying’ repeated here, by the people not stained by the propaganda and polarization of whatever happened back then. She said she had a brother, who went to war on the Nazi side. Another went to the Red Army side. And then he question stands, who was right? Of course some of those who are simply against anything with Soviet Union, because they occupied nations (never mentioning that the areas were usually better off, because it was a general notion of Stalin, that Russia is the older brothr and like all older siblings, the best goes to the younger siblings, because they are still young. The same way the best food would go to the younger children, who still need to develop, while the older siblings may go without some things, because they are older, stronger). Of course there are those who are saying going to the Nazi side is bad, completely forgetting that the smaller nations also have their pride, and for some it was better than going to the Red Army, because that was the way the were. But the correct anser was simple: the only one who was right, was the THIRD brother who didn’t take any and left.

It is easy to judge something from far away, when you have a different mentality, a different history, different everything. Even orthodox church is a name that doesn’t really translate the TRUE meaning. Pravoslavie is a combination of two ancient slavic words from the vedas. prav – the world of spirits and souls and slav – the world of light. Pravoslavie is the only christianity that is more pagan that anything else.

So please. Stop judging this area, stop trying to judge our own history. There were many dark pages in the history of Stalin, because there were no people who could be trusted with the important task of creating a future for millions of people from nothing. Because if a tumor is not CUT OUT it will spread.

And simply because… most of us think that even if democracy brought money, power, development to other countries in Europe, (Britain for example), while post-Soviet countries are still getting there (Estonia for example) – the only thing I noticed: most of people in post-soviet countries were brought up with the beliefs their parents were brought up with, etc etc, wherein lies the simple fact that money doesn’t bring happiness, but harmony, friendship and peace. In post-soviet countries despite all the difficulties for some reason people are more friendly, more ready to help, wouldn’t let a stranger in help of need simply faint for example from the heat, even an ambulance can drive a person home, even though the home may be 60km from the city they work in, or the police to drive a tourist to the train, because their late. And mostly in post-soviet countries are people the most tolerant of people of other beliefs nationalities and races. The only thing that causes disgust is he obsession with money.

Because strictly speaking, it was Stalin who created a whole generation that lived on the happy song from the youth that went:
Let there be always be Sun
Let there be always be Sky
Let there be always be Mother
And let there be always be Me

I personally think it’s million of times better than to grow up on the propaganda of free will, that proves that only the rich have some power.

AK Edit: Not only are you using my blog to advertise this propaganda, you are also spamming and plagiarizing. Consider yourself banned.

http://www.rferl.org/content/A_New_Russian_History_Thats_Sensational_For_The_Right_Reasons/1895990.html

For quality sake, a constructive “whatboutism” can add to what has been said in the above piece.

On another front:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8394079.stm

Excerpt -

“The political detente follows decades of distrust between the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches.
The Orthodox Church has long accused the Catholic Church of seeking to convert Russians to Catholicism.

The Vatican says its activities in the country cater largely for traditional Catholic minorities like Poles, Germans and Lithuanians, who have faced discrimination and persecution in the past.

Property disputes between the churches have also put them at odds.”

****

Actually, this situation has involved centuries of mistrust. Included are prior attempts by invading Catholic Poles to de-emphasize Orthodox Christianity, while enhancing the Vatican’s position. Besides the more distant past, Orthodox Christians under Polish rule faced discrimination between two world wars.

This follow-up isn’t done with the idea of sowing discord to interrupt the attempt at better Russo-Polish and (on a broader scale) Catholic-Orthodox Christian relations.

However, the historic cherry picking evident in the above linked piece has been exhibited elsewhere in English language mass media circles. When repetitiously stated and without opposition, it nurtures a negative and not so accurate image of the Russian Orthodox Church.

On such matter, one can reasonably find fault across the board. It can be counterproductive to live too much in the past. At the same time, it’s wrong to inaccurately stereotype one side in a dispute.

With the exception of only one country and the partial exception of a second, ten post-Soviet states are now using textbooks that present Russia in all its historical forms as the enemy of the peoples of these countries, a pattern that is likely to make it more rather than less difficult for these countries to cooperate in the future.

That is the conclusion of a 391-page report released today in Moscow on “The Treatment of the General History of Russia and the Peoples of the Post-Soviet Countries in the History Textbooks of the New Independent States” (www.nlvp.ru/reports/doclad_hist_02_light.pdf; a summary is available at http://www.news.km.ru/v_shkolax_sng_iz_rossii_delayut).
…
“If these tendencies continue,” the new book concludes, “then after 15 to 20 years, the events of the 20th century will be completely forgotten by the population. In the consciousness of the peoples of the former USSR will be formed an image of Russia as an evil empire which for centuries destroyed, oppressed and exploited them.”

Heck, I was just joking. It’s good to see my comments put to good use.

Another thought came to mind on the WW I-WW II comparison, which relates to bringing all (arguably) pertinent variables into play.

For the Russian Empire, WW I was more of a kind of “luxury” (for lack of a better word) in comparison with WW II for the USSR. In WW I, the Russian Empire lets itself get involved in an alliance system where it wasn’t attacked. This is in sharp contrast to what the USSR faced. The latter saw a brutal attack launched against it. This served as better motivation for the population to continue fighting. On the other hand, the initial enthusiasm for entering WW I is second guessed when the casualties start mounting. (Regarding the earlier hindsight point on another matter, the Russian Empire and its subjects were unaware of what suffering would occur in WW I. This point concerns others involved in WW I as well.) In WW I, the Germans found a convenient ally of sorts in Lenin who was politically skilled. In WW II, Nazi behavior made it more difficult to find and prop someone in that role. This gets magnified on the (especially in retrospect) weaker basis for getting involved in WW I. In addition to the Russian Empire, keep in mind how WW I led to dramatically wrecking the other monarchical forms of government, which fought in that conflict.

I agree with the manner of post-Soviet Russia’s official Victory Day celebrations, which stress the role of the people, who defended their country, versus the stressing of one person for achieving that feat.

I’m of the impression that when compared to WW I, the US showed a greater ability to crank out more weapons during WW II.