Russia seems to be blamed by Eastern Europe for everything

[Tatar Khan]

I decided to publish the article for the newspaper "The View" called the Historical "Sensations". The link to it no longer exist so i'll be posting exerpts from it over period of time. The article is addressing the issue of how Russia is getting blamed and protrayed by the Eastern Europe in the bas light for things that Soviet Union did and did not do. It also addresses some new historical changes the the new Eastern European governments are making to the official chronicles of history. I added some of my commentary in brackets to clarify some historical names mentioned. So here is the first part:

Historical

[Mihail]

Well, why not? We're just repaying the favor. Can you say 50 years of deportation to Siberia and the gulags, kolhoz collective farms, repression, and overall terror? And don't just say that the U.S.S.R. did that, and not Russia. Remember that many KGB men and those who ordered the deaths of thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of people are still in power today. Forget not that Mr. Putin was a chief in the KGB.

[Tezcatlipoca]

I'm not going to say that what ever source your referring to is not politically motivated (likewise, I won't  attempt to claim that it should or should not be); chances are it is. However there I do want to make a few points:

In reguards to the collectivization of the 30s, and specifically the Ukraine - Yes, it was collectivization across the face of the USSR, not just in the Ukraine. However, since the Ukraine was the primary bread-basket for the USSR at the time, they bore the brunt of the consequences. Additionally they resisted the most to the collectivization, and consequently, they were punished more then others, and more severely. It is estimate that of all the people that were murdered and starved to death during the famine, at least three quarters of those dead were Ukrainians. So while it might not have officially been targeted at the Ukrainians (it wasn't officially happening after all), the end effect was that they were in the way of the target.

In reguards to most of the information presented - You need to remember, that until recently, ever since Oleg first set up his empire in Kiev, the rulers or Russia, and consequently those that have any say in Russia (and thus the USSR later, since they were always the primary shareholders; even when their leaders wern't specifically Russian, those leaders made sure that it was more or less a Russian state) have felt that the Ukraine was part of Russia, and that the Ukrainians were Russians themselves. However, it has never really been the case that the majority of Ukrainians have felt that they were Russians; instead, they were Ukrainins. So essentially, to the Russians, the Ukrainians were fellow countrymen, while to the Ukrainians, the Russians have always been conquerers.

In reguards to Khrushchev - Yes, he was a native Ukrainian. So was Brezhnev. Stalin was a native Georgian. Chernenko was a native Siberian. Just about the only conservitive or hard-line "dictator" of the USSR that was actually Russian, was Lenin (and yes, other then Stalin and possibly Lenin, none could really be considered a "dictator", but in terms of authority, they held the most during the "eras" of politics that are defined by their regimes). It is important to note though, that once they had gone through the revolutionary or communist (depending on the time of their upbringing) process of learning, they no longer can really be claimed as having any particular allegiance towards their home countries. The soviet internal policiy was based on the elimination of any national distinction for most of its existance. This was a reflection of its leaders will. Krushchev was no different. During the great purges, (when he was regional boss of the Moscow he was responsible for some of the most "impressive" numbers of "deviants", "traitors", "terrorists" and "wreackers" arrested, deported and executed) he was sent to the Ukraine to "help" the current boss there, since that boss's numbers were a bit low. He boosted them. The point here, is that for the leaders, there was no separation of nations in the USSR, and individual nationality was irrelevent.

[MrFlibble]

Remember that many KGB men and those who ordered the deaths of thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of people are still in power today. Forget not that Mr. Putin was a chief in the KGB.

I think Putin is way too young to be blamed for all the repressions made in the times of Stalin. And he wasn't a chief, but only an officer (I guess thats a different thing, huh?)

Don't think that I'm trying to make things up brighter or anything. I believe that, to some degree, Ukraine has a reason to blame Russia. The core of the problem was situated there; orders came from Moscow or were buttressed by Moscow's authority. However, we can't deny the fact that USSR is no more. And the government is definitely a factor to be reckoned with. What I mean is that whatever happens in a particular country, it is not only a result of the people's will (although this kind of force is also important, of course), but the final goal is shaped by the government and its ideology.

I really hope that the new Russian government (not as "the government that consists of New Russians", but as "the new government after the fall of USSR") adapts different ideology and methods, and will become protected from its predecessor's mistakes. I really really hope...

[Caid Ivik]

View of the past relations depends on what you want now. If ukrainian government tends to improve relations with EU, you can't expect they'll praise work of Russians or ie Mongols. History isn't an exact science and never will be, altough historians try to look so.

[Edric O]

Well, why not? We're just repaying the favor. Can you say 50 years of deportation to Siberia and the gulags, kolhoz collective farms, repression, and overall terror?

In all fairness, however, they were also 50 years of industrialization and general advancement in both technology and standard of living (yes, yes, we did not catch up to the West, but that's because we were far behind to start with, long before the USSR entered the scene). From 1928 to 1985, the economy of the Soviet Union grew by a factor of 10, and GNP per capita grew by a factor of 5. The Soviet economy started out at roughly 25% the size of the economy of the United States. By 1955, it climbed to 40%. In 1965 the Soviet economy reached 50% of the contemporary US economy, and in 1977 it passed the 60% threshold. All of this data, by the way, comes from an American study entitled "Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985", published by the RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior in 1988. The USSR was catching up to the West (at least until the '80s).

Of course, as far as civil liberties are concerned the USSR was a disaster. But that doesn't mean that everything about it was bad.

And don't just say that the U.S.S.R. did that, and not Russia. Remember that many KGB men and those who ordered the deaths of thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of people are still in power today. Forget not that Mr. Putin was a chief in the KGB.

Putin is an authoritarian asshole, but he is too young to have participated in any of the mass killings (the last of which happened in the 1950's). Khrushchev shut down the Gulag, after all.

But going back to the subject of the original post, it is true that many countries in Eastern Europe have a sort of nationalistic victim complex ("oh, poor us, we were so oppressed by the big bad Russians"). Bullshit, I say. There were just as many Ukrainian (or Latvian) leaders oppressing their own people. And in the case of countries like Romania, which were never part of the Soviet Union, all the oppression came from local leaders. That they were taking orders from Moscow is irrelevant. Moscow didn't care how they ran their internal affairs as long as they didn't step out of line on the international stage.

It's time to stop trying to blame other people and to take responsibility for our own history.

[Tatar Khan]

Well i was hoping to see the people's opnions on the issues presented int he article, that is why I translated it. How much Khrushchev was ukranian, well he did give a chunk of Russia to Ukraine. It is true that the Russian identity was put on the people however, from what i gathered was that not too many people cared what ethnic group you were. There were occasional tentions between the groups on some occasions but mostly minor. The soviet leaders always refered to the people as the Soviet nations or the Soviet people. They did not say Russian people, that statement only appeared after the collapse mostly due to the rest of the world lacking the different name for the Russian nationality and the Russian ethnic group.

Well I understand the fact that the Baltic states not liking the Russians or the Soviet Union, but Russia and Ukrain have a long relationship of fighting on one side together. The Ukranian literature was studied in Russian schools too.

Overall if you speak Russian you get much warmer reception in the eastern Ukrain than the western one. however mooving on with the article.

[Tatar Khan]

Georgia

As interesting are the Georgian textbooks of history. For example: addition of Georgia to Russia. Before it used to be called voluntary. Now Tbilisi (capital of Georgia) tells to write about

[Davidu]

Ok... there's a lot to write...  ;D

Ok then, about history: Ukraine still has the same way of dealing with problems as the USSR. They want to be independant, free, but the way of thinking, at least at the governement, has not changed mush. Why do I say this?

Let's take the 2 regions taken from Romania during WWII by the USSR: Northern Bucovina, and Southern Basarabia, regions that still are part of Ukraine. The ethnic composition changed as Soviet authorities gradually send the romanian population into Siberia and asian countries as Khazahstan, Uzbekistan, etc. and brought russian and ukrainian population insted. Even so, at the present time, romanians are about 40-50% or even more in these areas.

The ukrainian gvt. keeps contant pressure on the romanian communites there. Romanian radio from Romania is banned, and local radio in romanian can run only 2 hours per day. Romanian books send from Romania are mostly blocked at the border, and as far as I know, in schools ( info is several years old - nothing heard ever since) romanian is banned, or kept under tight supervision.

As you see, the methods haven't changed much since USSR times. Since the "orange revolution" there were no more news... and frankly, I am very curious to see if anything will change.

The idea is that the countries that gained independance in 1990-1991 have almost no tradition as free states and then they reffer to the only model known to them: USSR. Only the baltic states managed to raise themselves out of the ashes. Bealrus is still living as 50 years ago, and Ukraine, when has changed color, was on the brink of civil war between the Catholic western part, near Poland ( western Ukraine was Polish in medieval times. Craina means "edge/border" - U-Craina means at the edge) and the eastern Orthodox part, more linked to the russian tradition.

So...  ;D even if what I have written is not very compact and clear... what I meant and example is that they are rewriting history just the way the soviets did.

To tell you a little story: during the time USSR troops stayed in Romania, people were taught that the most important inventors and thinkers were russian, after the USSR troops left and we had a national communism, people were taught that the most important nventors were romanian, and now, Discovery tells us that the most important inventors were american. History is always told in a way that makes it a perfect political tool. It motivates the masses. And history is important to nationalism... it makes the masses feel important because they are part of a people. I mean some ukrainians would say "It was better in USSR", so to prevent this from happening, the gvt. wants to make the masses feel proud to be ukrainians, so they would rally around yhe leaders.

It's common practice totalitarian societies.

@Dante: well, you are not taking into account that - at least Romania - lived under constant fear of being conquered/attacked by Russia/USSR since we gained a border with them, thus the habit of blaming the russians for almost everything. You are right when you say that Russia is not to blame for the abuses the communists did here, but USSR brought communism in its stalinist form and imposed it into a working capitalist society, and we cannot be "forever grateful to USSR - our most beloved friend" as to quote the '50s slogans. USSR can be considered the moral cause of what happened in Romania under communist regime. And not only in Romania.

It is not so that when you arm a person you are morally reponsable to what that person does with that weapon?

[Mihail]

I don't see Dante anywhere in this thread. Edric O, perhaps> ;)

[Tatar Khan]

well, you are not taking into account that - at least Romania - lived under constant fear of being conquered/attacked by Russia/USSR since we gained a border with them, thus the habit of blaming the russians for almost everything. You are right when you say that Russia is not to blame for the abuses the communists did here, but USSR brought communism in its stalinist form and imposed it into a working capitalist society, and we cannot be "forever grateful to USSR - our most beloved friend" as to quote the '50s slogans. USSR can be considered the moral cause of what happened in Romania under communist regime. And not only in Romania.

Well Soviet Union did not much interfere after 1958 with state of affairs in Romania. It was the Romania government at that point messing things up. The idea of increasing the population to create an army of workers and other stuff like that. During 1970s Nicolae Ceauşescu was hailed by Western world for his standing up to Soviet Union. I don't know how seriously Soviet leaders though of him but the Elizabeth II gave him a knighthood when he visited England. It looked like the West was giving more support to Romania's policies than Soviet Union.

[Davidu]

I totally agree. But habits die hard...

@Clemenza: LOL, you're right... your BID RED SIGNATURE had subliminal effects.