Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: The death of Mother Russia
The Spectator (U.K.) ^ | 10/22/05 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 10/20/2005 6:18:16 AM PDT by Pokey78

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-423 last
To: RusIvan; Neophyte
One more "rossyanin" Neophyte with "who-knows" ethnical background.

"Who-knows" ethnical background? Isn't it an all too obvious indication of an antisemitic mentality? You cannot truly believe that USSR was not Russian empire without being antisemite.

401 posted on 10/30/2005 8:22:52 PM PST by REactor (Polish patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: REactor

"Who-knows" ethnical background? Isn't it an all too obvious indication of an antisemitic mentality?==

I have many friends who are jews but they being "rossyanins" did never deny that they are jews and didn't call themselves "russians".
Neophyte ethnical background isn't known to me. If he is jew in New Zeland then be it. Let him admit his jewery and stop to pretend to be "russian".


402 posted on 10/30/2005 11:36:42 PM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
One more "rossyanin" Neophyte with "who-knows" ethnical background.

What, the whole freaking thing is boiled down to a bastard word – Rossyanin?! It not only cannot be translated into any civilized language, but cannot be explained to a civilized person, too.

Your so called “theory of Russianness” (another freak of a word) nevertheless proves that I’m right and you’re wrong.

Point by point:

A) Felix Dzerzhinsky, as well as “rossyane” (or half-, quarterone-, one-sixteenth-rossyane?!) Pushkin, Fonvizin, Stalin, Yusupov, Frunze, Kamo, Tukhachevsky etc. was a subject of the Russian Empire, as all the Poles were for certain period. His political activities during the Bolshevik coup d’etate and the Civil War, as well as in their wake, were the activities of a Russian politician.

Since you’re not able to find a distinctive English (French, Italian, Maori….) equivalent for your preferred term “rossyi’sky”, the term is nonexistent.

B) As the political heir of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union took over the entity as a whole, with all the assets and all the liabilities. In the same way, the contemporary Russian Federation is the heir to the former Soviet Union and cannot pick from the package on will – leaving nuisances like Molotov (and his pact with the buddy Ribbentrop), Beria or your obnoxious self to somebody else.

C) The theory that only the ones with a pure Russian bloodline are able and indeed have the right to form a reasonable opinion on events and processes in Russia would be laughable and worth of being held by a fan-club member and The Da Vinci Code aficionado... But no, it is too similar to the Nazi theories.

So let me, following your example, to coin my own term for you and your likes: LUBYANKA NAZIS.

403 posted on 10/31/2005 5:59:53 PM PST by Neophyte (Nazists, Communists, Islamists... what the heck is the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: REactor
Isn't it an all too obvious indication of an antisemitic mentality?

But dear REactor, it is most unfair to suspect our sworn “friend” RusIvan in anti-Semitic beliefs!

Just a cursory glance at his posts will show you that he is actually obsessed with everything Jewish and has quite an omnivorous vision of the Israeli practices. He is ready uncritically to implement their civil principles in his own country:

WHEN ISRAELITES ACCEPT ALL THIER ARAB CITIZENS AS TRUE "JEWS" I WILL ACCEPT YOU AS RUSSIAN.

....

What is working for Israel then works good for Russia.

You see, the thread is on Mark Steyn’s opinions on the contemporary Russia and her possible political future, and just from the blue skies RusIvan thrusts it to the Israeli side. He just couldn’t help himself – as Jobim sings in an old bossa nova of the 60s, “It’s obsession I cannot deny!”

Could it be however that he denies to Steyn the right to reason about Russia because he is obviously not Russian and, imagine that, even not a “Rossyanin”?

Could it also be that RusIvan, in line with his uncritical admiration of anything Semitic, defines Steyn’s ethnicity as Jewish just because the columnist so good in what he’s doing?

Alas, I have to disappoint you, Vanjusha.

Steyn is a Canadian - or, by the rules of your bloodline theory, Candiyanin:-)) - of Dutch descent, and vehemently Christian to that.

Oh yes, REactor, I understand what had led you to think he was an anti-Semite – the standard introductory statement of all Judofobes before they embark on their racist ranting:

I have many friends who are jews…

Hmmm, who knows, you may be right.

404 posted on 10/31/2005 7:07:35 PM PST by Neophyte (Nazists, Communists, Islamists... what the heck is the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Neophyte

What, the whole freaking thing is boiled down to a bastard word – Rossyanin?! It not only cannot be translated into any civilized language, but cannot be explained to a civilized person, too.===

"Rissyanin" means citizen of Russian Em,pire today is citizen of Russian Federation. "Russian" means the people of russian ethnicity. Pretty simple why you don't understand I cann't realize.

In many countries the citizenship differ with ethnicities. SO many russian live in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and baltic countries. But those russians are NOT "rossyanins".

Same way many arabs live in France and ISrael. But in both countries they are not french or jews but are citizens of both countries.
Is it difficult to percept?

Felix was "rossyanin" the citizen of RE I agree. But he wasn't ethnic russian. Since he wasn't one then russians didn't has the responsibilities for his actions.

B) As the political heir of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union took over the entity as a whole, with all the assets and all the liabilities. In the same way, the contemporary Russian Federation is the heir to the former Soviet Union and cannot pick from the package on will – leaving nuisances like Molotov (and his pact with the buddy Ribbentrop), Beria or your obnoxious self to somebody else.==

Russian Empire was run by russian czar and russian administration.
Soviet Union was run by anti-russian international commie power.
Look what they did with Russian Church! SO again soviets and soviet power are nothing to do even enemies of russianry.

So let me, following your example, to coin my own term for you and your likes: LUBYANKA NAZIS.==

So all those jews of Israel are "LUBYANKA NAZIS" ACCORDING TO YOU since they don't accept arabs in thier country as trully jews sametime they don't deny thier citizenship of Israel.
Me too I don't deny the citizenship of Russia for you and your kind but I don't accept you as "russian". Be your own ethnicities get off of russianry.

Man when there won't be no ethnicities under the sun then you definition will work not before.

SO again I take good example from Israel and repeat you: "WHEN ISRAELITES ACCEPT ALL THIER ARAB CITIZENS AS TRUE "JEWS" I WILL ACCEPT YOU AS TRUE RUSSIAN".


405 posted on 10/31/2005 10:49:29 PM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Neophyte

C) The theory that only the ones with a pure Russian bloodline are able and indeed have the right to form a reasonable opinion on events and processes in Russia would be laughable and worth of being held by a fan-club member and The Da Vinci Code aficionado... ===

Did I voice that theory? You distort some words and put it to my mouth for polemic sake.

Here on FR many people of different decents discuss Russia each day. I didn't ever refuse thier rights to do so. How I may anyway? It is absolute right of intelegent being to think about anything.

I just refuse you as impostor to call youself as "russian". You are foreigner as many here. Or maybe you are rossyanin the citizen of RF of different then russian ethnicity.


406 posted on 10/31/2005 10:58:15 PM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
Felix was "rossyanin" the citizen of RE I agree. But he wasn't ethnic russian. Since he wasn't one then russians didn't has the responsibilities for his actions.

Really?

And how about "rossiyanins" with positive contribution to the Empire, former Soviet Union and contemporary Russia?

Will you agree that such did exist, or you want me to give you abundant examples?

Most importantly, do "rrrrushians" accept them as their own, or reject them as aliens together with the bad ones?

I thought you could do better, Ivan. The above statement is worth of Iva... As a matter of fact, Iva and Ivan do look in this thread like the two sides of one and the same split (i.e. schizophrenic) personality...

407 posted on 11/01/2005 8:46:56 PM PST by Neophyte (Nazists, Communists, Islamists... what the heck is the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Neophyte

And how about "rossiyanins" with positive contribution to the Empire, former Soviet Union and contemporary Russia?

Will you agree that such did exist, or you want me to give you abundant examples?==

Agree such exists.

Most importantly, do "rrrrushians" accept them as their own, or reject them as aliens together with the bad ones?==

Accept them as citizens of Empire means "rossyanins". Good or bad.

Despite of all your pathetism Neophyte you may agree too that ethnicity and citizenship are different things.
It is all of our dispute.

I return to you: "Will you agree that such did exist, or you want me to give you abundant examples?"

Like arabs in France, Heitherlands, Israel. Like russians in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, baltic countries. Like jews in whatever coutnries except Israel. Like turks in Germany.

They all are citizens of relative countries but thier ethnicity is different then of title ethnicity which founded respectful country.


408 posted on 11/01/2005 11:16:55 PM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
They all are citizens of relative countries but thier ethnicity is different then of title ethnicity which founded respectful country.

Their ethnicity is indeed different, I never denied that, but ethnicity doesn't matter. In civilized countries, ethnicity and faith are parts of private lives of citizens, and have nothing to do with their civil or public activities.

For the first time in modern Europe this was legally embodied in the Napoleonic codes which became a subject of admiration and emulation. But same concept is used by ancient Romans as well, who included not only the populace of conquered by them lands into the Empire, but even their gods into the Roman pantheon.

Quite different was the Greek/Byzantine notion - for them, ethnicity of the "barbarians" forever prevented the latter from becoming their real equals. And even more important role, as far as Byzantium was concerned, belonged to the Orthodox Christianity. Obviously, that is how this outdated and backward idea took so firm grip on Russia and Russians - that is, your likes in Russia, the group which luckily isn't neither typical nor representative.

title ethnicity which founded respective countries

This is a pure absurd. Tell me, what ethnicity founded the Netherlands? France? USA? Argentina? Russia? I would advice you not to become ridiculous, but I'm afraid I'm late - you already are, and insist to be seen as totally ignorant, too.

409 posted on 11/02/2005 8:15:51 PM PST by Neophyte (Nazists, Communists, Islamists... what the heck is the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Neophyte

Their ethnicity is indeed different, I never denied that, but ethnicity doesn't matter. In civilized countries, ethnicity and faith are parts of private lives of citizens, and have nothing to do with their civil or public activities.===

Very liberal idea. COuntries, thier flag culture do not matter only people?

Yeah yeah tell it to those "frenchs" (accually arabs) who rioting today in Paris surberbs. See into it and you suddently find that only arabs who rioting. No french and no even blacks.
WHY so strict choice happened if ethnicity doesn't matter? Why only arabs riot and no other people of different ethnicities didn't joined them?

See it from other perspective.
If ethnicities didn't matter as you say then they would disapper as entities. Why to keep something which doesn't matter? Hence ethnic states like France, Britain, Sweden, Mexico and others would disappear too.
But it doesn't happen. WHY? If ethnicities as you say do not matter?

This is a pure absurd. Tell me, what ethnicity founded the Netherlands? France? USA? Argentina? Russia? ==

I don't know what ethnicity founded Netherland. But France was founded by french. Russia by russians. Israel by jews.

I think that maybe in distant future we may overlive the existance of national states and whole humankind will be united. THEN ethnicities will not matter and your dream came true. Not today.
But today national states and ethnicities still exist. SO be it.


410 posted on 11/02/2005 10:16:52 PM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan; Neophyte; lizol; All; Admin Moderator
Death tolls? Ok. I just do it one example since I don't have possibility to do it thouroughly. Let take POW death toll. In soviet-polish war 1920th Poland took about 100+ soviet POWs. During few years after the war they was killed by hunger and deceases in polish concentration camps. SO in 1939 USSR took about same or more polish POWs. Soldiers was sent thier homes. But officers was shot in Gulag in 1940. Katyn matter. How many? They say about 20 thousands. Here is comparison. 100 thousands vs 20 thousands. And remember Poland did it FIRST in 1920th but Soviet Union revenged in 1940.

This is another example of an outrageous lie, soviet propaganda and your incompetence.

I just do it one example since I don't have possibility to do it thouroughly.

I suggest you DO it thouroughly!

Let take POW death toll. In soviet-polish war 1920th Poland took about 100+ soviet POWs.Yes, there were 100.000 agressors, enemies of freedom in Europe imprisoned. BUT 16.000-18.000 have died in result of diseases such as typhus, deadly flu (spaniard?) and dysentery, common illnesses in that time. They weren't shot in the head!. They weren't sent to Sybiria! They were dealt with in more humanitarian way than you dealt with Nazis. So give me a break.

Here is comparison. 100 thousands vs 20 thousands. And remember Poland did it FIRST in 1920th but Soviet Union revenged in 1940.

You know that a "Auschwitz lie" is a subject of penalty? Writing that Katyn was a revange for 1920, when SU was agressor is a soviet era propaganda. Such things should be a subject of a ban on FreeRepublic!

411 posted on 11/03/2005 11:03:20 AM PST by kaiser80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: jb6
Hello? SU == Soviet Union. You do understand that the Soviet Union existed between 1918 and 1991, right? The wars of the 1600s did not involve a philosophy that wasn't to be born for another 200 years.

In the times discussed= 1920-1945

Poland siding with Hilter in 1937-38

lol once more, lol. Anyone beliving in that nonsence is YOU

412 posted on 11/03/2005 11:08:32 AM PST by kaiser80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: kaiser80

Writing that Katyn was a revange for 1920, when SU was agressor is a soviet era propaganda.==

Dear kaiser it is not propaganda. Accually during soviet times they said that it is germans perpetrated Katyn massacre.
It is at last years when we had known truth we undertsood given the character of Stalin that he did his revenge. Stalin is georgian means veru revengeful person. If in charge of SU at that time would be russian then those POWS was safe.


413 posted on 11/03/2005 10:48:13 PM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
I don't know what ethnicity founded Netherland. But France was founded by french. Russia by russians. Israel by jews.

Neither of what you said above is true.

Neither Dutch, nor French, nor Russian ethnic groups existed BEFORE the relevant countries were created and matured. Every of these countries was founded by a bunch of different tribes, and no one of that tribes was called "French", or "Dutch", or "Russian".

Ethnicity doesn't foreordain nationality, it's the opposite way round.

The only exception is Israel - but she also hasn't been established by Jews in 1948, but by G-d several thousand years before that. Belonging to that ethnicity is conditioned by the belonging to the religion, not a tribe.

All I've told just now is an elementary school stuff. Which shows you as a silly, ignorant, obnoxious Nazi (or Commie, you choose yourself) agitator. Well, a stubborn one, I'd grant you that mush.

However, I deem any further conversation with you as nonsensical.

414 posted on 11/04/2005 3:33:54 PM PST by Neophyte (Nazists, Communists, Islamists... what the heck is the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Neophyte

Neither Dutch, nor French, nor Russian ethnic groups existed BEFORE the relevant countries were created and matured. Every of these countries was founded by a bunch of different tribes, and no one of that tribes was called "French", or "Dutch", or "Russian".==

Yeah:))). Russian ethnicity already 1000 year old. I don't think that modern Russian state that old:). I don't think so. Same is for France or Denmark.

All I've told just now is an elementary school stuff. ==

Probably in that school where you learned that stuff there were problem with historical dates of events or else your teachers should know that russian ethnicity much older then modern russian state.

Which shows you as a silly, ignorant, obnoxious Nazi (or Commie, you choose yourself) agitator. Well, a stubborn one, I'd grant you that mush.==

Which show that you are abuse idiot which became mad and spit saliva on your opponents when your precious lies and disinformations got under scrutiny check:)).
You did it toward me, iva, jb6. SO shows that you just unintellegent thinker means stupid man.


415 posted on 11/05/2005 1:06:11 AM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
Dear kaiser it is not propaganda. Accually during soviet times they said that it is germans perpetrated Katyn massacre.

I see that you refer to only one sentence...How convienient. I've just proven that you lost your sence of reality by overestimating the death toll of POWs (5 times!!!) as a result of illnesses, in order to compare them with MURDER i Katyn. That was your response to the post wanting you to compare the death tolls in Russia and in Poland over the years.

It's like in a joke: Hey, Joe, I've heard that you got bitten in the forest prety hard!

Joe: Forest, what forest it was only a couple of trees...

416 posted on 11/08/2005 6:14:54 AM PST by kaiser80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: kaiser80

I see that you refer to only one sentence...How convienient. I've just proven that you lost your sence of reality by overestimating the death toll of POWs (5 times!!!) as a result of illnesses, in order to compare them with MURDER i Katyn. That was your response to the post wanting you to compare the death tolls in Russia and in Poland over the years. ==

Kaiser80 we haven't to fight over this. Katyn matter and the matter of perished soviet POWs in polish camps both belongs to SOVIET polish controversy. Not russian polish. For example those POWS was mostly belorusses and ukranians with minority of russians.
Stalin decided to revenge them so he let go home all polish POW soldiers but shot polish POW officers. Stalin again is no russian but soviet leader.
Then Stalin decides also to hide his action so he put blame on germans for Katyn hence SOVIET propaganda told it during all years. That is it.

No as I don't condone Stalin' revenge but I have to point out that it was revenge means REaction as reciprocal done in return AFTER respectful action of Poland. By simple language: IF you don't like that they shot your officers THEN you hadn't allow your own to kill soviet POWs firstly.

Anyways Russia is here just wrong party in this.

When you try to blame her for soviet misdeeds I from one side reply you that Poland wasn't without sins herself in those years and from other side it was polish-soviet conflicts NOT russian-polish.

I already tried to explain that for me and for many russians Pulsudskii' Poland is same as Stalin' Soviet Union. Similar actions under circumstances then same sins and same guilts.


417 posted on 11/08/2005 6:52:30 AM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
No as I don't condone Stalin' revenge but I have to point out that it was revenge means REaction as reciprocal done in return AFTER respectful action of Poland. By simple language: IF you don't like that they shot your officers THEN you hadn't allow your own to kill soviet POWs firstly.

LOL, so why do you write that Poles have killed 100.000 POWs?? What respectful action are you talking about? Man, o man. You have lost your ability to understand or you cant admit that you are anti-polish?

418 posted on 11/08/2005 6:57:45 AM PST by kaiser80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
That was the logic, incidentally, behind the sale of Alaska: in the 1850s...

Pretty sure it was 1868. "Seward's Folly." Seward was the US Secretary of State for Johnson as he had been under Lincoln.

419 posted on 11/08/2005 7:20:57 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaiser80

LOL, so why do you write that Poles have killed 100.000 POWs?? What respectful action are you talking about? Man, o man. You have lost your ability to understand or you cant admit that you are anti-polish?==

It is not me. It is well known fact in Russia. If you ask everyone then he will tell you same. There were about 100 thousands of soviet POWS taken by Pulsudskii army in 1921. No one returned home from polish camps.

Man deathes are deathes. You cann't explain to victims that your had best intentions. And the stubborn fact stands: polish side started killings of POWs first.


420 posted on 11/08/2005 12:05:13 PM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
As I said, 100.000 is a figure refering to POW's taken, 16.000-18.000 is a number of those who DIED. They weren't murdered, they died because of common, at that time, deadly flu and other diseases.

What you write is a soviet era propaganda, sad it's common in Russia.

I say it again 100.000 is a wrong figure.

Give some credible sources if you are so god damn sure what you are claiming.

421 posted on 11/08/2005 1:29:19 PM PST by kaiser80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: RusIvan
I can give you a clue where to look.

Giennadij F. Matwiejew, profesor of the Moscow University of Lomonosov (sorry for the translation) says that there were 170.000 POWs. To Russia returned in 1921 only 65.000. Because of that there was a suspition that the rest died. According to Mr. Mtwiejew and many other historians as prof. Karpus from those 170.000-200.000 POWs only 16-18000 died. DIED. Not 100.000!!

422 posted on 11/08/2005 2:32:25 PM PST by kaiser80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: kaiser80

As I said, 100.000 is a figure refering to POW's taken, 16.000-18.000 is a number of those who DIED. They weren't murdered, they died because of common, at that time, deadly flu and other diseases.==

Even if I accept your number anyways it means that deathes of POWs was started in Poland first. Maybe you think that if they wasn't murdered directly but died by hunger or deceases that it changed matters? I don't think so.

Just think about WW2. During WW2 about 3 millions of soviet POWs was died in german camps.
Same way germans may tell today they wasn't shot but died by hunger or deceases which is accually true. Germans indeed didn't shoot all this much of soveit POWs but simple they created unbearable conditions in thier camps and the result we have- 3 millions of dead soviet POWs.

Stalin went direct way. He simply let all polish soldiers go and ordered the execution of all captured polish officers. SO no more POW camps and dying in there. All who may die there, were shot.

For you since you are pole maybe Stalin direct action is most evil comparing with polish or german camps indirect actions or inactions which anyways caused dyings POWs. But for me nevertheless deathes are deathes.


423 posted on 11/09/2005 2:36:32 AM PST by RusIvan ("THINK!" the motto of IBM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-423 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson