Uncle Volodya says, "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt"
Ukrainians are a delightfully pithy people when it comes to folk wisdom. “Borrowed bread lies heavy on the stomach”, they say. “The earth will cover the doctor’s mistakes”. And, my favourite; “Your head is not only for putting a hat on”. Today we’re going to take a look at the opinions of some folks who appear sorely in need of a little homespun wisdom in the latter advice category. The reference for this (hat tip to Mike Averko over at the American Chronicle) is this wilfully ignorant piece published by the Kyiv Post, and based on supporting information from our old friend The Democratist. The Democratist is a big fan of “colour revolutions” in general, and appears to be of the opinion that things have turned decidedly for the worse in Ukraine since the Orange Revolution, well… basically failed to deliver on any of its promises.
Discussion of this disingenuous piece would be misplaced without first discussing liberal “colour revolution” democracy initiatives in general. This is assisted by a review of the role in such upheavals of NGO’s – Non-Government Organizations, or “Ingos”. Here, we learn that (a) American international NGOs were prominent mechanisms through which [the] causal link between superpower foreign policy interests and regime change worked out in many transitions from authoritarian rule in the twenty-one-year-long “third wave”; (b) The “rose revolution” in Georgia (November 2003-January 2004), the “orange revolution” in Ukraine (January 2005) and the “tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan (April 2005) – each followed a near-identical trajectory; all were spearheaded by the American democratisation Ingos working at the behest of the US foreign policy establishment; and (c) rarely has the US promoted human rights and democracy in a region when they did not suit its grander foreign-policy objectives.
On the face of it, this is not unreasonable. The world has often relied in the past on the USA to manage situations or circumstances that nobody else could have done – often, in fact, after everybody else had tried and failed. It wouldn’t make sense to expect America, then, to deliberately work against its own best interests. But that pretext begs the question whether it is democratic government and its people’s interests that are being served, or corporate meddling. In this we are perhaps given a clue by recognized democratisation and political reform expert and current Vice President for Studies at the Cargegie Endowment for International Peace, Thomas Carothers. Mr. Carothers is quoted in the previously-referenced article on democratisation and Colour Revolutions as decrying the instrumentalization of democracy initiatives by recent American administrations: “The United States has close, even intimate relations with many undemocratic regimes for the sake of American security and economic interests… and struggles very imperfectly to balance its ideals with the realist imperatives it faces.” Just off the top of your head, in a conflict between ideals and realist imperatives over the last 20 years, which side has won more often?
Well, let’s go back to the recent inspiration for Democratist’s (and, by extension, the Kyiv Post‘s) analysis of Ukraine’s current situation under the presidency of, if you’ll forgive me, kremlin stooge Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych. The source for this treasure-trove of political insider dope is, we learn, a “new friend” in Odessa who “seems to know everyone worth knowing”. While that may well be an accurate characterization, it sounds to me suspiciously like a description of an aide to the Tymoschenko campaign, or at least someone whose political preferences closely mirror Democratist’s own - although neither of those necessarily indicate a true finger-on-the-pulse report of what’s actually going on in Ukraine rather than, say, a bundle of information certain interests would like to transmit through a western-media conduit.
But let’s take a look at it; you can’t know too much, right? Before we leave Democratist’s original post, “Ukraine May Be Turning Back Toward the EU, But Integration Remains a Distant Prospect”, let’s deal with the allegation that Ukraine is experiencing an “intensified wave of high-level corruption under Yanukovych”.
Is it? It appears some of this information is based on what Democratist considers “credible allegations”, without much further in the way of qualification. But a good bit of it appears to be centred on the suggestion that “reforms introduced as part of a $15 billion IMF loan arrangement have not boosted Ukraine’s competitiveness or market freedom, but have instead benefitted a few businessmen close to the President. Officially the economy appears to be bouncing back from the global financial crisis, with growth projected at 4.5% this year and 6.5% for 2012, but this does not yet appear to be filtering down to the popular level.” That statement is attributed to Anders Aslund, of the Peterson Institute. That’d be the same Anders Aslund who, although he had a moment of lucidity when he argued (in company with Fred Bergstrom) that Russia should be allowed to join the WTO, has nonetheless compared the Russian oligarchs who hijacked the nation’s wealth in Yeltsin’s time to “engines of capitalist development”, predicted that Dmitry Medvedev would be overthrown by a military coup d’etat and regularly whispers juicy gossip to the Moscow Times about the enormous wealth Vladimir Putin has amassed although nobody else can seem to find any trace of it.
Anyway, Anders Aslund is right, this time. The problem seems to be that Democratist is talking about the wrong president. In fact, the IMF suspended Ukraine’s 2009 $16.4 Billion loan “because the former administration of President Viktor Yushchenko, who was at odds with his government, reneged on promises of financial restraint.” Yanukovych is playing catch-up, and is committed by IMF oversight to “unpopular measures such as hiking utilities tariffs and reducing pensions or raising the retirement age” in order to realize the directed goal of reducing the national deficit to 3.5% of GDP in 2011. Just a guess, but that might well account for the surliness over the economy Democratist claims to have registered.
However, if you’d like a refresher on how Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) behaved under Orange-Revolution-installed wunderkind Viktor Yushchenko, here’s a handy reminder from the World Bank. A comprehensive understanding of economics is not necessary to see that FDI in Ukraine fell off a cliff just around the time Yushchenko took the helm, after observing an equally steep positive trend to that point. Just for fun, here’s the Russian Federation’s figures for the same time period, in case you were thinking the entire region experienced a blizzard of bad news on the FDI front. Au contraire, mon frère.
The week after the economic reform package of President Yanukovych’s government was released, deals were inked for nearly $60 million in FDI from Barclay’s Capital, the IFC (private-investment arm of the World Bank) and Hera Holdings of Spain. Analysts at the time were skeptical that this progress would continue. But it did; FDI was up 4.9% in 2010 and up another 11.6% year-over-year in the first quarter 2011.
But economics is boring. Let’s have some fun. Although the odious Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) compiled by the somewhat ironically-named Transparency International is a regular source of mockery in blogs like this one, Russophobes swear by it, and love to giggle about the poor ratings received by Russia. The CPI’s methodology has been regularly and resoundingly deconstructed by sources such as Anatoly Karlin’s Sublime Oblivion, and statistical variations offer flexible reasons for why a country is up or down in the ratings; the size of the sample group, for one, which he was recently forced to explain in childlike terms to La Russophobe’s Kim Zigfeld.
Still, let’s imagine none of that is true – pretend it’s accurate. Even if you can’t do that, surely everyone will acknowledge that a trend is a trend, and down cannot be made to look like up no matter what analysis discipline you choose to employ. With that in mind, let’s look at the CPI specific to Ukraine, with a view to how things shook out on the corruption front. Ready? All right, then.
In 2004, the last full year before Yushchenko ascended to the presidency, Ukraine ranked 122 of 145 countries rated. In 2006, the first full year of Yushchenko’s presidency, Ukraine rated 118 of 179. So Ukraine moved up 4 positions on the list – but another 34 positions were added to the sample group. Is that a net gain for Ukraine, do you think? In case you do, let’s look at 2009, the final full year of Yushchenko’s presidency. Ukraine plunged to 146th on a list of 180 nations. The following year, after Yanukovych took over the presidency, Ukraine stood at 134 in a sample group of 178 nations. For the statistically challenged, that means Ukraine stood higher on the list after showing a steady downward trend, while the sample group got smaller.
Democratist attempts a bit of preemptive damage control by sternly warning that Transparency International has taken Ukraine to the woodshed because of corruption. This, he blithely suggests, is “part of the Soviet inheritance”. Do tell. How, pray, does that equate to a steady decline in Ukraine’s rating for corrupt practices during the reign of the most progressive western-style leader Ukraine has ever had, followed by an uptick in the same rating - as measured by a barometer that is holy writ for russophobes – as soon as he was unseated? Was Yushchenko also part of the Soviet inheritance? If so, he seems to me a most unsuitable choice for leader of a western-style revolution. See? I said this would be fun.
But, as fun as statistics demonstrably are, it’s often helpful to view the results from a different perspective. Just for fun, let’s run a comparison of Ukraine against a couple of nations that have been much in the news of late. First, Egypt.
| Egypt | Ukraine | |
| 2005 | 70 | 107 |
| 2006 | 70 | 99 |
| 2007 | 105 | 118 |
| 2008 | 115 | 134 |
| 2009 | 111 | 146 |
As you can see, although the figures moved around a little, there was never a period of the Yushchenko presidency when Ukraine was assessed by Transparency International as less corrupt than Egypt under Hosni Mubarak. What did a spokesperson for American policy like Republican presidential candidate John McCain have to say about Mubarak lately? He was invited to resign immediately for the good of his country. Want to do another one? Okay, how about Libya?
| Libya | Ukraine | |
| 2005 | 117 | 107 |
| 2006 | 105 | 99 |
| 2007 | 131 | 118 |
| 2008 | 126 | 134 |
| 2009 | 130 | 146 |
For the last two years of the Yushchenko presidency, Ukraine sank below Libya on the corruption scale and was steadily getting worse. What does the U.S. Secretary of State have to say about Moammar Gaddafi? That his forcible removal is in the best interests of his people, while committing $25 Million in U.S. funding to support for the group attempting his overthrow.
As comparative unknown Philip K. Dick once told the world, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”.
Ah, yes, that pithy Ukrainian folk wisdom. My dear father was fond of saying ‘it’s better to be the master of your own modest home, than a rentor in a luxury apartment’. And so it goes with most Ukrainians, ever suspicious of their ‘elder brother’ to the north. Can you blame them? They’ve been on the losing end of a relationship with their brothers to the north for close to five centuries, so have ample experience in rentor’s rights. Their brothers to the north have learned their rentors lessons well too, having struck up a bargain in their last big deal (Kharkiv Accords) where for in exchange for renter’s rights in Sevastopol for another 37 years, the Ukrainians were to receive a ‘special deal’ with regards to gas and oil contracts for a long time to come. Funny thing though, many
are already complaining that these contracts cost more in Ukraine than further west in Europe, and not even a year has gone by. In fact, the current negotiating carrot is once again the ‘special deal’ regarding lower gas and oil contracts, to entice the Ukrainians to join the Russian inspired custom’s union. How many times can you promise the same things, and continue to hold back?
It’s these kinds of shinnanigans on the Russian side that are even causing loyal members of the ‘stooges party’ (POR), to have second thoughts about the whole thing. Even POR loyalist Vladislav Lukyanov is having serious second thoughts about the customs union deal. Having originally been for the union, he now is against it stating that ‘unreasonable considerations are being offered to the Ukrainian side, regarding the pricing of gas’ are keeping him from giving his acquiescence. Not quite the sweet carrot that was offered a year ago in Kharkiv. All the more giving credence to Democratist’s recent observations that:
‘ It has been rumoured for some time that the oligarchy that funds the PoR has come to see the Russian “virtual mafia state” as a key threat to its own independence (although this does not automatically make them keen Europeans, or mean that they will easily accept restrictions on their own activities). Additionally, according to almost everyone Democratist has spoken to, there is considerable popular sentiment throughout the country that Ukraine will be far better off as an independent state than it would be as a glorified southern province of Russia. More specifically, the pro-European policy is being driven to a considerable extent by the First Deputy Head of the presidential administration, the economist Irina Akimova.’
I’d agree Ukraine would be better off as an independent country, as indeed it is – but every nation that aspires to be other than just someone’s satellite needs associates. Nobody ever became wealthy and prosperous trading with themselves and following an isolationist policy.
Ukraine has serious problems with its finances, and its standard of living is lower than that of western European countries. It isn’t an energy giant like Russia, and its chief claim to energy fame is as a pipeline conduit to carry gas that doesn’t originate in Ukraine. Although the west would very much like Ukraine to have NATO membership, its closest European neighbours are less enthralled with the vision of a large, poor country that will immediately become a drain on their economies and likely flood them with cheap labour, risking the overbalancing of their own economies and swelling their own unemployment. Meanwhile, those (outside Ukraine) arguing loudest for its membership in NATO are interested solely in creating a problem for Russia and moving military bases onto its doorstep. Don’t fool yourself that they’re actually concerned for Ukraine or Ukrainians, and simply want to see Ukraine blossom and flourish.
The customs union probably isn’t a good idea, because it will postpone necessary reforms by letting old practices prevail for a few more years, and Russia likely only proposed it out of frustration at being kept out of the WTO for no reason. The original motivation behind Jackson/Vanik is no longer relevant at all, and any other consideration is overshadowed by other countries who are already WTO members despite having far worse problems than Russia with corruption and human rights.
Speaking of folk wisdom, here is a Sicilian one “If you want to be prosperous, you have to always complain”. I don’t know if there is an Ukrainian equivalent, but you seem to apply it all too well. Like the Poles, Ukrainians complain about the expensive Russian gas, which is sold cheaper in an unspecified place located “further west”. And the Russian gas is always more expensive of the non-Russian ones, it’s used like a weapon, the price reduction promises are always broken, etc.
I’ve read these complains since years, but neither Poland nor Ukraine (not to mention the Baltic states) have even started to diversify their imports or develop domestic gas production. It’s just whining, but it’s no longer working with the ‘elder brother’ to the north.
I’m pretty sure every society has a similar proverb; for us, it’s “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”. A close review of Yulia Tymoschenko’s business career would reveal much about the manipulation of gas prices that the public doesn’t see. I don’t want to foster the impression that I am against Ukraine progressing or don’t want to see it succeed unless it can be on Russia’s terms, and I’m every bit as opposed to Ukraine-bashing as I am to Russia -bashing. I am, however, opposed to western interests using Ukraine for a patsy so they can foil Russia’s ambitions, merely acting as a spoiler for interests they have no intention of taking advantage of themselves. Europe already supplies something very near 100% of its own needs (except in the energy sector), and there’s little Ukraine could contribute in the short term that would not require a complicated reshuffling of trade interests that I don’t see Europe as very eager to carry out. In that I am substantially in agreement with Grafomanka.
It’s not just Yulia Tymoschenko and other gas barons manipulating the gas price, it is one of the conditions set by the IMF for a loan
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/73830/
Price increase, not just for gas, is one of the effects of European integration. When it happened in Italy there was a blame game between various internal factions, in Ukraine some peoples blame Russia.
This is in line with the contention in my post that Yanukovych must make unpopular financial decisions in order to clean up the mess Yushchenko left him with, and which resulted in suspension of the previous IMF loan. In a previous article I mentioned that British analysis of Tymoshenko’s financial decisions was that they “flew in the face of reality”, and that her raising the wages of public servants by more than 50% was insupportable without bankrupting the country. Since Ms. Tymoshenko surely wouldn’t empty the nation’s treasury for no reason at all, there had to be a reason and it wasn’t fiscal responsibility. What’s left? You tell me. But if I had to guess, I’d say vote-buying and consolidation of personal power.
That particular link is very resistant to embedding, and seems to want to default to a totally unrelated story about the Lviv Air Show tragedy. But the document that suggests Tymoshenko “seems determined to exercise authority without limits” (and that’s when she was only Prime Minister) and that her decision to initiate electricity cost subsidies and increase public sector salaries by almost 57% “flies in the face of economic reality” is entitled “Realism About Ukraine Part I – Internal Conditions “. Again, it’s by James Sherr, for the UK Defense Academy’s Conflict Studies Research Centre. The issue is 05-32, dated June 28th, 2005. Mr. Sherr seems quite an authority on Ukraine, and has published several other works. Some of them support Kozakov’s suggestion that Russia is using gas prices as a lever to bend Ukraine to Russia’s will. One of those is issue 06-52, October 2006, entitled “Ukraine: Prospects and Risks” (these are PDF files). It highlights, “Yanukovych and most of his supporters are not tools of the Kremlin, but Ukrainians who recognise that the achievement of good relations with Russia will not be easy. Nevertheless, they currently believe that ‘Yushchenko is to blame’ and hope for real improvements that do not damage Ukraine’s independence.” However, it also says, “The 15-16 August summit between Putin and Yanukovych in Sochi did nothing to change this status quo. Both sides were dissatisfied with the meeting: Yanukovych, because the Russians showed no inclination to change the rules; Putin, because Yanukovych failed to make the concessions—control of the pipeline network and full entry into the Single Economic Space—that would induce him to change them.” There’s no denying Putin will play hardball to get what he wants – what I have seen no real substantiation for is that this would of a necessity be bad for Ukraine, or impinge upon its independence. Finally, it points out, “There are grounds to fear that this might entail accepting a de facto Russian veto on further steps towards NATO and the WTO (which, in turn would put paid to the prospects of a free-trade agreement with the EU)”. Let’s not forget that, shall we – for all the twaddle about “centuries of brutal domination” and “savage overlords”, the issue of Ukrainian acceptance into major European institutions will surely come to a vote in the UN, where Russia can simply veto it. If Russia perceives such a deal would be detrimental to its national interests or that western interests will promptly use the new member to weaken Russia’s national defensive perimeter, that’s likely what it would do.
I wasn’t aware that the UN has a deciding vote (veto) on EU membership? If this is so, why wasn’t this card played out by Russia with the EU accession of the Baltic countries, or even Poland, Romania or Bulgaria?
I was just about to ask the same question, but Kozakov beat me to it. I don’t see the connection to United Nations?
My apologies to you both; it’s difficult to imagine what I was thinking, but I probably meant to say the European Commission rather than the UN. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good walk-through on the steps to acquire membership in the European Union, and points out that some countries have blown through it in a couple of years, while others take considerably longer. Turkey is probably the extreme example, having applied in the 1950′s and still awaiting acceptance. Anyway, Russia is obviously not a member of the European Commission, and could not veto any initiatives undertaken by it. Although there’s little doubt Russia could make things problematic for a European Ukraine in the UN, there are ample international organizations to get around bringing most such matters to a UN vote if avoiding such a veto were the aim.
Still, I wonder what author James Sherr meant in that passage from “Ukraine: Prospects and Risks” that I quoted earlier. Here’s that quote again: “The 15-16 August summit between Putin and Yanukovych in Sochi did nothing to change this status quo. Both sides were dissatisfied with the meeting: Yanukovych, because the Russians showed no inclination to change the rules; Putin, because Yanukovych failed to make the concessions—control of the pipeline network and full entry into the Single Economic Space—that would induce him to change them. But instead of refocusing Ukraine’s efforts on the Western vector, the summit appears to have redoubled efforts to concede ground to Russia in other areas. There are grounds to fear that this might entail accepting a de facto Russian veto on further steps towards NATO and the WTO (which, in turn would put paid to the prospects of a free-trade agreement with the EU).”
“De Facto”, of course, means something that is a reality whether stated or not. Therefore, he seems to be suggesting that entry into the Single Economic Space accord with Russia would give Russia de facto veto power over Ukraine’s progress toward EU membership. I suppose it could, depending upon who was the leader in each country at the time. A stronger argument – and one that fits perfectly with Sherr’s further arguments – is that such an accord would cause the west to give up on its efforts to bring Ukraine into the European fold. However, such an action would imply that Ukraine’s prosperity and a heightened standard of living for Ukrainians were never prime concerns of the west from the outset. Opinions?
marknesop – no reply line at the bottom of your post? Thanks for your clarification (we all make mistakes). As to your last thoughts regarding the possible ‘defacto’ veto of Ukraine’s posssible future entry into the EU, another exchage of our’s regarding the upcoming invitation of Ukraine to enter the Customs Zone (a precursor to full entry to the CIS?) shares similar issue and nuances. You requested that I provide you with a link that would exemplify this line of thought, which you can access below. Also, if you’d like to read other articles about Ukraine’s Custom Zone prospects, go to ‘Українська Правда’ and filter the topic ‘Митний Союз’. The article that I provided seemed to be one of the better articles expressing a negative slant.
Yes, “nested comments” is a feature of WordPress blogs in which the comment format has not been modified (except for WordPress’s own periodic updates). The owner can choose how many comments will be “nested” together in their own sub-thread, and I chose a maximum of 8 because after that the comments become so narrow they’re difficult to read. So the 8th comment will have no reply option, and you have to start a new thread.
Thanks for the article and the reference; I’ll check it out. Meanwhile, it’s not my aim to endorse forcing Ukraine into the arms of Russia, but for Ukrainians to choose what’s best for Ukraine from a standpoint of being well-informed and having a good understanding of their options. My personal opinion is that Ukraine would be better off in a loose association with Russia that does not threaten its independence, and which encourages Ukraine to stand on its own. As you can see, although Ukraine is a powerful indirect gas supplier to Europe, the gas is not Ukraine’s and Ukraine is pretty far down the list of countries with known large reserves. A possible solution there is further exploration, but as discussed earlier, known deposits on the Black Sea shelf are difficult to bring to market profitably using current technology, and western speculators don’t seem to like the chances of Ukraine’s having large deposits inland that are easily recoverable. Shale gas offers a possibility, but at present it is a horrific polluter owing to the “fracking” method of recovery and only the very richest deposits offer the lure of profitable exploitation. Historically speaking, Ukrainian leaders since independence who have appeared the most progressive have presided over economic disasters, while those derided as “kremlin stooges” have strengthened and restored the national economy. For reasons also discussed, EU membership would not come without significant risk or potential economic pain. It serves Ukrainians ill to pretend otherwise.
I encourage Ukrainians to keep an open mind, and not to be fooled by special interests on either side. As always, it’s wise to examine every offer from the viewpoint of who stands to benefit, and how.
markensop – I’m new to your blog, but am attracted to your open mindedness, ability to persuade based on sound argumentation, and if I’m not to bold to state, and appreciation of Ukrainian interests as well. Unfortunately, I can’t say as much for the majority of the participants of this blog. I look forward to your dissection of the customs union article that I cited.
Kozakov, you’re always welcome. I agree the exchanges can get a little rough-and-tumble, but nothing sharpens the sword like debate and disagreement, and I imagine everyone has learned something. You appear no stranger to debate yourself. Kovane is only ill-tempered because of our marketing rivalry regarding what the Libyan colour revolution should be called, and since he proved to be such a genius at reformatting my posts I am inclined to drop my claim of “The Brown Revolution” in favour of his. I’m sure he doesn’t dislike Ukrainians in general or you personally.
You can call me Mark; NESOP is just an MOC (Military Occupation Code) that is part of my email address.
Kozakov; I’ve reviewed the article you linked on Andrew Lush’s conviction that a customs union (and actually, it’s more than that, it’s an economic cooperative effort if it proceeds to its logical conclusion). I don’t doubt Mr. Lush’s sincerity. However, I believe some of his concerns are misplaced, his contentions largely unsubstantiated and much of his rhetoric inclined to panic people in much the same way as American political figures use terms like “socialism” and “erosion of our freedoms” – calculated to provoke an emotional reaction without further thought.
I couldn’t find any specific information on Mr. Lush himself, despite his grand vice-presidential status. However, I’d be remiss if I did not point out that the Front for Change polled only a bit better than half the number of people who said they did not intend to vote at all in the 2010 elections – 4.3% vs. 8.4%. At that, they did better than Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine, which failed to break the minimum threshold at only 1.4%. Anyway, it doesn’t seem the voice of the Front for Change (formerly the Democratic Front) speaks for many Ukrainians.
That’d be irrelevant if he was right. Is he? Let’s look at his worries. He says participation in the Customs Union would create governance structures that would lead to a loss of Ukrainian sovereignty. For one thing, proposal of the union is a starting point – a departure point for negotiation. I imagine changes could be argued that would protect sovereignty. For another, does he imagine Ukraine is going to run the EU as soon as it’s admitted? Does he not imagine a similar threat of loss of sovereignty lies that way? He says an EU Free Trade Agreement will open up “tremendous prospects” Will it? What makes him think so? As we’ve already argued, Ukraine’s chief contribution to the expanded EU is likely to be agricultural, which is already a tightly-regulated protectionist market in the EU with many jealously-guarded subsidies that make it nearly impossible to compete on a level playing field.
He says a customs union would cause problems for Ukraine’s relationship with the WTO, which will cost Ukraine $2 Billion and probably lead to economic sanctions. He doesn’t say where he got these figures, or how a situation like that is likely to prevail in a country where 85% of GDP is in the hands of its oligarchs.
He says a free trade zone with the EU will improve the business climate – how? He’s just tossing out generalities and hoping some of them stick. Again, in a country whose trade with the EU would likely be mostly agrarian, competition for markets will be fierce. However, in his contention that it will be better for Ukraine to adopt European regulatory standards, he is absolutely correct. This is what Russia needs, too, the sooner the better. This would be my main argument against the customs union, because it would allow the old way of doing things to stagger along for a few more years.
He says, again, that a customs union deal will result in a loss of economic sovereignty for Ukraine, because the customs union would have its own Commission, empowered to negotiate on its own with third-party countries. For one, it should be a simple matter to negotiate adequate and equal Ukrainian representation on such a Commission in exchange for coming onboard. For another, you’ll never get a deal like that from the EU, which also has a regulatory board for trade. You have to observe a normalizing exchange period of two years before you’re even allowed to use the Euro, during which time it would look very bad for you if your national currency dramatically lost value.
He says the customs union will destroy Ukrainian industrial competitiveness. How? If Ukrainian industrial competitiveness can be wiped out by Russia, which isn’t in the WTO, what is competition from the WTO going to do to it? Come on.
I can’t go any longer, or this will be a post on its own. But Russia obviously considers such a union an alternative to the WTO, I’ll stipulate to that. It’s likely intended to force the west’s hand on completing Russia’s accession to the WTO, and if that were to complete without further delay, the Customs Union idea would probably be dropped. But because Russia needs Ukraine to make it worthwhile, it gives Ukraine huge negotiating power to force favourable terms. Mr. Lush appears not to get that, and most of his arguments appear to be just economic gobbledygook calculated to frighten the ignorant into a panic vote.
Mark – Like yourself I come to these forums to try to sharpen the sword of debate, and to ultimately learn something new or impart some small bit of knowledge to others. Because my ‘pro-Ukrainian’ bias is evident, I still don’t feel it appropriate to label me as a ‘ukre’ or ‘svidomite’ or lump my thinking with some strange precepts that ‘Jesus’ or ‘Cleopatra’ were Ukrainians. I have an undergraduate degree in history and a Masters degree in Business Administration. My interest in Ukrainian culture is the result of a fantastic upbringing by my parents, who were young adults who volunteered to go to Germany during WWII in search of a better life, and after having witnessed the horrors of the famine in their native Ukraine. I can
assure anyone here that I have no genetic disposition against Russians (indeed I count members of my family as being Russian, who I’m on good termns with:-)) and have had the privilege of having dinner guests at my own and at my parent’s table that included Russians, Poles, Germans, Afro-Americans, Jews (Bessarabian), and many others. It would be nice to cut all of the stereotypic crap, the likes that I’ve encountered from Kovane, and try to just stick to the issues.
Romanians. Asians. Greeks and many others.
Well said. Unfortunately, insult is often a tool to hammer home a point. Sometimes it’s accurate, sometimes not. I try not to interfere with the manner of argument others choose, while I try to restrict my own insults to those who are the subjects of posts rather than commenters upon it. But you appear to be able to protect yourself quite well. Besides, there’s nothing like argument to promote interest in a post! There’s nothing wrong with a pro-Ukrainian bias, and it is more or less expected from anyone directly associated with the country. As I’ve pointed out, I am not Russian, and I have a pro-Russian bias simply because of the negative coverage of Russia in the media and family connections with Russia. I don’t find nationalism threatening provided it’s not based upon racism (as some Russian groups who identify as “nationalists” are) or upon pipe-dreams foisted on them by politicians with personal agendas. Nationalism based on promotion of your own country’s place in the world is a matter of pride.
On Ukrainain issues, this org. isn’t “anti-Ukrainian,” while not exhibiting some of the anti-Russian biases evident elsewhere:
http://www.aminuk.org
I don’t recall “Putvedev” speaking of Ukraine as a “southern province of Russia.” Such a characterization is hyperbolic. In point of fact, every post-Soviet Russian government recognizes Ukraine’s independence, based on its Soviet drawn boundaries. This stance hasn’t caused such a great uproar in Russia. Moreover, there’s the overall mood in Ukraine (that’s not so negative towards Russia), which contrasts from the kind of Ukrainian views often evident in English language mass media.
As Vladimir Belaeff notes, the Russian-Ukrainian relationship is subject bumps on the road, which can likely lead to mutually beneficial and closer relations.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QO1pT3jn-FoJ:russiaprofile.org/experts_panel/36097/print_edition/+%22Russia+Profile+Weekly+Experts+Panel:+Moscow+Fails+to+Bring+Ukraine+into+the+Customs+Union%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
Regarding Ukranian relations with the EU and Russia:
http://odessablog.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/expresident-kuchma-speaks-on-trade-and-influence/
No one is seriously considering Ukraine’s entry into NATO at this time. The question buzzing right now is the Customs Union, which I’m sure is just a prelude in Russia’s eyes to Ukraine’s incorporation (and I do mean incorporation) into the CIS (remember that grouping?). I do agree with you that ‘nobody got prosperous trading with themselves and following and isolationist policy’. But why not try to ally yourself with a much more progressive and economically develped Europe, than with a more backward economic power like Russia, thats only benefit to the world is its natural resource base? Besides, the kremlin stooges (POR) may someday wakeup and realize that they have plenty of energy resources of their own on the Black Sea shelf, and need only to exploit these home grown resources themselves, without ‘big brother’getting too involved (as he has done in the Caucuses) ?
The only reason nobody is seriously considering Ukraine’s entry into NATO at this time is that Yushchenko didn’t win in 2010, and the United States was sufficiently motivated toward a Yushchenko win that it removed the Jackson/Vanik amendment restriction for Ukraine immediately before the election in an attempt to help him. Two events queered the deal of two new NATO members the west had been eyeing eagerly – Saakashvili’s premature and botched attack on Tskhinvali, and Yanukovych’s election victory.
Why do you think Ukraine would have a better time of it as the poor bumpkin cousin of a “much more progressive and economically developed Europe”? The facts speak for themselves – and I note Democratist’s post is extremely short on facts and long on hush-hush conversations with Ukrainian progressives he can’t identify: Ukraine under Yushchenko experienced an abrupt decline in foreign direct investment, the economy fell to bits and corruption ballooned as rated by the barometer russophobes love to quote. What’s so hard to understand about that?
If Ukraine genuinely had significant resources on the Black Sea shelf which lie within her uncontested waters, the western majors would be lining up to exploit them, because they’d like nothing better than to get a foot in the door in the region. Since they’re not, it probably suggests surveys indicate there’s nothing there in sufficient quantities to make it worthwhile, or there is but it would not be profitable to extract. Early probes were not encouraging. Ten years later, political maneuvering by energy oligarch Yulia Tymoschenko created an uncertain investment climate as she tried to take out her rivals. Today, Ukraine is indeed interested in energy self-sufficiency via the Black Sea shelf, but attracting an international partner has still not proved as easy as rich oil deposits would make it, and it appears most of the finds to date have been quite deep. The recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico cast a bit of a pall over deep water extractions.
Realistically, the chance of Ukraine joining the EU as a full fledged member anytime soon seems remote.
Contrary to the kind of Ukrainian views typically getting propped in English language mass media:
http://grahamstack.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/would-the-real-ukraine-please-stand-up/
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/59865/
A seemingly downplayed occurrence, running counter to some misguided suggestions:
http://www.russiablog.org/2011/06/us-ukraine-naval-exercises-sea-breeze-yuri-mamchur.php
Regarding the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis-22052011/
Language barriers? Maybe an export market that would actually buy Ukraine’s products? Could Ukraine’s artists find anyone interested in EU?
Europe is mainly interested in protecting their agriculture and promoting their exports. Don’t they call it a union of subsidized farmers?
They recognize that Russia is a lucrative market you can sell a lot to (exactly because they are ‘backward’ , but have a lot of money). Eurozone helps German exports be competitive, to the despair of souther countries whose economies have been rendered uncompetitive. But at leat Greeks etc have the benefit of EU open job market, something that will not be offered to Ukraine. Latley protecting european job market has been high on the agenda.
@kozakov: “No one is seriously considering Ukraine’s entry into NATO at this time…”
Crucial words are “at this time”. NATO, and especially Americans, maintain strategic goal of incorporating Ukraine into NATO. I can cite many sources if needed. Yushchenko was put into power in Ukraine with 4-year plan: Both Ukraine and Gruzia were supposed to join NATO during his presidency. Both countries already began re-tooling their weapons systems to conform to NATO “standards”. Why this project failed was all on Yushchenko, on his incompetence. He turned out to be the “wrong guy”. Americans grind their teeth, will wait a couple of years, then try again, with a different guy. (Not with Tymoshenko – they don’t like her.) Americans are relentless, and they have made crystal clear that they want to turn Black Sea into “American Lake.”
Interesting to do a country by country breakdown of military vessels currently in the Black Sea.
As noted further down this thread, Russia at large doesn’t seem to be anywhere near pressuring Ukraine to join CSTO, when compared to how some leading Western politicos call for Ukraine joining NATO.
Pingback: The “Grand Area”, Ukraine and political idealism verses reality | OdessaTalk
Pingback: The Grand Area, Ukaine and political idealism verses reality « Odessablog’s Blog
Very interesting pingback:
http://www.odessatalk.com/2011/06/10/the-grand-area-ukraine-and-political-idealism-verses-reality/
It is indeed; I’d never heard of this site, but I believe I’ll add it to the blogroll; it’s very well-written.
Concerning the particular link at that blog, the Kyiv Post is like The Moscow Times.
A definite and at times questionable slant, which periodically carries other views.
@mark, I agree is well-written, your posting is also very well-written, so congrats for getting it mentioned so favorably in this pingback! By the way, can anybody explain to me what exactly is a “pingback”? I see this term a lot, but I don’t know what it means. How does “pingback” differ from regular link??
yalensis, a pingback basically is the opposite of a link. It’s a message that you get when someone posts a link to your website.
Agree with most said above to counter Kozakov’s point. Having said that, I would like to see Russia providing more generous gas subsidies and other financial aid to both Ukraine and Belorussia. The main point of a customs union should be so that those 2 countries get better deals. This is the way it happened in time of Soviet Union, federal government subsidized regions with very cheap energy, and was the reason these two republics were able to keep up a reasonable standard of living. “Buying more friends” would be politically better for Russia too, although Kozakov may unfortunately have a point that Russian leadership is too greedy to see beyond their narrow monetary interests. Russia would be very sorry if these 2 countries went rogue and ended up joining NATO, in the deluded belief that they would get better deal by joining West. In reality, all they would get is destruction of their sovereignty and economy, like happened with Latvia; plus marching orders, soldiers marching off to die in NATO’s next war… However, Russia cannot arrogantly assume that all is well now just because Yushchenko lost election. A new Yushchenko clone is no doubt being prepared in the CIA laboratory even as we speak…
EU is not all bad. Poland got a great deal out of it, mountains of money being poured into the country, subsidising the farmers and everything else, and 2 million people could find jobs abroad, sending money back, building houses. But.. sad as it is, seems the golden years are gone and this not on offer for Ukraine.
@grafomanka: Agree, EU is not all bad. In fact, EU is great thing, I fully support concept, have nothing against. My beef is NATO, not EU. I am actually sad that EU is failing now, I think main cause is deficiency of $$$ due to world financial crisis.
There’re a few too many Sorosian elements in the EU, who’ve biased stances like pressuring Serbia to recognize Kosovo’s independence.
This is disheartening:
http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?p=2652
From time to time, elements within some of the EU countries have complained of a centralization that isn’t always fair. A not so distant poll in Croatia shows limited enthusiasm for that country joining the EU.
The EU appears to have limits. I’m cautious about seeing it as the ultimate in seeking progress.
If done right, the customs union among some former Soviet republics can be mutually beneficial.
Its existence doesn’t by default encourage the negative practices of old. Such manner can exist without a customs union.
@misha: Tadic is a fool and a traitor. He thinks he can “live” with a greater Albania, so long as a few concessions are made to Serbia? He is fooling himself. EU will not make a single concession to Serbia, and “greater Albania” will only result in more Balkan wars. IMHO.
Yalensis, might also be his way of preparing/testing Serb public opinion.
The situation in Serbia (noticeable Quisling like attributes) could’ve been as evident in Russia – which has a degree of such as we know.
Touche, mon frere! Russia probably has more quislings per square meter than Serbia ever could!
Very respectfully said: not quite, which only serves to highlight just how bad the situation in Serbia is.
I think that Poland got a good deal with the EU because the government has been mostly Euro-skeptic (or smart). I remember to have read many times that Poland was blocking this or that EU initiative/directive, while other Eastern European countries never took similar positions. Hence the EU greased Poland to get the needed consensus, while the Euro-enthusiasts got nothing.
Some time ago we had a commenter from Hungary, PvMikhail. He described the EU integration as a disaster for his country.
Ukraine and Belarus are different in the sense that their populations don’t (in overall terms) look at Russia as negatively as what has been evident in some other parts of the former Soviet bloc.
As long as Lukashenko is in a position of considerable influence, Russia figures that Belarus has limits, in a way that serves to benefit Russia. In Ukraine, there remains a bit of a tug of war between different views of Russia. Western neolib to neocon leaning orgs. have done a good job at propping some Ukrainians with a certain line of thinking. On this particular, Russia needs to keep pace.
Sorry Yalensis, but I disagree with you here. Russia has subsidised ex-Soviet countries with cheap energy for a long time, and all you got in return is that these countries feels entitled to Russian subsidies, and at the same time talk about integration with the West or are plain russophobic. From Italian folk wisdom “Don’t give a loan to a friend, or your friendship will broke”.
@Giuseppe: I understand your point. However, I don’t advocate LOANS, just outright gifts = subsidies = cheap energy. It would be like a business giving better terms to a favorite customer. Call it bribery, if you will. But might be a way for Russia to prevent its neighbors from joining NATO and eventually going to war against her (=Russia). Otherwise, Russia maybe in big trouble 10 years from now, with everybody going to war and NATO bombs raining down.
This just came out today: very interesting article by American Kremlinologist Stephen F. Cohen. Main theme: failure of “reset” between USA and Russia. Cohen is somewhat critical of Obama and continues to argue for “detente”, he even offers a blueprint for ending this new Cold War, that would involve NATO de-militarizing border zone with Russia. He says West owes Russia bigtime and needs to start paying up. He is right. Cohen is a good man, unfortunately, nobody in American government is listening to him, he is just the voice crying in the wilderness. This article was also transated into Russia at INOSMI. Here are both links, English followed by Russian:
http://www.thenation.com/article/161063/obamas-russia-reset-another-lost-opportunity?page=full
http://www.inosmi.ru/usa/20110610/170502989.html
After one of the terror attacks in Russia, I didn’t appreciate how he went from one TV station after another, rather casually saying the the Chechens say the Russians kill their civilians.
In the US, such a commentator would be severely rebuked for casually saying that the Palestinians say the Israelis kill their civilians, in the immediate aftermath of the 1972 summer Olympic tragedy in Munich.
If anything, I think what’s owed bigtime is some new blood at the more high profile of slots. S. Cohen gets around.
Tack on 9/11 as another example.
Who is Tack?
Another way of saying add on.
Thanks for the clarification.
@misha: Well, it is true that Cohen has a “nimble” mind, but he is not a Russia-hater. He has been around a long time, and even during Soviet period he did not slime soviets unfairly, was not considered a cold warrior. Based on that, I am willing to cut him some slack. My biggest criticism of Cohen is that he is too identified with Gorbachev, and continues to hammer on about how great was Reagan-Gorbachev detente. Aside from that I think he is worth reading.
Yalensis,
Cohen’s Gorby friendly stance has periodically cloud his analysis.
On a number of Russia related issues, there’re other and arguably better sources.
An example of what I’m referring to just came to mind.
Several years ago, S. Cohen was on a PBS NewsHour segment with the person who at the time headed Harvard’s Ukrainian Research Center. The latter and his institute don’t impress as being generally fair to pro-Russian sentiment.
In that particular instance, Cohen made an erroneous statement about a 20 million ethnic Russian population in Ukraine, which the other panelist noted.
We all are prone to errors. Cohen is a worthy source on a number of issues. However, someone more well versed on the subject of Ukraine wouldn’t have made that particular error. Such a person would correctly note the actual ethnic Rusisan population in Ukraine and the reality that many Ukrainians have a positive sentiment towards Russia.
Putin said: “We are waiting for our partners at least to name the source of the infection. But they themselves cannot understand and figure out what is going on there. We cannot poison our people for the sake of some spirit – people die after eating these products! I will, of course, examine the validity of this decision by our health protection services, but still we are looking forward to the relevant information from our colleagues at the European Commission.”
Medvedev said:”"We discussed a mechanism of resuming supplies of European vegetables to the Russian market, we are ready to resume such supplies against guarantees from competent services of the European Union.”
They both said essentially the same thing, bu press reporting for what Putin said was (“Putin: Russia’s ban on EU vegetables will stand”) and for Medvedev it is (“Moscow pledges to lift ban on EU vegetables”). All very logical!
You’re right – messaging at its finest, and never miss an opportunity to stick a thumb in your enemy’s eye. It’s plain who the west prefers, but the reasons for that are equally plain. Medvedev is pliant and susceptible to flattery, while Putin is neither. Medvedev could be suckered into all sorts of deals that would have Russia running in circles and getting nowhere, just as the west wants it. As China displaces the USA as the last superpower – economically speaking only, at least in the short term, as the USA will remain the preeminent military power for the foreseeable future – that attitude may soften somewhat. Going up against China alone will be tough enough, but the last thing America needs is an alliance of Russia and China.
You chose an excellent example to illustrate this bias.
I respectfully maintain that M is maybe not quite the soft touch that some think.
Misha, it’s not as much about Medvedev being soft touch or not but about how he is represented in the western press. After saying essentially the same thing Putin said, the reporting on them completely diverged, for no reason. I’m sure if it was Putin at that Russian- European Summit saying that, then hell would broke loose.
Sam,
They’ve some style and substantive differences, which IMO get somewhat over-dramatized.
Why do you think Ukraine would have a better time of it as the poor bumpkin cousin of a “much more progressive and economically developed Europe”? ‘ It stands to reason, that if you’re chosing partners to ally yourself with, the economically stronger, more progressive model is the one to ally yourself with.
Why marknesop, do you think that Ukraine would have a better time of it as the poor bumpkin cousin of a ‘more backward economic power like Russia, whos only benefit to the world is its natural resource base’?
I do realize that the heyday of easy european money is over, but where is the carrot that Russia keeps promising?
Also, I don’t think that it’s appropriate to point to the fiascos that occurred during the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko era as an accurate barometer of how things will necessarily end up if Ukraine finally decides to engage more seriously with europe as a strategic partner. Soon, a whole new cadre of younger, more progressive politicians will fill the vacuum, as the older ‘soviet era’ politicians are phased out. Already well poised in this light is western leaning Yatseniuk.
Russia has much more to offer the world besides natural resources.
To the disdain of some, Yatseniuk has spoken of forging closer ties to Russia. In Russia, Yavlinsky has done likewise, with economics as a main underlying factor.
Once again on the EU versus Russia: the chances of Ukraine becoming a full fledged EU member anytime soon appears remote. Ukraine should therefore leave its options open.
I agree, ‘Ukraine should therefore leave its option open’. It’s my understanding that by becoming a member of the CIS or even the Customs Union this would severely diminish any future chances of Ukraine becoming a member state of the EU (which really seems to be the course that it’s bent on). This is related to the different patterns of monetary exchange and tariff/tax calculations. It appears that you really can’t become a member of both groupings. It is clear that Ukraine would be doing its future prospects of integration into the european structures a great disservice by joining any Russian inspired ones.
The flip side being the low prospect of joining something, while doing things that leaves out a potentially beneficial option.
‘potentially beneficial option’?? Are you kidding? 5 centuries of Russian domination over Ukraine has left plenty of concrete examples of the benefits of colonialism. It’s time for this ‘beneficial relationship’ to be reassessed.
That’s your opinion which (for good reason) many don’t share.
This point doesn’t deny past wrongs. At the same time, it’s IMO (and that of others) that the “five centuries of Russian domination” mantra is overly simplistic and inaccurate.
Ha-ha, let me guess, another proud svidomite living in the West? So Russia practised colonial policies toward Ukraine, huh?
That reminds me of an old joke:
A little boy comes to his grandfather and ask him,
- Grandpa, what is the difference between Jews and Kikes?
- Jews, grandson, are good people who live in Israel, protect their country, fight against Arabs. And Kikes live in Ukraine, guzzle bacon, drink vodka and build the Ukrainian national state.
- Grandpa, what is the difference between Russians and Moskals?
- Russians are good people who live in Russia, fight against Chechens and give us oil and gas. And Moskals live in Ukraine, guzzle bacon, drink vodka and build the Ukrainian national state.
- Grandpa, what is the difference between Ukrainians and Khokhols?
- Ukrainians are good people who live in the USA and Canada, do business and obey the law. And Khokhols live in Ukraine, guzzle bacon, drink vodka and prevent Kikes and Moskals from building the Ukrainian national state.
Reminded of an ultra-nationalist saying about drowning the Muscovites in the blood of the Jews.
I just saw this, and it’s pretty funny!!!
Are you an economist, Kozakov? I don’t mean to suggest you have to be an economist to comment on economic issues, and you don’t. However, if you’re asking us to take your opinions at face value because of your professional qualifications, you should state them. If you’re not an economist, let’s see some references to substantiate your opinions. You suggest there are plenty of examples, so it shouldn’t be too challenging. You appear very capable in English, but if you find references in Russian or Ukrainian that better corroborate your point, feel free to cite them. An example would be, “It appears that you really can’t become a member of both groupings” Appears to who? Why? Canada and the United States are forever talking about a customs union and have even mulled the issue of a common currency (for North America; I believe it was jokingly referred to as the “Amero”), but we continue on with our own agencies despite our common border and something like 85% of our trade is with the USA.
My point is that Europe doesn’t really need anything Ukraine makes or produces, especially its agricultural products, which Russia does need. Therefore Ukraine-in-Europe would immediately find itself in a price war whereby it would have to undercut current suppliers – many of them with lucrative national subsidies that make level-field competition impossible because that’s what they’re designed to do: protect their own markets – or not be able to sell its products. The west is in love with the idea of Ukraine as a prosperous western-style European democracy – until it has to make room at the table for Ukraine. If your sole rationale is that Russia cheats Ukraine, please don’t tell me you would expect European partners to structure deals with Ukraine in a manner that protected Ukraine’s profit while acting against their own national interest. That, sadly, is not the way business works.
You seem to feel Ukraine would lose its independence if it did business on anything but the most perfunctory scale with Russia. Why is that? Is Ukraine so weak and poorly led that it would slip back into the Russian orbit against its will? Do you think, having gotten to run his own country, Yanukovych is anxious to hand it back to the Kremlin? You may well be right, but so far you’re not supporting your contentions very well and sometimes not at all. You’re just saying, that’s the way it is because I say so.
On looking at the past, consider the prior Polish and German treatment of Ukraine. Past problems haven’t kept others from forging good ties.
All of your points are well stated. My basis for concluding that Ukraine makes it difficult for itself to foster future ties to the EC by joining the Customs Union or the CIS, were obtained from a number of articles that were posted within Ukrainska Pravda a number of months back. If you feel that my memory of these articles was incorrect, I’d be willing to try to find them for you. Why, do you feel that Ukraine’s joining these Russian inspired structures in any way streamlines Ukraine’s future prospects for joining the EC?
Well, no; I have no reason to doubt your word. To the best of your recollection, what did these articles suggest was the basis for the contention that there’d be no joining the EU if they were part of a common customs union with Russia? Is it just supposition? Has anyone from the EU said, “If you join a customs union with Russia, we’re no longer interested”? I’m curious because I’m sure if we had a common customs union with the USA, it’d have nothing to do with our exports to Pacific Rim countries, for example. Ditto imports to us directly from any third-party nation. My reservations about Ukraine joining in any such union have nothing to do with fears for the effect on its chances to join the EU also, and everything to do with my belief that Russian business practices (including customs and tariffs) need to be reformed so that they’re more in line with the rest of the world – and joining in a union with other countries that are content to leave it as it is will offer an excuse not to reform. I believe cleaning up its complicated business rules will make Russia more attractive for foreign investment, and it likely wouldn’t hurt Ukraine either.
To the best of my recollection, the articles cited basically pointed out differences in the ways in which business is conducted in the two systems. Also, that Ukraine and the EC countries belong to the WTO and Russia does not. By joining the Customs Union, Ukraine would make it prohibitively costly in dealing with countries that already belong to the WTO, in effect abrogating its hard earned status. Also, by joining the Customs Union, Ukraine would be stepping closer to a political union with Russia (I know, this is hard to believe). A very good article I found that expands on these points, written in Ukrainian is found here: http://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2011/04/11/6093531/
Russia should be in WTO soon. Kozakov, have you got any sources on the Custom Union that don’t come from Ukrainksya Pravda, or ones that are not likely to have an obvious bias. I’m just suspicious about news sources called ‘pravda’
My reading venues vary. Overall, nowithsdanding its hokey sounding name, I find Ukrainska Pravda to be as unbiased as any source that I read. Unlike you, I’m suspicious of all news sources that I read. Everybody has and deserves their own bias.
Unlike you, I’m suspicious of all news sources that I read lol you can’t possibly know what I find suspicious. Anyway I was just referring to the fact that some news sources are less obviously biased than some others, and you’re more likely to stumble upon some honest analysis.
“Unlike you, I’m suspicious of all news sources that I read. Everybody has and deserves their own bias.”
****
Quite ironic, upon reading a good portion of what Koz agreeably says at this thread.
I just found this analysis from Global Security News, http://global-security-news.com/2011/05/13/customs-union-with-moscow-or-free-trade-area-with-brussels-which-way-is-kiev-going/
I think it’s interesting. If describes some concerns about whether Ukraine can compete with the EU in a free trade settings (hard to compete with subsidized farmers).
Hm… Well, up until then we were just having an abstract discussion about currency exchanges and gas subsidies, and whether Ukraine should join CIS to get the gas subsidies, or wait and join EU for future economic benefits. But as soon as someone (i.e., Kozakov) starts talking about Russian “colonizers” then becomes clear we are dealing with a “Galician” type ideologue and political nationalist. Therefore, is not about economics at all, so the whole debate about Euro-integration is irrelevant.
I can assure you that the idea of ‘russian imperialism’ and russification were not ideas cooked up by
galicians. Why, does the idea of the Russian Imperial Empire or the Soviet Union beingpet? ‘empire builders’ or ‘colonizers’ seem inaccurate to you? Or is ‘russification’ as a tool of imperialism another ‘bogey word’ that needs to be swept under the carpet?
Meanwhile, in the real world, the majority of people in Ukraine continue to view Russia positively and not as an oppressor (either today or in the past) and the same majority prefer union of some sort with Russia over highly hypothetical EU or NATO membership. So quit pretending that you are speaking for Ukrainians, because you’re not, and its bullshit.
The Ukrainian Weekly
http://www.ukrweekly.com
October 2, 2005
The Irrational Exuberance of Orange
By Roman Solchanyk
Roman Solchanyk is an international affairs analyst in
Santa Monica, Calif.
All of those bandits who were in power will wind up in
prison.
Viktor Yushchenko, Gazeta Wyborcza, April 11, 2005.
I give my word that no one from among the members of
the government will take advantage of his position in
order to further his own business [interests].
Viktor Yushchenko, Gazeta Wyborcza, April 11, 2005.
The renewal of cadres will be continued.
Viktor Yushchenko, speech on Independence Square
marking the
anniversary of Ukraine’s independence, August 24,
2005.
Thus far, of the three above-mentioned promises made
by President Viktor Yushchenko, the only one that he
has followed up on is the last. The cadres are indeed
being “renewed,” but not the ones that either he or we
had in mind. Instead, the president has dismissed the
entire Cabinet of Ministers, and the chief of his
administration, the secretary of the National Security
and Defense Council, and the head of the Security
Service of Ukraine are now all in the category of
“former.” The spark that touched off what is now being
routinely described as a crisis is directly related to
the second promise noted above –namely, charges and
counter-charges of widespread corruption among the
heroes of the Orange Revolution that have been made
public by the heroes themselves, including the
Ukrainian President.
It is impossible, of course, to determine who is lying
and who is not; these are, after all, politicians. But
what is strikingly obvious is that at the core of most
of the accusations and counter-accusations is the
question of money: how to get as much of it as
possible and in any way possible. For those who may
have forgotten, the Orange revolutionaries came to
power via the Maidan (Independence Square) by
focusing, among other things, on the illicit wedding
of political power to shady money, which was the
hallmark of the previous regime. In light of what can
only be described as a kind of a Ukrainian cum Soviet
“bardak” that is presently unfolding in Kyiv, I
decided to go back and reread some of the reports and
commentaries that appeared in The Weekly and in other
publications last fall and winter, when the word
“orange” took on a new meaning (and Orange-related
paraphernalia apparently brought in handsome profits
for Mr. Yushchenko’s immediate family). What I found
there is perhaps best described by a phrase made
famous by the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve –
namely, “irrational exuberance.”
The overall thrust of much of this happy talk,
including that of individuals in the U.S. and Canada
whose names are preceded by the word “professor,” was
that a new Ukraine and a new nation had arisen in the
aftermath of a successful and peaceful national
uprising against the bad guys — those whose primary
purpose for seeking and maintaining political power
was grand larceny. I place emphasis on the word
“national,” because, among other things, we were
cheerily told that the notion of a Ukraine divided
along an east-west axis was absolutely wrong, a
stereotype, and the like. Yes, there are regional
differences in Ukraine, went the story, but these are
unimportant. The errant ways of former President
Leonid Kuchma and his gang of thieves were being
reversed, the people had spoken and they were
victorious, and the good guys (?) were now in power.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel, as the new
president assured his listeners in his August 24
speech.
Ukraine was finally going to resemble what these
people in places like Philadelphia and Toronto always
imagined it to be. The euphoria was not limited to
Ukrainian-Americans or Ukrainian-Canadians. A
well-known professor in Ukraine, jousting with an
equally well-known essayist in Ukraine, wrote in the
December 2004 issue of a well-known Ukrainian-language
monthly that “the time has come to stage a symbolic
public funeral” for the notion of two Ukraines — that
is, one kind of Ukraine in the east and a rather
different kind in the west.
But if only it were all so simple.
The irrational exuberance brought about by the Maidan
seemed not to notice that nearly half of the votes in
the final round of the presidential election last
December were cast against the Maidan. Further, the
bulk of these votes were in the eastern and southern
regions of Ukraine. No one in the Yushchenko camp was
seriously disputing the validity of these votes.
Moreover, we have seen a similar pattern of voting
behavior in previous Ukrainian elections. As Yogi
Berra would say, it was déja vu all over again.
Public opinion studies serve only to confirm what the
election made plain and what should be painfully
obvious: Ukraine is politically divided and the
division has a very clear geographic component. A
survey conducted by the Razumkov Center in Kyiv and
the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in May
revealed that 78 percent of respondents in the western
part of the country sympathized with those political
forces that supported the Yushchenko camp; the
corresponding figure for the east was only 15 percent.
The glaring differences between east and west are
obvious. Nearly 72 percent of respondents in the
western part of the country support membership in the
European Union; the corresponding figure for the east
is slightly over 30 percent. As for joining the Single
Economic Space with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,
more than 86 percent in the east are for it while the
corresponding number in the west is just above 32
percent. In the east, 79 percent want dual citizenship
with Russia; in the west it is just over 20 percent.
And so it goes down the line. One does not need to be
a mathematical genius to arrive at the conclusion that
there is a disparity here insofar as the political
culture of the eastern and western parts of Ukraine.
More disconcerting perhaps is the tenacity of certain
long-term trends
in the country as a whole. The results of a recently
concluded study covering the period 1994-2005 by the
Institute of Sociology in Kyiv and the Democratic
Initiatives Foundation found that more than 50 percent
of the population would like Ukraine to join in a
union with Russia and Belarus. More than 50 percent
means a majority. Over the course of the last year,
the proportion of opponents of integration into Europe
has nearly doubled. Problems of culture and language
are the last thing that people in Ukraine are
concerned about; half of the population supports
official status for the Russian language. (I wonder
how that would go over in Poland — or even Slovakia.)
The report ends by saying that “Ukrainian society is
developing in a non-European direction.” What? All
those fine new buildings going up in Kyiv, the
expensive restaurants, and the president’s 19-year-old
son brandishing a cell phone that sells for a minimum
of $6,000 (he has a part-time job) do not amount to
Europe?
Clearly, there will be those who do not place much
trust in public opinion polls. Fine. But discounting
opinion surveys as a matter of course brings to mind
certain people who are uncomfortable with what they
disdainfully characterize as “reality-based” news. The
consequences of that approach have not been altogether
happy. In any case, results from the ballot box in
Ukraine tell the same story.
There will also be those who may argue that, well,
after all, we do have so-called blue and red states
here in the U.S., so what’s the big deal? The big deal
is that differences of opinion about abortion, guns,
stem cell research and something called “intelligent
design” have nothing remotely to do with fundamental
issues of nationhood. And fundamental issues of
nationhood are precisely what are in question in
contemporary Ukraine. Anyone with doubts on this score
needs only to read what thoughtful people in Ukraine
are increasingly writing about.
The point of this exercise is not to suggest that
Ukrainians are somehow incapable of becoming a nation
or that Ukraine is falling apart because most people
in Donetsk prefer to speak Russian while most people
in Lviv are inclined to speak Ukrainian. That bit of
early 1990s “intelligence” from Langley was wrong then
and it is wrong now. What I am suggesting, however, is
that the fat lady is not finished singing.
Oh, and as far as that first presidential promise
about bandits winding up in prison. Which bandits are
we talking about? The “good” ones or the “bad” ones?
Sorry the Solchnyk article is sloppily formatted.
The significance is the referenced poll on Ukrainain attitudes towards Russia shortly after the so-called “Orange Revolution.”
Mind you that the population in its “Blue” east and southeast is greater than the hardcore Orange part, with central Ukraine (Kiev-Poltava) being more mixed on a number of political preferences.
Note that during the Orange streetfest in Kiev, most of the signs were in Russian. Yushchenko ran a slick campaign in terms of highlighting the perceived negatives of his opponent and being two pronged in his stance on Russia. Pro-Yushchenko commentary included noting his previous record of supporting close Russian-Ukrainian business ties.
Again sorry for increase in misspells and other snafus.
As noted, the new post comments feature isn’t as user friendly.
You’ve a point up to a certain degree.
“Russian imperialism” and “Russian oppression” wasn’t as bad as some others.
Consider what the Irish experienced and the popularity of Gaelic in Scotland and Ireland relative to Ukrainian in Ukraine. Ther’re other examples to give as well.
The otherwise glaring hypocrisy on such matter is muted.
I’m not against RT doing a half show on a valid topic like global anti-Jewish sentiment. High time for that station to focus on anti-Rusisan biases.
How Russia screws itself in a way that isn’t so well known continues to be an otherwise evident reality.
At times, overly trumped up terms, used by some, in an apparent effort to somehow legitimize hatred and discrimination towards people of Russian origin.
Looking at some other parts of the world in Russian Empire times and the hypocrisy is quite evident.
Pardon thes previously submitted links to this blog:
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/04/yuschenkos_wife_and_the_ugly_h.php
http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=en&nic=expert&pid=2355
Not a fan of hypocritical and inaccurate anti-Russian advocacy/commentary.
Oy, yoy, yoy, yoy, yoy:
How Ukraine Could Help to Bring Russia Back Into Europe: Plea for a New Eastern Policy of the EU
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/234741
Shortly after the so-called “Orange Revolution”, I recall Brzezinski saying that Russia was more ripe for change because of what happened at the time in Ukraine.
Respect is a two way street. “Putvedev” stress Ukraine’s standing as an independent state. Security isn’t better enhanced by going out of the way to try to keep Russia and Ukraine more separate from each other with a suggestively divisive undertone that isn’t entirely accurate.
Good to see some Western establishment views on Ukraine get challenged at these links:
http://www.rferl.org/content/yanukovych_looks_to_soviet_nationalism_to_stay_in_power/24227494.html
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/new/blogs/motyl/Regime_Incoherence_in_Yanukovychs_Ukraine
http://www.rferl.org/content/sensational_story_wasnt_reports_of_stoning_death_in_ukraine_girl_false/24213624.html
It’s no unfounded ‘mantra’. You’re not going to deny that during 4 centuries of Russian imperial rule, Ukraine was absorbed into the Russian Empire as a colony, to be ruled over as many other nations were too? That the chosen method of rule from the center included a pronounced preference for all manner of russification that resulted in dozens of decrees prohibiting the writen Ukrainian word. That the new capital of St. Petersburg was built to a large extent on the bones of Ukrainian cossacks that were forcefully conscripted into the slave labor that built this imperial capitol, and where thousands perished from disease, overwork and malnutrition? How many more peaceful, hadworking citizens perished in the soviet gulags whos impetus continued the backward policies of russifying the colonies?
genuis, do you know the difference between a colony and a province? Is Scotland a colony of the UK?
Ukraine as a separate national entity is something that developed over time. Modern day Ukraine, Russia and Belarus are descended from the Rus state that existed from the 9th to mid-13th century.
In the post Mongol era, independent RusSIA (if you may) served as a positive role model for other Rus territories that were still under occupation. This is what motivated the 1654 coming together of much of Rus’ territory.
If Russia was so bad, many folks from the land now known as Ukraine wouldn’t have supported it during the Napoleonic and Crimean wars. In large part, Mazepa, Petliura and Bandera failed because many on Ukrainian territory didn’t favor a separate and hostile path away from Russia.
Especially when considering the involved Russian Empire period in history, the Ukrainian language wasn’t so suppressed. In the 1870s, some restrictions became noticeable. This was motivated by separatist leaning Ukrainian language material coming from Austrian Empire territory into the Russian Empire.
In its latter stages, the Russian Empire like much of the rest of the world as changing in a way that gave greater recognition to groups that didn’t yet have a recognized independent status.
Contrary to anti-Russian propaganda, the USSR wasn’t created for the benefit of Russia at the expense of others. Moreover, post-Soviet Russia isn’t a mini USSR.
Scotland is neither a colony nor a province but a country that is a part of the United Kingdom. Did I pass your genius test?
Ethnically and linguistically, Ukraine and Russia are closer to each other than Scotland and England.
a country that is a part of the United Kingdom
So was Ukraine in the USSR. So, what’s the difference?
Kovane – Let’s see…the differences between Scotland/United Kingdom and Ukraine/USSR? Are you serious? I’m sure that the resident genius here (Misha) is in a far better position to answer this one than I……Well, there’s the difference between hagis and borshch.
‘Ethnically and linguistically, Ukraine and Russia are closer to each other than Scotland and England.’ So what?
Don’t fudge the question, I asked whether Scotland is a colony, and if not – how Ukraine is different in that regard.
The suggestion that Russia and Ukraine are like most separate nations is erroneously premised because of the shared Rus experience and the fact that a separate Ukrainian national identity isn’t something that was evident in the manner of some other national identities – even within the past 100 years.
The ethnic-linguistic comparison regarding Scotland and England underscores the Russian-Ukrainian relationship. BTW, I understand that Scottish separatism involves regional differences within Scotland.
I’ve already answered your question: ‘Scotland is neither a colony nor a province but a country’ Having trouble with your reading comprehension or just comprehension in general?
Not as much as you’re having trouble with answering a single comment. Have you spotted the “Reply to” button?
Look how cleverly you outsmarted me! But your answer also defeats your original statement that Ukraine was Russia’s colony. It never was.
Overall, Ukrainian identity gradually moved from a more regional sentiment to one that became more separate.
A large Rus land mass and a period of some Rus lands living under a post-Mongol foreign occupation served to further differentiate the ancestors of Rus.
Kozakov, do you know that Scots got their own parliament not that long ago (in 1999). And many English are pretty pissed off about this. Before that Scots they did not have a parliament, at least not for the last 300 years.
Crimea has its own parliament (but no president). Is it also a country?
Didn’t know Crime had a parliament. Scotland was Scotland because people felt themselves Scottish, it is a nation. There are many definitions of what a country is, but If you refer to Scotland as a country, so you can refer to Soviet Ukraine. I don’t see the difference.
Soviet Ukraine was respresented at the UN. Soviet rule gave Ukraine territory that no Ukrainian entity ever had.
Also, Scots used to have their own (Gaelic) language, which was driven into extinction (and replaced by English, a completely different language) by English colonizers. Scotland fought many wars to retain independence, but was defeated in brutal battles, and ultimately subjugated by English. In comparison, Russia and Ukraina were always allies (with the exception of that Mazepa unpleasantness), did not colonize each other, and did not extinct each other’s dialects. People like Kozakov have been brainwashed into a parallel world-view that does not correspond to historical reality.
In the days of Rus, I understand (based on writing from that period) that the linguistic differences were minimal when compared to the present day.
The Tryzub (Ukraine’s national emblem) was the family coat of arms of the ruling Riuriks, who included Ivan the Terrible and his immediate successor.
The Patriarchate was moved from Kiev to Vladmir and later Moscow.
The person credited with developing the area near Moscow was the son and grandson of Kiev crown princes.
A prominent Novgorod prince moved to Kiev at which point the period known as Kievan Rus is said to have begun.
Yalensis,
On the Mazepa point, I respectfully stress that Mazepa’s decision to side with Sweden and Poland against Russia wasn’t supported by most of the population on the territory of his domain.
The ‘shared Rus’ experience took place during the medieval period. Notions of pre-national differences were already evident in Ukraine during the autonomous government of the Hetmanate in the pre-modern era (if not earlier). To somehow infer that this ‘shared experience’ somehow warrants the close control of Ukraine by Russia today, makes about as much sense as promoting a similar relationship of Germany over France or vice/versa, both nations having shared a similar ‘shared experience’ within the medieval Carolingian Empire. No one today would even dare promote such an asinine proposition. Only russophile nimwits. Pure rubbish!
There’re noticeable differences which you overlook, while choosing to carry on in a not so intelligent manner.
Rus became subjugated by the Mongols, as opposed to breaking up on its own. Thereafter, the northern area of Rus becomes the strongest and most independent of Rus territory.
The Zaporozhe Cossacks saw Russia as a better option to the threats posed by Poland and Turkey. Hence the 1654 coming together of much of the Rus territory. BTW, in present day Ukraine, the Cossacks are generally among the more pro-Russian of elements there.
How these empires broke apart during the medieval period should not infringe on the prerogatives of the successor member nations in the modern era to pursue independent state status and all the attributes that come with this sort of status.
Khmelnistsky’s decision was not etched in stone, and indeed one of Russia’s greatest military losses on its own territories occured just a short 5 years later at Konotop (1659) by these same Zaporogians under Khmelnitsky’s successor, Vyhovsky. It wasn”t until 1775 that all vestiges of the Ukrainian Zaporogian cossacks were finally decimated.
Comparing Russia and Ukraine to France and Germany ?!
Everything is possible in a svidomite’s mind!
If you have something to say, then say it. You’re limited, bigoted vocabulary doesn’t really impress me!
You see, my plans don’t include impressing you and I can assure you that I’m saying exactly what I intend to say.
@kovane: What is a svidomite? I tried to look it up in wikipedia, and it asked me: “Did you mean sodomite?”
Seriously, what is a svidomite? Is it somebody who lives in Lviv?
http://lurkmore.ru/Свидомость
Got it! Thanks, kovane. I like the Aristotelian logical paradigm:
Всякий оранжевый — носитель свидомости … но не всякий носитель свидомости — оранжевый.
(“Every Orange person is a svidomite .. but not every svidomite is an Orange person.”)
Makes sense, I guess, although I myself would have pegged the relationship as a tautology!
One of the first attributes of being ‘nationaly conscious’ is revering the Ukrainian language (gasp!). I guess I must be one of them. If being a ‘sodomite’ means one who enjoys getting his up the backside, then this must be referring to kovane!
Mysterious are the ways of your logic! But then again, it’s a common predicament with your ilk.
Actually, my logic isn’t that hard to understand. You started the name calling by calling me a ‘svidomite’.
I retaliated by calling you a ‘sodomite’. Follow me so far? The inference here is that if you don’t enjoy being called a ‘sodomite’, don’t call me a ‘svidomite’. OK?
Sadly, your logic started right from a mistake – you showed yourself to be a svidomite, and I called you that. Then you turned to insults and called me a sodomite, whilst I gave you no reason to believe that I was one. But not to worry! Nobody expects much reason and logic from a svidomite, so you’re doing great so far!
By persisting in your childlike namecalling you’re only adding to your well deserved MO of a sodomite.
OK, now you’re being homophobic on top of everything else, implying that only sodomites resort to name-calling. How can you not understand, the only one engaging in name-calling is you? That is beside being a svidomite, of course. When you blabbering on about some mythic Russian oppression and Ukraine being a colony, you’re simply branding “svidomite” on your forehead. Sorry but that’s the truth of it.
My sodomite acquaintance – For a fuller understanding of the discrimanatory practices poised towards the Ukrainian language and culture during the soviet period, you’d do yourself a service by reading Ivan Dziuba’s seminal work on the topic “Internationalism or Russification’ first published in 1965. You can currently purchase the paperback version through Amazon for a mere $2.95. Once you’ve read this book, I’d be glad to continue our ‘dialogue’. Think of it as yet another opportunity for you to improve your reading comprehension skills!
I no longer consider you a friend, svidomite – you’re being mean and obnoxious. That’s an excellent ruse – demanding that I read svidomite literature; I’ll surely buy when when it costs less than kindling – its fair price. I can use it – read first The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, otherwise we have nothing to talk about.
By the way, is my understanding that you’re son/daughter of Nazi collaborators correct? If so, you must be the pride of the svidomite community.
Well, I guess I’m still not sure exactly what a ‘svidomite’ is, or better yet how I seemed to pass the magic litmus test of initiation into this wicked sect? However, I can infer that part of the test is anyone who believes that Ukraine was a colony of Russia’s (there’s been plenty written about the topic, read most any Ukrainian history book or even google in the topic to find info). I suppose the following that I’m quoting, is also just more ‘blabbering about some mythical Russian oppression of Ukraine’ . Read it carefully, you’ll probably find this as new information:
However, in the Russian Empire expressions of Ukrainian culture and especially language were repeatedly persecuted, for fear that a self-aware Ukrainian nation would threaten the unity of the Empire. In 1804 Ukrainian as a subject and as language of instruction was banned from schools.[5] In 1811 by the Order of the Russian government the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy was closed. The Academy that had been open since 1632 and was the first university in the eastern Europe, was now proclaimed to be outlaw. In 1847 the Brotherhood of Sts Cyril and Methodius was terminated. The same year Taras Shevchenko was arrested and exiled for ten years, and banned for political reasons from writing and painting. In 1862 Pavlo Chubynsky was exiled for seven years out of Ukraine to Arkhangelsk. The Ukrainian magazine Osnova was discontinued. In 1863, the tsarist interior minister Pyotr Valuyev proclaimed in his decree that “there never has been, is not, and never can be a separate Little Russian language”.[18] A following ban on Ukrainian books led to Alexander II’s secret Ems Ukaz, which prohibited publication and importation of most Ukrainian-language books, public performances and lectures, and even the printing of Ukrainian texts accompanying musical scores.[19] A period of leniency after 1905 was followed by another strict ban in 1914, which also affected Russian-occupied Galicia.[20]
Ah, you mean the books where Jesus Christ and Cleopatra are ancient Ukres? That states that the famine of 1931-1932 was specially designed to eradicate only Ukranians? I’m sorry, but there’s far better fantasy novels, if I wanted to read one I would choose something else.
You see, you’re telling half-truth again. Yes, the Russian empire didn’t support local cultures, but it also didn’t persecute them. Can you cite any instance when someone was arrested for speaking Ukrainian? And certainly the Russian empire promoted only the Russian language, once again like any country then. Returning to Scotland, can you imagine England nurturing Gaelic in Scottland?
Taras Shevchenko was exiled not because of his writing in Ukrainian, but for dissent. Or you think any country tolerated it then? On the whole, I agree that the Russian empire suppressed Ukrainian seeing it as the root of separatism (quite rightly so, I might add). But let’s move to the USSR. Do you intend to say that Ukrainian was oppressed somehow then???
As for the statement that Ukraine was Russia’s colony, it’s laughable and show abject ignorance and bias. Did Russia prevented Ukraine from developing industry? Did it foisted its own goods on Ukraine? Answering these simple questions, it’s not hard to see that it was treated like a province, same as any other in fact. Sometimes very harshly, but not on a special condition. And don’t forget to look on this map
Upon further review, there’s considerable inaccuracy in your presentation – which is evident by how Ukrainian isn’t as uncommon in Ukraine as (I understand) Gaelic is in Ireland and Scotland.
As noted in this thread, the worldwide standards of tolerance weren’t as great as they’re today.
The noticeable curtailing of Ukrainian language use in the Russian Empire in the late 1870s was the result of separatist Ukrainian language material imported from Austria by some Galician Ukrainian activists with apparent Habsburg support.
FYI, as part of the Russian Empire, Finland is considered to have experienced the most autonomy of any future nation under the rule of a European monarchy.
Ukrainian nationalist revisionism includes adding the word Ukraine into Gogol’s Taras Bulba.
kovane – In what i quoted above, there’s no mention of Jesus Christ or of Cleopatra. It seems that it’s you that is reading too many fairy tales!. It also supports my theory that you have a definate problem with reading comprehension. How in the world could you have read what was quoted above and still make an assinine assertion like this: ‘ Yes, the Russian empire didn’t support local cultures, but it also didn’t persecute them. Can you cite any instance when someone was arrested for speaking Ukrainian’? Put on your reading glasses and reread the above and pay special attention to people and concepts like ‘ Ukrainian culture and especially language were repeatedly persecuted, for fear that a self-aware Ukrainian nation would threaten the unity of the Empire. In 1804 Ukrainian as a subject and as language of instruction was banned from schools.[5] In 1811 by the Order of the Russian government the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy was closed. The Academy that had been open since 1632 and was the first university in the eastern Europe, was now proclaimed to be outlaw. In 1847 the Brotherhood of Sts Cyril and Methodius was terminated. The same year Taras Shevchenko was arrested and exiled for ten years, and banned for political reasons from writing and painting. In 1862 Pavlo Chubynsky was exiled for seven years out of Ukraine to Arkhangelsk. The Ukrainian magazine Osnova was discontinued. In 1863, the tsarist interior minister Pyotr Valuyev proclaimed in his decree that “there never has been, is not, and never can be a separate Little Russian language”.[18] A following ban on Ukrainian books led to Alexander II’s secret Ems Ukaz, which prohibited publication and importation of most Ukrainian-language books, public performances and lectures, and even the printing of Ukrainian texts accompanying musical scores.[19] A period of leniency after 1905 was followed by another strict ban in 1914, which also affected Russian-occupied Galicia.[20]
I recopied the whole quotation, because every line is germain to our discussion. I know that sooner or later you’ll get the hang of this ‘reading comprehension’ stuff.
My svidomite friend, a friendly piece of advice for you: don’t go and dispense your lame diagnoses, unless you like being called a moron. Don’t worry, I find all fairy tales I need in your comments. You usually win many hearts by repeating what you’ve already said, don’t you? I should try it sometimes too. Here: yes, the Russian empire saw Ukrainian as the source of dissent (Look, look – I’m agreeing with you here!) and suppressed it. But it was not uncommon at the times. Even today, as Ukraine’s suppressing the Russian language.
You forget to answer if Ukrainian was persecuted or in any way suppressed in the USSR.
In fact, Canada is guilty of this as well. The Federal government of the day banned the pivotal ceremony of the Northwestern Indian tribes – the Potlatch – in 1884 and it was not reinstated until 1951. The reason for this was that the ceremony consisted of giving away large amounts of personal property accumulated for the purpose, to gain recognition and reputation. Sir John A. McDonald (first Prime Minister of Canada) saw the practice as improvident, and directed the government to bring down an iron hand on the natives, to lead them toward more European ways. By the time it was reinstated, virtually nobody could be found who remembered how to do it, and the sacred objects associated with the ceremony had been confiscated and went to private collections and museums in Europe. So far as I know, it died out in 1884 and was never held again.
Native children had to go to church schools and learn English (where they often suffered sexual abuse), in an effort to stamp out the native dialects. It must have been successful, because only a handful of historians knows any of the native tongues today, although I believe the Inuit still have their own language.
Thanks for fixing the posts, kovane; that looks great! I don’t know how you figured out how to do it, but as a borderline computer-illiterate, I’m impressed. Sure saves a lot of space.
Rusyns in Trans-Carpathia have issues with how Ukraine has treated them.
How hypocritical of some Ukraianin nationalists to deny Rusyn identity.
It has been brought to my attention that the Rusyn language has some identical words in the Russian language which aren’t evident in the Ukrainian variant.
According to a reliable source, Robert Magosci (pardon any misspell of his name), considered the leading North American academic on Rusyn issues is fluent in Ukrainian unlike Rusyn. Relative to that point, Magosci has expressed thoughts in line with anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalist leaning views. In his history of Ukraine, he essentially carries on as Petliura’s defense attorney in a not so academically objective manner.
Survey after survey has affirmed that only a tiny minority of Ukrainians – probably those referred to as Nationalist extremists – favour Ukrainian being the only spoken and written language in Ukraine. Most are perfectly happy to speak either Ukrainian or Russian or both, and a plurality wishes the language issue would just go away, as Ukraine has many more pressing problems than linguistic purity. Yulia Tymoshenko couldn’t speak a word of Ukrainian before she entered cabinet, and she was the flippin’ Prime Minister.
No, that was me who mispoke. It was Google, not Wikipedia, who asked me if I meant “sodomite”. Try it yourself: go into Google, type in the word “svidomite”, and the Google will assume you are interested in sodomy and bring up 779,000 results in .16 seconds!
P.S.: As someone with an actual college degree in linguistics, I must say, Ukrainian language/dialect/whatever is a wonderful and beautiful creation, too bad it is being used by Orange-type people to hate Russia and love NATO. That would make Ukraine’s greatest writer, Gogol very sad….
I’m surprised to read that after having identified yourself as a linguist, you don’t seem to know that the Ukrainian language is not a dialect of any sort? If anything, the Russian language could be thought of as an offshoot of old Ukrainian, Church Slavonic and certain Ugro-Finic pronunciation patterns. The northern part o the Rus Empire was first colonised by the princely members of the south Rus, Kyivan (Ukrainian) Ruirikad clan. The northern regions were colder, less fertile and much less populated than the southern Rus lands. Along with the princely retinue, the clergy were also involved in ‘civilising’ the mostly finno-ugric tribes that were ensconced in the north. Thus you can see where the Church-Slavonic and Ugro-Finic patterns filtered into the language. They are indeed two related languages, analogous to Norwegian/Swedish, Spanish/Portugese, Czech/Polish.
That sort of supports what Mike (Misha) said earlier; that Ukrainians are the real Russians, and Russia should be called something else. It also supports why Russians can grasp the rudiments of Ukrainian even if they don’t speak it, and vice-versa.
No, there’s evidence to the contrary on that claim.
Finno-Ugric Russian language influences gets inaccurately trumped when compared to how the modern day Ukrainian language came about. It wasn’t spoken during the Rus period.
You don’t mention that a prominent Novgorod prince moved to Kiev at about the time the Kievan Rus period is said to have begun.
Mark,
My last set of comments directed at Kozakov.
Excerpted from a posted link at this thread:
After several centuries as a unit, Rus (the 9th to mid-13th century state, which modern day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are descended from) came under a prolonged era of Mongol subjugation. The post-Mongol occupation period of that land saw Rus territories come under different rule. Coupled with that aspect, the relatively large land of Rus was ripe for nurturing different cultural and linguistic attributes, while not completely eliminating a feeling of kinship, dating back to Rus’ pre-Mongol subjugated existence. Upon the defeat of the Mongols, the territory making up much of the contemporary European part of Russia emerges as the most independent of foreign domination and strongest of Rus territories. There are signs that Rus was undergoing a shift of greater influence to its north (away from Kiev) before the Mongol subjugation. At around this time, there was some evidence of regional differences as well.
Marnesop – You’re actually on to something. The Ukrainians underwent a national name change that began in the mid 19th century and continued until the early part of the 20th. Until then, the Ukrainians were known as ‘rusyns’ or in the latin ‘ruthenians’. Note, that nowhere in their history were the Great Russians (Rosijane) ever know by these ethnonyms. Before they were known as ‘Russians’ they were known, not pejoratively as ‘Muscovites’. This referring to the prominence of the Muscovite principality in the north.
@kozakov: Your historical points are valid. Russian could be considered a dialect of Ukrainian. The only real difference between a language and a dialect is the presence of literary works plus political status of being a national language. By this token, both Russian and Ukrainian are national languages, although both could also be considered dialects of each other. As a linguist, I am forbidden by my profession to favor one language over another, or have a personal preference. All human languages/dialects are equal. From practical point of view, I prefer Russian, only because I know it, and don’t know Ukrainian, so is not feasible for me to read Ukrainian sources. Deep down, I prefer Ukrainian though, because I love the sound of it. It sounds lighter and softer. Russian sounds somehow harsher to the ear. But both obviously great languages.
I thought Rusyn/Ruthenian were terms that had Latin origins. It would make sense since they were people who lived in lands dominated by Catholic Poland and Hungary, whose liturgical language was also Latin (and under Catholicism, the only literate people were those who could read the Bible.)
Gogol being a great Russian and Ukrainian literary figure highlights a problematical point for some – thereby explaining the revisionist BS about him, which flops in the face of reality.
The mentioned Ems Ukaz was prompted by separatist material coming from Austria via some Galician Ukrainian activists.
Worldwide, inaccurate and provocative screeds weren’t as tolerated back then.
The Russian Empire was onto a path of greater tolerance. For example, during the Russian Civil War, the Whites (considered the most reactionary of forces in the Russian Civil War) issued a statement prohibiting a ban on the Ukrainian language.
Yalensis,
Very respectfully, I’d like to see some more clarity on the relationship of modern day Russian and Ukrainian vis-a-vis what was spoken in Rus times.
Cartman,
Ruthenian or Rusyns commonly used to describe ancestors of Ukrainans in non-Russian Empire territory, in contrast to the Little Russian term, which Yalensis followed up on, in relation to my initially bringing it up at this thread.
Keeping in mind, that a Rusyn identity still exists with a language having traits more closely related (at least in some instances) to Russian than Ukrainian.
Would be great to get hold of some detailed linguistic comparison/history of modern day Russian, Ukrainian and Rusyn, relative to what was spoken in Rus times.
I sense propaganda in how some (stress some) note foreign influences in the Russian language, as if another language doesn’t have foreign influences.
Yalensis – in reality both languages are separate, but related, as I’ve already pointed out similar to Czech/Polish, Swedish/Norwegian or Spanish/Portugese. All languages have their own charm and all help to enrich our shared world culture. The more I learn Russian, the more I find it pleasing to the ear.
Ukrainian is certainly a beautiful sounding language, and indeed many musicologists have rated it only second to Italian (& french!) as far as ‘tone quality’ is concerned: ‘ Ukrainian is one of the most melodious languages in the world alongside with Italian and French. The significant place in the world culture belongs to the Ukrainian folksongs, which are notable for the beauty of the word and singing.
http://ua-traveling.com/en/information/ukrainian
Sodomite – what you read is totally up to you. I was just suggesting that you read something besides
the homo sovieticus encyclopedia, where you already spend so much time in developing your
fantasies. Oh I know, (you’ve given yourself away) you also augment your reading repertoire by including ‘svidomite’ comic books that depict Jesus and Cleopatra as Ukrainians.
The “fantasies” are the bloated claims of a great oppression of the Ukrainian language under the Russian Empire.
Misha – The Ukrainian language was greatly oppresed under the Russian empire. I see that you have the very same reading comprehension problem the kovane has (what was it in the above commentary that you don’t understand?). I know that the both of you are severely competing for the greatest ‘kremlin stooge’ award, but I’m not sure that failing reading comprehension will help either of you win this coveted prize
What’s wrong with being the greatest Kremlin Stooge ever? You say it like it’s a bad thing.
Koz
In 19th century Russian Empire times, Ukrainephile Subtelny notes Ukrainian language material openly available in the belly of the best – Russia proper if you may.
Why is Ukrainian apparently more popular in Ukraine in usage than Gaelic in Scotland and Ireland? The reason is because the presentation of a massive historical suppression of the Ukrainian language is a crock, as presented in some circles.
You once again don’t acknowledge the worldwide standards back then on accepting a second language within a given country/empire.
Moreover, the 1870s curtailing of Ukrainian language use was motivated by the inaccurate separatist material coming from the Habsburg Austrian Empire. Like I said, back then, the tolerance for loony views wasn’t as great in the present day. Examples include making Mazepa into the positive and popular leader that he wasn’t and rewriting Taras Bulba to conform with a separatist vision. Besides, there’s the historically challenged slant you gave on Vygovski which was answered in slam dunk fashion with reference to a prominent and neutral historian.
You’re in severe denial of reality. On your other most recent comment towards the bottom of this thread, you seem to challenge the idea that Russians and Ukrainian get along well. Where’re the massive ethnic Russian-Ukrainian riots? – with rare exception like what recently happened in Lviv, which is probably better described as some Russo-Ukrainians opposing some Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. You don’t address a number of facts and fact based opinion at this thread that conclusively counter your questionable (put mildly) views. One example is the cut and pasted Solchanyk article.
@kozakov: Please stop with the homophobic slurs. We just did a big discussion on Mark’s last blog where some of us tried to to educate the rest of the barbarians about tolerance for homosexuality. Now you are ripping our zen-like harmony apart with your “sodomite” and “homo sovieticus” jibes.
Yalensis – it was not I that first brought up the word ‘sodomite’. But I did find it convenient to counter
kovane’s persistance in labeling me as a ‘svidomite’. As to ‘homo sovieticus’ this is a historical term used by many to describe soviets attempts to rebuild the world with a new, superbreed of human being
(one who naturally would espouse the Russian language in exchange for his own, ‘local’ language).
Why direct your concerns to me and not to kovane who started and who persists in this practice?
kovane – as I’ve already mentioned, I wasn’t present during my parents exodus to Germany. Accordng to a conversation that I had with my father over 30 years ago on the subject, I understood him to say that they had ‘volunteered’ to go to Germany. They didn’t like the direction of the way things were going under Stalin, and decided to try Germany (what a choice?). About a year ago, my sister revealed the
story to me about hiding jews and then being forced to go to Germany. In either case, their choices were limited, and it turned out better for them because they ended up immigrating to the U.S.
Mark – don’t let me get in your way for this ‘coveted award’. In the past their were of course the Three Stooges. Personally, I wouldn’t nominate you for this award, for I find that your ‘reading comprehension
skills’ are on a much higher plane, that that exhibited by either kovane or Averko!
Kozakov,
at first it was all fun and games debunking your typical svidomite nonsense, but since I learnt that you were a descendant of Nazi collaborators who took pride in that, something changed. You see, all my relatives fought against Nazis and traitors like your kind in particular. This puts you into the category of pure filth to me, and I don’t usually speak to people I feel nothing but disgust for. So would you be so kind as to stop mentioning me and get on with your svidomism so it won’t concern me? Many thanks in advance.
Sodomite – It’s hard to see how my parent’s were ‘nazi collaborators’ because the Germans carted them off to Germany to work in their work camps, after having hid a family of jews in their own home?
But what else can you expect from someone who reads the encyclopedia Homo Sovieticus all day long, populating his brain with fafiry tales of Jesus and Cleopatra being Ukrainians. By the way, after having read your article about Stalin, I don’t see anything at all that should hold you back from writing a similar article entitled ‘The Bright Side of Hitler’ Good Luck!
Kovane – I do apologise for calling you ‘Sodomite’ after you correctly prefaced your last message to me as ‘Kozakov’. It was a slip. Now, if you’d kindly refrain from labeling my parents as ‘nazi collaborators’
I’d be willing to continue our discussions in a friendly manner.
Kozakov,
earlier you wrote that (I quote) your parents “were young adults who volunteered to go to Germany during WWII in search of a better life”. Now you’re saying that “the Germans carted them off to Germany to work in their work camps, after having hid a family of jews in their own home”. So which is it? Or it’s all the same to you? Nevertheless, if the latter is true, I apologise for that bit.
If you have something objective to say about my piece on Stalin – knock yourself out, otherwise keep your advice to yourself.
Troll Koz
You’ve the gall to earlier at this thread suggest an earnest approach on your part; which is a crock, given your antics here.
As some get chastised for comparing Scotland-England to Ukraine-Russia, which in actuality, is a closer comparison.
Contrary to what was stated, Russians as such were known as Russians for a period much longer than claimed.
In addition to Rusyns and Ruthernians, the ancestors of today’s Ukrainians were also referred to as Little Russians in a way that wasn’t intended to offend (Great Neck-Little Neck, Italy-Little Italy).
Great neck-Little neck, Italy-Little italy.
Pardon a bit of an error in the opening of the last set of comments.
The ancestors of today’s Russians and Ukrainians weren’t so differentiated in Rus times – other than their areas within Rus.
So, the rise of Muscovy, saw “Muscovites.”
WOW!
New Yorkers aren’t Americans?
Later on, some anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalists began referring to all Russians as Muscovites.
Oooo ooooo [call on me, teacher]! I actually KNOW something about the whole “Little Russia” controversy, because a professor once explained it to us in class. Basically, the “Little Russia” thing was an analogy to the “Micro Grecia” vs. “Magna Grecia” thing. Micro Grecia was Mother Greece herself, the core of Hellenic culture. Magna Grecia was the periphery, as Greek culture was carried out to further islands. Similarly, “Little Russia” was the core of Rus’ civilization, i.e., Kiev, and “Greater Russia” was the periphery. So, far from being a pejorative, “Little Russia” is an honorific.
I once again note how a nation can have regional shifts in influence over the course of time.
The evidence indicates that even before the Mongol subjugation, the northern area of Rus was on the verge of becoming the leading component of Rus.
The evidence indicates that before the mongol invasion in the northern area of Rus both the Suzdalian (Muscovite) and Novgorod areas were the two most prominant areas. It wasn’t until long after the Mongol invasion that Suzdal transformed now into Vladimir and then finally into Muscovy that it became the prominant principality in the northern Russian areas.
Of course, in the south-western part of the Rus Empire, within Ukraine (really a loose federation of separate principalities all along) the Galician-Volhynian principality rose in prominence. Indeed, many historians point to these developments as the beginnings of the future cleavage that would inspire the rise of both the later Russian and Ukrainian nationalities.
Not to be overlooked is the significance Belarusian territory played during a considerable point of Rus’ history.
I periodically hear from some Belarusians the claim the Belarus got its name (White Rus) because it wasn’t so entrenched by the Mongols as some other Rus lands.
Apparently the shared Rus experience happened so long ago that it’s no longer relevant, but the building of St Petersburg on the bones of Cossack slaves and the commission of hardworking citizens to the Soviet gulags was so recently that it might have been yesterday. Is there some sort of cutoff point at which we can say, “that was ancient history that has little bearing on modern international relations between the two?”
I think the point some of those earlier in the thread were trying to make is that like Scotland and England, Ukraine and Russia have a common language that at least most can understand, and even Ukrainian is not difficult for Russians who don’t speak it fluently to understand well enough to get the message. Ukraine choosing the EU for an economic partner is like Scotland choosing Portugal over England. You could make it work, but it’d take time and money and maybe you don’t have much of either. Who said anything about “close control of Ukraine by Russia”, besides you?
The Rus experience in conjunction with what happened thereafter in overall terms (not the selectively applied ones of anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalists) does have a bearing on the contemporary Russian-Ukrainian relationship.
I don’t know if you can find a defining cutoff point where ancient history ends and modern international
relations begins between Ukraine and Russia, but it would seem that the newer the events the more direct relevance there is. Ukraine and Russia’s relations within the Soviet period would be more relevant than those of the Kyiv principality and the Vladimir-Suzdalian ones during the Rus period.
Your analogy between Scotland choosing Portugal over England and Ukraine chosing the EC over the CIS (after all, isn’t this the real state of things today?) is flawed for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Ukraine historically had very great direct long ties to central europe through its associations of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and through the Austro-Hungarian Empire, much more so than Russia.
Also, I’m not sure about Portugal or Spain, but certainly Scotland frequently fround common cause with France over England. Even though most of Scotland’s nobility were quite conversant in the english language.
This is not to say that Ukraine wouldn’t have some benefits by closer associations with Russia. But until the old leasership from the soviet period (as in Ukraine) is removed, I don’t see this as a possibility. Witness Putin’s deragatory comments about Ukraine during his last meeting with Bush 43? Not really the type of dialogues that is conducive for amicable relations between two equals?
What comments were those? I don’t recall the incident, but I’d be interested in having a look; have you a reference?
The language issue is what I was alluding to with the Scotland/England comparison. Ukrainian and Russian aren’t really like any of the other European languages. How widespread is English in Ukraine, would you say?
If I’m not mistaken, Ukrainian language use in Ukraine is greater than Gaelic use in Scotland and Ireland.
RUSSIAN OPPRESSION!
Putin supposedly said something off record that questioned Ukraine’s existence. He hasn’t said nothing of the sort for the record. I can imagine what some (stress some) prominent Ukrainian officials say in private.
Make that: he hasn’t said anything of the sort…
And finally, it seems that Putin could only contain himself for so long at the NATO-Russia Council last weekend. This is despite the fact that Western diplomats pleaded that he tone down his rhetoric. But apparently Putin could only contain himself for so long. According to reports, Putin “lost his temper” during discussion about Ukraine’s possible NATO entry. One diplomat told Kommersant that at one point Putin turned to Bush and said, “You do understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state! Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and considerable part was given to them by us!” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied that Putin ever made any such statement. Nevertheless, I’m sure that after hearing this, there are many Ukrainians who can’t run into NATO’s arms fast enough.
http://seansrussiablog.org/2008/04/09/kprf-takes-a-stand-democrats-unite-and-ukraine-is-not-even-a-state/
The polls indicate differently. NATO membership among Ukrainians isn’t actively sought as you (earlier at this thread) seem to acknowledge.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth involved a foreign subjugation. That Polish dominated entity doesn’t see itself related to Rus.
These points relate to the 1654 coming together and Gogol’s Taras Bulba.
Yeah, the funny thing is that the current Ukrainian constitution explicitly forbids accession to NATO.
How lovely that there’s always an anonymous diplomat willing to share what he allegedly eavesdropped. I’m rather surprised that according to him Putin didn’t expressed his wish to conquer Ukraine and turn its people into slaves. That would create even more dramatics, and upon hearing this, each Ukrainian would run not only into NATO’s arms, but into Satan’s hands as well.
Some of the spin is especially ironic.
Ukrainians are intelligent for considering the EU, while being misguided in not being so keen on NATO membership.
I don’t think that Russia has been overbearing in seeking Ukraine in CSTO, when compared to how some in the West seek Ukrainian membership in NATO.
Gee….I don’t know. For one thing, isn’t a closed meeting closed to the public? If that’s so, what’s the point of letting the press in so they can report every word? In any case, much was inferred (such as that Ukraine would cease to exist as a state) which was not spoken, although Kommersant insists Putin “hinted at it”. I recall Kommersant also insisted Putin “flew into a rage” at Yuri Shevchuk last year during a benefit dinner for orphans and children’s hospitals; the event was recorded, and Putin didn’t sound anything like in a rage. Exasperated, if anything.
We often make similar threats to Quebec – although I’m sure no government official has ever done so in so many words – when they make noises about being a sovereign nation. Fine, goes the argument against it; you can go. But you’ll revert to pre-Confederation borders when you do. That would make a new Sovereign Quebec merely a strip of land along the St-Lawrence River. If there’s any substance to Putin’s claim that a large part of Ukraine’s current area was gifted by Russia (or the Soviet Union), then he might well make good on such a threat, but I doubt it. It’d be easier to wait until it came to a vote, and veto it.
Using that line of thought, very little is etched in stone. The 1654 coming togther was generally accepted within the Cossack ranks on Ukrainian situated territory.
Sorry, there appears to be a perioidic gliche with the newly implemented post comments feature at this blog.
Regarding some recent remarks, very little is etched in stone if applied with consistency. The 1654 coming together was generally accepted within the Cossack ranks on Ukrainian situated territory.
Later on, most of these Cossacks rejected Mazepa going against Peter the Great.
Don’t you get it? The battle of Konotop was squarely directed towards the unwanted hand of Muscovy in Ukraine only 5 years after Khmelnisky’s pact. Ukraine spent another 100 + years seesawing back and forth between Muscovy, Poland, Moldavia and Turkey looking for the most advantageous terms for itself. The Cossack leaders didn’t parade around Ukraine with an eternal hard on for Moscow, as you seem to indicate and have develped yourself!
Don’t you get it? That battle is over-dramatized relative to 1654 and what happened to Mazepa later on.
Where was the Ukrainian opposition to Russia in the Napoleonic and Russo-Japanese wars?
Why is Gogol honored in Russia and Ukraine?
Poland, Turkey and Moldova don’t feel related to the Rus period.
Tack on the previously mentioned (at this thread) Crimean War as well.
Pardon the oversight in not adressing a point mentioned about what Vygovski did a few years after the 1654 coming together.
Philip Longworth describes him as a Cossack, with a disdain for the lower classes, who became pro-Polish, while using Tatar and German mercenaries in an attempt to crush a popular revolt against him.
SOME HERO!
http://us.macmillan.com/author/philiplongworth
I suppose if Vyhovsky had developed a disdain for the upper classes and had become pro-Russian and had used husar and Circassian mercenaries he wold have been esteemed as a ‘real heroe’ in your book? Your search for heroe worship transcends modern sensibilities. You must be in line for a Russian double eagle yourself, for all of your very loyal pro-Russian propaganda?
Appears more accurate than your anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalist propaganda.
Some of the Cossacks of that era fought among themselves and used others to gain an upper hand within their grouping.
bbbbbCossack noble Pavlo Skoropadsy’s call for an “All-Russian Federation” in 1918:
The armistice between Germany and the Allied powers has been concluded. The bloodiest of wars has ended, and the peoples of the world are confronted with the difficult task of creating the basis for a new life.
As compared to other parts of Russia that has suffered long, the Ukraine’s fate has been considerably happier. With the friendly assistance of the Central Powers, she has managed to maintain law and order to the present. Being sympathetic to all the tribulations experienced by her dear Great Russia, the Ukraine has done all in its power to aid her brothers by offering them full hospitality and supporting them in the struggle for the restoration of a stable state authority in Russia.
We are now confronted with a new political task. The Allies were always friends of the old united Russian State. Today, following a period of turmoil and dissolution, Russia has to adopt new conditions for her future existence. The old might and power of the All-Russian State must be restored on the basis of a different principle – that of federalism. The Ukraine should assume the leading role in this federation, since it was she who gave the example of law and order in the country; it was also within Ukrainian borders that the citizens of the old Russia, oppressed and humiliated by the Bolshevik despotism, found freedom and security. The Ukraine took the initiative in developing friendship and cooperation with the glorious Great Don and the glorious Kuban and Terek Cossacks. These principles, which I hope are shared by Russia’s allies – the Entente – and which cannot but be viewed sympathetically by all peoples, not only in but throughout the world, should be the basis for the Ukraine’s policy in the future. The Ukraine should thus take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation, the principal goal of which should be the restoration of Great Russia.
The achievements of this task shall guarantee not only the well-being of all of Russia, but the further economic and cultural development of the Ukrainian people as well, on the basis of national and political independence. Being deeply convinced that any other course would result in the Ukraine’s collapse, I appeal to all who care about her future – so closely linked to the future and happiness of all of Russia – to unite behind me for the defense of the Ukraine and Russia. I believe that this noble and patriotic cause should be supported sincerely and strongly by the citizens and Cossacks of the Ukraine, as well as by other segments of her population.
The newly formed cabinet is hereby instructed to proceed immediately with the implementation of this great historical task.
****
C/o – http://www.eurasiareview.com/pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis-22052011/
Pardon the four bs in the last set of comments. In order to cut and paste items, it appears that something has to be inputted beforehand to offset the interference in a straight cut and paste.
Look, no one here denies the existence of a separate Ukrainian nation. To say that this sentiment was evident awhile back like Polish, Rusisan and some other identities is off the mark. The name Ukraine kind of hits home on this point.
In a not so distant commentary of his, Motyl (somewhat ironically) said (without great elaboration) that Ukrainian identity includes some not so mature historical/political observations, evident among the newer of national identities.
That’s Skoropadsky. Like the old post format better, which allowed for an easier review of what’s written before posting.
Me, too, but that’s beyond my control. I have a free blog without all the extras you get when you’re a paying customer, I’m limited in how I can manipulate it (although WordPress is the best I’ve seen and I understand Blogger is sometimes a nightmare), and WordPress does occasional upgrades as it pleases.
You’ve a great show going, minus some of the perks that others have.
The key is your tolerance for diverse subjects and views.
Regarding the St.Pete-Ukrainian connection, the west Ukrainian born Matviyenko is governor of that city.
In Ukraine and elsewhere, one can find people with Ukrainian surnames (ending in “uk” and “ko”) who consider themselves Russians. Likewise, there’re people with what are considered as Russian surnames who identify as Ukrainians.
Some links concerning the Rus ties:
http://www.simkovich.org/carpatho-rusyns.carpathorussianhistory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_of_Russian_Solidarists
Across the political spectrum, one can find Russians and Ukrainians who favor closer Russian-Ukrainian ties.
The views of Ukrainians vary. On the earlier Scottish-English reference, note the differences between Niall Ferguson (pro-UK) and Sean Connery (separatist).
As part of Britain: England and Scotland were fortunate to not suffer to the extent of the Russian Empire and USSR in WW I & II respectively. Added to that were some arguably (especially in retrospect) misguided post-WW II Soviet policies. Combined, these factors greatly influenced a separate Ukrainian state, which might’ve happened regardless.
@mark: Agree with Misha you do a great job with your blog!
@misha: Sometimes I type my comment in a blank Microsoft Word document, review and spellcheck, etc., then copy and paste the entire thing back into the blog comment window. That seems to work pretty good. Also, you can copy and paste quotes and links from web documents right into your Word document, although if you want to embed a link, you have to be a little bit crafty. When I didn’t do it right, the Word document would eat the link.
That’s a good compromise, and has the advantage of keeping your comment available in a separate window so you can still access it if you accidentally hit the “back” button or otherwise accidentally close your comment before you’ve sent it – or if you get a message when you do that something went wrong with the submission process. I’ve done that more than once, after diligently pecking away for the better part of a half-hour and including detailed references, only to accidentally wipe out the whole thing irretrievably. It always makes me wish I had a dog so I could kick him.
Yeah, I started doing that after I lost a real masterpiece of a comment one day, when the blog crashed on me!
P.S. I was referring to keeping the comment in a separate window, NOT kicking the dog!
That’s funny; I laughed out loud. For the record, I am a dog lover although I don’t have one right now. My last, a German Shepherd/Rottweiler cross named Merlin, was like a child to me and I would sooner kick my boss even if it resulted in my immediate incarceration than kick the dog. But losing a comment I sweated over and researched thoroughly makes me feel like kicking something or somebody.
I was wondering if you could clip the posts to a few paragraphs as they appear on the main page, then provide links to the whole articles. It would make it a lot easier to navigate this blog.
Do you mean a format similar to AGT and Sublime Oblivion, where it’s just the first couple of paragraphs followed by a “continue reading….” link? I probably could, but I’m not sure how to do it.
You can insert the tag into your HTML text where you want the “Continue Reading…” to appear. I believe there should be a button to place it automatically on the visual editor too, it displays “Insert More tag” when you hover your mouse over it. Third, you can press Alt+Shift+T.
What I’d really appreciate on your blog is some kind of Archives page, where readers can view your entries by date. I use the plugin “Clean Archives Reloaded” for that and you can see it in action here.
Oops, it looks like the tag was edited out. It’s this but without the spaces:
Just insert it into the post where you want to break it off.
Sorry, but it really doesn’t want to print that tag no matter how I try to manipulate it. Just use one of the two other methods. Or read this.
Or, Mark, you can compose your post, and click on the “MORE” button up on the dashboard, and WordPress ought to automatically create the FRONT PAGE (teaser)/FULL ARTICLE split. That’s how it works on at least three WordPress blogs I”ve posted on.
If you don’t want to have to dig into the html code, make sure you’ve written the next line before putting “MORE” between them. Otherwise, you have to go to the html (code) view to continue below the break.
Thanks, Hart, and great to hear from one of my heroes! As I mentioned before, I’m not very computer-savvy, but I’m learning, thanks for the tip. I’m still learning the free features, and I basically don’t learmn anything until I need it.
Hi, Everybody; I got back earlier than expected, I figured on being absent until Wednesday.
Over the course of time, these thoughts have been expressed:
- Montenegrins are super Serbs
- Ukrainians are the real Russians
- Ukraine should be called Russia and Russia something else.
In actuality, such thoughts relate to the involved people having a good deal in common.
Note how some favor keeping certain entities together unlike some others.
I don’t know where to start in the discussion above, so I’ll lay down my two cents.
I don’t think it’s in Ukraine’s national interests to seek close integration with Europe for several reasons:
1) Financial. The EU used to be generous. Now it’s too broke (Med) or too stingy (Germany). Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria are most likely the last to get big convergence subsidies. There will be no more free lunches. OTOH, Russia has $520bn in reserves and with high oil prices here to stay it will probably remain solvent into the foreseeable future.
2) Energy. But Ukraine can save tens of billions $ in gas costs by courting Russia. This need not be to the detriment of increasing energy efficiency, as there are things called energy taxes.
3) Political. Will the EU even survive in its current form to 2020, or will it decline to something little more than a glorified free trade zone (that is dominated by Germany)? Will Ukraine’s industry in particular be able to withstand the competition or will it only be a breadbasket and resource appendage of that zone? Ukrainian goods will be competitive within the Eurasian Economic Community.
4) Social. Visit Europe. Generally speaking, they don’t have high opinions of you guys. Many, if not most of them, regard East European guys as criminals and pimps and girls as whores. Russians might call you xoxols, but at least you can retaliate with jokes about moskali. OTOH, your inferiority complex to “civilized Europe” is real and doesn’t allow for an equal and reciprocal relationship.
I do realize that Ukraine’s patriots, Europeanists, and nationalists will dismiss these arguments. If they have the support of a democratic majority, all power to them. But I suspect they will be disappointed in their European ventures, while trying to go it alone – wedged in between two massive economic communities – will also be counterproductive.
Well said. And in the case of the comment regarding a glorified free trade zone dominated by Germany, it’s worth mentioning that Germany already is Russia’s biggest European trading partner and relations between them are good enough that Merkel will occasionally stand up to the USA in Russia’s behalf. Hard to say which way Germany will go when she’s gone, though, and we’ve seen the other extreme as well. But it speaks to my contention that a customs union that follows (presumably) Russian rules and practices doesn’t make one’s country a non-starter for trade with Europe.
>>>>
On more than one occasion at this thread, the view of an overextended EU, unable to easily bring in new full-fledged members has been noted. This observation is undoubtedly noted by many Ukrainians, who don’t appear to be anti-Russian like some of the ones getting disproportionate play at the leading.
For clarity sake, anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalists derisively use “Muscovite” to describe Russians, regardless of whether they’re Moscow born or residents of that city.
In terms of bodily derisive equivalents, “Katsap” (a billygoat like bearded appearance) is the Ukrainian answer to describing Russians, vis-à-vis the characterization of Ukrainians as “Khokhol” (the Cossack style lock of hair on the back of a shaven head). These particular characterizations harp back to a bygone era when such differences were more evident.
Such derisive terms are prone to inaccuracies in what they suggest. At another thread, Yalensis clarified that the originally described “Uncle Tom” is something different from the kind of “yes boss” Black as commonly used in meaning.
In Ukraine, the Cossacks have tended to be among the more pro-Russian of elements, in contrast to the west Ukrainian based Greek-Catholic (Uniate) population. The latter are viewed as generally being the most anti-Russian of Ukrainians. Among others, I’ve been hard pressed to find any Greek-Catholic Cossacks.
The matter of cultural arrogance isn’t the one way street suggested in some circles. The otherwise historically challenged view of anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalists is considered by some to be more accurate than the mainstream Russian perspective, as well as the position of the more Russia friendly of Ukrainians.
There’s some truth in that, and Russians outraged by the Moskali label (that’s a favourite of the Uke Nationalists at LR, along with “Rashans” and writing Russia with the cute little “SS” in the middle, like this – RuSSia) should stop calling Ukrainians derisive names like Khokhol. I need hardly point out that special interest groups go out of their way to widen the divide between Russians and Ukrainians by exploiting such insults, like the guy on the fringe of a fistfight that keeps trying to turn it bloodier by expressing amazement at the insults – “What? You gonna let him say that about your mother?? I’d kill him!” and the like. Russians and Ukrainians have much more of similarity about them than difference, and it’s in their mutual interest to get along and support each other. As I’ve mentioned before, Russian and Ukrainian expats in North America usually get along quite well, and one reason for that might well be that the constant goading they get in their own countries to keep cultural hatreds alive is absent.
There’s such a thing as good natured jibing, which some tight assed PC types are prone not to be so open-minded towards.
Consider the regional taunts evident in some other countries, including Canada and the US.
At the end of the day, many who exhibit this manner see each other as fellow compatriots.
Wow….heated debates.
I can’t offer much because much have been said. But surely Ukraine(and Belarus) would ‘logically’ , ‘culturally, ‘ethnically’ and ‘historically’ be closer to Russia than to the EU. I mean, the development of Russian culture and ethnos is so closely intertwined with Kievan Rus that I see this orientation towards the EU and a disdain for Russia as a sundering of closely-related peoples perhaps due to the previous enmity of two Slavic powers – i.e. Russian Empire and the Poles?
As for the EU being more ‘progressive and economically developed’ than Russia – economically perhaps, I am not so sure about the ‘progressive’ part. The EU is either a new Empire in the making or failure in which they devolve into a coalition of continually-squabbling European states. I don’t agree with some that the EU is that ‘benign’. Those Europeanists within the EU have that same Utopian ideal like those of Hitler or the Holy Roman Empire but they try to do it nowadays not through war or conquest but by coercive ‘treaties’. If there are Ukrainian nationalists here, do not think that those EU Europeanist ‘technocrats’ think too highly about Ukrainian ‘independence’. I think they just think of Ukraine as yet another ‘weak’ country to incorporated into their nascent ‘Empire’. Even economically speaking, the EU is in a dire state.
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/outside-the-box2/2011/06/07/
Europeans must decide whether they want a country called the EU(sort of a united states of Europe) in which all European states within that Union cease to be sovereign, independent nations or persist with a fake ‘Union’ which will prove unworkable if all insists on Schengen, monetary union and all that ‘common policy’. It cannot work because each countries are too different to have these ‘common policy’ frameworks to work. The only way is to abolish all pretensions of national governments to be ‘sovereign’ and that all these nations are not to be governed by Prime Ministers/Presidents but by Governors appointed by the Federal Government in Brussels.
Are Europeans ready for that? They are NOT, in my opinion- and rightly so because despite similarities, the differences amongst the European nations are just as great if not more. No, Europe is not more progressive. Before jumping into the European Union ship, let’s see first what the future would be with the EU – failure or success and if success – at what costs and whether nations like Ukraine are willing to bear those costs.
my two cents
sinotibetan
Pardon another for clarity sake bit on my part.
The medievel state in question was referred to as Rus. Kievan Rus is a latter day term.
On the EU, the Ukrainian nationalist Svoboda has spoken out against it, while (as is my understanding) favoring Ukrainian NATO membership.
The Ukrainian Communist Party has joined some others in claiming that the PoR (Party of Russia” not) is secretly supporting the anti-Russian Svoboda, as a divide and conquer means.
I’m waiting for conclusive proof.
Re: Anti-Russian Bias Related to Ukraine
This article is typical:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/crimea/newman-text
Whether RFE/RL or others, the inaccuracy in that article isn’t addressed unlike this piece:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392454/Muslim-girl-Katya-Koren-19-stoned-death-beauty-contest-Ukraine.html
The follow-up to it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/katya-koren-teen-muslim-beauty-queen-stoned-to-death_n_869245.html
http://www.rferl.org/content/sensational_story_wasnt_reports_of_stoning_death_in_ukraine_girl_false/24213624.html
Good to have accurate follow-up on such matter. The English language mass media coverage of Crimea has a track record of propping some inaccurate to debatable views that don’t appear to have much of a high profile follow-up.
The following address such instances:
- The Tatars aren’t indigenous to that region over Rus era Slavs – the ancestors of present day Russians and Ukrainians. Part of Crimean territory was affiliated with Rus, before there was any Tatar presence in Crimea.
- The Crimean Tatar Khanate implemented a not so enlightened slave trade against Slavs and some others.
- The Russian Empire’s takeover of Crimea in 1783 can be argued as a liberation (on the reasoned basis that the Russian Empire was a historical/cultural, continuation/successor of sorts to Rus) and a strategically defensive move against Ottoman Turkey. The first point in this highlight doesn’t deny the development of a separate Ukrainian national identity, inclusive of the internationally recognized Ukrainian state, comprised of Soviet drawn boundaries.
- It’s erroneous to broadly portray the current ethnic differences in Criomeas as virtuous Tatars against unruly pro-Russian Slavs.
Points addressed at:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/beyond-the-edward-lucas-peter-hitchens-exchange-on-russia-and-ukraine-13102010/
Yalensis’ earlier point on Stephen Cohen has a degree of relativity. The latter is notably different (IMO better) than Ariel Cohen. However, there’re other and arguably better options to go to on a number of Russian related issues.
The coverage doesn’t get improved by propping the same sources, unlike other quality options.
I don’t think there’s really a lot of support outside the EU for the kind of union you’re describing, either. I mean, who wants to spend a fortune to go from Canada or the USA to holiday in the South of France if it’s indistinguishable culturally from the Netherlands? Or Italy, or Poland? The romance and intrigue of the European countries has always been their biggest draw, what interests us about them. If the lines become blurred, will Italy no longer be famous for handmade shoes and suits, while you can get just as good stereo equipment or kitchen appliances from France as you could in Germany? Broad European incorporation would kill tourism, I think. Or maybe it would foster new attempts to attract tourists; it’s hard to say at this point. But England certainly seemed to fear the anonymity of integration, and the British were adamant about retaining the British Pound. I for one was saddened to see the end of the franc and the mark, although I understand the logic behind the decision, but there are some things that simply should not be done in the interests of efficiency and streamlining things.
Hey, Mark! Do you think it’s better with the ‘continue reading’ tags? I made the last post that way.
That’s brilliant!! How’d you do that? Can you do it to the rest, or tell me how? I think that’s probably exactly what Cartman was talking about.
It’s very easy actually – there’s the “insert more tag” button (before the spellcheck button). Get the cursor where you want to insert a break and press it.
Mark,
To address the points you made;
The Democratist is a big fan of “colour revolutions” in general, and appears to be of the opinion that things have turned decidedly for the worse in Ukraine since the Orange Revolution, well… basically failed to deliver on any of its promises.
Not quite. Democratist is a big fan of democracy (the clue is in the name). We have never supported Yushenko or Tymoshenko per se, but rather in 2004 we were certinly in favour of a repeat second round of the presidential elections. The PoR had organized a mass campaign of electoral fraud and voter intimidation first time around (which we, working for one of your dreaded INGO’s at the time, witnessed in polling stations first hand). We also saw the black propaganda, conspiracy theory and rumour mongering, so beloved of Russian political technologists (and secuity services – see The Mitrokhin Archive), that which now find a friendly home on RT, and on your own site. Indeed, the experience of late 2004 was an important factor in our later decision to start Democratist.
We despise all corruption, including that under Yushenko and Tymoshenko. However, it has to be said that, in terms of free and fair elections, the Orange Revolution did deliver, as the quality of elections improved vastly under Yushenko, including the presidential elections last February (which we again observed at close quarters). This trend has apparently reversed somewhat under Yanukovich according to the (domestic Ukrainian NGO) Opora. Media freedom and judicial independence are also under fire.
You also describe us at one point as a Russophobe (or at least imply that we are one). Nonsense. We dislike the Chekist regime that runs Russia. We have nothing to do with Zigfeld, and have visited her site perhaps once or twice.
American international NGOs were prominent mechanisms through which [the] causal link between superpower foreign policy interests and regime change worked out in many transitions from authoritarian rule in the twenty-one-year-long “third wave”; (b) The “rose revolution” in Georgia (November 2003-January 2004), the “orange revolution” in Ukraine (January 2005) and the “tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan (April 2005) – each followed a near-identical trajectory; all were spearheaded by the American democratisation Ingos working at the behest of the US foreign policy establishment; and (c) rarely has the US promoted human rights and democracy in a region when they did not suit its grander foreign-policy objectives.
So it was all the American’s fault, huh? Nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of people we saw in the streets at the time who were defiantly shouting “No to falsification!” – even though the threat of armed attack by interior ministry troops in the days following the (heavily manipulated) second round of voting was thought to be immanent.
While it may be true that some people (on all sides) were being paid at various points during the following months, the attempt to rewrite the revolution simply as a western plot is pure Russian SVR disinformation nonsense, which seeks to downplay the role of popular sentiment at the time – because the Putinistas, despite their considerable continued popularity at home, fear a similar fate over the longer term.
And while we’re on the subject, Democratist tends to see the Arab Spring as a continuation of the democratizing wave you mention. And people around the world seem to want democracy despite the Americans percieved hypocrisy on the the issue. Certainly this remains the case in Ukraine, and as Odessa blogger (OB) pointed out, the desire to have one’s vote count was a critical element of the Orange revolution, rather than neccessarily being about support for any individual politician.
Let us hope the current Ukrainian government learns this lesson, and does not try to manipulate the 2012 parliamentary elections.
…begs the question whether it is democratic government and its people’s interests that are being served, or corporate meddling.
So how did the evil corporations benefit from Yushenko’s presidency? And if they did not, why not, since this was such a devious plan? And why didn’t the Americans get rid of Yushenko earlier, if the removal of leaders they dislike is so easy for them to arrange?
Well, let’s go back to the recent inspiration for Democratist’s (and, by extension, the Kyiv Post‘s) analysis of Ukraine’s current situation under the presidency of, if you’ll forgive me, kremlin stooge Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych.
Ah, but that was the point of our article. He has turned out not to be quite the stooge the Kremlin had hoped (evidenced by their rejection of the customs Union in April). The oligarchs that support him are wary of Russian influence, as is a very large part the population as a whole. Ukraine’s orientation towards the EU has plenty of support thoughout the country (except perhaps in Crimea). The EU has its own problems right now, and with elections coming up in France and elsewhere next year, another round of enlargement is a non-starter. But Ukraine has always been a long term prospect, and we should not assume that things will remain that way forever.
The source for this treasure-trove of political insider dope is, we learn, a “new friend” in Odessa who “seems to know everyone worth knowing”. While that may well be an accurate characterization, it sounds to me suspiciously like a description of an aide to the Tymoschenko campaign, or at least someone whose political preferences closely mirror Democratist’s own
Plain wrong on both counts. OB has no fondness for Tymoshenko, and his political positions were not a factor in my choosing to talk to him. As I said, I don’t especially support any individual politician or party in Ukraine (or Russia). I support the democratic process.
- although neither of those necessarily indicate a true finger-on-the-pulse report of what’s actually going on in Ukraine rather than, say, a bundle of information certain interests would like to transmit through a western-media conduit.
Well, OB may have wanted to use me as a western media conduit to get his own POV across. I think I contextualiszed our discussion quite well in the article, so I make no apologies for talking to him.
I note you have added him (but not me) to your blogroll. Are you therefore now also a conduit for “сertain interests”?
Let’s deal with the allegation that Ukraine is experiencing an “intensified wave of high-level corruption under Yanukovych”.
The last TI Corruption Perceptions Index was released in October 2010. That’s eight months ago (with data probably taken in August/September – i.e. five or six months into Yanukovich’s term in office). How do you know the uptick does not reflect more on the last few months of Yushenko’s period in power, rather than Yanukovich? In any case, it is entirely valid for us to talk about an intensification of corruption in an article written in May this year (eight months later, and we provided numerous examples).
Yanukovych is playing catch-up, and is committed by IMF oversight to “unpopular measures such as hiking utilities tariffs and reducing pensions or raising the retirement age” in order to realize the directed goal of reducing the national deficit to 3.5% of GDP in 2011. Just a guess, but that might well account for the surliness over the economy Democratist claims to have registered.
Except that Yanukovich has not passed any of those measures yet (utilities and pensions) because he can’t get them through parliament, so this cannot account for those problems. Why not try checking your facts?
The week after the economic reform package of President Yanukovych’s government was released, deals were inked for nearly $60 million in FDI from Barclay’s Capital, the IFC (private-investment arm of the World Bank) and Hera Holdings of Spain. Analysts at the time were skeptical that this progress would continue. But it did; FDI was up 4.9% in 2010 and up another 11.6% year-over-year in the first quarter 2011.
Much of this may be coming back in from Cyprus. We will see if the trend continues.
In conclusion, We not nostalgic for Yushenko specifically. We DO remember what happened during the Orange Revolution, and afterwards (because, unlike yourself, we were there), and it is you who who are stupid and cocksure, in addition to being a mouthpiece for a corrupt and repressive regime.
All the best,
Democratist
If anything, the arrogance and ignorance is with Mr. D.
Concerning the so-called “Orange Revolution” and questionable election monitoring:
http://www.acdemocracy.org/viewarticle.cfm?category=U.S.%20Policy&id=212
http://www.counterpunch.org/nagle12242004.html
Referring to the present day Russian government as Chekist reveals the kind of hyperbolic inaccuracies that are evident.
Misha – I have explained before why I am not prepared to waste my time on you. At least Knesop bothers to string his own arguments together.
Democratist:
My previous translation of your “waste of time” line pertains to the apparent inability you’ve in substantiating questionable (put mildly) characterizations.
Well. That’s quite a diatribe – I hope I can do it justice.
Forgive my skepticism for the “I just love democracy” ethic. Democracy is achieved when the electorate expresses its will; all too often, when a leader is chosen whom the west did not favour, there is a redoubled effort to suggest electoral fraud – which rarely happens when the western-feted leader wins first time out. Then, of course, “the people have spoken”. An instructive example is the 2006 Palestinian election of a Hamas government. International observers overwhelmingly agreed the elections were free and fair in their conduct, and Hamas blew the western-favoured Fatah out of the water at 74 to 45 seats. The Washington Post reported that the USA had secretly funneled $2 Million to Fatah in the final weeks of the campaign, to sweeten their chances. Once the results were announced, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reminded the world that Hamas was a terrorist organization, and called on Hamas to recognize Israel. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was quoted as saying, “It is a very, very, very bad result”. British Prime Minister Tony Blair commented that “Britain can only do business with people who renounce terrorism” (at which point in a just world, his tongue would have exploded). Democracy in action. We celebrate fair elections – just as long as you don’t make the wrong choice. As you know, sanctions promptly followed.
If you truly despise all corruption regardless whose hand is on the wheel, I can’t understand why you continue to promote EU membership for Ukraine in advance of serious anti-corruption efforts, since EU countries would very likely refuse to do business with Ukraine while corruption flourishes. In fact, Ukraine is going to have a very difficult time making headway against European subsidies and a protectionist market even under the most ideal circumstances – an opinion substantiated by Director of the American Institute in Ukraine Anthony Salvia in an article helpfully cited by Grafomanka. I quote from it; “In view of the EU’s refusal to offer Kiev a road map to EU membership, I would recommend going with Russia’s offer. In addition to the very real benefits enumerated above, such a move would curtail Europe and the West’s ability to play Kiev against Moscow and vice versa to the detriment of both.”
While I’m quoting, here’s one from your blog – ““genuine innovation (as opposed to re-engineering the ideas of others) can only come from the kind of flexible, creative and inventive culture that emerges from a competitive market economy, backed up by democracy and the rule of law.”
Nonsense. Show me innovation to match that achieved by Hitler’s Germany. Was that a market economy backed up by Democracy and the rule of law? In fact, it would be difficult to conceive of a more despotic and autocratic regime. Yet the Luftwaffe had a jet aircraft in the closing days of World War II, when everything else in the air was powered by a propeller, and the ME-262 killed over 500 Allied aircraft. The only defense against it was to kill it on the ground. Radial Keratotomy was developed in the Soviet Union, 10 years before the first successful operation in the USA at Columbia University. Innovation results from ideas, and how non-military ideas are exploited depends as much on the world’s willingness to receive them as it does the support provided by the host state. The modern business climate discourages innovation by promoting products and systems that are – to use your words – merely the re-engineering of others’ ideas by business cronies or agencies with which one wishes to establish a partnership. An excellent example is the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s suit against Intel for using its dominant market position to stifle innovation, use of “restrictive dealing” to prevent computer makers from using non-Intel chips and secret design of key software known as a compiler, which would deliberately reduce the performance of competitors’ CPU chips. All planned and carried out in a society that is as democratic as the day is long, and which celebrates the rule of law so enthusiastically that it has more lawyers per square mile than any place on the planet.
How do I know the uptick in TI’s corruption-index figures does not reflect more on the last few months of Yushenko’s period in power, rather than Yanukovich? Well, I don’t, of course, any more than Transparency International does. Perhaps that’s what happened – let’s throw it open to the commenters. How many believe, after 5 years of steadily-worsening perceived corruption that dropped Ukraine 39 places on the index despite the sample group being increased, that Yushchenko suddenly got his shit together just in time to hand the country over to Yanukovych?
Yanukovych might not be able – yet – to force austerity measures through Parliament. But they are a well-known and publicly announced condition of the IMF loan, which Ukraine desperately needs; is your position that the public is unaware of the austerity measures proposed by (read “forced upon”) the Yanukovych government? Is that the way things work in Ukraine? Until it’s a law, it’s a complete surprise? Come on.
Your point that Odessa Blog has been added to the blogroll while you were not is a valid one; therefore, despite your calling me stupid and cocksure and a mouthpiece for a corrupt and repressive regime, you will be added to the blogroll. Now perhaps you will allow my substantiated rebuttals in the form of comments on your blog past your moderation, which to date you have not.
If anything, he’s “a waste of time.”
My remarks about being stupid and cocksure is merely a repetition of what you implied about me in your article (Uncle Volodya says…etc).
Love the attempt to change the subject to innovation (a great tactic when you’re on the losing end of an argument), but I’m afraid we’ll have to leave that for another day, ‘cos I have better things to do with my life than spent it answering to you (and the three other people who care about what you say).
As for commenting on my blog, I continue to maintain that you an intellectually dishonest propagandist for a corrupt and repressive regime. I’m all for free speech – so people are welcome to seek you out if they want to, but I’m not going to give you any extra publicity.
So, until next time…
“I’m all for free speech, but…. “
Too right.
The few times I tried to leave comments at Mr. Democratist’s site they didn’t come through either, though he is partial to harassing me through Twitter.
He’s a fine piece of work. One of the best distillations of Russophobic hypocrisy there is.
If the many comments here regarding Mr. Democratist’s unwillingness to accept comments that are challenging are true (& I have no reason to doubt them), then really all one can say about Mr. Democratist is that he’s acting hypocritically, not being the ‘Democratist’ that he purports to be. I have made two successful entries that have not been blocked, however, he was not kind enough to reply to my queries. It has always irked me that a blogger might open a blog, yet refrain from taking a part in the ensuing commentaries. What’s the sense of having a blog in that case?
Quite a few people start blogs because they are compelled to write about a particular subject, but the exchange is one-way and they are not interested in comments or alternative ideas. Others discourage comments because they don’t have time to monitor the blog for conversations and perhaps only post entries once a month or so. This blog lives and dies on opinion, and I don’t pretend to know everything about anything. But you’ll find a lot of this kind of blogs also employ a degree of control over comments; La Russophobe (my archenemy) is a good example. Comments that disagree with her version of events or circumstances are first responded to insultingly, and commenters who continue in spite of insults are usually banned from commenting.
I’ve only had to delete comments from one source, and that individual apparently made a practice of visiting blogs and being increasingly obnoxious until he was banned. He appeared to hold quite racist beliefs, and an approach on a new blog often consisted of joining the conversation, and eventually asking another commenter if he would be upset if his sister was dating a black man (depending on the subject of the conversation, that’s just an example). I removed most of his posts after a remark he made revealed his character was completely fabricated. He had remarked that he lived in a majority-Mexican town (another of the ways he bolstered his credentials by appearing to have firsthand knowledge) bit later said on another blog I liked to read that he lived an hour outside Chicago. There’s no majority-Mexican town within quite a few hours of Chicago in any direction. So he was just having fun winding people up. I also delete or filter comments from people who are trying to market a product.
Democratist is entitled to run his/her blog as it suits. However, in my opinion, if you won’t or can’t abide by the values you espouse, your credibility suffers somewhat. I typically don’t post comments that say, “You’re just wrong and that’s all there is to it”, but present an argument or alternative view that I try to substantiate with references. If it’s so easy to dismantle the underpinnings of such arguments – I include Anatoly’s here as he mentioned it earlier, regarding why polling in advance of elections in Russia usually agrees very closely with the results, yet Russian elections are routinely described as rigged – why not engage them rather than blocking them? Successful explanation might change my mind.
Democratist appears like he picked up on a thought from a source who he otherwise demeans. I’m referring to one of his recent pieces dealing with Crimea.
Prior to that article of his, only one other English language source appears to have noted the slave trade of the Crimean Tatar Khanate – in contrast to other articles on Crimea, having a standard selectivity of what is and isn’t said.
He doesn’t come across as someone who would so easily pick up that point thru his own extended research.
His “waste of time” claim comes across as a disingenuous realization that some are quite adept at debunking bullshit. A thread at his blog on RT was deleted, where yours truly got the better of him.
On the matter of deleting comments and showing favoritism towards Russia unfriendly views, he’s by no means the only one doing that.
Consider someone who had ties to a neocon leaning think tank as one example.
How do you know I wasn’t talking about the Kyiv Post? You’re very good at sensing implication – are you one of those people who can find water underground with a forked stick?
As for changing the subject, if you read your statement again you will see that you yourself suggested innovation could only come about in a democratic society, and we were talking about democracy and its wonderful benefits, if you can remember that far back. What you are talking about, in most conversations, is the subject. However, if you consider this entire exchange to have been a big win for you, by all means feel free to show us your victory dance.
You’re all for free speech, just not on any venue you control. I see. You know, I can easily visualize you working for one of those American NGO’s, as you said you did. At least you can be sure your version of events is never challenged on at least one forum. By great good fortune, the sole comment I ever posted to your blog survives, as I posted a copy of it on Leos Tomicek’s blog, “Austere Insomniac“, at the time. It was a response to your post, “”The Egyptian Revolution and the Precariousness of Modern Autocracy”. I’ll reprint it here (since it otherwise never saw the light of day), and perhaps you can point out the parts where I was dishonest.
“An interesting suggestion – that revolutions more often than not are comprised of reasoned and deliberate actions on the part of citizens who “might actually be able to think for themselves”. Because history suggests revolutions, whatever the long-term benefits or reversals they might inspire, are precipitate tipovers into mob rule, feeding on themselves until they burn out. In fact, I’d be interested in seeing an example of a revolution that was not either the result of deliberate fomenting by a foreign influence, or a hotheaded overreaction to a stupid provocation by the government that anyone who was not a fool should have known would not be tolerated.
It certainly is difficult to imagine where the implication that American government insitutions interfere in national government affairs might have originated, because it is well-known that they don’t do that. Except when they do. Like the spiriting of Nazi scientists into the United States immediately after Germany’s defeat while other countries were hunting them as war criminals, so their talents could be put to use for America against the Soviets in the Cold War (Operation PAPERCLIP), intervention in the democratic elections in Italy in 1948, the 1940′s co-opting of U.S. media outlets as disseminators of propaganda (Operation MOCKINGBIRD), the coup d’etat against the democratically-elected President Guzman in Guatemala in 1954, on the heels of the 1953 overthrow of President Mohammed Mosadegh’s democratically-elected government in Iran, American support for Ngo Dinh Diem’s tyrant government in South Vietnam in the mid-50′s, Radio Free Europe’s incitement of Hungary’s armed revolt which resulted in a Soviet invasion that left 30,000 Hungarians dead, U.S. military support for “Papa Doc” Duvalier’s seizure of power in Haiti and continued support for him while his Tonton Macoute killed 100,000 of his people (bump it up for human rights, can you gimme hallelujah?), the disastrous Bay of Pigs “invasion” (Operation MONGOOSE), the assassination of Rafael Trujillo (after more than 30 years of supporting him), the overthrow of the democratically-elected Juan Bosch in 1963 in the Dominican Republic (followed by the imposition of a right-wing junta), the one-two punch of overthrowing the democratically-elected Joao Goulart in Brazil and Sukarno in Indonesia in 1964 and 1965, the 1965 landing of U.S. Marines in the Dominican Republic to crush a popular revolt with the goal of restoring Juan Bosch, whom the CIA deposed in 1963…I could go on, but I’m getting tired. All matters of record.
There’s certainly no evidence at present to suggest Washington has simply gotten tired of propping up the incredibly corrupt regime of Hosni Mubarak, but there certainly also is ample precedent to suggest that might be the case, so spare me the “people thinking for themselves” bromides. “Modern autocracy” in Egypt suited the west just fine – regardless his unpopularity with his “electorate”; not many leaders can claim 6 assassination attempts. Were those made by people thinking for themselves? If so, where was the western support for his attempting assassins? I suspect it might have been compelled more by Mubarak’s unhesitating backing of Gulf War I, for which consideration Egypt was forgiven $14 Billion in debt.
Time will tell who is behind this spontaneous revolution by people thinking for themselves, but a titillating clue will likely be the identity of his successor.”
Where was I dishonest, again? Well, I’m sure you don’t want to spend any more time here than you must, and you probably have more countries to save. Be seeing you.
Mr. D,
Your MO includes diverting subjects under discussion, after failing to substantiate questionable (put mildly) thoughts.
@dem: You’re just being selfish. If you want Mark to put you on his blogroll, then you need to put him on YOUR blogroll. He’s letting you comment on his blog, so, ditto, you should reciprocate by letting him comment on YOUR blog. Even chimpanzees have been shown to engage in reciprocal behavior. But, alas, apparently some humans are more selfish than chimpanzees.
Dem is far from being the only one deleting posts and showing a very questionable bias towards views unfair to Russia – while trying to suggest a virtuous stance.
Мистер Дерьмократист,
Will you ever bother explaining why – if Russia’s elections are so rigged – the actual results almost perfectly match Levada opinion polls of voting intentions and of voting reminiscences?
I have posed this question to literally dozens of ideologues of your ilk. I have yet to receive a coherent rebuttal.
@kozakov (was too crowded above, had to start new thread):
“My interest in Ukrainian culture is the result of a fantastic upbringing by my parents, who were young adults who volunteered to go to Germany during WWII in search of a better life, and after having witnessed the horrors of the famine in their native Ukraine.”
I was too polite before to bluntly ask if your parents or grandparents were Nazis, but since you dragged them into this saga yourself… here goes:
So …out of historical curiosity, did your parents join the Germany army during WWII and fight for a “free” Ukraine allied with Nazi Germany? And if so, were the “Bessarabian” Jewish guests at your dinner table aware of that little episode?
Yalensis,
Some years ago, I recall a Soviet Jew answering how he could leave Israel for Germany. He recalled his time in the Soviet army, at a time when there were pointed military maneuvers during the Solidarnosc protests. He added that his sympathy for Solidarnosc wouldn’t have stopped his military obligations in the event of Soviet military action in Poland.
I was once asked how Russians and Germans can get along, given what happened in WW II. I replied with the thought that among many Russians and Germans, there’s a mature historical sense that not everything is always so clear cut. Besides that thought, Germany-Prussia had moments of good relations with Russia. Not everyone in Germany during WW II was a creep. By all accounts, Pavlo Skoropadsky didn’t embrace Nazi ideology.
I’m not agreeable with much of what Kozakov says. At the same time, many folks were put in a difficult situation during WW II. Having misguided views isn’t the same as willingly carrying out gruesome acts.
On the subject of WW II and Ukraine:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/new/blogs/motyl/Breaking_the_Myths_of_World_War_IIs_Bloodlands#commentsForm
In the end, though, the only way the human race can go forward is by forgetting what came before, and starting afresh. I personally think it serves no purpose to blame present-day Russians for something Stalin – who wasn’t even a Russian – did ages ago, any more than it makes sense for present-day black Americans to blame their white counterparts for the evils of the slave trade. If you, as an ethnic Russian, express your approval of Stalin’s behaviour (assuming the Holodomor was deliberate, which it has been well argued it was not), then of course you make yourself fair game, just as you would as a white American if you suggested publicly that all blacks should be still in chains.
I’m not always comfortable with what’s said among some in Russia. At the same time, matters like bigotry and some overly positive comments about Stalin (IMO and that of some others) are by no means exclusive to Russia.
You’re probably familiar with the “never again” comment especially evident among Jews. The past has importance, which is why history and historians play a role in political decision making. There’s the matter of trying to be as objectively accurate as possible. Drifting away from that attempt has led to encouraging more problematical circumstances.
Ukrainian diaspora in USA and Canada is overwhelmingly anti-Russian and pro-Orange. Many secretly believe that Nazis were good guys in WWII, but they rarely say that out loud, they just claim their guys fought both Hitler and Stalin simultaneously. Frankly, I would respect them more if they just came out and admitted they like the Nazis better. Fortunately, their views are NOT representative of majority of actual Ukrainians living in Ukraine, rather represents a small minority view, mostly living in Galicia and Lviv; however, as I said, this is the overwhelming majority ideology of USA/Canada diaspora. Many in this diaspora are second or third generation of WWII refugees, many of whom were Nazi collaborators.
When Yushchenko was gearing up for Orange revolution, he and his handlers had prepared fake biography of his family: they claimed Yush dad had been prisoner in BOTH Nazi and Soviet concentration camps (i.e., he was a guy who couldn’t get along with anyone!) Later, a different truth emerged. In a slip of the tongue, during an interview, Yush claimed that he had acquired his love of coffee drinking from dear old dad who, in turn, had been introduced to coffee while prisoner in Nazi concentration camp. When this fairy tale hit the blogosphere, some historians chimed in to point out that Nazis did NOT serve coffee to prisoners in their camps. Not even ersatz coffee. Therefore, it seemed more logical to assume that Yush daddy was a GUARD, not a prisoner, in the Nazi camp.
Is naïve to say people shouldn’t re-fight all these battles from the past. Everybody does. Ukrainians and Poles worst of all, they’re still harping on about stuff that happened in the 1600’s. Many WWII people still alive; and if not them, their offspring; and misha’s link shows that this issue (of who was the good guy and who was the bad guy in WWII) is still alive, and still being debated every day. In fact, the “re-fighting” of WWII is part of the current Western ideological onslaught against Russian Federation.
>>>>
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/04/yuschenkos_wife_and_the_ugly_h.php
It has been said with substantiation that the Western portion of Ukraine (especially Galicia and Volyhnia) tends to have the more anti-Russian of elements. Per captia wise, their influence has the appearance of being greater among Ukrainians in the West than in Ukraine.
I can assure you that there’s a good number of people of Ukrainian background in the West (whether Western, Soviet or post-Soviet Ukrainian born) who don’t laud Bandera and hate Russia.
Very often, extremism among a minority will seem larger than their actual numbers on account of the great activism among themselves. Added onto that are the biases of some influential others and folks who aren’t keen on becoming the subject of diatribes upon expressing disagreement.
I can’t speak to the ideological preferences of all Ukrainian-Canadians (and it’s a fairly sizable group), but relations between Ukrainians in Victoria that we’ve met and my Russian family and friends are extremely cordial. I think I mentioned that the Russian children’s Christmas party is held here yearly in the Ukrainian Cultural Centre, because Russians don’t have one in Victoria. A local Russian church group holds events there as well, which we attend fairly frequently although we’re not religious, because it’s a nice group of people and the food is always great.
However, Ukrainian-Canadians also include Oksana Bashuk-Hepburn, a former minor official in the Canadian government (something to do with finance, if I recall correctly) and regular contributor to the Kyiv Post and other newspapers. She’s a venomous Russia-hater, and doesn’t mind making things up when she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Her article on the occasion of Yushchenko’s visit to Canada suggests he simply descended from the clouds on wings of purest white attached to his shoulders, to give mere mortals a glimpse of heaven.
Yes I recall.
Overall, Russians and Ukrainians get along well, with a good number of the two groups agreeing with the general gist of my views.
I’ll also note that many in the West with roots to contemporary Ukrainian territory don’t identify with being Ukrainians – instead as Poles, Jews, Russians and Rusyns.
There’re those (especially in the ROCOR) who don’t see great differences between Russians, Belarusians, Rusyns and Ukrainians. Gogol appears to be someone who was proud of a regional identity, while also seeing himself as part of a greater nation – not so different from how many Texans and people from the American deep south identity with the US – a strong local pride – combined with a greater national identity.
>>>> On the issues of a noticeable misrepresentation of what was actually said, hyperbole and an incoherent analogy:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/07/opinion/l-ukraine-is-to-russia-as-ireland-is-to-britain-605794.html
For openers there’s a severe misrepresentation on what was actually stated of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/28/opinion/l-same-roots-nourish-russia-and-ukraine-521140.html
There was a bit of a mishap on the edit in the link directly above.
On the analogy point in the first link, some people of Irish-Ukrainian and Irish-Polish backgrounds overlook some key differences in their analogous spin.
Ireland-Britain to Poland-Russia is a better comparison than Ireland-Britain to Ukraine-Russia.
Ireland never came close to threatening and/or subjugating Britian as was evident with past Polish activity against Russia. As noted earlier at this thread, ethnically and linguistically, Russians and Ukrainians are more closely related than Scots and English.
I’m sorry Misha, but I’ve been cutting you way too much slack lately! Your trite persistance in trying
to create some sort of kumbaya experience between Russians and Ukrainians is just a little bit too schlocky. Texans, no matter how strong their local pride, are after all still Americans. Your continued persistance to try to meld the Russians and Ukrainians into some sort of a ‘greater nation’ based on some sort of ‘shared experiences’ during the Rus period and Gogol’s abilities to write accurate critiques of Russian society, just can’t be taken seriously! It’s time for you to wake up and realize that notwithstanding many similar cultural attributes, Ukrainians and Russians are still two separate
modern nationalities. Even ‘kremlin stooge’ Kuchma finally got the message when he wrote (his only?) his book ‘Ukraine is not Russia’. I can see by all of your coments that your heading the list for the biggest ‘kremlin stooge’ ever contest! (That’s saying a lot, you have some stiff competition from kovane!)
Another miserep on your part Koz.
I don’t deny present circumstances while making fact based premises on what appeared evident in the past – like the subject of Gogol.
Pardon any misspells in this note as well as others. I’m now getting an overlap of other comments in the posting section.
In case you missed it, here’s the latest from Kuchma:
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/politics/detail/106540/
For your own benefit, you need to pipe down a bit.
Yalensis – no my parents were not members of the the German army. They were young newlyweds
who were trying to escape the horrors of soviet collectivization (they were a part of the nefarious kulak
class) and the famine of the 1930′s. My sister recently informed me that they risked their own lives by hiding a family of jews under the floorboards of their small home. The family was eventually detected, and all were shot. When I asked my sister why our parents (and her as well) were not also shot, her only reply is that young workers were needed back in the Reich, and especially my mother’s skills as a seamstress were in high demand.
The death penalty for hiding Jews was imposed in Poland but not in Germany or France (as far as I know). The Nazis were nasty to civilian populations in countries whose government refused to collaborate.
@koz: You said above that your parents fled to Germany during WWII. But the de-kulakization campaign and famine was in the EARLY 1930′s, and essentially over by 1934. WWII did not begin (from Soviet point of view) until 1941 invasion. So, assuming your parents were young Ukrainian newlyweds who emigrated to Germany around time of 1941 invasion, they would have survived the earlier famine with seven years to spare.
Now, this family of Jews whom they hid under their floorboards, I assume this is when they lived in some town in Germany? The fact that your parents were NOT shot by Nazis is plausible, I admit, because, ironically, the Nazis were less brutal within Germany herself than within conquered territories. Is also plausible that your mom survived due to her talents as a seamstress. However, the part that I still find implausible is that your father, as a young healtlhy male, would not have been drafted into German army. How on earth did he avoid draft?
Good question.
Some male civilian POWs did find their way in factories unlike others.
Assume that pre-WW II Ukrainians in Germany who fled the Russian Civil War became more accepted in German society.
At least some of them like Skoropadsky.
I really don’t know. The 7 year period between the end of kulikization and the beginning of WW2 was not some idyllic reprieve from the previous horrors. I was not a part of that family experience. I know that my family was in a work camp in Germany, I believe working on a farm during the day. Both my mother and sister acquired tuberculosis and spent considerable time rehabilitaing in a quarantined facility too. I was the lucky one, who was born in the US, brought up to respect the Ukrainian language and culture.
while disrespecting others.
HOW QUAINT!
Things is what they is Averko! I see you find my often critical views of your nonsense as some form of ‘disrepect’. Not suprprising from one who is used to toeing the party line. Get real man, you live in the west, more specifically the USA.
If I’m not mistaken, you live in the US. Redirecting your suggested logic (not mine) back at you: if you love Ukraine so much, then go live there.
In the US and the world over, it’s not uncommon for people to show an interest in a foreign country. This sentiment can include open disagreement with some official American policies. Recall how some Americans of Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian origin didn’t like Bush I’s “Chicken Kiev” (sic) address against what he termed as suicidal nationalism.
Russia and the US have a track record of good relations. During the American Revolution, Russia didn’t openly side with Britain. George III’s request for Cossacks was denied. Whereas France and Britain leaned towards the Confederacy during the American Civil War, Russia made clear its preference for the Union.
The US and Russia were allies during two world wars – the latter war when Russia was part of the USSR.
Geopolitically, the “West” is often way too broad a term. Russia joined Britain, Prussia and Austria in defeating Napoleon. BTW, the ancestors of today’s Ukrainians exhibited considerable loyalty to Russia in that war and others.
For all the right reasons, I oppose the bigoted nonsense of the anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalist dominated Captive Nations Committee, while having pleasant experiences with Ukrainians who don’t share your misguided views.
Overall, I regret a good deal of what happened during the Soviet period. The pre-Soviet and and present situations have involved unfortunate instances as well. My approach is to have a constructively objective understanding of the past.
At this thread you’ve made a series of questionable (put mildly) comments on a number of issues. Facts and fact based opinions countered what you said. Instead of coming up with substantive counter-replies, you resort to off topic chatter.
@kozakov: Agree you were lucky to have been born in USA. Don’t worry, nobody is suspecting you of committing atrocities as baby Nazi. However, I do think you need to question your parents (if still alive) and your sister, because they are telling you some inconsistent tales about your family biography. Let’s all first stipulate that your parents probably emigrated to Germany in 1941, after Germany invasion and occupation of Ukraine. (Before that, they would not have been able to just pick up and exit from Soviet Union unless maybe they tunnelled their way out; highly dubious.)
Continuing on: First your parents told you that they “volunteered” to go to Germany (because they were so unhappy with their miserable kulak existence in Ukraine). Later they said they were deported to Germany, as punishment for hiding Jews (presumably in their hut in Ukraine). So, which was it? I am guessing every time they tell the story, it gets bigger. First it was just one Jew under the floorboard, then a whole family of Jews. Next time they tell the story, they will claim they saved Anne Frank herself!
Despite my scepticism, I really do believe that your mom and sister suffered tremendously, probably were stuck in a Nazi work camp and did get tuberculosis. I am truly sorry for their suffering. However, I am highly suspicious about your father. I do not believe he spent the war just hanging around in a tailor shop watching your mom sew uniforms for German army. He would have been drafted into Nazi army, probably in Ukrainian unit. Maybe was guard in concentration camp?
P.S. My ancestors were Red Army all the way: so my ancestors probably shooting at your ancestors. Now we only shoot verbal barbs at each other on internet blog. LOL
Yalensis – my conversations with my father about the family’s leaving Ukraine occurred over 30 years ago. My mother, rarely if ever wanted to discuss her experiences during that time. I don’t know why he didn’t mention the hiding of a jewish family to me at the time, however, I have no reason to doubt my sister’s rendition. There were actually many young Ukrainians who ‘volunteered’ to go to Germany, lured by German propoganda and their recruitment of people needed to staff work positions in Germany. Others were forcibly conscripted for such services. Not everyone was conscripted into the German army. I have no reason at all to think of my father as being a guard at a concentration camp. Both of my parent have long departed this world, so I can not hold any further discussions with them about any particulars. You, however, are free to think of all Ukrainians as being guards at German concentration camps if you so please.
Yalensis – I quote you directly ‘my ancestors were red army all the way’
May I ask you if they confided in you about their experiences of helping (or directing) in the requisition of foodstuffs needed to sustain the lives of millions of Ukrainian & other peasants during the 1930′s, during the period know as the famine? I mean if ‘they were all the way’, maybe they were only involved in the planning operations? Are you sure that all of their ‘tales’ are perfectly consistant?
@koz: Re. my ancestors… well, to be truthful there was one black sheep in the family, or should I say “White Sheep”. I believe he was with Denikin’s army (and misha has convinced me that Denikin maybe not so bad as other Whites). Aside from this one guy, everybody on correct side of front, especially during WWII.
Yalensis,
There were bad and not so bad Reds and Whites.
I’m glad to see that post-Soviet Russia at large is taking a more diverse approach on such matters.
Unfortunately, there was a complete SS Battalion of the German Army comprised of Galician volunteers of Ukrainian ethnic background: the 14th Waffen SS Grenadiers. Even though I started off the sentence with “unfortunately”, I don’t say that with the intent of shaming you or casting aspersions on your parents – there’s no reason to assume their story is anything but accurate, since the war affected such enormous numbers of people, and the 30th SS Grenadiers were largely formed of Russian and Belarussian volunteers (some Ukrainians in that one as well). Some people just made bad choices based on their forecasts of who would win, and there were many points during the war when the outcome was very much in doubt. I don’t ascribe Nazi values to everyone who chose the German side; I imagine quite a few just didn’t want to be among the losers, and simply made the wrong prediction.
But again, there’s no reason to assume your parents’ story is embellished, and the fact that they didn’t want to talk about it is quite understandable. I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting you are a child of Nazis, and what our parents or grandparents were during the world’s major conflicts has no bearing on who any of us are today.
Another ‘reasonable’ summation.
A lot of people were forced into German army. Some run away abroad to avoid the draft but most were not resourceful enough to run away.
That’s not true. Even those who volunteered into the German army (so called Hiwi), serviced only as cooks and drivers. Nobody wants troops that are comprised of people who would run at the first chance on the front line. The German command even didn’t trust regular Romanian and Italian units and usually deployed them at positions of secondary importance. For which they paid dearly in the battle of Stalingrad.
You may well be right, I’m not a student of the subject of the period, and know of it only what I read. The reference calls them “volunteers”, but perhaps that was meant as a joke. In any case, there have always been collaborators in every society, and members of the citizenry who are willing to embrace the conquerors and genuinely believe in their cause. The Bund was active in the USA in the late 1930′s, and I would not be surprised, if the Nazis were starting up today, if they could raise a substantial number of recruits there, as White Power, Aryan Nation and other White Supremacist groups remain active. A battalion is a lot of people, though; wartime strength would be 800 to over 1000 men. I suppose even the SS needed cooks and drivers, but the SS was the worst of the worst and an entire battalion of cooks and drivers is difficult to imagine. Also, the German (and Soviet) practice of guarding the rear to prevent retreat by one’s own advancing troops often inspired a degree of resolve that otherwise might not have been achievable. I can believe trust was an issue, though, as it would be today. Look at the American trainers in Iraq and their Iraqi troops and police who have occasionally turned on their benefactors (who were genuinely trying to help them, American soldiers are generally apolitical in the field and just do what they’re told), and shot them.
Yes, unfortunately there was no shortage of those who was willing to work for the Nazis; using them as a workforce is one thing, but entrusting them with weapons and putting on the front lines is something completely different.
Yalensis – so by ‘being on the right side’ did your ancestors garnish any special honors or pleasures for either planning or carrying out the requisition of foodstuffs from Ukrainian and other peasants during the 1930′s famine operation, that resulted in millions of deaths due to starvation? Make sure that their ‘tales’ are all correlated correctly.
The said requisition of food didn’t result in millions of deaths, it simply redistributed famine from cities to rural areas.
>>>>Touching on Russian-Ukrainian relations and regarding the consideration of Michael McFaul as the new American ambassador to Russia, I note an open letter he signed:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9065-11.cfm
Note the contents of that letter and who signed it.
As a comparison, this open letter didn’t include McFaul:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9060-3.cfm
Like Condoleezza Rice – McFaul doesn’t seem like someone so committed to a negative stance towards Russia like some others. In fact, some years ago on an NPR show, he answered me by saying that he doesn’t often agree with Zbigniew Brzezinski. Having said that, once gain note the open letter he signed versus the one that he wasn’t a party to.
When push comes to shove, some are prone to going in a certain direction unlike others.
Make that: “doesn’t include McFaul”, as I’m sure he was probably approached on that letter in question.
Apropos of something or other (or just to stir something else up),
I notice that the media likes to call Prince William’s new bride “Catherine the Great”. Does anyone have a problem with that? (Like what she done that was so great?)
Maybe is not meant as compliment.
I suspect that some might get a kick out of this:
http://www.kyivpost.com/news/opinion/op_ed/detail/106430/20/page/1/#comment-123561
“Hero journalism.”
Last week, Robert Gates spoke of the need for others besides the US to contribute more to NATO.
The budget crunch explains what might’ve motivated a coded commentary like this one:
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/engaging-the-anti-nato-5445
While being comparatively better than much of the English language mass media commentary out there, National Interest articles have a track record of PC qualifiers along the lines of:
– yes they’re authoritarian, but….
- the Serbs did…, but…
@kozakov: Here is direct quote from you:
As to ‘homo sovieticus’ this is a historical term used by many to describe soviets attempts to rebuild the world with a new, superbreed of human being
(one who naturally would espouse the Russian language in exchange for his own, ‘local’ language).
Now, this is just so completely opposite-reality that I don’t know where to begin. No other multi-national state in history other than Soviet Union did so much to nurture and even save from extinction local languages. Compare this with American colonizers, who drove to extinction literally hundreds of native Indian languages. The fact that Ukrainians today speak Ukrainian, Latvians Latvian, Estonians Estonian, etc., is all due to hyper-enlightened language policy of Bolsheviks and Soviets. Soviets encouraged native languages, brought literacy even to most obscure Siberian tribes, printed books, made films, etc., all in local languages. You should get down on your knees and thank the Soviet Union that preserved all these native languages and cultures. Then compare with American genocide (both physical and linguistic) against native Americans. (And while you’re down there on your knees, also thank Soviet Union for allocating so much valuable land and resources to Ukrainian republic.)
Leos Tomicek’s blog, “Austere Insomniac” also contains some good articles on the Ukrainian language and options to learn and practice it in Russia. The lead article today, in fact, is on the increasing use of Russian in Ukraine – which is certainly not a result of some heavy-handed repression by the Ukrainian government, but because more people want to use it. I had an article on this some time back as well, in which both languages showed growth year-over-year in many areas. To me, that suggested an increased interest in bilingualism rather than the swan song of one language or the other. Multilingualism is common in the EU, obviously, and if Ukraine is that way inclined it is a taste its people would do well to cultivate.
Yalensis – The Soviet Union had developed an empire that was comprised of hundreds of different ethnicities and nationalities. It had to operate within the realities that it faced. The second largest nationality within the soviet union were the Ukrainians. Having only recently acquired the west Ukrainian lands (lands that had never been under the Russian Romanov empire) , lands that had been accustomed to using their own language in schools and governmanet, the soviets had to encourage the use of the Ukrainian language. The soviet language policy was ever changing, but the overall trend was to try to rusify as many citizens as possible, in order to help build cohesion. There were periods in Ukraine, that one would severly risk the ability to advance socially or economically if one openly chose to converse in the Ukrainian language. I’ve already mentioned that to get a full
picture of this process, one should read Ivan Dziuba’s seminal work on this topic ‘Internationlism or Russification’
It can be purchase for $2.95 paperback version through Amazon.
The Soviet philosophy of the time was sound, based on prevailing values, philosophies and plans that existed at the time. As I mentioned earlier, Canada was at great pains to eradicate all native languages spoken by the native inhabitants, and such was the American policy as well in the elimination of native language, culture and concentrations during the push to settle the west. People in power in the governments of the day believed they were building societies that would eventually dominate the world (and one of them was right), and they believed a little pain now and some harsh measures taken early would be worth the eventual unstoppable colossus that would result. I’d like to think we know better today, and most countries are quite willing to engage with and entertain subcultures and ethnic groups they once enthusiastically tried to stamp out. For Canada, it’s too late – the people who can still speak their original language and remember more about their culture than anyone could learn from picking up a book or googling “Haida” or “Tlingit” (interestingly, a majority of native names for their own people meant “human beings” in their own language) are tiny islands in a sea of English.
Modern nations need the support of their ethnic groups, and brutal repressions are no longer in vogue. To what end would it be for Russia to try eliminating the Ukrainian culture and language now? It is in Russia’s best interest to do the opposite, and encourage it.
Mark – It’s really interesting to me that after our first few encounters here, you and I pretty much are in agreement on most issues. Your comment above only reinforces my last comment. I was immediately drawn towards your blog. I suggest that you change the name of your blog from the
pejorative “The Kremlin Stooge’ to the more accurate ” The Reasonable Russophile’
Ha, ha! I like the title, but I prefer embracing the label Kremlin Stooge although I am not connected with the Russian government in any way. And I can promise you I am less reasonable with people who are not willing to meet me halfway, as you appear to be. I try to be fair, but a lot of criticism of Russia is not. I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge Russia has its faults, some of them more serious than others. But much criticism – especially western criticism – is tremendously hypocritical, reflecting condemnation of practices that pass without comment in the west, in its favoured allies or both.
In addition to yourself: Eugene Ivanov, Leos Tomicek and yours truly are in the reasonable Russophile category.
Having a liking for a subject doesn’t necessarily mean that one can’t offer reasonably objective views.
@kozakov: I read the Dziuba book when I was a student. Dziuba is an ideological hack who simply does not know what he is talking about. If you want to understand anything about Bolshevik/Soviet nationalities policy, you need to read actual source material, for example Lenin’s major work on the issue, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination. .
The right of national self-determination and all that follows from that (right to speak local languages, etc.) was a concept that became very prominent during WWI and was keenly adopted by socialist circles as well as by Western leaders like Woodrow Wilson. This concept was so dear to Bolsheviks, it was almost like a religion with them, which explains the Soviet obsession with nurturing national languages. It was certainly NOT a cynical ploy. Here is Lenin on Ukraine’s right to independence, penned in 1914:
Let us consider the position of an oppressor nation. Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot. The interests of the freedom of the Great-Russian population[1] require a struggle against such oppression. (…)
In Russia, the creation of an independent national state remains, for the time being, the privilege of the Great-Russian nation alone. We, the Great-Russian proletarians, who defend no privileges whatever, do not defend this privilege either. We are fighting on the ground of a definite state; we unite the workers of all nations living in this state; we cannot vouch for any particular path of national development, for we are marching to our class goal along all possible paths.
However, we cannot move towards that goal unless we combat all nationalism, and uphold the equality of the various nations. Whether the Ukraine, for example, is destined to form an independent state is a matter that will be determined by a thousand unpredictable factors. Without attempting idle “guesses”, we firmly uphold something that is beyond doubt: the right of the Ukraine to form such a state. We respect this right; we do not uphold the privileges of Great Russians with regard to Ukrainians; we educate the masses in the spirit of recognition of that right, in the spirit of rejecting state privileges for any nation. (….)
Vladimir Ilych Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”
P.S. Ooops! must make correction. It has been a while since I read these books, I got confused and I was mixing Ivan Dziuba up with Valentin Moroz. Agree, Dziuba is a good guy, not a nationalist nor a hack (unlike Moroz). So sorry for factual error!
Yalensis – like I already stated, the soviet language policy was not static but continually changing. What Lenin may have theoretically proposed, wasn’t necessarily what occured in practice. I didn’t know that Valentyn Moroz was an ‘ideological hack’. I remember him as being a historian who paid dearly for his ideological views that were critical of the Soviet Union by spending a few years behind bars.
@kovane
I’ll write here because I can’t see the replay button.
There were plenty of people forced into German army. I’m not talking about SS but your ordinary Wehrmacht. Many occupied territories in Poland, like Silesia and Gdansk, were proclaimed to be Germany and people became something called ‘third category German citizens’. The worse situation on the eastern front got, the less Germans cared about ‘politics’ and would even draft people who had a history of fighting against Germany. Desertion was punishable by death.
This may be so, but I can assure you that they were drafted not as regular soldiers of Wermacht. And this is not a matter of politics, but common sense. They were good for digging trenches, even hunting for guerrilla squads, bot not for real war. Here, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_the_Wehrmacht
Thanks.
It always strikes me as ironic how Nazis first treated people on occupied lands horribly, and few years down the line realized that they need population to be on their side. They tried to do something about it but it was too little, to late.
Nazis used local recruits not just to dig ditches, but also as death-squads to kill Jews, and also as concentration camp guards. I read a book once about liquidation of the Vilnius Jewish ghetto. It was said that ethnic Lithuanians were so brutal towards Jews, even women and children, that the German officers themselves were repulsed by the spectacle.
Many low-ranking but murderous “ethnic” concentration camp guards (for example, ethnic Ukrainian John Demianiuk) were able to escape to USA or Canada after Red Army defeated Nazis and drove them back out of occupied territories. A few, like Demianiuk, eventually were found and arrested, thanks to efforts of Jewish avengers like Simon Wiesenthal, but most got away with their crimes. (There were also many ethnic Russian pro-Nazi collaborators, as kovane pointed out.)
The behavior of those allied with the Nazis (nominally and otherwise) varied.
Consider how the anti-Nazi Allies also had some differences among themselves.
History doesn’t often involve a simple matter of virtue versus evil. On the issue of taking a mature approach to history, Viktor Yanukovych was correct in annulling Viktor Yushchenko’s arbitrary granting of an official and ironically named Soviet like “Hero” designation to Stepan Bandera. (Talk about brown meshing with red.)
Yet, Russia is often portrayed as the country not as responsible. This brings to mind someone who hasn’t been granted a “Hero” like status – not that I support such, based on my earlier good-evil point.
Upon being captured by the Nazis, General Andrei Vlasov openly sought a strong Russia, which in turn got him in trouble with Nazi ideologues, who had a different idea for Russia. This situation explains why Vlasov’s army was limited in activity for much of WW II. Out of desperation, the Nazis let Vlasov’s army loose towards the end of WW II. In turn, the Vlasov army fought the Nazis. Prague, the last scene of WW II European theater fighting was to a great extent liberated by Vlasov’s forces. This is acknowledged in present day former Czechoslovakia and by others including historian AJP Taylor. Vlasov’s army didn’t have the gruesome baggage of the Croat Ustasha and Galician based OUN/UPA. I’ve come across claims that in Pskov and perhaps some other areas, Vlasov’s army and Soviet partisans had an unofficial understanding not to fight each other.
Some material on Vlasov:
Andreyev, Catherine – VLASOV AND THE RUSSIAN LIBERATION MOVEMENT – Cambridge University Press, New York, 1987
Reitlinger, Gerald – THE HOUSE BUILT ON SAND – Viking Press, New York, 1960
Steenberg, Sven – VLASOV – Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1970
Strik-Strikfeldt, Wilfried – AGAINST STALIN & HITLER – The John Day Company, New York, 1973
Thorwald, Jurgen – THE ILLUSION – Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, 1975
On the matter of Ukrainians in Germany, in Reitlinger’s book, reference is given to Russian Empire born/anti-Russian Alfred Rosenberg approaching Pavlo Skorpadsky in the early 1920s – to discuss an independent Ukrainian state. Upon being overthrown in 1918, Skoropadsky lived the remainder of his life in Germany. He doesn’t appear to have carried on in a Nazi like manner. Until recently, a full online English language text of Skoropadsky’s Feb. 14, 1918 edict for an “All-Russian Federation” wasn’t available. This document calls for a federation involving Russia and Ukraine. For some, his edict is politically incorrect. While not denouncing the Russian Empire, it calls for a new and close Russo-Ukrainian relationship, in addition to being anti-Bolshevik.
Oh, will you stop with all this hogwash? Yeah, Vlasov sought a strong Russia, siding with Germany which killed 25 million Russian people. Apparently, that’s what makes a country strong. And if some common soldier might not understand what Nazis did at the time, a high-ranking general certainly saw how Germany made Russia strong. Vlasov’s ROA did’t see much combat because of the reasons I lined above – nobody trusts traitors in the first place, that’s why the Nazis intended to use them only against guerilla squads. Funny that you mention Prague, as another ROA commander, Bunyachenko argued for supporting the rebellion, whereas Vlasov insisted on keeping allegience to the Germans. While the fate of rank ROA soldiers is sometimes tragic, all attempts to white-wash Vlasov are disgusting – he’s an ineffectual traitor at best.
The “hogwash” is with you.
One can return your pious tripe by noting how Stalin could be seen as being more responsible for Russian deaths than Vlasov.
Bunyachenko appears to have convinced Vlasov to have gone along with the liberation of Prague.
“One can return your pious tripe by noting how Stalin could be seen as being more responsible for Russian deaths than Vlasov..”
The human cost of Stalinism was vast and tragic.
In about 1928, the Russian had recovered to about the productivity of 1913. And that level of productivity had failed Russia in the First World War, despite the fact that the main effort of the Germans/Austrians/Turks was directed against the West. Another, even more vast and demanding war was coming, and the stakes were the highest possible: the survival of the Slavs, for Hitler intended their removal from Europe.
Those were the stakes Hitler and Stalin were playing for in the 1930s. Russia had a decade or so to accomplish 50 years of military-industrial development.
And Stalin won. At vast and tragic human cost, but Stalin won.
The fact that there are now Poles in Poland and Ukrainians in Ukraine is due to the fact that Stalin won his prewar military-economic competition with Hitler. Vlasov joined Hitler. Stalin beat them both, and it is due to Stalin, not Vlasov, that there are now Poles in Poland, Ukrainians in Ukraine, Byelorussians in Belarus, and Russians in European Russia.
Not Vlasov.
Oh, it’s nice to see that you’re using the same arguments as before. Reread carefully what Fedya said then, I doubt that I am able to put it better than him.
About the rebellion in Prague
Quote: “В это же время Народный комитет вёл безуспешные переговоры с генералом Власовым о помощи, который отказал чехам. Тем не менее, часть власовцев под командование Буняченко решила нарушить приказ и прийти восставшим на выручку, оскорблённый Власов сказал Буняченко, что он – предатель и уехал из штаба Буняченко в Козоедах, а Буняченко договорился вечером 5 мая с чешскими представителями о том, что его дивизия будет на их стороне.”
Damn the day when I become “open-minded” about Vlasov. No, in that discusion Kriukov appears to be very knowledgable about Vlasov, and you failed to present any facts and instead began intimidating him with the number of books you’d read.
It’s irrelevant how many death Vlasov and Stalin were responsible for. What is relevant how many death the Germans were responsible for compared to that of Stalin’s And the fact that the Nazis waged a genocidal war against Russia. Vlasov sided with them, hence his motives, what he said matter nothing – he is a traitor.
But If you have the gall to say that Fedia was ignorant then, I’m sure it’s pointless to argue with you. I guess even Vlasov himself couldn’t have peruaded you that he was a traitor if he had tried.
Kriukov didn’t successfully rebuke my comments on the subject.
Your overly selective and limited approach doesn’t provide anything to the contrary.
Well, it’s kind of hard to rebuke your comment when you’re a judge simultaneously, isn’t it? In my book, Fedia romped through your arguments, and this is not even because you presented them poorly (which you did), but Vlasov is such a crystal-clear traitor and scum that he can’t be defended even with the Chewbacca defense.
It’s insanity to compare any anti-Russian comments with joining a mortal enemy waging a terrible war against Russia (and breaking his oath by the way). You’re completely missing the point. Denikin’s position is to be respected – he refused to collaborate with Germany against Russia, no matter how much shit he talked about it or hated the Soviet government.
Yes, I said that to sinotibetan. But then I explained why I thought so, which you didn’t do in the said discussion. You gave no new facts and arguments. By the way, it turned out that sinotibetan deliberately used flawed argument to counter some yalensis’ one. So I took my words back.
You further reveal a pompous lout side of yourself.
There was more to that exchange which you don’t mention.
Moreover, I suspect that Fedia and yourself aren’t familiar with the books I noted on the subject.
So much for your poor judgment on this matter.
Oh, and here are insults at last.
Don’t be that suspecting, I openly confess that I haven’t read a single book from your list. And am not going to, by the way. But you have read them, right? And you must know something we don’t then, some facts that redeem Vlasov completely. Well, why don’t you enlighten us?
While you’re at it, answer the following questions please, yes or no:
1. Did Vlasov give a military oath before the war (to the people of the Soviet Union, not to Stalin)?
2. Did Vlasov swear allegiance to Hitler after the capture?
3. Do you agree that Germany waged a genocidal war against Russia, killed around 25 million Russian people and had plans to exterminate its population?
4 Is it possible that Vlasov as a high-ranking general didn’t understand that by the time of his capture?
In other words, your knowledge of Vlasov is limited to the kind of simplistic barbs you throw out here.
In contrast, I rely on scholarly written material dealing with primary sources.
You were the one who initiated insults here and I replied in kind. Show some respect and you’ll get it back. Otherwise, expect what you dish out. On rudeness, I note how you didn’t give a thanks for a recent inquiry on Suvorov, which included little known and valid info. on his attack on Warsaw.
Who is responsible for more Russian deaths between Stalin and Vlasov?
What was the actual extent of Vlasov army activity against the USSR?
Did I not note evidence suggesting Vlasov army coordinating with pro-Soviet partisans to not fight each other, in a way circumventing Nazi desires?
Did Vlasov make anti-Russian comments in line with how some Russians carry on in considerably less difficult circumstances?
Was Vlasov rebuked by some key Nazi higher ups for seeking a strong Russia?
The fact of the matter is that there were some pro-Russian Germans who had an influence on Vlasov. He hoped they’d get the upper hand.
Good for you that you’re relying on scholar material, but I don’t understand why you don’t use it. Give us some facts that redeem Vlasov.
I haven’t insulted you personally, like you did. At least so far, but that is likely to change soon. Sorry, I’m not following whom I should have thanked and for what?
Answer my questions first, if you are so kind.
No need for me to repeat myself on my initial comments at this thread about Vlasov, which are well founded; in line with numerous sources including the ones I noted. You’re free to read them and follow-up on the involved issues.
Like I said, there’s no need for me to readily accept diatribes which weren’t initiated by me in relation to this particular discussion.
BTW, the Nazis used other “traitors,” in a more willing way unlike Vlasov’s army. This aspect was very much motivated on not wanting to support a strong Russia as openly stated by Vlasov. In contrast, Nazis like Rosenberg saw an early day version of the anti-Russian Captive Nations Committee, which Vlasov certainly didn’t support.
You really forgot your earlier inquiry on Suvorov at the thread just before this one? Unless removed, it’s there as a matter of record.
In other words, you refuse to answer 4 simple questions?
So much for your alleged knowledge. And honesty to much greater extent.
I remember how it was with Suvorov. I asked Grafomanka if she knew general attitude toward Suvorov in Poland, she didn’t. Whom should I have thanked? Her? Ok, thank you, grafomanka. My apologies.
You further reveal a troll side to yourself. At that other thread, your inquiry on Suvorov was answered by yours truly.
At this thread, my opening comments on Vlasov were met with a noticeably crude reply, that doesn’t cover-up your ignorance on the subject:
“History doesn’t often involve a simple matter of virtue versus evil. On the issue of taking a mature approach to history, Viktor Yanukovych was correct in annulling Viktor Yushchenko’s arbitrary granting of an official and ironically named Soviet like “Hero” designation to Stepan Bandera. (Talk about brown meshing with red.)
Yet, Russia is often portrayed as the country not as responsible. This brings to mind someone who hasn’t been granted a ‘Hero’ like status – not that I support such, based on my earlier good-evil point.
Upon being captured by the Nazis, General Andrei Vlasov openly sought a strong Russia, which in turn got him in trouble with Nazi ideologues, who had a different idea for Russia. This situation explains why Vlasov’s army was limited in activity for much of WW II. Out of desperation, the Nazis let Vlasov’s army loose towards the end of WW II. In turn, the Vlasov army fought the Nazis. Prague, the last scene of WW II European theater fighting was to a great extent liberated by Vlasov’s forces. This is acknowledged in present day former Czechoslovakia and by others including historian AJP Taylor. Vlasov’s army didn’t have the gruesome baggage of the Croat Ustasha and Galician based OUN/UPA. I’ve come across claims that in Pskov and perhaps some other areas, Vlasov’s army and Soviet partisans had an unofficial understanding not to fight each other.
Some material on Vlasov:
Andreyev, Catherine – VLASOV AND THE RUSSIAN LIBERATION MOVEMENT – Cambridge University Press, New York, 1987
Reitlinger, Gerald – THE HOUSE BUILT ON SAND – Viking Press, New York, 1960
Steenberg, Sven – VLASOV – Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1970
Strik-Strikfeldt, Wilfried – AGAINST STALIN & HITLER – The John Day Company, New York, 1973
Thorwald, Jurgen – THE ILLUSION – Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York, 1975″
****
In short, you’re the one ducking reality, with insultingly ignorant comments. Your rhetorical questions serve as a simplistic way of looking at the POA. One can counter by saying that Stalin betrayed the USSR with faulty planning in the leadup to WW II.
Calling my above comments “hogwash” and portraying another conversation involving me as being in receipt of some kind of thrashing of my views is incorrect and insulting.
Until you show a greater knowledge on the subject, you aren’t in a good position to judge me.
Oh, well. Misha, you can’t win many friends by calling everyone you don’t agree with trolls, just saying.
Ahem, in fact I asked grafomanka about attitude toward Suvorov because she’s Polish. Truth to be told, I’ve noticed your follow-up only now. Take note, I didn’t asked for a historical lecture on Suvorov, only opinion of Poles. More specifically, I didn’t asked anything from you. I don’t know how the thing are where you’re from , but here in Russia we don’t appreciate unwanted help much. Savages, we are. I know.
My reply was crude only to Vlasov, not to you, and considering what traitor he was. I’d call it insufficiently rude. It’s very nice of you to repeatedly post the list of books, but would it be easier to answer my 4 simple, yes/no questions? Pretty please! It seem that you fancy yourself a great scholar, and as far as I know, they are required to answer questions sometimes.
Many people the world over are appreciative when an inquiry is answered. Russia is no different.
Coming back with the “hogwash” comment to what I initially said and then wrongly saying that I was thrashed at another discussion, in conjunction with not knowing much about the POA isn’t a tell all of any arrogance or ignorance on my part.
On the matter of “traitor,” consider some of the contemporary peacetime comments made by some (stress some) Russians in Russia and abroad, to the delight of folks favoring anti-Russian biases.
To my knowledge, Vlasov didn’t shit on his country, in such a manner when faced with considerably more difficult circumstances. On the contrary; as I note, he was openly rebuked by some of the Nazi hierarchy for seeking a strong Russia.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia gave some kudos to Denikin for openly stating that anti-Communist Russians shouldn’t support the Nazis. Denikin also stated comments that acknowledged what I said of Vlasov.
At another thread, YOU recently said to sinotibetan that he wasn’t well versed on a certain subject. Quite ironic, given your recent outburst here.
“a”
Stalin also made some great military blunders.
The USSR won on the merits of its resources and population and not as much because of his “genius.”
Feel free to highlight any atrocities and bigoted actions of Vlasov and his forces.
Thanks @kovane, that needed to be said. Enough with this Vlasov-as-hero bullshit!
Later with the Stalin and Lenin as heroes BULLSHIT!
So there’s no misunderstanding, I didn’t say that Vlasov should be given a “Hero” status.
Quite the opposite.
Feel free to scroll back up on what was said.
What’s “disgusting” is how some exhibit a morally unbalanced disgust.
Let me refer you to the discussion you had with Fedya Kriukov: http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2009/05/28/translation-stalinist-textbook/
It’s very sad that you haven’t learnt a thing since then.
If anything, “it’s very sad” that you appear very closed-minded on some issues.
In that particular exchange, Kruikov appear very ignorant of Vlasov and the army he headed.
He doesn’t seem familiar with any of the sources i note at this thread.
Communist Yugoslavia did a similar hatchet job with Mihailovic.
Speaking of Ukrainian nazi collaborators. Schindler factory museum recently opened in Krakow. A very good museum by the way. It hosts a lot of photographs from the Nazi occupation period. I went to see it and was a little shocked at how many Ukrainians in black uniforms were on those pictures. (My ignorance probably coming from building my perception of occupied Krakow on Schindler’s list and I didn’t remember seeing any Ukrainians there).
@grafomanka: Sounds like an interesting museum. I saw the movie and read the book about Schindler. Fascinating individual. I am guessing Schindler didn’t have too many personal dealings with Ukrainians, because his contacts were more with upper-class Germans and Nazi brass.
Yalensis – a similar phenomena was even evident among the jewish inmates within the German concentration camps. I make no moral judgements myself regading their behavior (for no one really knows how one would react under similar circumstances!). I quote from a jewish resource on the web (not a ‘svidomite’ one), the Jewish Virutal Library: ‘The German concentration camps depended on the cooperation of trustee inmates who supervised the prisoners. Known as Kapos, these trustees carried out the will of the Nazi camp commandants and guards, and were often as brutal as their SS counterparts. Some of these Kapos were Jewish, and even they inflicted harsh treatment on their fellow prisoners. For many, failure to perform their duties would have resulted in severe punishment and even death, but many historians view their actions as a form of complicity. After the war, the prosecution of Kapos as war criminals, particularly those who were Jewish, created an ethical dilemma which continues to this day.’ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kapos.html
As for the Demjanuk case, I’m very pleased to say that his long trial concluded in Israel with a verdict of not guilty.
The evidence presented against him was found to be just to flimsy to warrant any other outcome. Unfortunately,
the current trial against him in Germany seems to be motivated to continue to distance their own nazi pogromists
by continuing a false campaign against this unfortunate Ukrainian.
Much of Germany is noticeably biased against Serbia, in a way that at times seems greater than what’s found in other Western countries.
There’re several explanations for this. One relates to the Sontag (among others) Serbs are Nazis crap, which can sooth the idea that among Europeans, Germans aren’t alone in some negatives.
The other reasons stem from a relatively high ethnic Croat and Turkish population in Germany. (Serbia has been at historical odds with Croatia and Turkey) and Serbs being a thorn to Germany in two world wars.
Recent article on Demjanjuk:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/05/13/the-persecution-of-john-demjanjuk/
Elsewhere, it has been written that he joined Vlasov’s army, which was Russian premised as opposed to Ukrainian. If so, is there any follow-up on that move on his part? If I correctly recall, John Armstrong stated that up to 40% of the POA were Ukrainian. My understanding is that the POA and UPA ties were limited and not particularly great. The UPA had an anti-Russian strain. The Nazis at large surely didn’t favor the POA over the UPA.
The politics on such matter is interesting. Russian Civil War era Don Cossack leader Peter Krasnov headed a Nazi allied Cossoack org., whose numbers are said to have dwindled on account of Vlasov being more popular. Known as an arch reactionary, Krasnov was known to have viewed Vlasov with suspicion on the basis of the latter’s Soviet upbringing.
On second thought, it might’ve been George Fischer (as opposed to John Armstrong), who made the reference on the Ukrainian composition of Vlasov’s army.
Thanks for the link. Quite the scathing indictmen of the German legal process. ‘Not until paragraph 17 does one find this jolting fact: “No evidence was produced that he committed a specific crime.” Oh well, we can be thankful to the vigilant German people for prosecuting this
Ukrainian prison guard. They must have already prosecuted all of their own German prison guards, and are continuing this unpolitically motivated process.
@koz: Israeli court was forced to acquit Iwan Demianiuk on a technicality, because he had initially been confused with a different Nazi war criminal, Iwan Marchenko, so the case became tainted. However, German court was still free to convict him on other evidence :
The file on Demjanjuk was compiled by the special German office investigating Nazi crimes. Kurt Schrimm, who heads the office, said that investigators “have managed to obtain hundreds of documents and have also found a number of witnesses who spoke out against Demjanjuk”. “For the first time we have even found lists of names of the people who Demjanjuk personally led into the gas chambers. We have no doubt that he is responsible for the death of over 29,000 Jews” at the Nazis’ Sobibor death camp, he said.
The fact that you defend Demianiuk and bring up the issue of Jewish kapos (which is a complex ethical dilemma that only the Jews themselves are allowed to debate) sadly reinforces every stereotype I had about Ukrainian diaspora as spawn of Nazi collaborators.
Oh, and BTW, your shot against the Germans is unfair. They are not persecuting some poor lovable old Ukrainian patriot in order to “distance themselves” from Hitler’s crimes. On the contrary, Germans are honorably pursuing the course of justice in this matter. Unlike Ukrainian diaspora, which still continues to defend and protect Nazi collaborators, modern Germans truly have made clean break with Nazi past.
Like other issues, I’m for all of the facts and opinions to be reasonably assessed.
Yalensis – I’m sorry if bringing up jewish kapos and the Demjanuk acquital (on a ‘technicality’), both historical facts, makes me a ‘spawn of nazi collaborators’. If Demjanuk was indeed involved in war crimes and is convicted so with all access of due process, then so be it. You can find wrongdoers and collaborators within all national groups. My point in bringing up the jewish capo example is to illustrate that there were many people of many different nationalities who were forced to do things that they normally would never do. Even jewish people.
@Kovane
The German command even didn’t trust regular Romanian and Italian units and usually deployed them at positions of secondary importance.
The Germans didn’t trust Romanian and Italian units not because they feared a betrayal from them, like what they could expect from Hiwis, but because they knew these units were unable to sustain a serious attack from a mechanised army like the Soviet one. The Italian, Romanian and Hungarian armies at the time were a slightly upgraded version of the armies that fought in WW I for their equipment, training (or lack thereof) and tactics (limited to frontal assault and static defence). There were not episodes of mass desertion and/or surrendering from Italian, Romanian and Hungarian armies, during the Soviet counteroffensive in 1942/43, instead these units fought until they were destroyed or ordered to retreat.
I just wanted to point this out because your comment could be misinterpreted as meaning that Italians and Romanians were willing to betray the German allies.
Giuseppe, I never meant that Italian and Romanian troops were in any way treacherous and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. Although in a book I read on the Stalingrad battle, German commanders complained that Romanian troops weren’t very enthusiastic about the war and retreated at the first signs of danger.
I knew you didn’t mean that, in fact I wrote “your comment could be misinterpreted”, anyway, thanks for the clarification. As for the German’s complaint on the Romanian troops, I suppose that, like the Italians, they weren’t enthusiastic about the war because they saw themselves hopelessly inadeguate in comparison to both the allied German troops and the enemy Soviet troops. Most Italians saw themselves as lackeys of the Germans, not that they were fighting on their own.
On the second complaint, that Romanians retreated at the first signs of danger (a complaint directed to us as well), I think it’s a case of the Germans scapegoating others for their mistakes. Romanians, Italians and Hungarians did their best to counter the Soviet counteroffensive, but these troops were not up to the task. When encircled, they refused to surrender and fought desperately to break the encirclement.
When the German command ordered the Italian troops to leave their positions on the Don river, the Italian commander gen. Gariboldi required a written order before starting the retreat. He knew the German attitude at scapegoating.
Very true, I agree. Though I don’t think that inclination to scapegoating is strictly unique to Germans
As the proverb goes, “victory has many parents, defeat is an orphan”.
@Giuseppe: All very good points. I think we should stipulate in this discussion that all the various armies fought bravely for their chosen sides. The main discussion here was not about armies and brave soldiers, but about thugs like concentration camp guards. Their wars were spent not going up against armored tanks, but rather beating up on helpless, unarmed civilians. These cowards got to satisfy their sadistic urges against people who could not fight back. Then later in the barracks, in the evening, probably sat around playing cards and opining in Talmudic fashion about the activities of the Jewish kapos: “You see what kind of people these Jews are? They betray their own kind…. So, we’re not so bad after all….”
Hi Yalensis,
the brother of my maternal grandfather spent almost two years as a prisoner in a camp for Italian military internees in Germany. One of the few good memories he had about that period was about a German guard that, moved to pity for the prisoners, used to bring them some extra food. This wasn’t an easy thing to do, because it was forbidden and Germany hadn’t plenty of food at the time.
@Giuseppe: There are good people everywhere, just as there are evil people everywhere. I read this book, Escape from Sobibor a few years back, there was also a movie version. Quite a thrilling story, because the inmates, led by a Jewish Red Army officer (played by Rutger Hauer in the movie version), actually orchestrated a mass escape.
Anyhow, I remember that one of the characters in the book (= a true story) was a German guard who was kind and treated the prisoners well. Later, after the war, he was captured and put on trial, but several surviving prisoners from Sobibor testified on his behalf and got him freed.
However, this kindly guard was an ethnic German. it is not recorded that any of the Ukrainian guards won any friends from among the Jewish and Russian prisoners.
There’ve been several movies depicting a generally different manner of Italians versus Germans during WW II.
Here’re two of them which some might already be familiar with:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238112/ starring among others Nikolas Cage
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065782/ starring among others Sophia Loren
German WW II behavior varied. On Russia, there were some Russian Empire born Germans who weren’t anti-Russian like Rosenberg. Wilfred Strik-Strikfeldt (author of one of the books I listed at this thread) is an example of the former.
In Yugoslavia, the Austrians had the general reputation of being more brutal to the Serbs than Germans. Some Germans wrote with disgust at how the Croat Ustasha carried on.
I’ve heard that Italians soldiers during WW II were much less brutal than the Germans and tended to familiarise with the local population. The saying “Italiani, brava gente” (Italians, good peoples) is used to summarise this attitude.
But I have only Italian sources or Italian-selected sources, so I don’t know how much truth there is in the above sentence. So, I would like to ask to the Russian commenters here what they know about the behaviour of my fellow countrymen during WW 2 in then SU.
Know someone of Russian and Italian background who agrees.
The linked Sunflower movie (which I haven’t seen in decades) was filmed in the USSR – a product of period that saw an effort at improving East-West relations:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808735617/details
Going back years earlier, there was another movie that picked up on the theme of comparatively good natured Italians during WW II.
If not already known and of possible interest:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/primo_levis_journey/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primo_Levi
Like I said, the situation among the Axis allied varied. Numerous commentary notes the Jewish population in Bulgaria being spared the tragic fate that Jews faced in some other Axis allied countries:
http://www.adl.org/presrele/holna_52/3099-52.asp
On the other hand, some Bulgarian troops outside Bulgaria were involved in the rounding up of Jews, for the purpose of getting transferred for internment in Nazi German run camps. Another tidbit notes Bulgaria declaring war on the US during WW II unlike the USSR.
Giuseppe, Here’s a long excerpt from this book. It’s in Russian but google translate does quite a satisfactory job on it.
Еще большее недовольство итальянских (равно как и венгерских) солдат и офицеров вызывало поведение немцев, которые вынудили союзников отдать все имевшееся у них топливо, вследствие чего им пришлось бросить автомашины и тяжелое вооружение и двигаться пешком. «Немцы, часто отдавая все силы в боях, систематически демонстрировали абсолютное непонимание элементарных нужд итальянцев, – пишет Франческо Валори. – Слишком часто они брали себе львиную долю всего необходимого, первыми пытались получить жилище, автотранспорт, недостающую еду. Слишком часто мы видели пустые или полупустые немецкие машины, которые отказывались брать итальянских солдат, даже раненых или обмороженных». «Немцы всегда свиньи, – писал офицер «Тридентины», – я познакомился с ними в эти ужасные дни бегства. В стремлении спасти свою жизнь они готовы размозжить наших погибших под их санками, тех погибших, которые готовили дорогу и для них. Насильники, немцы уверены, что могут считать нас низшими, уверены в себе, потому что у них было несколько танков, самоходок и шестиствольный миномет. Если они иногда открывали огонь, то он был неэффективен, а аль-пийцы воевали в пехоте каждый день против русских стрелковых частей, партизан и других подразделений и пожертвовали 2/3 альпийского корпуса». В бою при Николаевке, свидетельствует Бруно Дзава-льи, «Немцы, за исключением нескольких орудийных расчетов, исчезли. Они спрятались и ждут, пока им дадут дорогу. Они уже не воюют и следуют за итальянскими войсками». Следует сказать, что немцы действительно часто стремились использовать своих союзников в самых опасных местах, в авангарде и арьергарде, за счет чего пытались сохранить свои силы, вооружение и технику. В докладе о боевой деятельности артиллерии Воронежского фронта с 1 по 30.01.43 за подписью командующего артиллерией ВФ генерал-лейтенанта артиллерии Варенцова констатировалось: «Новое в тактике противника: интересен факт широкого использования германским командованием для прикрытия отходящих немецких войск частей своих вассалов и стремление за счет венгров, итальянцев сохранить от окружения и уничтожения основные немецкие силы. При угрожающих положениях немецкие части отводятся на новые рубежи на 2 – 3 дня раньше, оставляя арьергарды из венгерских или итальянских частей. Этим объясняется такой низкий процент немецких пленных».
«Немецкий солдат – самый хороший с точки зрения дисциплины, применения оружия и использования военных знаний, – утверждал Бруно Дзавальи. – И он же самый жестокий и эгоистичный, самый ненавидимый солдат. Его эгоизм настигал и друзей и врагов. Совершал действия под влиянием страха, который походил на безумие». Некоторые «действия» немецких солдат, действительно, решительно выходили за пределы разума и морали – вот, например, один эпизод эпопеи совместного отступления немцев и итальянцев, описанный Ригони Стерном: «Все русские танки сейчас в огне и в снегу, видно, что воевали. Вокруг мертвые солдаты, те русские солдаты, которые вышли из танка и сразу упали на землю. Немецкий солдат полз к одному и стрелял им в голову, другие немцы чуть дальше снимали фотографии и смеялись, махали руками, говорили, показывали на снегу движения бойца». Конечно, не следует думать, что подобные преступления совершали только немцы, однако для итальянских солдат и офицеров, в меньшей степени пропитанных идеологией фашизма и нацизма, и тем более в дни отступления, когда повсеместно раздавались проклятия пославшему их на войну фашистскому правительству Муссолини и фашистские добровольцы-чернорубашечники чувствовали себя очень неуютно среди солдат регулярной армии, такие примеры служили лишним поводом для выражения своей неприязни и даже откровенной ненависти к «союзникам». Вот характерная для таких настроений запись в дневнике итальянского офицера, сделанная им в конце отступления: «Немчура проклятая! Выродки! Подлые ублюдки! Мы вас хорошо узнали в эти дни, толстые свиньи! Вы плевали в лицо тем, кто пробивал вам дорогу, вы бросали в снег раненых, чтобы вам было удобнее разместиться в избах… В далеком октябре на станции Ясиноватая я впервые понял, что ненавижу вас, что не могу за вас сражаться и всегда готов драться против вас! Тогда я устыдился этих мыслей. Теперь – это мое твердое убеждение, которое навсегда вошло в мое сердце». Надо сказать, что этот офицер – Нуто Ревелли, сдержал свое слово: вернувшись в Италию, он отправился к партизанам и вскоре возглавил отряд «Память павшим», девизом которого было «За каждого ^итальянца, погибшего в России, убить десять фашистов и десять немцев». Командирами партизанских отрядов стали и другие солдаты и офицеры альпийских дивизий, вернувшиеся из России, так что даже возникло понятие – «фронтовой антифашизм».
Таким образом, жестокое поражение, понесенное итальянскими войсками, открыло глаза многим солдатам и офицерам на то, кто является истинным врагом их родины, помогло осознать свою неправоту, вину перед советскими людьми. При этом и очевидцы событий, и историки отмечают гуманное, человечное отношение гражданского населения к отступавшим итальянцам. Один из вновь назначенных командиров, приехав в расположение вышедших из окружения остатков итальянских частей, написал об увиденном своему знакомому, новому министру иностранных дел Бастиани, а тот сразу передал Муссолини письмо, в котором констатировалось: «Гостеприимное и милосердное отношение местных жителей во время отступления часто оттеняло нетоварищеское поведение союзников. Теперь наши солдаты, включая, как я уже говорил, большинство младших офицеров, инстинктивно не считают более русских главным противником. Доказательства тому мы находим в письмах, отправляемых родным».
«…Местное население в самые ужасные моменты отступления было милосердным по отношению к погибающим нашим солдатам, – отмечает Франческо Валори. – И многие из них смогли выжить только благодаря самоотверженности и гуманному духу тех русских семьей, которые дали кров, хлеб, тепло умирающим во время отступления».
Ригони Стерн на вопрос «Как можно есть кашу с врагами в избе?» отвечал: «Просто. Я стучал в дверь, спрашивал разрешение войти, и они принимали меня. Тогда я не был для них врагом, я был голодным беднягой». «Наша война была агрессией. Мы нападали на других, и они просто защищали себя, – пишет он. -…Русские были правы и воевали, чтобы защищать свою землю, свои дома и свои семьи. На другой стороне немцы воевали в честь Великого Рейха. Мы же, итальянцы, воевали ни за Муссолини, ни за Короля, мы пытались просто спасти себя»
@Misha
Thanks for your answer. I saw the Sunflowers movie years ago. IIRC there isn’t much about the behaviour of Italian soldiers in Russia. The male protagonist, played by Mastroianni is a soldier sent to Russia shortly after his wedding. There, during the retreat he is left behind in the snow and a Russian girl saves him and later they get married. This implies that Russians had no bad feelings toward the average Italian soldier.
@Kovane
Thanks, interesting reading. Excerpts of Rigoni Stern book “The sergeant in the snow” were a mandatory reading at school, nice to see that he is considered a reliable source there.
You’re welcome Giuseppe.
Like I said, it was awhile since I last saw that film. On the German-Italian WWII military behavior comparison, it seems that I confused that movie with another one, whose name escapes me.
The linked info on the Nikolas Cage movie shows a clear comparison in the manner of the two armies.
I now recall an Italian-American job acquaintance from many years ago (already darn), whose old man was in the Italian army during WW II. He told me that his old man said he felt that the Germans had a low regard for the Italian armed forces. In contrast, I understand that Hitler looked up to Il Duce (at least for a good period). I recall Italy under the latter not being on the best of terms with the Nazis in the early 1930s. If memory serves correct, Italy wasn’t initially keen on the union between Germany and Austria.
Hi Mike,
the Italian armed forces in WW II were nowhere near the Germans under every aspects. As I wrote before, a WW I army with minor upgrades. I suppose Italians, Romanians and Hungarians were tasked with defending the German flanks during the Stalingrad offensive because Hitler thought that the Red Army had not enough forces to defend Stalingrad and mount a serious counteroffensive further west.
Re. Austria, when Hitler first tried to annex her in 1934, Mussolini threatened a military intervention to defend Austrian independence, moving troops to the north-eastern border. Hitler was too weak and backed down. But later, due to the Italian aggression to Ethiopia in 1935-36, the relations with the UK and France turned sour and searching for new allies Italy found the fatal embrace of Nazi Germany. In 1938 Germany annexed Austria without any Italian opposition.
Thanks for the substantiation Giuseppe.
If I’m not mistaekn, Hungary during WW Ii never declared war on the West, while not being so involved in any military action against Poland. Historically, the Poles and Hungarians have been close. I understand that during WW II, Hungary have refuge to many Poles. At the same time, I heard several first hand accounts of how Hungary willingly involved itself in the discrimination and rounding up of Jews.
Axis relations is an interesting diplomatic topic. I sense that Hungary and Romania had elements who weren’t so lovey dovey with each other. At times, such sentiment was evident when both were in the Warsaw Pact.
>>>>
Of possible interest:
The Transnistrian Solution, Lost in Kievan Translation
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/06/15/the-transnistrian-solution-lost-in-kievan-translation/
On Vlasov:
Any attempts to rehabilitate this traitor and make him out to be Russian hero are simply laughable.
This is not obscure debate, better lost to the mists of time. On the contrary, is very real in today’s Russia, where Medvedev’s “de-Sovietization” campaign has launched vigorous debate among political intelligentsia. In Russia, this type of political debate ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS comes back to issue of WWII (=Great Patriotic War). Even though Nazis lost the war in a quite spectacular manner, they were almost victorious in their defeat. This was all due to American policy.
Americans helped Soviets to liberate Europe from Nazi curse, but then turned around and started helping defeated foe. They spirited Nazi bigshots like Eichmann and Mengele out of Europe. They even took time to help thousands of nobodies, low-ranking traitors, like concentration camp guards and their families, made up of the various ethnicities. Americans made sure these families got visas to emigrate to America or Canada, thus creating, for example, the Ukrainian diaspora. (Kozakov’s family history is typical in this regard.) After “saving” so many collaborators from prosecution for their war crimes, Nazi sympathizers then launched ideological war against Soviet Union, using such Nazi-infested structures as the Captive Nations committees, etc. Purpose of much of this ideology was to deceive gullible American public who, after watching all those Hollywood movies, came out of WWII actually thinking Nazis were the BAD guys. Well, too late to turn that perception around. Hence, the Nazi-collaborationists had to fudge history to a certain degree and fabricate false biographies for themselves.
Hence, the myth of Vlasov as the Russian “patriot” who stood up to Nazi brass and lectured them that it was their duty to fight for a strong Russia.
Hence, the individual family myths like the famous “I hid a Jew in my basement” fairy tale that these Nazi collaborators had to tell their overly-curious kids.
‘They even took time to help thousands of nobodies, low-ranking traitors, like concentration camp guards and their families, made up of the various ethnicities. Americans made sure these families got visas to emigrate to America or Canada, thus creating, for example, the Ukrainian diaspora. (Kozakov’s family history is typical in this regard.)’ Where in the world did you come-up with my family being made up of ‘concentration camp guards and their families’ ??? You certainly have an active imagination!
These scurillous accusations make as much sense as if I were to denounce your family for having been perpetrators in the holodomor in Ukraine, simply because they were communists. Even less so, becasue my parents were never associated with the Nazi regime,and your ancestors were by your own account willing members of the communist party. Yalensis – did your ancestors share with you any proud stories of how efficient they were in requisitioning foodstuffs from the mouths of starving peasants???????
I maintain that Kozakov’s story is just as likely true as not, and there are a variety of circumstances from the war, some of which have been assigned the label “typical”. It’s perfectly true that there was a great deal of brutality, but a lot of essential humanity persisted as well, and people who are not engaged combatants who can nonetheless justify betraying others they know will be killed because of it are still the exception rather than the rule. Hiding Jews or anyone else under threat of death certainly did happen, so it isn’t necessarily a “fairy tale”. Provincial bumpkins and tired troops in a hurry – as was often the case in small villages bypassed on the way to and from the front – often conducted fairly cursory searches compared with the ruthless efficiency in larger towns and cities, so the risk of detection was considerably less. It’d be interesting to hear more stories from Jewish families whose parents or grandparents were hidden by sympathetic villagers, because Iit’s well-known that it did happen, but those stories don’t seem to have the same urgency to be told as those implicating atrocities. You know what they say; if it bleeds, it leads.
Using the Holodomor as a counter isn’t really a very good rebuttal, though. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest the famine resulted in some degree because of incompetence on the part of the administration, some extremely bad luck with the harvests and very little to do with a program of extermination or a desire to starve Ukrainians while Russians rolled around neck-deep in bread. Thousands upon thousands of Russians starved as well, and if the famine did not take plaqce in the countryside it would most definitely have been widespread in the cities, as kovane suggested. Perhaps it wasn’t a very good decision, but it would have resulted in massive deaths either way and no other nation – to the best of my knowledge – volunteered to help the starving. Therefore the administration of the day had to solve the problem knowing a large number of deaths was already built into the equation.
The Germans, surprisingly, have come out of it quite well. Everyone remembers what savages the Russians were, and for some the Ukrainians are tarred with the same brush, but the Nazis who started it all in a lunge for conquest and domination are largely forgotten. Germany comes in for a lot of pats on the head for its rigorous winkling-out of war criminals and its obvious contrition and its war museums. Even Israel has broadly forgiven the land that birthed the Third Reich. Not much is said about the groups of white supremacists and neo-Nazis around the world who still think Hitler and his Traveling Road Show had the right idea, and nobody suggests the original Nazi idealism is to blame for it – that few nations on earth have ever cold-bloodedly set out to eliminate an entire race, and that those who have are well-known and permanently dishonoured. Instead, determined and persistent campaigns are ongoing to whitewash what the Nazis did and to transfer the revulsion to other nations. The violent disagreements over what happened at Katyn are one example, the stubborn PR war over the Polish crash at Smolensk a more recent and microcosmic one. The fact that so many World War II situations, experiences and actions passed unrecorded except for the testimony of eyewitnesses makes such situations, experiences and actions soft targets for emotional disinformation.
As far as Vlasov goes, I wouldn’t be too hard on him. He looks like a turncoat piece of shit, true – but what would he have looked like had Germany triumphed? He obviously believed it would; he simply guessed wrong. Otherwise, he might have been a hero. Germany having won the war, and the kind of world that might have resulted had that been the case is a popular theme for several semi-contemporary works of fiction, the best of which in my opinion is Len Deighton’s great, “SS-GB”, which imagined Nazi-occupied Great Britain. And just before I leave the subject, I’d remind that once upon a time, betrayal of alliances was merely another strategic tool, and was just good tactics. The singular quality that decided if you would be remembered as traitorous filth or celebrated battle commander… was victory.
Prior to his capture Vlasov had a very good rep. In captivity, he and his personnel at large didn’t do some of the negatives of others during that period.
Alos consider some of the pieces of shit (seeing how that term is used) who judged him at war’s end.
At another thread, I recall making mention of this move, which is based on a Len Deighton novel about extremists seeking to attack the USSR during the Cold War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_Dollar_Brain
Please note that I said Vlasov looks like a traitorous piece of shit because of the war’s outcome, and that I speculated he might have been regarded as a hero had the event come out differently.
Mark,
I’ll once again note that when incaptivity under difficcult circumstances, he didn’t express anti-Russian comments that some of Russian origin say in the present day to the delight of some non-Russian/Russia unfriendly elements.
Your follow-up point on victor’s justice is perfectly valid.
@mark: I am suspicious of Mr. Kozakov’s story because he changed it a couple of times. Recall that this whole thread started off as just scholarly debate about Ukrainian identity and Russification. Then Kozakov himself introduced his parents with tear-jerking pieties. Stating initially that they emigrated to Germany voluntarily because they were so fed up with Stalinist de-kulakization campaign and famine. (Which would have put them in Germany around 1934 or earlier.) Later, it turned out that they survived famine with 7 years to spare and in second version of story they were forced to go to Germany against their will in 1941 because they had committed crime against German occupiers of hiding Jews in their basement. So, two timelines and two versions of story. Secondly, Kozakov placed his mother in German workcamp utilizing her talents as seamstress, but never accounted for exactly what his father was doing during war years. Just hanging around on street corner drinking schnapps while other young males were off at front fighting for Third Reich?
Well, maybe. I probably didn’t pay that close attention, as I am notorious in my family for not knowing anything about my parents’ backgrounds. Not literally nothing; I know where they were born (Saskatchewan and Ontario) and where they grew up and married (Ontario). I don’t remember their wedding anniversary, and although my Dad died in the Air Force (crash of a CP-107 Argus), I never remember the date of his death; every time I filled in a security form I had to ask my Mom again, although now they’re electronic and save your previous data. I know basically diddly about my parents’ beliefs and likes and dislikes. I remember my Mom was a waitress at a hotel in Comox (about three hours’ drive from where I live now and where I was born, although I grew up in Nova Scotia), but very little about her employment when I was in my teens and before I left home. My Dad learned to fly on the Lancasters, so I believe he mostly missed the war – since the first British Lancaster didn’t arrive in Canada until 1942, after which Canada built better than 100 of them. But I’d only be guessing; I don’t know.
I suppose might remember if she ever told me she hid a Jewish family in our basement, but I wouldn’t count on it. I’d be more likely to go down there to get a jar of pickles, come back up and say, “Umm….Mom…who are those people in our basement?”
That’s by way of positing that Kozakov simply doesn’t know what his father did during the war years.
One more time. If you compare my two accounts above of how my family was involved in hiding a jewish family in their home, you’ll note that I was retelling the account from two different sources, my father first, and secondly from my sister. My father’s account was told to me over 30 years ago, and in it he makes no mention of being involved in the hiding of this family. As I recall, he seemd to indicate that it was a choice that he and my mother had made to leave the dismal situation they knew firsthand in Ukraine behind them. The second account, told to me about a year ago by my sister stressed more that my family was forcibly conscripted to go to Germany, relating to their dangerous(but heroic) efforts. If you check above, you’ll also note that my family was involved in agricultural farm work. You may concinue to conjecture that all Ukrainians that were in Germany were employed as prison guards in concentration camps, just as I am free to think (although I don’t) that anyone who was a communist in Ukraine (or in some other republic) was involved in the requisitioning of foodstuffs from starving peasants.
Please note that I am conjecturing nothing about your family, but rather am arguing that alternative explanations are possible. I’m perfectly prepared to accept that the story is true as you believe it to be, and I never suggested at any point that any Ukrainians were prison guards or collaborators or vendors of ice cream. I never mentioned employment, except to suggest, again, that many possibilities exist.
Mark – I understand your views. My comment above was directed more towards Yalensis, who by the way never seems to respond to my request for more information about the proud role her ancestors must have played in the requisitioning of foodstuffs durine the faminine in the 1930′s?
Yalensis, despite the androgynous-sounding title, is a man.
Mark – Thanks for the clarification. Now that I know that this commentator is a man, I’ll dispense with any niceties and give him a full dose of my ‘concentration camp guard’ upbringing!
I’ll once again note that no one here stated a hero designation for Vlasov, while noting some other particulars above and below this set of comments.
I posted no “myths” about Vlasov.
Below, Kozakov IMO makes a valid point about how things aren’t always so clear cut.
Sorry, Koz touches on the point I mention in some comments above.
Upon quick glance, it can get clumsy in posting a chronological response.
I think it’s not so strange that people thought Nazi’s were lesser evil than the Commies. Especially If the Nazis didn’t treat local population badly and just targeted the Jews. I remember reading interview with one Ukrainian guy who collaborated with Nazis until he saw their truth face, so to speak. And only then he run away and joined the anti- Nazi resistance.
Denmark managed to save something like 99% of their Jewish population by maintaining good relationship with the Nazis while secretly sending Jews away.
@grafomanka: This is a good point. I have spoken with Estonians who basically said the same thing: “Well, our parents/grandparents knew the Nazis were bad news, but they simply felt more comfortable under German rule than under Russian/Communist rule.” In other words, lesser of two evils, in their eyes. I am sure majority of population of many nations, Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, etc., felt the same way. In a perfect world, they would prefer to be free and independent; but if that wasn’t possible and they had to be someone’s colony, they would rather be under Germans than Russians/Soviets. Maybe because they are culturally closer to Germans than Russians; maybe because they prefer capitalist system to communist system; maybe combination of both. I respect people who express such opinions (even though I don’t agree with them) because at least they are being honest. I do not respect people like Kozakov because he is being dishonest.
Yalensis – In your case, the more that you repeat a lie, this will not in the end validate your lie.
Your childlike manner in perpetuating unfounded stereotypes (all Ukrainians within Germany were
concentration camp guards) will never stand up. I count my parents as truly one of the ‘righteous’.
I feel saddened by your persistance in trying to blacken their good name.
Quick note @giuseppe: I can’t presume to speak for most ethnic Russians, but I have always respected Italians. As for Romanians, I never knew much or had any opinions about them, but recently, when Medvedev invited Romanian leader to Russia for Victory Day celebration, Romanian turned him down, saying that his nation had fought on OTHER side of war, hence they had LOST war, hence it was not appropriate for him to attend. After that my respect for Romanians grew exponentially.
Quick question @kovane: What exactly is a Chewbacca defense?? Is that the defense that one is such a mute hairy beast that one is not responsible for one’s actions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
Such a defense can have a hypocritical mindset. Since that term is being raised and without looking to start or prolong any kind of a flame war, this matter concerns the selective application of terms like “disgusting” and “scum.”
If there can be a civil and reasoned discussion on comparing Italian and German action in WW II, there’s no great reason to do differently vis-a-vis the Ustasha, UPA and POA.
The inference that I’m somehow trying to shield the imagined culpability of my parents as being ‘concentration camp guards’ by shielding them from such implications by making up stories about thier having hidden a familhy of jews, is rather pathetic.
Mark – You can’t be serious and suggest that the extent , duration and magnitude of the holodomor in Ukraine was the result of ‘administrative incompetence’ is at best naieve, and at worst intellectually dishonest. My parent, having lived through this nightmare as children witnessed tii many bloated bodies and even acts of cannabalism to try to imagine this as an act of ‘administrtive incompetence.
In his new book, author and Yale historian Timothy Snuder takes a much different postion than you on the subject:
Although famine, caused by collectivization, raged in many parts of the Soviet Union in 1932, special and particularly lethal policies, described by Yale historian Timothy Snyder in his book Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010), were adopted in and largely limited to Ukraine at the end of 1932 and 1933.[58] Snyder lists seven crucial policies that applied only, or mainly, to Soviet Ukraine. He states: “Each of them may seem like an anodyne administrative measure, and each of them was certainly presented as such at the time, and yet each had to kill”:[58]
1. From November 18, 1932 peasants from Ukraine were required to return extra grain they had previously earned for meeting their targets. State police and party brigades were sent into these regions to root out any food they could find.
2. Two days later, a law was passed forcing peasants who could not meet their grain quotas to surrender any livestock they had.
3. Eight days later, collective farms that failed to meet their quotas were placed on “blacklists” in which they were forced to surrender 15 times their quota. These farms were picked apart for any possible food by party activists. Blacklisted communes had no right to trade or to receive deliveries of any kind, and became death zones.
4. On December 5, 1932, Stalin’s security chief presented the justification for terrorizing Ukrainian party officials to collect the grain. It was considered treason if anyone refused to do their part in grain requisitions for the state.
5. In November 1932 Ukraine was required to provide 1/3 of the grain collection of the entire Soviet Union. As Lazar Kaganovich put it, the Soviet state would fight “ferociously” to fulfill the plan.
6. In January 1933 Ukraine’s borders were sealed in order to prevent Ukrainian peasants from fleeing to other republics. By the end of February 1933 approximately 190,000 Ukrainian peasants had been caught trying to flee Ukraine and were forced to return to their villages to starve.
7. The collection of grain continued even after the annual requisition target for 1932 was met in late January 1933.[58]
The famine is a highly politicized issue, so there are plenty authors who try to dump the blame solely on the USSR. Here are the numbers of grain procurements by year: 1930 – 22.1; 1921 – 22.8; 1932 – 18.5; 1933 – 23.3; (mln. tons) No special actions were taken against Ukraine, procurements were the same for every region. At the time the methods for evaluating harvests were very inaccurate, so some regions suffered more. One and only cause for the famine was very poor harvest, the government mismanagement only exacerbated it, not caused.
And here are reliable sources on the subject:
M. Tauger, “The 1932 harvest and the famine of 1933″
S. Wheatcroft, R. Davies, “Years of Hunger”
People in inner Russia were so desperate they resorted to cannibalism, so I don’t see what’s so special about Ukraine. Situation in Kazakhstan was pretty horrible too, less people died because I guess there was less people there in the first place.
It always strikes me how similar thing happened in Ireland during Great Famine, millions of people starved while the food was being exported from the country. Unbelievable.
Per capita wise, the impression is given that Ukraine suffered the most during that period.
Nevertheless, there was no systematic attempt to extreminate the Ukrainian people.
Of course Ukraine suffered the most. But still millions of people died of the famine in the same period far far away from Ukraine. And the impressions is given that the famine was targeted to genocide Ukrainians.
For relatives of those who died and suffered this is baffling to say the least.
Well, for one thing, I’d like to see the references which Snyder relied upon for his work. I’d be willing to bet that much of it was as I described – eyewitness accounts. Official state records such as tons of grain realized are matters of record and I see kovane has already provided them. Once again, imagine you’re the leader of the Soviet state – or, if it makes you more comfortable, the United Kingdom or anywhere else, so long as it’s isolated in its circumstances. Further imagine that all your forecasts show you this year will bring terrible crop shortfalls, and that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths will inevitably result. Your choice is to sacrifice your machinists and engineers, your factory workers and your military, your ruling class – or your peasant class and your general agriculture workers, irrespective of ethnic persuasion. No other solution is possible; aircraft from a sympathetic world power are not going to fly over and airdrop millions of tons of food aid, and the rest of the world doesn’t much care if you starve. Stalin chose to sacrifice the peasants, and that probably was evil and cruel. Pretend, again, that you’re Churchill instead, faced with the same choice. Tell me what you would have done differently. If Stalin really wanted to wipe out the Ukrainians, he’d have starved Kiev and Kharkov and Donetsk. But he didn’t.
Collection of grain did indeed go on after targets were met, and doubtless even more people died needlessly. Probably Stalin should have just brought up his grain-allocation database on his laptop, perhaps plugged, “How many metric tons of cereal grains will I need to feed X Million people?” into Ask.com….oh, wait. It’d be a pretty easy problem to solve now, in the age of instantaneous communication and Skype and group chatlinks – but in 1933 that kind of logistics effort was a little more daunting. It was probably a good bit more difficult to keep track of the situation minute-by-minute than it would be now, and assessing the scale of the disaster from the viewpoint of modern methods that were unavailable then changes the picture considerably. Wal-Mart could have done it better now.
For another, you are kicking at the weakest underpinning of the argument anyway. Administrative incompetence is the worst excuse of the reasons given, and likely accounted for a small part of the disaster. Also, where does Snyder support his argument that the lethal policies were “largely limited to Ukraine”? Since Ukraine was the breadbasket of the Soviet Union, it stands to reason that the collection of grain would focus there, but the deaths were by no means restricted to Ukraine. Finally, how does he support the argument that the famine was caused by collectivization? Is this somehow a horribly inefficient method to grow and manage grain crops?
A talk/Q & A with Timothy Snyder:
http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/program/Bloodla&showFullAbstract=1
If I correctly recall, he agrees with the lower Holodomor fatality figure, noting that people in the West like Robert Conquest didn’t initially have all of the appropriate info. on such matter. Snyder added that the Soviets kept comparatively better records than the Nazis on a number of particulars. He gives an interesting explanation along the lines of the Nazis knowing deep down that what they did was wrong and if defeated would get severely penalized; whereas the Soviet government had the mindset of the forces of progress and history being on its side.
Snyder emphasized that the famine in the USSR was known to Ukrainians who were living outside the Ukrainian SSR at the time. Prior to WW II, there were some contacts between Ukrainians living outside the USSR and that country. In his book on Ukraine, Andrew Wilson references OUN leader Yevhen Konovalets making a trip to Soviet Ukraine. At the time, Ukrainians under Polish rule tended to see Poland as a greater threat. In comparison, Czechoslovakia had a better reputation for dealing with the Ukrainian population.
Along with what some others have said and written, I sense that the Soviets misplayed things a bit upon entering western Ukraine in 1939. On the one hand, there was a promotion of Ukrainian identity that was welcomed. On the other, some heavy-handed actions occurred as well. This population had a rural conservative upbringing, known to not be so agreeable to politically left leaning ways. These points shouldn’t be viewed as giving credence to OUN/UPA actions during WW II, in addition to the anti-Russian activity of the anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalist influenced Captive Nations Committee during the Cold War.
On some other matters recently discussed at this thread, before WW II and in that war’s early stages, Nazi propaganda had some success in portraying a country that rebuilt its pride and strength – in a way that motivated others to see Nazi Germany as a present as well as future force on the world stage. Consider how some view the Spanish Civil War as a sort of proxy war between the future WW II Axis powers and those feeling closer to the USSR. The fascist military success in Spain and Nazi Germany’s prowess undoubtedly led some to believe that Berlin in its makeup was on the rise, thereby necessitating (from a Machiavellian/ethically flawed perspective) some accommodations with it.
On this last point: the West, Soviets and others aren’t completely innocent.
I think you are underestimating malicious ignorance of soviet authorities when it comes to agriculture. Collectivization was a disaster, people harvested food in one way for centuries and suddenly their world has been turned upside down thus upsetting the delicate balance. But as if this wasn’t bad enough when Stalin came to power he prosecuted and murdered botanist Nikolai Vavilov, one of the Russia’s greatest scientist. Vavilov has devoted his life to improving grains and trying to protect SU from famine. He was the father of biodiversity in plants. But Stalin elevated pseudo-scientist and charlatan called Lysenko, who hated genetics, prosecuted geneticists and rendered irreversible damage to soviet agriculture.
Also, there was a devastating famine in Russia in 1921–1922 but then soviets managed to get Americans on board providing food aid to millions of people. So then it was possible to get aid, but this was before Stalin became the boss.
How tired I am of debunking this swarm of myths about the Soviet period.
1. Collectivization was not a disaster, but a great success. People harvested crop in one way for centuries, but most of them had only wooden ploughs by 1929, and famines were frequent guests (although on much smaller scale than in 1932-1933 due to the grown population of cities). Procuring grain for industrialization was a daunting task, as peasants didn’t give a damn about it (quite naturally), and implementation of new technologies that increased productivity almost didn’t advance; most farmers could grow food only for their family. The most tragic part of collectivization is certainly the way it was carried out initially. The level of Soviet cadres was dismal, there were much abuse, bad decisions and overzealousness, that’s true. But after it was completed, kolhozes became a stable sources of food, providing the needs of growing country, using advance technologies of the time, and the state had all control over production. The famine of 1932-33 was the last by the way, save for the relatively small post war famine of 1946.
2. Do you really think that Stalin cared two bits about Vavilov? He fell victim to intrigues in the Soviet academia, that are so prevalent in any academic community. Say what you will about Lysenko, but his negative qualities as a scientist were well compensated by his brilliance as an intrigant and administrator. The major faults of Soviet science were its complete self-reliance and lack of ties with the world that created an unhealthy atmosphere, and the zeal of its members, when everyone believed that they would create the science of the future. Lysenko thrived there, brushing aside all potential competitors. And you conveniently forget that Lysenko was elevated by his milieu, not Stalin;in particular his deputy wrote the indicting letter against Vavilov. What exactly Stalin had to do with it is in question.
3. International aid in 1921-1922 was a belated one, its scale also was not that big. The circumstances were vastly different as well. Whereas in 1921 the economic situation in the world was very optimistic (“The roaring twenties), in 1931 the Great Depression raged both in Europe and the USA. Moreover, if in 1921 Russia was viewed as a former ally and nobody knew what to expect from the Bolsheviks, in 1931 the demonization campaign against them was in full swing; the USSR was in complete isolation. I agree, Stalin should have asked for international aid, but I very much doubt that it would have helped.
grafomanka, that’s three false statements out of three, you’re on fire. Why are you doing this?
This is a dimension of which I was unaware, and I had never heard of Vavilov. This is extremely interesting. If in your opinion there is enough meat in this story for a full post, would you write it? I’d like to contrast it with kovane’s take on it, also seen here. If the case happens to be that there’s support for either or both versions other than emotional eyewitness accounts, I think it would make a great post and should be broadly interesting. I’d always subscribed to the theory that collectivization was an efficient way to farm – considering that all it really does is concentrate labour and – ostensibly – give all participants a vested interest in success. But that presupposes whoever was running the overall effort was well-qualified in agricultural science, and that somebody wasn’t going to come along and confiscate everything you grew, leaving you with nothing. The viewpoints seem in such dramatic opposition to one another that there must be an excellent story here.
Kovane, let me see. I don’t feel on fire. I was referring to some things Mark said (like what would any leader do, what should Stalin have done). Well, maybe he shouldn’t have prosecuted people who had any idea about agriculture. Do you think this is a simplistic view?
1. The question was how collectivization caused/helped famine? You say it yourself, it was done disastrously. And new technologies and industrial revolution changed the way people harvest food everywhere.
2. So what if Stalin personally didn’t care about Vavilov, his government embraced Lysenko and murdered Vavilov. This was my point, the ignorance of science and what they did to Russian scientists. And it’s not my opinion that Lysenko was a disastrous researcher. And yes, there are many nuanced reasons why the authorities preferred Lysenko, he had a way with people, he was from ‘proper’ background.
3. Your make a good point about the great depression, still Stalin should have asked for help. Even if the aid was belated in 1921-1922 it still saved lives.
Do you think this is a simplistic view?
Er, very. Not that I subscribe to the theory that persecuting Vavilov was such a great idea. The problem with the Soviet agriculture at the time was not that it didn’t use the latest genetic advancement, no. As I said, after the revolution the technological level of farms was abysmal – mostly wooden ploughs. Also, another important problem was extreme fragmentation of the whole agriculture – most small farmers produced enough grain to feed their families, so there was the huge shortage of marketable grain. And they had no money to hire workers, expand their lots or buy equipment/livestock Besides Vavilov’s persecution happened in 1940, that’s 10 years after collectivization and the famine. So I don’t see how Vavilov could save everyone from starvation.
And new technologies and industrial revolution changed the way people harvest food everywhere.
Not quite. Even now, there are plenty of regions where people grow crops the way their grand-grand-fathers did it, with the same productivity. Transition from the old way of farming to more progressive is an extremely painful process – it requires that a large part of peasants were stripped of land, so they turned into wage labourers, and the other part became big landowners, capable of investing money back. It was done in England through enclosure, in Germany through the procedure of buyout and taxation and in the USSR through collectivization. The only major difference is that in the USSR the state became the ultimate landowner.
his government embraced Lysenko and murdered Vavilov
I’m sorry but that’s what happens every day, except for the murder part. Or you haven’t heard stories about talented scientists whose progressive ideas get shelved because some pushy mediocrity had presented himself better?
Stalin should have asked for help
No argument here. The problem was that the government realised the scale of tragedy too late, even the export was stopped by January of 1933 The new crop arrived in July, so there was not much time to organise any relief campaign. Instead of this Stalin chose the traditional Soviet method of hushing up the issue.
I appreciate how getting agriculture right, especially in Russia, is a tricky thing. A great example was the wildfires last year, which already caused serious damage and the government policy had to be altered. That’s why well thought over agricultural policy is of serious importance. Soviet government, especially at the early stages, expressed paramount ignorance and no appreciation of how fragile a thing it was. The results were famines several magnitudes greater than anything before. This is simple truth.
.
You’re right that Vavilov probably wouldn’t save people forms starvation immediately. His plan of genetically bettering crops would take long years. But he recognized the problem and the threat of famine and was doing something about it (quiet a lot but I don’t want to be writing an essay at this point). Whereas pseudo-scientist Lysenko made things worse. Lysenko was given the support of soviet authorities in the late 1920 so before the 1930ties famine. And wasn’t he later put in charge of all Soviet agriculture? I read the accounts that suggest that Soviet agriculture would overall be much more competitive if it wasn’t for Lysenkoism. Some people go as far as suggest that Lysenko buried Soviet Union (I wouldn’t go as far
Transition from the old way of farming to new is a long and painful process.
And so it should be. With the emphasis on long. The collectivization part where people have to surrender all their livestock was a shock and no wonder people starved.
I’m sorry but that’s what happens every day, except for the murder part.
To the extent this happens everyday, you are right. And I think we should be very critical when this happens.
Soviet government, especially at the early stages, expressed paramount ignorance and no appreciation of how fragile a thing it was.
I would be completely astonished if they didn’t. As I wrote, Bolshevik cadres were a very sad sight – most of them were former military commanders having returned from the Civil War. The bulk of qualified specialists emigrated, so these former soldiers, assumed civil positions, but brought the methods of the Civil War. It took many years for the Soviet government to refine its bureaucratic body, but the price was enormous.
The results were famines several magnitudes greater than anything before. This is simple truth.
Alas, I have to agree with that. The main mistake was that in order to buy so needed industrial equipment, almost all grain was exported and no reserves were made. So, in effect, the first difficult year resulted in such a tragedy.
Lysenko was given the support of soviet authorities in the late 1920 so before the 1930ties famine.
What? He was a scientist whole his life, and he became a prominent one only in the end of the 30s (he was elected as academician only in 1939) Needless to say, that he was never in charge of collectivization or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
And so it should be. With the emphasis on long.
You’re saying something along the lines of “it’s better to be healthy and rich than ill and poor “. The USSR didn’t have “long” then, and it was painfully obvious to any sane person. War was looming ahead.
The problem was, if something’s not yours you don’t tend to care.
Oh, cruel irony! You proclaim that in the epoch when most companies are run by hired managers who don’t own it.
I could write a post on this topic
It would be great, I’m looking forward to it. Prepare to meet all criticism I will be able to muster
Unfortunately not many people heard about Vavilov.
I could write a post on this topic, sounds tempting. I’m quite busy next couple of weeks (I tend to spend time on your blog when I should be working on something else :p ) and this would require re-freshing of a lot of things I read long time ago. I’ll see what I can do.
I’d always subscribed to the theory that collectivization was an efficient way to farm – considering that all it really does is concentrate labour and – ostensibly – give all participants a vested interest in success.
The problem was, if something’s not yours you don’t tend to care.
“The problem was, if something’s not yours you don’t tend to care.”
True enough, I suppose. I think I mentioned before that my wife’s grandparents were collective farmers; to be perfectly correct, they managed a collective farm. Her roots are in both the Caucasus (Stavropol) and the Far East (Dalnegorsk), but I believe this would have been on her paternal grandmother’s side, so Dalnegorsk or somewhere in the Russian Far East. She has great memories of it – there was always plenty of everything, and because it was part of the Socialist revolution, the workers and the managers all ate together and the managers worked as well. In fact, the only real difference status-wise I can recall was that her grandparents had the big house while the workers had their own living quarters. But that farm likely wasn’t a grain producer; most of that was in Ukraine, and I got the impression it was mostly vegetables. Also, those are a small child’s memories, and for small children anything short of a disaster is often remembered as pretty good. Of course I have no firsthand experience myself, except that my grandparents (Dutch or German on my mother’s side – Vader, and most everyone with that surname is Dutch except for Darth Vader, and he was from a galaxy far, far away – and English on my father’s) were farmers as well. Dairy, though, not collective.
@grafomanka: I hope you would write a blog on Vavilov/Lysenko. Is interesting topic, very few people know much about this. I would read your blog with great interest, and I have a feeling that in addition to @kovane, @sino-tibetan would also have interesting comments to offer, since S/T is highly knowledgeable about molecular biology. There is no doubt in my mind that Lysenko was a bigtime bullshitter who did harm to Soviet agriculture. However, I tend to feel that a getting a bunch of tractors and milking machines was of more immediate importance to Soviet authorities in the early 1930’s than experiments in genetic diversification. Not to diminish long-range importance of good scientific research.
Also, I would note that major agricultural nations like USA and Canada have essentially “collectivized” form of agriculture, albeit with private ownership, in the form of agri-businesses. Family farms and small organic farms do still exist, of course, but bulk of produce for export and even internal consumption comes out of vast agri-business complex, where most farm workers are poorly paid day laborers who work for wages and do not personally own any of the land or resulting produce. These giant plantations are extremely productive, although the quality of the produce may sometimes be questioned. I mention this only in order to debunk capitalistic assertion that agricultural enterprises can only be productive when farmed by same people who own actual land.
economist Steven Rosefielde, who states:
“Grain supplies were sufficient enough to sustain everyone if properly distributed. People died mostly from terror-starvation (excess grain exports, seizure of edibles from the starving, state refusal to provide emergency relief, bans on outmigration, and forced deportation to food-deficit locales), not poor harvests and routine administrative bungling.”
That’s very nice, but Tauger and Wheatcroft don’t agree with him. As I said there are plenty pseudo-historians who would love to prove that the famine of 1932-1933 is an act of genocide against the Ukranians, but that was refuted a long time ago. How exactly can the shortage of 5 million tons of grain be fixed? Although, I agree that the Soviet government handled the famine very poorly – export of grain was stopped too late, etc – they tried to do everything in their power to alleviate the situation:
http://golodomor3233.livejournal.com/10544.html
http://golodomor3233.livejournal.com/11511.html
Well then, we’re supposed to believe that a great famine that took place over a 2 year period that resulted in the starvation deaths of 3-8 million people was all due to ‘administrative incompetence’ and ‘timing issues’? Incredible. You can believe what you want. What ‘politically correct soviet ‘ answer might you give for the seiling off of Ukraine’s borders to prevent Ukrainian peasants from fleeing to other republics? Another example of ‘administrative incompetence’??…..
I’m not believing here anything – that’s what Tauger and Wheatcroft wrote, and they’re the most authoritative sources of information on the famine today. And on the contrary, the famine was not due to “administrative incompetence’ and ‘timing issues’”, but due to the very poor harvest which was then exacerbated by the said deficiencies of the Soviet policies. Take note, that I’m not quoting a politically correct Soviet historian here.
And what, the USSR had open borders prior or after that? The border was closed only to Ukrainians? Citizens of other republics wandered as they wanted?
kovane – you’re correct in that it wasn’t you who brought up ‘administrative incompetence’ as a cause of the holodomor. I don’t know what the harvest figures were, and need more time to research these figures, but will try to get back to you soon. (nice to see that we’ve dispensed with the unnecessary use of pejoratives!)
And please refrain from the term holodomor – singling out the famine in Ukraine is an affront to my relatives who died in that famine. A small hint – neither they or me are Ukrainians and they didn’t live in Ukraine too. That’s why any attempt to speculate on this tragedy is so repulsive to me.
My parents were also wise enough to point out that there were plenty of ‘ours’ involved in the requistion of foodstuffs too. Yes, Ukrainians that more than likely under similar duress as the jewish kapos, felt compelled to take part in these horrendous activities too. Human behavior,, unrelated to ethnic or religious origins, seems to be similar throughout the globe.
Oops… have you never heard of the Second Vienna Award? Really Mike, your monumental historical ignorance is only matched by your legendary pigheadedness.
The “legendary” troll posting as “Peter” suddenly crops up with a pointed diatribe, as opposed to making a purely earnest contribution.
Feel free to be direct in contradicting the notion that there’ve been Hungarian-Romanian differences.
Keep in mind that I prefer to not engage in discussion with cyber stalking creeps.
BTW troll, the contents in the hyperlink you gave don’t contradict what I said about Hungary and Romania.
So much for your ongoing sleazy antics of launching pointed diatribes against me, in a way that gets off the actual subject matter.
@”a”: (in response to thread up above): Very good points. In addition to saving the Slavic peoples from extermination, let us not forget that Red Army also saved many European Jews. Before Holocaust, composition of European Jewry was something like this , with approx. 3 millions Jews living in Poland, and a similar number being citizens of Soviet Union. Many modern WWII historians are tending to the view that Hitler’s eastern strategy was motivated by fairly simple ideological drive: Go where the Jews are, and kill them all. I resisted this interpretation for a long time because, as a Marxist-type thinker, I like to believe that people, despite what they claim, fight only for material things like land and resources. However, sometimes a cigar really is a cigar.
Anyhow, by these numbers, almost half of European Jewry depended on Red Army to save them from Nazi extermination machine. So, by resisting and defeating Hitler, Soviets were able to save many of their Soviet Jewish citizens, although unfortunately it was too late to save most of the Polish Jews.
So, in conclusion, like you say, Vlasov bet on the wrong horse, and lost. Soviets captured him from American troops (who were seriously thinking about saving him and spiriting him off to USA), gave him a fair trial, then hanged him. Check out this source , if you scroll down a bit on the wikipedia page, you will see a picture of Vlasov meeting with Goebbels. No doubt, by misha’s reasoning, they were discussing how to promote the well-being of the Russian people.
But Mark is correct too: history is written by the victors. If the Nazis had won the war, then today everybody would be speaking German and singing the praises of that visionary, General Vlasov!
Goebbels wrote of the idiocy of how the Nazi hierarchy initially treated the concept of an active POA. That idiocy had to do with the anti-Russian strain among folks like Rosenberg getting the upper hand.
The Nazis blew a great opportunity by treating eastern Slavs (some exception like Bulgaria) as crap. That some still considered working with Russophile elements in the Wehrmracht is in part the result of the unappealing aspects of Stalin’s regime. To simply dismiss Vlasov as a puppet ignores that he didn’t carry on like one in captivity. Coupled with that is his very good reputation before getting captured.
Keep in mind that towards the end of the war, some Germans considered a pro-western alliance to oppose the Soviets while overthrowing Hitler. A number of different hypotheticals could’ve occurred. They didn’t. Hind sight is great.
On the subject of Jews & WW II, Vlasov wasn’t known to have bigoted notions. One of his inner circle included a Jew with Trots leanings (Lev Zykov).
A Hungarian-Jewish friend of mine said his parents had mixed views of being liberated by the Soviets. On the one hand, their lives were saved. On the other, the Red Army looted and raped en masse. That was their experience, as they acknowledge that not all Red Army personnel were like that. Others besides them have said the same. There’s also the matter of the Soviets detaining Raoul Wallenburg (pardon any misspell of his name), whose whereabouts have never been fully accounted.
In short, there’s plenty of bad to be found, with some being better than others. This point relates to the German-Italian and POA-Ustasha-UPA comparisons at this thread.
This also comes back to my earlier point that betrayal of alliances was once considered just another strategy to place oneself on the winning side, and that winning makes all the difference as to how one is regarded after the fact.
It can get a bit fuzzy as well.
The Nazi attack on the USSR came as Soviet supplies were being shipped to Germany.
The Nazi-Soviet relationship (M-R) was one that appears more as a non-aggression pact, as opposed to the two being allies along more friendlier lines.
The Nazis broke an understanding as the Soviets got heat from an entity who showed indications of attacking beforehand. The aforementioned “fair trial” can be easily applied to Uncle Joe on a number of particulars.
On betrayal, some see that in Lenin, relative to WW I and Russo-Japanese War.
“Stalin also made some great military blunders.”
So did everyone else the Nazis faced from 1939-1942.
“The USSR won on the merits of its resources and population and not as much because of his “genius.”
Imperial Russia had those resources and a similar population superiority over Imperial Germany/Austria, and still managed to lose.
‘The Nazis blew a great opportunity by treating eastern Slavs (some exception like Bulgaria) as crap.”
Hitler’s idea was to exterminate the Slavs to open land for the Germans. What some underling thought is irrelevant. Hitler was in charge. And this simple fact rules out treating Slavs decently.
On the last point, consider the Nazi recognition and actual treatment of Croatia, Slovakia and Bulgaria.
In retrospect to WW I, Rusisa made the mistake of initially taking the offensive into German territory instead of staying east, to let the Centraol Powers (notably Germany) exhaust themselves. This didn’t happen on account of Germany’s successful drive West, threatening France. The Entente sought Russia to launch an offensive at that point. In WW I, Russia did well against the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian forces.
Imagine the outcome if the USSR initially threw all its weight against the Nazis immediately after the Nazi attack.
Not everyone in Germany thought the same on a number of issues, with Hitler not being eternal.
“On the last point, consider the Nazi recognition and actual treatment of Croatia, Slovakia and Bulgaria.”
All of whom had no place under General Plan Ost.
“In retrospect to WW I, Russia made the mistake of initially taking the offensive into German territory instead of staying east, to let the Central Powers (notably Germany) exhaust themselves. This didn’t happen on account of Germany’s successful drive West, threatening France. The Entente sought Russia to launch an offensive at that point. In WW I, Russia did well against the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian forces.”
Imperial Russia agreed to an early offensive under the 1891 alliance with France. They were committed to do so.
“Not everyone in Germany thought the same on a number of issues, with Hitler not being eternal.”
He was the guy the Germans democratically made dictator. Hitler was the one in charge, so its his views that counted.
“
The Russians had another plan that was known to the French as well, which called for Russia to not launch an initial offensive – which proved bad for the Russians and good for the French.
Slovakia, Croatia and Bulgaria are predominately Slavic countries, which were recognized by the Nazis unlike other predominately Slavic countries. This point was stated in answer to your earlier mention of the Nazis being racist to the Slavs.
The stated nazi hatred of Slavs had a somewhat flexible reality in that regard. BTW, without checking, I seem to recall the Nazis turning down Vlasov’s proposal of a Slav federation.
Check back on how Hitler came to power. Offhand, I don’t think it was a matter of the popular vote.
Sorry my last post starting with Slovakia, Bulgaria and Croatia is out of order from the set of comments it’s replying to.
“Check back on how Hitler came to power. Offhand, I don’t think it was a matter of the popular vote.”
The popular vote made the Nazis the largest political party in the Reichstag in 1933. Hitler was given power to rule by decree by a 4/5 majority vote of the Reichstag, as per the constitution of Weimar Germany. All very legal and democratic.
The Slavs were to be eliminated from Europe. All of them. Some would have to wait until the inevitable victory of the German Ubermenschen.
“The Russians had another plan that was known to the French as well, which called for Russia to not launch an initial offensive – which proved bad for the Russians and good for the French.”
Really? Please substantiate.
I recall such a plan being referenced by this source among others:
It’s not unreasonable to assume that there was more than one plan. The indications are that the Russian offensive into Germany was greatly motivated by the considerable German successs in the West which threatened France and in turn sought for Russia to take action.
In retrospect, it appears that Russia would’ve been better off to have not undertaken that offensive. By 1917, its military supply situation was improved, as its morale had decidedly declined. Better yet, WW I served to screw the monarchical order in Europe, while giving some other political movements an easier time at gaining strength. No WW I and there’s still a good possibility of the empires/monarchies ending. albeit under different conditions thereafter.
“The popular vote made the Nazis the largest political party in the Reichstag in 1933. Hitler was given power to rule by decree by a 4/5 majority vote of the Reichstag, as per the constitution of Weimar Germany. All very legal and democratic.”
****
Was referring to a popularly elected situation where Hitler won over other candidates in an election.
As for the above quoted: thereafter, the matter of German democracy in action noticeably declined.
I agree with your Marxist-driven view. The USSR had plenty of land and resources, it just happened that the SU had a large Jew population. And Poland was on the way. Besides, the “living space” (lebensraum) idea was one of the main points of Nazi ideology, worked out by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
I believe that on top of the traditional anti-Semitism the Nazis had another “reason” (reason isn’t the right word, my English is somewhat limited) to persecute the Jews. In between the World Wars most peoples in northern and central Europe hold the belief that every Jew was a Bolshevik and vice versa. To this day, anti-Semitic propaganda maintains that the October Revolution was part of a Jewish plot for world domination. So, the anti-communist struggle was the same as anti-Semitism in the eyes of the average German.
In Italy, where the Jews were perceived as middle class without any special relationship to Communism, Fascism turned anti-Semitic only in 1938, to appease the German ally. Before that year there were Jews in the PNF (National Fascist Party). Please note that I’m not implying that Fascists were not racist, just that their racism was not directed against Jews until 1938.
Cold War era McCarthyite lawyer Roy Cohn suggested that he was driven to carry on like he did because of that misguided stereotype.
Besides the racism factor, many Nazis saw in Russia a strong/potentially even stronger country with great resources that was a geopolitical threat. The latter two points greatly motivated the attack on the USSR.
No, Mike. The Germans planned a four-month campaign that would overrun all of European Russia at the cost of maybe 100,000 casualties total. “Hitler’s “One good kick and the whole rotten structure will collapse.” was the basis for German military plans.
The element of surprise mixed with arrogance miscalculated.
Nevertheless, there was also a view of the Soviet Union being a key rival with great potential.
Prior to M-R, the propaganda suggested such.
“The element of surprise mixed with arrogance miscalculated.”
Sure, but German racial superiority was the factor they counted on.
“Nevertheless, there was also a view of the Soviet Union being a key rival with great potential.
Prior to M-R, the propaganda suggested such.”
So now you’re taking *Nazi Propaganda* as a reliable indicator of what German leaders thought.
Please.
Not only that.
In eastern Europe, who was the greater military power to the USSR?
The USSR was a power with the potential to be even greater.
At the same time, the Nazis upon their 1941 attack viewed the USSR as suspect to poor tactics. Note how the USSR was effective in beating Japan in a war around the same time that Finland gave the USSR a hard time – before eventually accepting an agreement in line with Soviet terms.
“In eastern Europe, who was the greater military power to the USSR?”
In the opinion of the British, French, American, German, and pretty much everyone else’s governments, the Germans. The British gave them as little as six weeks before they’d collapse. Roosevelt gave them three months.
The question was: in eastern Europe: who was a stronger power than the Soviet Union for Germany to hypothetically face?
It has been said that the Germans attempted to frame Tukhachevsky as untrustworthy to Stalin, in a Machiavellian attempt to eliminate a competent officer. Accepting that premise is indicative that the Soviets were considered a force to be reckoned with. This view also explains a basis for M-R.
@Giuseppe: Good points. Very complex issue. One factor that confuses me an awful lot is the fact that Hitler many times (lots of new war history books coming out documenting this) made ideology-based decisions and enforced these decisions on his commanders which actually harmed their war effort. For example, he would deflect resources, such as use of railway cars, from much-needed military purposes to “less strategic” purposes such as transporting Jewish civilians to extermination camps.
In summary, if someone were to draft a “strategic mission statement” for Nazi war machine, their goals would have to be listed as: 1.) Kill all Jews, 2.) Conquer Soviet Union, 3.) Defeat bolshevism, 4.) Exterminate Eastern Slavs, 5.) Conquer Britain and rest of Europe too.
I think everybody can agree those were Hitler’s goals. Main debate is exactly what order of priority would be assigned to each goal. There is evidence that Hitler considered #1 so important to him, that he was even willing to sacrifice other goals for that one, whenever they came into tactical conflict for resources.
I think that Hitler’s goal kept changing their priority, according to his mood. Jews extermination plans started in 1942 (there was a Nazi conference that decided the final solution, I can’t remember the place where it was held), before that date the Nazis thought that kicking the Jews out of the Reich was enough. The indiscriminate killings of Jews up to that point were also meant to terrorise them into fleeing.
I suppose that at first Hitler’s highest priorities were 2-3-5 in your list, and he believed that he could attain them quite easily, due to the superiority of the German race. The easy victories in Poland, Norway and France may have convinced him that the Germans were really undefeatable. But then Germany lost the aerial battle over England, and was unable to defeat the SU within the summer of 1941. These failures and those that followed enraged Hitler that turned against his preferred scapegoats, the Jews. Hitler blamed the 1918 defeat on them, so it was obvious for him to add the blame for the new defeats. Besides, from a certain point the extermination of Jews was the only goal he could hope to attain.
Finally, I suppose that for Hitler goals 1-2-3-4 were not so different. Every Jew was a Bolshevik, Bolsheviks came from the Soviet Union, whose population was made of Eastern Slavs irreparably tainted by Jewishness.
As mentioned upward a bit, Soviet problems with Finland likely added to that cocky attitude.
That war was the result of poor planning. The Finns were taken too lightly.
On the other hand, the Soviets looked militarily better in a war with Japan around the same time.
Perhaps the Nazis saw the paranoid purge of a good portion of the Red Army officer corps as another advantage.
On that point, Zhukov was stationed east. I’m of the impression that the farther east a Soviet officer was, the less the chance of getting purged.
Thanks, @giuseppe, that’s the best and most concise explanation for Hitler’s actions that I have heard so far!
Also, I didn’t respond above to your remarks about the differences between German Nazism and Italian fascism, but I do get that they were very different systems, not cut from the same cookie cutter. For starters, Mussolini was more of your traditional right-wing dictator, not a lunatic like Hitler, and also not much of an anti-Semite. I remember reading, just like you mentioned, that Italian fascists did not persecute Jews until their German allies gained upper hand and forced them to go along with that. Italian fascists would have preferred to focus on the war and fighting and not so much bothering themselves with deporting civilians, especially civilians who happened to be loyal Italian citizens.
@Misha
Agreed, if I remember correctly it was the Finland-Soviet war that convinced the Germans that with a good kick on the door then the rotten Soviet house would crumble. They didn’t pay due consideration to the Khalkhin Gol battles.
Re. Zhukov, think what you want about Stalin, but at the least he was smart enough to choose the right people when the need arose. IMO a leader can’t be an expert in everything, but he must have the ability to understand an expert from a charlatan. Compare with Mussolini, that could not tolerate someone smarter than him (and he wasn’t so smart) and selected mostly idiots as collaborators.
@Yalensis
Mussolini was our only right-wing dictator, between 1861 (when Italy finally regained independence) and 1925 (when it was clear that Mussolini had dictatorial powers) Italy was a parliamentary monarchy, after WW II a parliamentary republic. IMO Mussolini had only one virtue, he was able to put up good propaganda shows.
He impressed Hitler during his visit in Rome (there is a reference to this in Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator”), led the British into believing that Italians had turned crazy warriors ready to die and almost succeeded in doing the same with his population. He could have been a good propaganda minister, but as a leader was a failure. Mussolini couldn’t stand someone brighter them him even when the final disaster was near.
On a second thought, a more capable dictator than Mussolini may have dragged the war for longer, causing even more unnecessary deaths.
Giuseppe,
Within reason, Stalin has been given credit for improving as a commander.
I recall that Konstantin Rokossovsky (pardon any misspell of his name) was released from prison on the realization that he was a competent officer who was needed.
The greater freedom given to the ROC and implementation of Russian patriotic themes like the Order of Suvorov was done to boost morale.
As “a” alluded earlier, Hitler was a dictator. His word was absolute, and his ego enormous. He fancied he knew far more about strategy and tactics than his military commanders – a mistake for which we can all be profoundly thankful. I don’t like to think how it might have come out had someone like Rommel been in charge.
Rommel would have made it easy. He was a very competent division commander promoted way above his capabilities. Any of a number of German Corps commanders in the East were every bit as good if not better. He paid no attention to risk, and he had no concept of logistics. Capturing some British fuel and trucks at Tobruk made him think he could get past the Suez Canal.
What he had was great PR from the Brits, to explain away Brit failures.
Maybe you’re right; he probably earned his reputation entirely from his command of the Afrika Korps, and a commander who is heedless of risk is only a fool because of it if he loses. Nations have always favoured boldness in their military leaders, and on many occasions resistance actually has collapsed with just that small extra push. The difference between near-psychic brilliance and a clod who left something essential out of the planning is victory. But Hitler was not a competent military commander on any level. Probably everyone knew it but him. The Luftwaffe could have been much better employed and could also have taken more advantage of their tremendous advance in jet aircraft before anyone else had them – but Hitler was suspicious of Gooering and of several of his subordinate commanders.
The 1960s era US aired show Rat Patrol, was absurd propaganda about a few allies in a jeep mowing down scores of Axis (mostly Germans) in the desert.
Yes, I remember it well. I liked Rat Patrol, but I never thought it was anything but a fictionalized account of desert warfare. The Afrika Korps was actually quite disciplined and very good at adapting to its environment – it’s hard to move a big column of men and vehicles where there’s no cover without the whole world knowing about it.
I’m not so familiar with that area of WW II fighting as some others.
If I’m not mistaken, the Germans were militarily given high marks for effective fighting against a greater number of forces (at least what’s suggested Rat Patrol) against them in that particular campaign.
TV/moives encorage a certain imagery like that of James Bond mowing down Soviet bloc operatives in a cool fashion.
“Jews extermination plans started in 1942 (there was a Nazi conference that decided the final solution, I can’t remember the place where it was held)”
the Wansee Conference.
I have nothing particularly interesting to say but I wanted to be the 400 commenter
Very childish I know…
So it is. Say 20 Hail Marys and 44 Our Fathers, and you may assume forgiveness.
Well, done at last!I finally feel absolved and guilt-free.Thank you Father Mark!
@ Mark and others:
Wow….I would have ‘debated’ with “Democratist” but…why bother with him? Wouldn’t waste my time.
Mark – as for people OUTSIDE Europe not really in favour of a single United States of Europe is probably quite true. However, apart from the Tourism industry lament should ‘Frenchness’, ‘Germanness’, ‘Britishness’, etc. cease to exist , my disagreement with the idea of panEuropean(in fact pan-anything be it panAsian, panAmerican etc.) political integration is the practical aspect of it as well. You have certain political groups who want some form of integration/coordinated approach amongst European nations but stopping short of a single United States of Europe and we have idealistic groups who want a United Europe to somewhat be a Superpower Nation to counter the USA and other rival nations, perhaps. I mean policies like a common Currency, common Economic policy etc. would work better if national governments lose even further sovereignty and are reduced to that of provinces or states. At the same time, I think most people in Europe themselves are not keen to surrender that amount of political self-determination to Brussels – which I think is fair enough. I think that the idea of panEuropean complete political integration should be abandoned. Instead the EU should become a closely knit group of nations with some coordination in national policies but enough national self-determination(eg with regards to currencies/economic policies) such that each nation would develop in accordance with its true economic and political situation rather than to ‘homogenize’ everything. PanEuropeanists argue that they want to develop prosperity together via complete political and economic integration. I say they can also COLLAPSE together. Better each nation try to solve its problems on its own with help of neighhbours within a looser EU framework than a rigid one where one nation’s problem can lead to a domino effect destroying the whole continent altogether.
sinotibetan
Nobody really knows how things will turn out in the end for the crew of the Big Blue Marble, but in the short term, I agree there’s little likelihood of a gigantic kumbaya moment for a group of countries in which many of them dislike some or all of the others, consider them “wogs” and believe themselves superior to the whole group. Sticking for the moment with the issue of Ukraine, although the liberatsi like to suggest it is a diamond in the rough that would be snapped up by an eager EU – the cold hard reality is that it is a large, poor nation with unharmonized business practices and a serious corruption problem, which has better than 80% of its wealth expressed as GDP in the hands of its oligarchs.
None of those factors constitutes an insurmountable problem, and all could be solved – must be, one day, whether Ukraine is a member-state of the EU or a Ship of State on its own. But remember, we’re talking short term. For the first two years after successfully negotiating a Free Trade Agreement, Ukraine could not officially use the Euro as its national currency, and would have to use its current national currency at the prevailing rate of exchange. Another problem is describing its political system without appearing to praise its (current and perhaps future) Russia-friendly leader; membership in the EU is limited to liberal democracies (which is on its face ridiculous as some current members are constitutional monarchies).
Perhaps a better option for Ukraine might be a few years of cracking down on corruption and adding value to its currency while increasing foreign investment, then membership in the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway. A customs union with Russia would likely still be possible under those conditions, and might have the effect of forcing both to modernize and streamline their business codes.
@Mark:
Agree with you that over the short-term, a Ukraine joining the EU isn’t to its favour.
However, even in the long term, it’s better for Ukraine(plus Belarus and the ‘stans’ states in Central Asia) to have more economic and political association with Russia. Although some would hate to say or admit it, these states have shared recent(and for Belarus and Ukraine, past)political and economic legacy with Russia and thus easier and logical to ‘integrate’ these states than with the EU. The ‘stan’ states like Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are more keen to have integration with a “Eurasian” political-economic association than the other ‘stan’ states but I think between an unstable and possible more radicalized Middle East and a more stable Russia, the latter would be a better choice. Western commentors will always consider a ‘Eurasian organization’ as “Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union” and I think that’s the reason powers-that-be in Washington and/or Brussels are keen to ‘wrench’ Ukraine out of ‘the clutches of the Russians’ – goode olde Russophobia again. Although I do understand the animosity that is still palpable between Ukrainians(‘Western Ukrainians’?) and Russians due to the past – I think trying to figure out ‘who is at fault’ is a futile exercise. While knowing and having a continuity with the past IS IMPORTANT, one has to be realistic and pragmatic as well. I think if states like Belarus and Ukraine quit trying to either ‘please the West or please Moscow’ (which admittedly both sides often try to influence these states to do), they’d probably be able to normalize ties with both Washington/Brussels and Moscow. In that sense, the current regime of Ukraine, being not ‘naturally’ pro-Western and a bit less hostile towards Moscow – in spite of huge problems with corruption – is an improvement over the previous one. In my previous comments, I was trying to say that the EU is not necessarily a ‘more progressive side’ compared to Russia. A better approach is to have good ties with Russia via joining the Customs Union and at the same time pursuing ties with Washington/Brussels as well. For states like Ukraine and the ‘stan’ states – a collective voice(together with Russia which still remains a major world power) would mean their interests are never completely subsumed by ‘Western demands’ and of course a custom union is not a political union such that these states can still pursue good ties with Western nations so that Moscow’s influence would be ‘checked’ as well.
sinotibetan
I completely agree. The fly in the ointment is that I am interested in Russia modernizing and westernizing (to a point) its business practices, and the present ones discourage foreign investment to a degree. A union with countries that understand the old way of doing business does not provide much encouragement to modernize. I suppose I picked up that interest from Tim Newman, but when you’re right, you’re right.
“The question was: in eastern Europe: who was a stronger power than the Soviet Union for Germany to hypothetically face?”
British Prime Minister Chamberlain thought Poland was. In the late 1930s, pretty much every government discounted Soviet military power. They worried much more about Soviet propaganda/subversion.
The military action involved with M-R against Poland suggests differently.
In the early years after WW I, Poland was in a better military position, relative to the respective situations in Germany and the Soviet Union.
By the 1930s that situation saw changes.
“The military action involved with M-R against Poland suggests differently.”
Please explain.
“In the early years after WW I, Poland was in a better military position, relative to the respective situations in Germany and the Soviet Union.
By the 1930s that situation saw changes.”
Not according to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
Thanks for your answer about the Wannsee conference. Re. Hitler’s intentions about Slavs, luckily we will never have a definitive answer of what he was going to do with the “allied” Slavs, like the Bulgarians, in case of victory in WW II. IMO, the alliance between Germany and some Slavs was a tactical necessity and at best the pro-German Slavs could end up as serfs, at worst exterminated. Many Italians, including highly placed fascist hierarchs like Balbo, were against an alliance with Nazi Germany because they feared they were going to become Germany’s shoe-shiner. The pro-German Slavs could not reasonably hope to get a better treatment.
On the flip side to that observation is what was in reality at the time (status of Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia) and how a hypothetically non-defeated Germany might’ve gradually changed into something noticeably different.
The Soviet Union changed and there was a failed attempt to overthrow Hitler from within Germany. Perhaps a non-defeated Germany might’ve become like apartheid South Africa (bigoted, but not genocidal), followed by a tolerant alternative.
Vlasov’s main German support came from Russophile elements as opposed to the anti-Russian wing having the likes of Rosenberg. This situation is kind of related to how Cold War era America had anti-Communist/anti-Russian and anti-Communist/pro-Russian groupings.
“On the flip side to that observation is what was in reality at the time (status of Bulgaria, Slovakia and Croatia) and how a hypothetically non-defeated Germany might’ve gradually changed into something noticeably different.”
On the other hand, there is Adolph’s actual views concerning “Slavic subhumans”, which he did not differentiate. They all were to be removed from Europe.
“The Soviet Union changed and there was a failed attempt to overthrow Hitler from within Germany. Perhaps a non-defeated Germany might’ve become like apartheid South Africa (bigoted, but not genocidal), followed by a tolerant alternative. ”
As long as Hitler was around and running things, the ultimate policy towards Slavs was to remove them from Europe, end of story.
“Vlasov’s main German support came from Russophile elements as opposed to the anti-Russian wing having the likes of Rosenberg. This situation is kind of related to how Cold War era America had anti-Communist/anti-Russian and anti-Communist/pro-Russian groupings.”
And those elements were irrelevant to Nazi policy, since they had not been given dictatorial power by the process laid out by the constitution of Weimar Germany, like Hitler had been.
““The popular vote made the Nazis the largest political party in the Reichstag in 1933. Hitler was given power to rule by decree by a 4/5 majority vote of the Reichstag, as per the constitution of Weimar Germany. All very legal and democratic.”
****
Was referring to a popularly elected situation where Hitler won over other candidates in an election.”
As for the above quoted: thereafter, the matter of German democracy in action noticeably declined.”
Mike, you badly misunderstand how people got power to run the government under the constitution of Weimar Germany. It was a parliamentary system, You got the job of running the government by being the one able to build a majority coalition in the legislature.
And Hitler did so. And then that same democratically elected legislature gave Hitler the power to rule by decree, by a 4/5 majority vote, as provided for in the constitution of Weimar Germany.
All very legal and democratic.
You “badly misunderstand” what has been expressed, in the classic manner of an internet troll.
“troll”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Of course I do as shown by how that word is properly used it at this thread to describe your manner here.
Figuratively speaking, your below comments are well placed at the bottom of the barrel.
This thread serves as a good reference to addressing anti-Russian/Ukrainian nationalist leaning views and not bowing down to under-handed attempts to personally besmirch reasoned commentary on an issue like Vlasov.
The mass media improvement of Russia related coverage will improve by utilizing such advocacy – in place of some (stress some) of what has been promoted.
“Of course I do as shown by how that word is properly used it at this thread to describe your manner here.”
Mark recently celebrated his 100,000th hit on his blog. At the rate you’re going, we shall soon celebrate your 100,000th use of “troll”.
You seem to think it means “Any person who does not accept ‘It’s in the book’ as a convincing reply to a request for a citation.”
You’re wrong again. Scrolling up a bit, I mention recollection of other sources and that book, while also noting how a given country can typically have different war plan scenarios.
In addition, you fail to fully comprehend what was clearly stated on the Nazi position and reality vis-a-vis Slavs and how the aforementioned hypothetical change wasn’t unlikely.
As evidence, note how Vlasov’s army went from not being utilized to being let loose.
You make mention of a stated war plan from 1891. WW I wasn’t until 1914. In that time period, is it not unreasonable for Russia to have developed another war plan? Why would the sources I mention make something up on such a particular? Between 1891 and 1914, Russia experienced an internal revolution and military defeat to Japan. These experiences serve to influence Russia to develop a less offensive war plan.
Before yapping away, you should use your noodle (whatever there is of it) more.
“You’re wrong again. Scrolling up a bit, I mention recollection of other sources and that book, while also noting how a given country can typically have different war plan scenarios.”
Citation please. I’m not going to “scroll up a bit” through ~450 posts looking for references you don’t name.
“In addition, you fail to fully comprehend what was clearly stated on the Nazi position and reality vis-a-vis Slavs and how the aforementioned hypothetical change wasn’t unlikely.”
The fact of the matter is, Germany’s policy was set by Hitler, since he was the one in charge of Nazi germany until he shot hiimself as Soviet artillery fell around his bunker.
“As evidence, note how Vlasov’s army went from not being utilized to being let loose.”
With the Soviet Army on the approaches of Berlin…
A Nazi victory over the Soviets would have seen Vlasov and other Slavic minions of Hitler shipped off to south Siberia.
“You make mention of a stated war plan from 1891.”
False. I mentioned the Franco-Russian alliance of 1891. That alliance had a military staff agreement added in 1892 committing the contracting parties to specific actions in the event of specified contingencies.
“WW I wasn’t until 1914. In that time period, is it not unreasonable for Russia to have developed another war plan?”
Not against Germany. The committments made in the alliance were very clear.
Note Article One below.
Here is the text:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/frrumil.asp
The Franco-Russian Alliance Military Convention – August 18, 1892
France and Russia, being animated by a common desire to preserve peace, and having no other object than to meet the necessities of a defensive war, provoked by an attack of the forces of the Triple Alliance against either of them, have agreed upon the following provisions:
1. If France is attacked by Germany, or by Italy supported by Germany, Russia shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
If Russia is attacked by Germany, or by Austria supported by Germany, France shall employ all her available forces to attack Germany.
By the way Mike, this post demonstrates how one “uses his noodle”. I cite specific evidence, and I post it to support my point. What I don’t do is write “Its in the book” and call people “troll”
You should try it my way some time.
Faux bravado on your part.
You still haven’t disproved a follow-up and different plan as noted.
The wording of that text (as posted by you) indicates that Russia would attack Germany. It doesn’t specify when. It could be immediate or otherwise.
AJP Taylor and Cyril Falls appear to be in agreement with me than you.
Upon quick glance, I came across a stated exchange between Germany and France just before WW I, where the latter doesn’t give a clear yes to the latter’s inquiry about a Russo-Franco in the event of a war along the lines of what occurred.
Your comment on Vlasov doesn’t refute what I said on the subject at this thread. The Nazis became desperate, at which point, his forces were given a freer reign.
I’m replying to your latest screed, on account that it deserves to be at the bottom of the barrel.
Falls and Taylor indicate in their respective books that Russia only thought of launching an offensive after the Western Entente (notably France) sought it. Up to that point, the Russian army showed every inclination of not favoring such a stance. This supports the earlier point repeatedly brought up with reference at this thread.
As for Vlasov, he got rebuked by some in the Nazi hierarchy for seeking a liberated and strong Russia. He wasn’t trusted because his stated desire wasn’t what key Nazis like Rosenberg sought for Russia.
Mark,
Should you have any follow-up questions on what I said on WW I and Vlasov, feel free to contact me.
It’s a “waste of time” (to borrow from Democratist) to carry on with a rank amateur like “a”.
Made the mistake of coming back here. Get Falls’ and Taylor’s books on WW I. A correct parahphrase of them leans towards what I said.
As for citation, your link to a stated 1892 (not 1891) secret agreement says nothing of how, when and where the claimed documewnt was picked up. From the wording of it, Russia didn’t have to immediately strike.
On follow-up war plans, nothing is so etched in stone when it comes to a “plan” as opposed to an agreement. As noted some agreements provide wiggle room on how they can be implemented.
Vlasov wasn’t a simple issue of traitor. His comments about Rusisa under difficult circumstances weren’t inaccurately negative in the manner of how some present day Russians discuss their nation under considerably freer conditions. His getting rebuked by key Nazis is a matter of record. The bottom line is that for much of WW II, the anti-Russian/anti-Communist view in Germany had the upper hand over the pro-Russian/anti-Communist view.
Mark,
Once again, if you’re following this thread, feel free to contact me for any follow-up.
“I recall such a plan being referenced by this source among others:”
Mike, there is nothing on that web page that substantiates your point. I’m not going to buy a book just to help you make a point that you give no indication of understanding yourself.
If you have arguments and evidence to support your point about the Franco-Russian alliance, post them for us.
It’s in the book.
Moreover, I seem to have a better understanding of a number of the discussed topics than yourself.
Your snide remarks don’t serve to cover your ignorance.
I’m certainly not obligated to reply to the crude manner that you exhibit.
“It’s in the book..”
I guess that means its true then.
“Moreover, I seem to have a better understanding of a number of the discussed topics than yourself.”
Pray, tells us what they are, oh thou ever-flowing font of deep wisdom and crystalline clarity.
“The wording of that text (as posted by you) indicates that Russia would attack Germany. It doesn’t specify when. It could be immediate or otherwise.”
France was attacked by Germany in August 1914. Russia was therefore committed by the alliance to attack Germany.
Unless you are suggesting that Russia dishonor that alliance, let France fall, thereby allow the Central Powers to focus their full might on Russia.
“AJP Taylor and Cyril Falls appear to be in agreement with me than you.”
Citation please.
“Your comment on Vlasov doesn’t refute what I said on the subject at this thread. The Nazis became desperate, at which point, his forces were given a freer reign.”
And while they had any choice at all, the Nazis refused to use Vlasov. Nobody trusts a traitor while they have a choice.
“I’m replying to your latest screed, on account that it deserves to be at the bottom of the barrel.
Falls and Taylor indicate in their respective books that Russia only thought of launching an offensive after the Western Entente (notably France) sought it.”
Citations please. They both were prolific authors.
“Up to that point, the Russian army showed every inclination of not favoring such a stance. This supports the earlier point repeatedly brought up with reference at this thread.”
Um, it was the Russian and French general staffs that negotiated that military staff agreement.
“As for Vlasov, he got rebuked by some in the Nazi hierarchy for seeking a liberated and strong Russia. He wasn’t trusted because his stated desire wasn’t what key Nazis like Rosenberg sought for Russia.”
Big deal. Rosenberg’s influence counted for nothing while Hitler was alive.
“Made the mistake of coming back here. Get Falls’ and Taylor’s books on WW I. A correct parahphrase of them leans towards what I said.”
Name them please.
AJP Taylor wrote several books treating the WWI period.
“As for citation, your link to a stated 1892 (not 1891) secret agreement
The Franco-Russian alliance was signed in 1891.
The military convention supporting the Franco-Russian alliance was signed in 1892.
“says nothing of how, when and where the claimed documewnt was picked up. From the wording of it, Russia didn’t have to immediately strike. On follow-up war plans, nothing is so etched in stone when it comes to a “plan” as opposed to an agreement. As noted some agreements provide wiggle room on how they can be implemented.”
Oh, so the Russian government should have allowed Germany more time to concentrate forces on France and defeat her, so that the Germans, Austrians, and Turks could then concentrate all their forces on Russia. Brilliant.
“Vlasov wasn’t a simple issue of traitor.”
He broke his oath as a Soviet officer, and joined a government intending to drive Russians out of Europe.
“His comments about Rusisa under difficult circumstances weren’t inaccurately negative in the manner of how some present day Russians discuss their nation under considerably freer conditions. His getting rebuked by key Nazis is a matter of record. The bottom line is that for much of WW II, the anti-Russian/anti-Communist view in Germany had the upper hand over the pro-Russian/anti-Communist view.”
Especially since it was the anti-Russian/anti-Communist Hitler who became Germany’s legally-chosen and constitutionally-empowered dictator.
Well Mike, I notice that you have little better than “It’s in the book” and name-calling in response to my repeated requests for citations to substantiate the claims you make.
The suspicion grows that you have no interest in serious discussion of the topics you post so prolifically.