Say hello to my little friend

Technicaly it was Soviet Union who made Cheburashka but I guess that is nitpicking. Perhaps Soviet Union should be a separate character as he is quite different from Russia.

@Rogers
I agree. Prussa, nazi germany and modern germany are different characters, so I think Brother Russia and Brother Soviet should be different characers as well.

@NeframeTheCosmonaut
Aye. There are some similarities, but mostly it's due to "luggage" that Brother Russia inherited from Soviet. Mainly being rivalry with EU and USA, and pack of nuclear weapons. There also been other things, such as oil, land, free healthcare and education, pretty respectful science advances and not bad industry... But you know the modern youth - "Spend lot, live fast, die young". Or so BR thinks, considering he at the moment has brain of a 65 years old. Which is pity - could've been doing much worse if not lost touch with what century he is living in.

@Ninian
I think it's too bad that Russia inherited the opinions people had of the soviet union. It's like the older generations are unaware that the soviet union ever fell. But I guess a big fleet and huge pile of nukes help make people feel uneasy.

@NeframeTheCosmonaut
Well, look on bright side! At least that excuses making money. For Shoigu, Putin, Medvedev and rest of politicians who gain from washing budget finances through military development to then either cancel projects and taking money to their pockets, or to sell this development to Turkey, India and other countries, again - making money for themselves.

At the end of day benefit banks abroad, where these money kept.

There is literally a summ, equal to a YEAR of GDP of Russian Federation, being kept on off-shore accounts of state officials.

On the other hand - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9zkCHNxxLE - if we are not getting them anyway, why not make sure that corrupted members of government will not see these money ever again as well.

@Ninian
Corruption truly is a threat to democracy. I hope you will be able to deal with it, it would be sad to see a nation just get wasted.
I feel like I shouldn't complain about military development, seeing that the economy of the city I live in is based on the production, export, and R&D of fighter jets, but it feels like that money could be better spent.

@NeframeTheCosmonaut How should Brother Soviet look and act? Most SatW characters seems to be parodies of national stereotypes, often from a Scandinavian perspective. That would make Brother Soviet a red scare stereotype. Perhaps a scary version of Russia with a ushanka and binoculars that he use to spy on everyone else.

@Rogers
I think he'll be wearing greatcoat, because of obsession with military - probably with some medals and small insignias pinned to his collar or sleeves, will have some emblem on his hat - either hammer and sickle or an enameled red star - hinting on other obsession, with symbolics, maybe will be having some scars - left from Russian Civil War and WWII. Or maybe not scars, but seams patching the coat in few places - hinting both on rough experience with combat and on the way how USSR was "sewn together" and de jure wasn't even a single country until 70s.

@Ninian

I second that idea completely - that's a well thought-out Soviet Union character.
And maybe not a beard but a mustache on him?

@Nisse_Hult
Well, on one hand that would help with difference, on the other - it's not like beards are even a modern cliche. I mean, unless we speak of really old people in villages - only hipsters, geologists and clerics wear beards there.

In USSR people actually were more often shaving clean, than today - but it was a cliche back then to depict soviets as bearded russian men in furhats. Recall how one depicted in "When the Wind Blows", for example - muscular, bearded, with small, fury-full eyes, fur hat, with machinegun ammo belts crossed over his chest. And he even has snowstorm breaking through the door behind him as he enters the scene. That is, at least, if I recall it correctly. My point is - I think Soviet should have beard. Maybe, at least, a Lenin-like goatee, but beard never the less. It actually suits him more than modern Russia.

@Ninian Yeah let's go with the Lenin beard to make him different to Brother Russia who is just one of the guys Brother Soviet keep in a cage with all the other Soviet republic stereotypes.

@Rogers
It is not a cage, it is called "communal apartment"! :P
https://cs8.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2016/06/19/10/1466359060177250549.png

...I figure "Countryballs" may be not too welcome there, but this picture just fits too well with idea of "guys being kept in". ^^'

@Ninian

No, I know beards wasn't actually a big thing even in the USSR - but you have to remember that foreigners stereotype of your nation are always really dated.

In the rest of the world - at least the western world, which is what I know - the stereotype of a Russian is still a man with a full beard. That's why Humon depicts brother Russia like she does of course.

My idea with the mustache was to differentiate comrade Soviet Union more from brother Russia - I was thinking of Stalin's mustache, which is actually a more well know Soviet facial hair in the west then Lenin's beard, I believe.

Might not be a pleasant reminder for Russian readers though, unfortunately. But then I don't think German readers like to be reminded of their past that much either. :-(

@Nisse_Hult
Well, if doing Stalin's mustache then could also do Brejnev's eyebrows, Khruschev's diastema and whatever that thing on Gorbachev's head is. :3

Come on, Union had more than one leader, these old bastards were pretty colorful and memorable. Amusingly enough, by the way, only one of people I mentioned is russian. Brejnev was moldovan - though, in papers was identifying either as russian, or as ukrainian, and Khruschev was ukrainian.


...so, we are not exactly ashamed of our past - first of all, it is hard to be ashamed when your family was among those on receiving end of crimes - and in ,for example, my family there was not a single bureaucrat of state as far as I know - second of all, our past has it's bright moments. Being deemed responsible for actions of dictator that put himself into post of head of state and resided there until his brain exploded with blood is, first and foremost, not justified. Especially considering that majority of living russians were not even born when he have died.

So, harsh reaction to Stalin-related accusations and generally bringing him up in conversation comes not from shame, but from fact we have nothing to do with the man, and with fact that dealing with people claiming otherwise becomes annoying with time. More than half of century passed since his demise, time to stop kicking the dead horse.

@Ninian

"Well, if doing Stalin's mustache then could also do Brejnev's eyebrows, Khruschev's diastema and whatever that thing on Gorbachev's head is. :3"

Problem is, neither Brejnev's nor Khruschev's physical characteristics are anywhere near as well known in the west as Stalin's mustache.

Every single western history schoolbook has at least one picture of Stalin in it, since he lead the Soviet Union during WWII, which is a major historic event.

Compared to him, no Soviet leader is as well known. I very much doubt it if young students today even know who Brejnev or Khruschev where.

Gorbatchev is probably in the textbooks though - because he presided over the dissolution (see - I took your advice ;-) of the Soviet Union.

But that also makes him a pretty bad example of a Soviet leader - since he's only remembered for ending the Union.

We've talked about history and how one should best treat it before.

All I like to reiterate is that Germany has rehabilitated it's history splendidly by speaking openly about the shit they're responsible for. And yes - a nation as a whole has a historical responsibility for the things it's done.
That doesn't mean every now living citizen in that country is personally responsible for the actions of since long dead people - but the nation as a whole still has a moral responsibility to it's historical record.

Openly talking about that and admitting the shit your nation has done is a good thing. Both for your relations to your neighbors - but also for your own society to process what it's gone through.

People need to process feelings they have, and it's good for society to get that shit processed instead of trying to suppress it.

We read in our papers how a Russian amateur historian who has been researching the graves of the people murdered in the purges of the 1930's is being persecuted by Russian authorities who on Putin's orders no longer want history to be spoken openly about.

Or how the new British dark comedy about the death of Stalin have been banned in Russia and some poor Russian theater which screened the film four times have been hit with a steep fine for doing so.

These are not good signs for a country I'm afraid. Nothing good ever comes from trying to suppress the historic truth and discuss it openly. :-(

@Nisse_Hult
"Problem is, neither Brejnev's nor Khruschev's physical characteristics are anywhere near as well known in the west as Stalin's mustache."

You're kidding! I mean, I can figure Khruschev's hole between teeth can be missed behind his shiny bald head, but these eyebrows? Bloody FBI could see them across the ocean without special tools - THAT is how big they were! Only lazy was not making jokes about them.

And well, on one hand I can imagine people being less familiar with them, on the other - one nearly blew up the planet and other was in his place for so long that only Putin can rival that time length.



And for all these comments - they are so obvious that they are useless. I am aware such acts of government are inadequate, and everybody else is as well. I am charmed newspapers abroad bothered to mention that, maybe next time they will mention some rally or other example of *response* to what government does.

@Ninian

No, as I said neither Brejnev nor Khrushchev are as well known in the west as Stalin.
Which isn't really strange.

How many of the German leaders who came after Hitler do you know?
And how many do younger Russian know, who weren't around when they where?

I know of Brejnev and Khrushchev - but then I've studied history and is interested in politics as well.

"And for all these comments - they are so obvious that they are useless. I am aware such acts of government are inadequate, and everybody else is as well. I am charmed newspapers abroad bothered to mention that, maybe next time they will mention some rally or other example of *response* to what government does."

We do get reports of protests in Russia as well some times, and today there was an article about a Russian media site operating from Latvia do avoid being banned.
But unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any question in western media whether Putin will win the election.
And as far as we can see from here, it seems he has rather broad support as well.

That's not to say that he would have won a fair election, but with almost all Russian media in his hand and the power of the state at his disposal, this obviously won't be a fair election.

My suspicion is many Russians support him because they simply doesn't know any better - lied to as they are by state media.

@Nisse_Hult
"We do get reports of protests in Russia as well some times, and today there was an article about a Russian media site operating from Latvia do avoid being banned."

Splendid..! Fuck the facts, who cares if we had ~30.000/40.000 people going on streets in Moscow alone for the Nemtsov's memory march. THAT is not an example of oppression and fuel for red scare, after all. So no need to put THAT into any article, right?

I understand when pro-Putin's media tries being silent on such events - that is what they get paid for, to present information that reinforces Putin's position. But why is so called "free" media abroad ignores the protests? What, if we didn't built a papermache dragon like french and gave third degree burns to policeman, scarring him for rest of his life and baking his eyes in the process - we do not deserve being mentioned? If we didn't had armored cars squashing people into bloodstains and just going on like it was nothing, like in Venesuela, we do not deserve being mentioned? If we did not had any maniac ramming a crowd with his car like in USA we do not deserve being mentioned?

What the FUCK is wrong with news on your side of my border?

Your "suspition" is, excuse me, garbage, provoked by lack of info! Not my fault whatever sources you use ignore events, as well as do BBC, New York Times and, I suppose, every single other foreign article. People went to streets in such cold that loudspeakers were breaking down, and for some reason media abroad turns blind eye to it.

So I ask you - what the fuck, and why? Why foreign media ignores these events? And do not tell me they are "insignificant" - if nobody *died* or got *crippled for life* it does not means protest is not effective - it means people here more mature when it comes to standing for their rights. So?

And I mean literally, look at THIS:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43202127

So THIS is important enough to be on BBC?

But THIS - https://cdni.rt.com/russian/images/2018.02/article/5a92afc318356136718b45d6.JPG - is NOT?

@Ninian

You apparently neither read what I wrote, nor goggled very effectively.

I wrote:

"We do get reports of protests in Russia as well some times"

And goggling "Nemtsov's memory march" which you mentioned, amongst other western media gives you this result from BBC, which you just ridiculed for mentioned someone arrested over protesting with an inflatable duck:

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-43192010/thousands-attend-nemtsov-memorial-march-in-moscow

So yes, protest in Russia ARE covered in the west.
Certainly not as extensively as the few independent Russia media sources that still exists - but it is covered.

And you have to remember - media in every country is of course more interested in and more knowledgeable about their national affairs then foreign affairs.

I promise you there are a lot of things happening in other countries your media (either state loyal or independent) doesn't cover as well as media in those countries does - that's only natural.
I can assure you there are protests against leaders in any number of nations right now that neither you nor I know anything about, because our media doesn't cover those protests very well.
But Russia is a large and important country, so we do still get reports in western media about protest in your country.

"THAT is not an example of oppression and fuel for red scare, after all. So no need to put THAT into any article, right?"

You're the victim of your own prejudice here.
You BELIEVE that western media could only possibly be interested in what happens in Russia if it shows examples of oppression or can be used to fuel a red scare - and unfortunately that's precisely what Putin (and before him Soviet propaganda) WANTS all Russians to believe.

That we in the west only want to look down on Russia and it's people and portray the worst possible image of you to fuel our own propaganda - but that's not actually the case!

Of course there are such people here - just as there are people with those views in Russia against the west.

But as I've said before - the vast majority of westerners doesn't have anything against ordinary Russians - we've never had.

We haven't liked and we still don't like your leaders for the policies they pursue, but it's not like we wish the Russian people ill.

As someone from a neutral country in Europe, caught in the middle between two super powers for most of my life, I can tell you most people here if anything judge Americans more harshly then Russians.

Americans after all elect their own bad leaders in (kind of) democratic elections - while you Russians have little real choice in who leads you.

So no - the vast majority of people in the west simply doesn't view Russia the way you think.
We get that you're ruled - and has for centuries - been ruled by despots who manipulate you to strengthen their own grip on power.

They want you to view us as the enemy - but most of us have never thought of you that way.

Your leaders now, the communist party who oppressed you and the Tsars and the nobility before then - that's another matter.

But we've never had any beef with the majority of the Russian people and we want nothing else for you then to become a stable democracy and have peaceful and prosperous relations with us.

In part because that's obviously what would be in your best interest - but also, obviously, that it would be in ours.

Because democracies don't start wars against each other. However much they disagree they solve their differences at the conference table.
And no rational person in the west wants conflicts or heavens forbid war with Russia - that just brings misery for everyone of course.

@Nisse_Hult
****"So yes, protest in Russia ARE covered in the west."

Only that coverage is shorter than cooking instruction on pack of spaghetti. And several times shorter than "rubber duck" article, which was on the main page on BBC, among few other news from last few days.


****"that's precisely what Putin WANTS all Russians to believe"

No, *he* wants people to believe these protests do not happen at all and that villa Selgren is not owned by him. He wants everything to be quiet, so he can maintain his corrupted status quo.

"That we in the west only want to look down on Russia and it's people and portray the worst possible image of you to fuel our own propaganda - but that's not actually the case!" - hey, it isn't me asking things like "you won't get in trouble for watching that movie?" and "are there any independent media in your country?". As well as not me claiming that Putin has broad support of people whom he shits on 24/7 for past six years. I make conclusions based on *my own* observations.


****"Your leaders now, the communist party who oppressed you and the Tsars and the nobility before then - that's another matter."

Though, in age of monarchy we kept switching friends like white gloves on a ball, befriending England, France, England again, Prussia and Austria, then having Crimean War and hating everybody for brief moment, then befriending France and England again... Then being invaded by them during Civil War... Though that's another story.

And in USSR existed that idea of "Friendship of Nations", not in first half of Union's existence, but in the second one, when country became more open - despite the "Iron Curtain" idea was that humanity can coexist in peace and unite, just some parts of it need more time to grow into communism. Did not exactly worked same way as it was on paper, but never the less - people were given idea of viewing foreigners not as enemies - that is among common, regular citizens.

And nowadays, well... What do you know, government claims that we are invincible, that sanctions and other conflicts do not harm - benefit even - our economy, and that there is no serious conflict at all. Sure, there are few sources that are sowing distrust, but still appears it isn't a main aim of state media's rhetorics.

It is, actually, independent bloggers and websites that claim that now, when off-shore accounts of many officials are frozen, they can be forced into following interests of foreign governments for sake of preserving their wealth. Though from my observations - they hardly follow any of our national interests, since our market is overflown with imports even now, and since our main exports are still raw materials. *Cheap* raw materials. Raw materials from our soil, a thing that have been historically called "natural riches" - which flows in Europe and China for prices able to make laugh even a cashier at village supermarket.

So, are you certain there are ~no~ people on other side of RF border who are interested in our country being screwed up..? And instead of developing industry and innovations - selling raw oil, timber and grain as it's main exports?

@Ninian

"Only that coverage is shorter than cooking instruction on pack of spaghetti. And several times shorter than "rubber duck" article, which was on the main page on BBC, among few other news from last few days."

So you cherry-pick one article you don't like and claim western media didn't cover a particular protest - and when I show you they did with one link, you change your claim to basically "but that's only ONE link - and my duck-story is much longer!".

Well that one link was a video, which makes it kind of hard to compare in length to an article.
Also, that link is obviously not the only one reporting on that protest in western media.

It's obvious you just have a preconceived opinion that you're not willing to change, no matter what anyone else shows you.

Well the fact is that of course media in the west covers what happens in Russia, as Russia is one of the most important countries in the world.

But like I said before, all regular media - in every country - is more interested in national stories then international stories - because that's what their readers are most interested in.
They will obviously cover national, and even local stories, in more detail then they do international.
The same is true in Russia as well.

On top of that, Russia is a difficult country to work in for foreign journalists. Any country where journalists are routinely murdered or jailed for reporting stories the government doesn't want to see in print, obviously is.

So while Russia obviously is covered in western media, their coverage will not usually be as full and in depth as the coverage you can find in what few independent media that still remains in Russia.

"No, *he* wants people to believe these protests do not happen at all and that villa Selgren is not owned by him. He wants everything to be quiet, so he can maintain his corrupted status quo."

He wants that too.
But like I said, he also wants you to believe this:

"You BELIEVE that western media could only possibly be interested in what happens in Russia if it shows examples of oppression or can be used to fuel a red scare - and unfortunately that's precisely what Putin (and before him Soviet propaganda) WANTS all Russians to believe."

Those are two different things, but both are important to create the false narrative that strengthens his grip on power.

He wants Russians to believe that most people are behind him, a simple man of the people, only working selflessly for Mother Russia - like you said, more or less.
AND he wants Russians to see foreigners - especially the west and the US - as the enemy that only he can defend you all from.
The first lie is to make himself out to be the only suitable leader for all Russians to unite behind - the other lie is to claim there is an enemy that Russians must unite against.
Without either of those lies, there wouldn't be a need for him.

"hey, it isn't me asking things like "you won't get in trouble for watching that movie?" and "are there any independent media in your country?". As well as not me claiming that Putin has broad support of people whom he shits on 24/7 for past six years. I make conclusions based on *my own* observations."

I ask those things because I don't live in Russia so I don't know how bad things actually are. You do - so I ask you.
The news reports we get in the west does of course not answer all questions. We know Russian media is being suppressed - but not exactly how the suppression works.
I'm old enough to remember the Soviet Union, and have spoken to people who grew up there, so I know a little about how bad it was back then - but I'm not sure how complete the suppression of truth and information is today.

The FSB could certainly be surveilling internet traffic of ordinary Russians if they wanted - but from your replies it doesn't seem that's anything you're worried about anyway.

Regarding Putin's support, it's the common analysis in the west that Putin does enjoy rather broad support in Russia.
That's not to say that he has legitimately earned that support - but rather that he, by controlling the media and suppressing any real threats to his position, have framed himself as the only real option for many Russians.
Meaning that this support isn't actually earned, but fabricated.
And given a real, democratic choice, it's quite probable that he wouldn't be reelected again.

So it's not that we in the west believe that Russians enthusiastically support Putin - it's more that we believe that many Russians believe that they have no other choice, and that many - especially older Russians, who remember the Soviet Union - probably doesn't dare oppose the government.

You may disagree and that analysis may be wrong - but that's the picture we get in the west anyway.

"Though, in age of monarchy we kept switching friends like white gloves on a ball, befriending England, France, England again, Prussia and Austria, then having Crimean War and hating everybody for brief moment, then befriending France and England again... Then being invaded by them during Civil War... Though that's another story."

Most great powers did at that time. It was easy switching allegiance when the leaders didn't have to convince their people that a country that had just been their enemy was now their friend and vice versa.

"And in USSR existed that idea of "Friendship of Nations", not in first half of Union's existence, but in the second one, when country became more open - despite the "Iron Curtain" idea was that humanity can coexist in peace and unite, just some parts of it need more time to grow into communism. Did not exactly worked same way as it was on paper, but never the less - people were given idea of viewing foreigners not as enemies - that is among common, regular citizens."

Yes, everything became better after Stalin of course. And the propaganda frankly smarter. Suspecting anyone who's ever talked to a foreigner of being a spy and sending them all to the Gulags or shooting them wasn't a very sustainable idea.
Continuing down that Stalinist path is what made present day North Korea into the hellhole it is.

"And nowadays, well... What do you know, government claims that we are invincible, that sanctions and other conflicts do not harm - benefit even - our economy, and that there is no serious conflict at all. Sure, there are few sources that are sowing distrust, but still appears it isn't a main aim of state media's rhetorics."

Well, if I got Putin right from his propaganda speech the other day, his story is that now that Putin is in charge, the rest of the world must listen to Russia.
Before we apparently all tried to screw you over, but then Big Daddy Putin built some magical wonder weapons, and now all Russians are safe and the rest of us quiver in our boots at Russia's might.

Well, as I've told you before, that talk about the US missile defenses are just stupid propaganda. No serious analyst in the west has even ever claimed they could stop a massive Russian launch of missiles - that's just not true.
They have a decent chance of stopping on-off missiles from small nations like Iran or North Korea, who only has the capacity to launch one or two missiles at once.
These missiles are small an incredibly fast - it's REALLY hard to shot them down.
But if you have to track just one or two you can focus all your tracking radars at them and have a decent chance, launching multiple missiles to intercept.

While a massive launch from Russia is just impossible to stop - Russia has more ICBM:s then the US has anti-missile battery's of the kind that could even track them.

So as I said before - Russia doesn't actually need new nuclear submarines as no one would dare strike you anyway. And you don't need missiles to evade a US anti-missile system that could never stop a massive Russian launch anyway - and was never even designed too.

Reagan talked up his "Star Wars"-program in the 80's - satellites with lasers shooting down ICBM:s in space - but that never worked and was never built.

But Putin obviously want to restart a cold war in hopes of getting the Russian people to support him, in fear of the evil west.

While we in the west are much more interested in our latest TV shows and celebrity gossip.

The sanctions are there because Putin invaded Crimea and are messing with the Ukraine. That most westerns doesn't like, because we believe that if you don't stop a bully when he picks on someone - you might well be next.

And now of course Putin is only upping the ante, by messing with almost every election in the west, trying to undermine our democratic institutions.
Which of course will only lead to more sanctions, sooner or later.

Then Russian athletes got barred from competing under the Russian flag in the winter Olympics - again because Putin pushed government supported doping on a massive scale in the Sochi Olympics.

So all of this is just based on Putin's own actions - but of course he won't admit that to the Russian people. So I guess it's all presented as the evil west's plan against Russia, just because we hate you without any rational reason.

And Putin himself probably sees either result as a win. Either the rest of the world let's him get away with it - or we take some action to stop him, and then he uses that as an excuse to tell his own people the rest of the world all hates Russia.

Well we don't - but we don't like bullies like Putin.

"It is, actually, independent bloggers and websites that claim that now, when off-shore accounts of many officials are frozen, they can be forced into following interests of foreign governments for sake of preserving their wealth. Though from my observations - they hardly follow any of our national interests, since our market is overflown with imports even now, and since our main exports are still raw materials. *Cheap* raw materials. Raw materials from our soil, a thing that have been historically called "natural riches" - which flows in Europe and China for prices able to make laugh even a cashier at village supermarket."

I don't think that would ever happen - and there is certainly no evidence of it so far.
Instead, Putin only seems to be doubling down on this conflict with the west, and the only action he seems to be taking is to try to get the sanction targeting the men around him personally revoked - the so called "Magnitsky Act".
That was what the meeting between the Russians and Trumps son and other campaign leaders in Trump Tower before the US election was all about - Putin only cares about lifting the Magnitsky Act, because that's the one hurting him and his friends personally.
They've stashed away billions abroad in real estate and other property, as well as bank accounts, and now that's all frozen.
All those money they worked so hard to steal from the Russian people, just sitting there.

Note that the larger economic sanctions against Russia is not what Putin wanted Trump to rescind - because those sanctions doesn't directly hurt him and his friends, and they give him a grievance to attack the west over.
No, what he wanted Trump to do was release his own and his friends personal fortunes - because that's what he really cares about, of course.

No, of course Putin isn't promoting Russia's national interest - he's only doing what's best for himself, personally.

Economic sanctions from the west over Russia's occupation of the Crimea and the intervention in the Ukraine isn't in Russia's national interest of course - and neither are the occupation or the intervention itself.

Focusing on Russia's national interests would be to develop your infrastructure, diversify your economical base away from relying on exports of cheap natural resources to more refined products, investing more in education, healthcare and social programs and less in pointless new nuclear subs.

That would strengthens Russia long-term. But strongmen like Putin isn't interested in the long-term - they only want to cling on to power as long as they can, and suck out as much profit as they can along the way.

Which is why the Magnitsky Act is such a good idea - because it hit's Putin and his cronies right in the balls.

Such an act could never have worked on Hitler for instance - because he wasn't in power to enrich himself personally. He had a fucked-up ideological plan for Germany that he actually followed and he never stashed away money abroad in case he would have lost power. While strongmen like Putin always have a back-up plan and a helicopter on stand-by, waiting to fly them away from the angry crowd if their people ever turn on then.
Then their money and contact can buy them a safe retirement in some dictatorship or other, where they can live comfortably for the rest of their lives.

"So, are you certain there are ~no~ people on other side of RF border who are interested in our country being screwed up..? And instead of developing industry and innovations - selling raw oil, timber and grain as it's main exports?"

Oh, I never said that! Of course there are always people wanting to make a quick buck. They're called "venture capitalists" today - but they've always been around throughout history.
But you get that "interested in our country being screwed up"-part wrong.
Those people doesn't care what country they hurt - they're only in it for the money.
Swedish venture capitalists happily fucks Sweden and Swedes over any chance they get - because they think making money is an excuse that absolves all sins.
And the same goes for American or British or French venture capitalist in their own nations as well.

Applying this old nationalist view that foreigners wish your country harm is most often simply wrong. They're only in it for the money, they have no ideological or nationalist motive for their actions.

Also, the worst such cases can only happen if the country in question doesn't have the will to stop the exploitation - and that's up to the leadership in the country.

Countries ruled by strongmen like Putin usually sell of state property dirt cheap to foreigners - because as I said, they don't have a long-term interest in the nation, but are only out to make as much profit as they can why they're still in power.

That's one of the major reason Cuba turned Communist and ended up firmly on the side of the Soviet Union, actually.

While Castro was conducting his guerilla campaign, before he came to power, he repeatedly stated that he was not a communist and didn't want to break of relation with the US or anything like that.
He only wanted his people to have a better deal then they where getting under the US-backed dictator Batista.

Then he took power, and the reality was that Batista had sold of most of the fertile lands of Cuba to the US-owned United Fruit Company.
Cuba couldn't feed it's own people on the land that was left, because United Fruit was growing cheap cash crops like bananas for US consumption.

So Castro traveled to the US and said that Cuba must get to buy some of this land back as cheaply as it was sold - or their people would starve.
Well the US congress refused, instead backing the United Fruit Company and demanding that Castro and the new government honor the contracts Batista had signed.
While everyone of course knew that Batista had sold his peoples land for basically nothing, since he didn't care if they starved anyway.

Well of course no country can accept such extortion, and the US backing the failed Bay of Pigs invasion didn't make relations better either.
So Castro went to Moscow, declared himself a communist and Cuba ended up in the Warsaw-pact camp.
With Soviet protection Castro could nationalize the land and feed his people - and United Fruit got nothing at all in compensation.

But the United Fruit Company didn't buy that land to specifically screw Cuba - they just wanted somewhere to grow their cheap bananas to make a profit in the US.
They didn't care that they hurt Cuba or the Cuban people, no - but they also didn't specifically set out to do that.
They where just greedy - and for that they ended up getting nothing when the Cuban state simply took the land back without paying anything for it.

Which is probably what will happen in Russia as well, the day Putin is gone and you get an honest leader that cares about Russia in place.
Not that I think there are many foreign companies owning a lot of land in Russia - but there are certainly a lot of Russians around Putin, who have bought things from the Russian state for almost nothing that will sooner all later lose what they basically stole.
That's why they need to stash all that profit overseas - where they hoped it was safe from the Russian people ever getting it back.

@Nisse_Hult
That comedy about his death is awesome, though. :3

@Ninian

So you've been able to see it anyway then? How?

Is it through pirate copies online, or are there actually places that screen it despite the ban?

Would be nice to hear that more Russians think like you and aren't afraid to ignore the governments orders - but I'm not sure how safe it is, doing that in Russia today?

@Nisse_Hult
"So you've been able to see it anyway then? How?" - it's called "Internet". You put words in Google and then get a website or, in my case, a torrent and download the thing. I would hardly be interested in dubbed version of film with a good actors, if I can understand them anyway.

"Would be nice to hear that more Russians think like you and aren't afraid to ignore the governments orders - but I'm not sure how safe it is, doing that in Russia today? " - it is perfectly safe, and for cases of fabricated abuse exist remedies. Most effective of which being the rapid spread of information. Took about nine days to shove the fine up arse of judge that gave it to man who had photo of soviet soldiers with captured nazist flags on Red Square, that through magic of bureaucracy turned into "extremist propaganda of nazism". Once story went public and started an action inspired by Navalniy - the accusation got reverted, and in Duma got proposed project of taking down the penalties for demonstration of nazist symbolic if it is not used for propaganda of nazism.

On one hand sensitive people may wrinkle their noses in disgust at having slacker restriction on symbolic of quite a hateful ideology, but de facto it is a tool of government being pulled at by people, in attempt to take it away.

There is much more citizens in Russian Federation, than politicians. And acts of bullshit and violence aimed against citizens are being responded to by them.

@Ninian

"it's called "Internet". You put words in Google and then get a website or, in my case, a torrent and download the thing. I would hardly be interested in dubbed version of film with a good actors, if I can understand them anyway."

No need to be rude - I gave the internet as an option, or possibly a place screening the movie.
I didn't know a movie like this would be dubbed in Russia - I don't even know if dubbing is common in Russia or not.

"it is perfectly safe" - that's good to hear

"Took about nine days to shove the fine up arse of judge that gave it to man who had photo of soviet soldiers with captured nazist flags on Red Square, that through magic of bureaucracy turned into "extremist propaganda of nazism"."

I hadn't heard about that, but it seems completely ridiculous to try to claim photos of Russian soldiers with captured Nazi flags on the Read Square as "extremist propaganda of nazism", considering the Red Army made a huge pile of captured Nazi flags at the victory parade there right after the war.

Pictures from that occasion is in a lot of history books, and it was used in Soviet propaganda as well of course. Certainly not propaganda FOR Nazism in any way - to show the flags of their defeated armies thrown on the ground.

"There is much more citizens in Russian Federation, than politicians. And acts of bullshit and violence aimed against citizens are being responded to by them."

Of course there are - but that's always been the case, through your history.
And that fact has unfortunately not let the Russian people escape oppression from terrible leaders.
You're young but I know many older Russians still don't feel safe speaking their mind in their own country, unfortunetly.

You called that comedy awesome.
I just saw it and while I appreciate it's a dark comedy, it also made me kind of sick and sad.
Because in broad strokes, all the things depicted in the movie did happen.

Millions upon millions of people murdered for no reason what so ever, unspeakable brutality and injustice and countless other crimes was committed against the Russian people - and by their own leaders.

It's easy to see why Putin tries to paint the rest of the world - especially the west - as responsible for everything bad that's ever happened to and is today happening to Russia, to shore up support for himself.

But I really think the Russian people would be better served for the future if you dealt with all the shit you've been through honestly.

It's really insane that there are still people trying to portray Stalin like some father figure, when he was clearly a paranoid butcher.

Once again I can recommend the German approach:

A couple of years ago there was a great debate in Germany when Madame Tussauds - the famous British wax works - opened a museum in Berlin.

Now in London they have a wax work of Hitler - and they have one in all of their other museums they've open around the world - so they wanted one in Berlin as well.

But many Germans opposed the very idea - believing it to be inappropriate to honor him in that way.

So on the first day they opened only the second visitor to enter the museum shoved aside two museum employees and ripped the head of the dummy.

Now that's a proper response from citizens to their old massmurdering dictator fucks I think. ;-)

@Nisse_Hult
****"I didn't know a movie like this would be dubbed in Russia - I don't even know if dubbing is common in Russia or not."

It is dubbed. Only the hiccup with government prevented it from being aired, it is available in all cinema theaters it was supposed to be shown in, only now they can not show it at the time, and so it just lies there, with no use.


"Now that's a proper response from citizens to their old massmurdering dictator fucks I think. ;-) " - it's vandalism of museum's property. Hitler will not get hotter or colder wherever he is from having a museum exhibit ruined, and being *known* is not same as being *honored*. It *is* important to remember, *who* these people were, and, for example, *how* they got in positions they are in. Sure, Hitler usurped Germany after Hinderburg's death via, basically, a coup. But before that he guided his party in parlament, he became a prime minister even..! He did not fell out of the sky, and he emerged in democratic society - which is even more relevant to modern day, than Stalin, or emperor Heliogabalus - man whom history tried to forget... Who knows, maybe story of corrupted ruler that entered Rome through gates with a giant obsidian dick carried behind and exited in pieces through the Tiber would have been the valuable lesson that people lacked.

It is *important* to remember these people. Remember much more than just them - but, for example, as much as people do not like Ivan IV - does not means he can be forgotten. Man who brought terror on his people, murdered his own son, and left country devastated and open for foreign occupation. It is just important to remember people who fix mess created by terrible ones - people like Minin and Pojarskiy and people like Konrad Adenauer.


Humanity has no right to be forgetting tyrants it produces, and people who then fix the societies and countries after them. And people who can't handle that - should get some medication and help, because there is nowhere to hide from history.

Again, I point that I talk not about plaguing people with one or other terrible person from their history, but about necessity of *remembering* these people. Knowing their stories, motivations, *methods* - and results of their actions.

@Ninian

"It is dubbed."

Ok. So that's the norm for all foreign movies screened in Russia then?

"it's vandalism of museum's property"

Yes it is, and everyone agrees about that. But sometimes vandalism of physical objects can be defended to make a larger point.
And the man who did this happily took the fine to make his point - and many other people supported his action.

Now of course you can disagree about the value of ripping the head of a wax figure and of course nothing we do today will in any way effect Hitler - but that's not the point.

You talk about the necessity of remembering "these people" - which sounds a lot like the argument in the US from apologists of the old Confederacy about how "we can't erase history" when it comes to the question of statues over Confederate leaders.

Well of course we can't erase history and of course we won't forget these people - no serious person ever claimed we could or should do such a thing.
But we can certainly remember history and the people in it without erecting statues over them or turning them into wax figures.

Many, many important persons from history have never had statues erected over them or wax figures made in their likeness, and we still remember those.

So let's first agree that statues and wax figures aren't in any way necessary to remember people from history, shall we?

Now in the question of statues I think most reasonable people can agree we actually only erect those over people we want to HONOR - right?
No one ever erected a statue over someone they thought was a despicable human being - no matter how important that person was in history.

A wax figure is a different matter, as wax works like Madame Tussauds have always had a "chamber of horrors" where they've depicted infamous murderers and scenes of torture and such.

In Madame Tussauds in London, when I was there decades ago, they didn't display their Hitler figure in the hall of other politicians and historical leaders, but rather he stood alone in the stairway, half way down into the basement where the chamber of horrors were located. A clear statement that he wasn't afforded the same status as other leaders, but should be seen as closer to a infamous mass murderer then an honorable leader.

So I'm actually more OK with Hitler being turned into a wax figure.

I can understand where Madame Tussauds comes from - there is actually long historical precedent of doing wax figures even of despised people.

On the other hand I can also understand why doing so is more sensitive in different countries with a different relationship to the person being turned into a wax figure - like Germany in the case of Hitler.

And if Madame Tussauds ever opens a museum in Israel I can't imagine even they'd consider putting a wax figure of Hitler on display there - I think even they would understand that would be completely inappropriate.

Because context matters, obviously.

And I (and many Germans, from the looks of the debate) actually think displaying a wax figure of Hitler, in Berlin, within walking distance from the bunker he died in as well as the huge monument over the people murdered in the Holocaust he orchestrated, is actually tasteless and pointless from a historic standpoint.

We all know what he looked like - there s simply no need to display a wax figure of him. Neither in London nor Berlin, really.
But the context of Berlin, which was his seat of power and where he lead his massmurdering rampage from, in my mind worsens displaying such a figure from simply pointless to downright tasteless.

At least as long as there are still idiots who see him as a hero.

Germany does well by reminding people that Hitler certainly wasn't and that he only brought death and destruction to Germany.
So why ever risk doing anything that can be perceived by anyone as honoring an asshole like that?

He'll be in the history books forever for the crimes he perpetrated and wars he started - I think that's quite enough for us to remember him by.

@Nisse_Hult
****"Ok. So that's the norm for all foreign movies screened in Russia then?"

Pretty much. We do have our own movies as well, even have a so called "cinema fund" - which supposed to provide finances for promising new movie makers. Instead it acts as shit-Midas, turning every film it sponsors into an empty flop, filled of nothing but advertising. So main supplier of films in our movie theaters is still Hollywood.


****"from apologists of the old Confederacy"

...which started not because of issue of slavery alone. A fact that chunk of USA population is as happy to erase as Bolsheviks were happy to erase February Revolution and to claim that THEY have forced emperor into abdication.

So yes, I believe I sound very similar to these people - my country already went through age of denial of historical facts and that resulted in... Let me see... Tyranny, government isolated from people, corruption, wars, repressions, terror, landgrabs, and enormous amount of other despeakable acts through history of the Union, as well as left a fertile soil for new wave of propaganda.


****"no serious person ever claimed we could or should do such a thing"

Absolutely, people were never vanishing from history or being replaced by somebody else.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z5568NtjN-w/U6YTG2gWfwI/AAAAAAAAE1o/kXh4Dt8pwNo/s1600/Image+22.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Septimusseverustondo.jpg
https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/52af7f81eab8eaf20465faca-960-551.jpg
https://cdn8.openculture.com/2017/08/20195102/soviet-censorship-naval-commissar-vanishes.jpg
http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/abraham-lincoln-doctored-photoshopped-john-calhoun-body.jpg?w=800&h=534


****"most reasonable people can agree we actually only erect those over people we want to HONOR - right?"

Wrong. Statue is not a thing person earns purely through good accomplishment. Sometimes statues - are works of art, and sometimes they are works of art that are just showing something that sculptor viewed as important to memorize in stone or metal. Not always it is something honorable, or pleasant. Though, much easier is to show that in paintings. But statues - exist too.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/59/76/14/5976141fc0875411761b80e22f483bfd.jpg
https://amanyadic.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/dsc1417.jpg?w=662
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oj_sE8VLCHc/TwjTKus70wI/AAAAAAAAAng/0zNZf2HPcO4/s1600/Rizal+Execution_n.jpg
http://www.geocaching.su/photos/areas/4424.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/f8/6e/26/f86e2652831695f865aca470b7073255--battle-of-borodino-french-army.jpg
http://asbarez.com/App/Asbarez/eng/2015/04/Syd-1.png
http://firstnewz.ru/uploads/posts/2018-01/15153567071pamjatnik.jpeg
https://media0ch-a.akamaihd.net/67/79/5da213f567a63d79fd75ed2097f04e18.jpg

And sometimes these statues are dedicated to memory of sorrowful events, or to memory of people who perished in wars - soldiers included. Tell me, how many memorials to soldiers of Germany that perished in WWII do you know? Were crimes of their commanders and of some of them so dire, that *none* of them deserves being remembered as a human being, and not a stereotypic "bad guy" from movies and video games..? And where *else* do they even appear mentioned, at all? Exactly.


****"At least as long as there are still idiots who see him as a hero."

You plan to wait until the thermal death of the universe itself? There are ALWAYS people with unorthodox views on things. Some people thing the Earth is flat, some thing homeopathy is effective, some are certain eating past 6 PM leads to obesity, some are sure Angelina Jolie's chest is real, and some are pretty sure it is normal for Merkel to go on a 4th term as head of government.

People not always agree in everything. Especially when they get selective with the information.


****"he only brought death and destruction to Germany"
Reduced unemployment, stabilized national currency, gave the start to construction of "Autoban", increased state industry and introduced "marriage loans" for newly created families. That is to name few things he brought to Germany along with racism, genocide, war and destruction.

Like it or not, even monstrous persons sometimes do things right, and it is also important to remember because sometimes people do things right - and you forgive them some amount of corruption, calculating that their accomplishments compensate their crimes.

Stalin brought industrialization to Soviet Union, de facto *created* the said Union in first place, made it endure in WWII and laid foundation to developments achieved after his death.

Napoleon Bonaparte brought sanctity of private property, equality in face of law and social competition based not on heritage, but on merit.

Boudica liberated her people from yoke of romans and avenged death of her husband and rape of her daughters, united tribes of eastern Albion.


Stalin - heavy casualties in WWII, famines in time of peace, repressions, executions, forced labor camps, abdication of people right from their homes and manipulation of citizens into assistance in these inhuman practices by promise of material rewards.

Napoleon - war that ruined several countries of Europe, appointed himself as monarch, rejecting the democratic practices, drained country by sweeping more than a whole generation of people into military service and wars.

Boudica - doomed her people into even worse yoke, as well as eradicated tens of thousands of people - hanged, burned, cut in pieces, impaled and crucified. Not soldiers - citizens from roman cities. With additional violence killed noble women, sacrificing them to Adnraste.



Every person with sweet words can be a liar, an abuser, wishing to use people for their personal ambitions. Or worse - sincerely believing that their course of actions, regardless of how much of butchering of innocents it involves - can be necessary for well being of these people.

Every tyrant, every monster in our history achieved their high position not through the crime and treachery alone, nobody is 100% pure villain, all the evil made by these people goes hand by hand with some good. Some right decisions, some good traits, some wise ideas - which in eyes of people living at the time could outweigh or obscure the crimes.


THAT is how tyrants and criminals supposed to be remembered. With bad - and good, with fact that each contained *both*. People, who deal with big responsibility, deserve no tolerance and forgiveness - they to be judged with no remorse. If they commit crimes - they are to answer for those crimes, no matter what good they are bringing to the country or the people in the process.

@Ninian

"Pretty much."

Then you're smart to avoid them - even when they're screened legally.

Germany dubs everything as well, and most Germans English pronunciation is terrible as a result, because they never heard how English should be spoken growing up.
The fact that we don't dub in Scandinavia is, I believe, the main reason English speakers believe we all speak English well - because we at least sound more like them.
That's not to say we all speak fluent English by any means - we don't. But the words we do know, most of us at least know how to pronounce better then Germans it seems.

"which started not because of issue of slavery alone"

It really did. Apologists for the Confederacy have been trying to claim otherwise ever since they lost the war, but the simple fact is that if you read the rebelling states declarations of succession from the Union and other relevant documents from the time, slavery is basically the only issue they talk about.

Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, for instance gave a speech defending the creation of the Confederacy in the weeks before open hostilities began. This has since been dubbed "The Cornerstone Speech" for his description of what the very foundation of the Confederacy was:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

So yeah - it was all about slavery, really.

But of course that became an inconvenient fact as soon as the war was lost, so other excuses had to be invented - and have been perpetuated ever since.

Of course there are individuals in all nations - stupid nationalists most often - who always refuse to admit any negative historical facts about their nation.
But there are also other, usually smaller groups of people, that for different reasons refuse to admit that some group they feel allegiance to ever did anything wrong.

But only if these group become a very large minority of even a majority of the population, they become a real threat to the country's future.
Because not accepting the historical truth and the mistakes you've been through as a nation means you can't move on from them.

Racism is still such a huge issue in the US, because the south after the civil war was allowed to basically ignore the results of their defeat and continue mistreating their black citizens. They where freed by federal law, but still treated terribly for another 100 years before the civil rights movement. And still today of course, the US is a far more racist society then western Europe.

And now, of course, they've even gone and elected themselves a president who can't unequivocally denounce ACTUAL Nazis, marching under ACTUAL Nazi flags, chanting ACTUAL Nazi slogans.

If the US had dealt with that shit back then, there wouldn't be any Confederate statues to fight over now, because everyone would know it's a fucking stupid idea to honor racists, traitorous, losers.

"Absolutely, people were never vanishing from history or being replaced by somebody else."

The examples you give are all from ancient times (when different rulers did, unsuccessfully, try to eradicate people from history), and the communists dictatorships of the Soviet Union and China (the second copying the first).

But none of these attempts succeeded - otherwise you couldn't post those links.
Try as they may, not even dictators can actually erase history. They may suppress it for a time in the country they control - but eventually the truth will come out.
At least now in modern times.

If we go back to antiquity and before, there may have been important people successfully erased from history - we can't know that for absolutely sure as there are very few sources to go by.

But today we can be sure it not only can't happen - but also that no credible person even argues for it to be done.

No one has ever said "let's erase all trace of the Confederacy from history" - that would be just stupid. What people have said is "let's take these statues down, honoring racist, traitorous, losers".

And that's of course something completely different.

"Wrong. Statue is not a thing person earns purely through good accomplishment. Sometimes statues - are works of art, and sometimes they are works of art that are just showing something that sculptor viewed as important to memorize in stone or metal. Not always it is something honorable, or pleasant. Though, much easier is to show that in paintings. But statues - exist too."

Actually it's not.
Statues are, according to Merriam-Webster, defined as:

"a three-dimensional representation usually of a person, animal, or mythical being that is produced by sculpturing, modeling, or casting"

Now we can forget about animals or mythical beings here, since they're not the issue - so we're talking about statues of "a person".
What you're thinking of is sculptures, which is a wider concept.

Now I don't know what almost any of the links you depicted are supposed to represent - but only the last two are actually statues to begin with.
Many of them show more then one person, at which point they are known as a "sculpture group" and others are either not a person or a statue (the girl in the block of stone is a relief for instance).

But the last two are statues of individual persons.

I have no idea who the first one is, but I guess you can tell me. My guess is he wasn't despised by the people who made the statue of him either - even if he seems to have fallen out of favor since.

The other is a picture of a statue of a Confederate soldier torn down in the US last year - I remember seeing it being torn down when it happened.

That statue was erected to HONOR Confederate soldiers - men who fought to keep others enslaved.

"Tell me, how many memorials to soldiers of Germany that perished in WWII do you know?"

I know one I've seen personally in Crete of all places. It was erected by the Germans during the war and for some strange reason the Greeks never tore it down after it. It has the German eagle on top of a stone obelisk (looks something like your fifth link above) and is as such no statue.

There are probably others left in strange places around Europe as well, but I venture to guess there are none that are in the form of statues.

The most common memorial to "soldiers of Germany that perished in WWII" is no doubt their tombstones. There are thousand of them on Crete alone, in the German war cemetery.

"Were crimes of their commanders and of some of them so dire, that *none* of them deserves being remembered as a human being, and not a stereotypic "bad guy" from movies and video games..?"

I think the most fitting monuments to memorialise them is their tombstones. It says all that is needed outside the history books.

"And where *else* do they even appear mentioned, at all? Exactly."

In the thousands upon thousands of history books, memoirs, TV documentaries and everything else written and produced about that war. There is certainly no need to erect statues over them to remember them.

"You plan to wait until the thermal death of the universe itself?"

If it takes that long it's perfectly fine by me - I see no need for there ever to be wax figures of Hitler, really. There are plenty of books, documentaries and even film of the real man from when he was alive.
I don't really see the educational point in making wax figures of him as well.

"Reduced unemployment, stabilized national currency, gave the start to construction of "Autoban", increased state industry and introduced "marriage loans" for newly created families. That is to name few things he brought to Germany along with racism, genocide, war and destruction."

And none of that mattered when he then utterly destroyed the country, murdered millions of it's citizens and left it split and occupied. Stalin was a brutal mass murderer as well, but at least he won the war, and he didn't start it (against Germany anyway).
Hitler was an abject fucking failure in every single way - and Germany paid a very high prize for ever putting their trust in him. Mere self-preservation dictate that they do all they possibly can to avoid ever going down that road again.

"Like it or not, even monstrous persons sometimes do things right, and it is also important to remember because sometimes people do things right - and you forgive them some amount of corruption, calculating that their accomplishments compensate their crimes."

If we where talking only about "corruption" I'd be willing to agree with you - but we aren't, are we?

No, we're talking the deliberate mass murder of millions upon millions of people - in both the cases of Hitler and Stalin.

Napoleon didn't manage to rack up that body count, because his resources where limited at the time - and Boudica even more so, of course.

But beyond that - neither of them actually deliberately sought to exterminate entire population groups or massacred their own peoples.

Napoleon was just like any king before him - he conquered as much as he could and passed out the lands to his relatives to start a dynasty.
He didn't intentionally seek to exterminate people - as long as they where loyal subjects and didn't rebel he was fine with leaving them be.

If he had come along earlier he most likely would have gotten away with it too, but seeing as the force of nationalism was starting to grow, people no longer accepted being ruled by foreign kings.
If you look further back in history, before nationalism, most people didn't mind who ruled them - as long as they weren't treated too harshly.

But Boudica and the Celt where treated very harshly by the Romans - and as a result they rebelled against them. That was a war of national liberation (even if they didn't call them that back then) and those wars are always particularly brutal since the people revolting are fighting against a foreign oppressor that they believe they must rid themselves of at all cost.
So when a people take up arms in a national liberation like that, they will fight with any means possible until the bitter end, accepting any losses.
You saw the same thing in Vietnam and Afghanistan - two wars the worlds only superpowers lost - because they where simply not willing to accept the losses the defending, nationalist liberation forces where.

"Every tyrant, every monster in our history achieved their high position not through the crime and treachery alone, nobody is 100% pure villain, all the evil made by these people goes hand by hand with some good. Some right decisions, some good traits, some wise ideas - which in eyes of people living at the time could outweigh or obscure the crimes."

You're conflating two different things here.
The fact that people at the time these tyrants first rose to power, could see something positive in their actions is obviously true - otherwise they never would have come to power.
But we can acknowledge that, and still judge them today based on their entire record - not just what people knew back then.
Knowing what we know now, it's unquestionable that tyrants like Hitler and Stalin - who both murdered millions of their own citizens - did not posses "good traits" or "wise ideas" that in any way can mitigate for their heinous crimes.

Because nothing they ever did, or frankly could have done, could of course balance out the cold blooded massacring of their own people. In neither case was this in any way rational or efficient policy, but simply deeply destructive actions for their own nations only taken by these tyrants because of their personal paranoia and racism.

Stalin's emphasis on heavy industry or Hitler building autobahn isn't in any way unique to them - both those things had been done in other countries and by other leaders before them, and could certainly have been done by other leaders in their country, if they had not come to power.

If the Bolshevik revolution had failed and the more moderate Mensheviks stayed in power, it's entirely possible they had been just as effective in modernizing the Soviet Union as the Bolsheviks where.
Or even if the Bolsheviks and Lenin did succeed, but Stalin had lost out in the power struggle after Lenin's death.
Another Soviet Communist leader might well have made the exact same investments in industrial development as Stalin did - but if he hadn't also murdered millions of his own citizens, including the officer corps - the Union might actually have been able to better defend itself against Nazi-Germany, which would have meant less casualties in the war and possibly a shorter war over all.

In the case of Hitler, the Holocaust of course diverted necessary resources from the war effort - and murdering your own people, when there is a acute shortage of soldiers and workers for the war effort - is obviously just self destructive.

So no - neither Stalin nor Hitler have enough "good traits" to in any way compensate for their other actions. As they also actively HURT their own nations in many ways by the completely illogical and self-detrimental policies they pursued.

It doesn't matter one bit that they also instituted some policies that where good - just as we don't say about a doctor that deliberately murders some of his patients that he wasn't all bad.

@Nisse_Hult

Nissle, stop arguing and try to listen - because in pursue of sharp counterarguments you are missing my points.

First of all, I repeat - not always statues - MEMORIALS, if you want - are dedicated to pleasant events or 'honorable' people. Deal with it. Skull-faced sphinxes in Peterburg are dedicated to people, who under other circumstances were referred to as "criminals", and among would were pretty actual and real criminals - murderers, rapists and such.

That would not excuse taking this memorial down, now would it?

The "racists, traitors and losers" that you speak of were people, who took arms to protect their families and homes when started a civil war between states they lived in and other states of northern America. Majority of them have not owned a slave in their whole life, they have not betrayed anybody who have mattered to them, they either have died fighting or returned to their homes - which is hardly a definition of looser in a *civil* war. These soldiers were same people as those who they have fought against, as any person you'd meet on the street or as the person that looks at you from the mirror. Exactly same, and they had more motivation to fight than just for sake of bunch of rich plantators keep the slaves.

And how these people now deserve their memory destroyed with brutality and zero of remorse? That is what was signed a peace treaty between leaders of their states and states they fought against - so century and half later they would be labelled as "traitors and loosers" and their memorials purged? So, despite them ending war with dignity, they are to be humiliated and demonized now?

Let's take the statue in Durham. Tell me name of soldier whose statue the yelling crowd have pulled from the pedestal and flattened in mess. Tell me what he did to deserve that, what he fought for, how and when he died.

You want me to tell you what was name of soldier statue of whom I showed you? He had over twenty millions of names, that statue was a memorial to soldiers that fought and perished in second World War, erected by returned in the memory of those who never came back and memory of those who, in years following, have died from age. Statue itself was located near graves of 11 soldiers and 43 partisans, so feel free to pick any of them if you want to guess which of corpses belonged face on the statue than had no plaque on it.


Soldiers fight not for ideas, they fight for what they value - for families and the homes, most of time. There always some moral abominations, in any army, but never mass of soldiers is being criminal by a default. And same goes to german soldiers as well. You think that their tombstones alone are enough to remind the people living today that these soldiers too had feelings and thoughts, too were people of flesh and blood and too have thought they are fighting for a worthy cause when fought in the wars started by Adolf Hitler?


Try reading my words and processing them. In all these armies fought people same as we. Same humans, with brains and with feelings. What right people today have to *alienate* and *condemn* them? And why would that alienation NOT cause people repeating same mistakes, permitting same evils to be committed under a new banner and in name of a new cause?


Do you see my point?

@Ninian How about this for Brother Soviet: He is the soviet military and red scare stereotype. Ushanka with a red star. Big black Stalin moustache. Red shirt with hammer and sicle. Scar over one eye. Kalashnikov.

Sister Soviet: The soviet worker and industrial stereotype. Red dirty overals with hammer and sicle. Wendy the welder hairstyle. Carries a giant wrench.

@Rogers i did it
(https://nukeli.tumblr.com/post/171312221747/my-interpration-of-what-brother-soviet-russia)

@Sisu He is glorious!

@Rogers

@Rogers Not sure about looks, but I think he should be a little larger, more like brother America.

@Myrica Yes, a imposing and intimidating stature would suit him.

@Rogers
I'm seeing him as similar too but scarier than russia, and with red clothing. Probably pretty mean to everyone else (including modern russia, since Brother Soviet thinks he is better). He might have some sort of weapon, like Finland is usually carrying a knife.

@NeframeTheCosmonaut There is no weapon more stereotypicaly soviet than the Kalashnikov.

@Rogers
yeah. The only thing against a potantial Comrade Brother Soviet having a Kalashnikov 47 is that they are hard to draw quickly.

@NeframeTheCosmonaut Not Brother Soviet. He would be Comrade Brother Soviet (Stalin) Union. CBS (S) U

@Mixu
XD

@Rogers I'll see Soviet Union as a strong, a tad bossy, no non-sense girl with a spanner sticking from her back pocket and an assorted set of screwdrivers from her jacket pocket.

@Rogers @Daru we have "mother Russia" as a general personification of everything Russia ever does or did that wasn't nice, basically. A very bossy lady with a fur hat.
However, that personification of Soviet Union sounds just perfect. She'd literally be a standard Soviet propaganda poster, which sounds perfect.

@Wortel And let's not forget the perfect outfit... the dungarees, strong shoes and hard hat. I'm still not sure which little "girly" feature to add. You may have an idea.

@Daru she has a ponytail and boobs, those are the only girly features she has.
Obviously her clothes are mostly red.

@Wortel I guess boobs are an essential... feature. A red scrunchy for the pony tail mighty give a glamorous touch. ;-) Oh, if only our beloved cartoonist read our exchanges.

@Daru https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrB8p8iM5Ba2msAR1uInIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZ29xY3ZzBHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEc2xrA2J1dHRvbg--;_ylc=X0kDajFKb2l6RXdMakZHbzIuSFduVG1Zd0phT0RZdU9RQUFBQURRUm1WZARfUwMxMzUxMTk1Nzg0BF9yAzIEYWN0bgNrZXlicmQEY3NyY3B2aWQDajFKb2l6RXdMakZHbzIuSFduVG1Zd0phT0RZdU9RQUFBQURRUm1WZARmcgMEZnIyA3NiLXRvcARncHJpZAM4ZXdOeU9Xd1FwaXd0VnR6V0FKUzNBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwM0BHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDMARxc3RybAMyNwRxdWVyeQNzb3ZpZXQlMjBwcm9wYWdhbmRhJTIwd29tYW4EdF9zdG1wAzE1MTkzOTk3MjUEdnRlc3RpZANCNDk0Mg--?p=soviet+propaganda+woman&fr=&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Ai%2Cm%3Asb-top&ei=UTF-8&n=60&x=wrt From the pictures I get the impression it would be a simple, plain headscarf rather than a scrunchy, but a scrunchy sounds perfectly good as well!

@Wortel There's indeed a very strong argument for the headscarf. But the scrunchy would give her such a modern twist. Oh, please, Mister Cartoonist, a red scrunchy.

@Daru true, it'd works awesomely. But, sadly, Humon never reads any comments...

@Rogers Russia was still Russia, even when it was the biggest part of the USSR. And the Cheburaska feels more Russian than Soviet. I agree USSR should have it's own figure, though, the way Great Britain is drawn as a somewhat different character from England

Are we not going to celebrate Estonias 100'th birthday?

@Susan Yeah about that. Humon lets celebrate it!

@Susan #9737804


It's the hand thing, I'm sure.

...better check it for listening devices...

@Tarmaque Those ears look suspicious!

@Tarmaque Better lock it in a closet during election yesr.

@Tarmaque Nice try, NSA.

@Tarmaque In USSR Cheburashka listens you.

Friends with alligator.. Cute..

@Zuperkrunch
That looks like Donkey Kong Country for the SNES. jk

@bomg cheburashka look like king kong?

@Zuperkrunch
No, not the giant monster that climbs up skyscraper buildings. This:

@Hinoron yup, u right.. Thanx

@Zuperkrunch



Some trivia though. The ORIGINAL Donkey Kong WAS loosely based on the idea of King Kong. It was an early video game where the giant monkey stole the princess and a little Super Mario like fella (this was before he was named "Mario" of course) had to climb up to rescue her without being knocked down by the rolling barrels that the monkey would send down the sloped ramps.

Lots of different games happened between then and now, of course. "Donkey Kong Country" was actually a TV show (but based on the characters designed for a more recent Nintendo game of the same name. The show was made and aired in Canada, actually, in 1997 (in collaboration with a French company). It spread internationally thereafter.

@Hinoron i played "mario bross" a lot at that time but never noticed the monkey in it... Did the monkey appeared on the highest level?

@Zuperkrunch
No, the Mario Brothers games came later. He didn't even have a name at the time of the original Donkey Kong.

@Hinoron ow.. U remember everythings

@Zuperkrunch
My mind is a vast encyclopedia of utterly useless information! LOL

@Hinoron you probably related with these peoples https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hpTCZ-hO6iI&t=247s

@Zuperkrunch

Nope. As I said, I mainly remember useless trivia that has no practical value whatsoever. I can probably sing three theme songs to cartoons I watched as a kid right now... but what good is that for anything?

@Hinoron hey, do u read stephen king's novel? Can u give me some spoiler alert before "it 2"

@Zuperkrunch
Sorry. Never really been into the horror genre.


Also, a "spoiler alert" is a warning that you're going to talk about surprises and such in or near the end of a movie, so that people who haven't seen it yet (or read the book) and want to experience the full surprise when they do, can stop reading your post if they want.
It sounds like what you're asking me for is the Spoiler, not the warning. (Not that I have either for you in any case. :P)

@Hinoron i don't like the horror movie too.. But i think the "it" stephen king's novel not really a ghost story but some of psycological case (the main characters seems like they have trauma of something, why only the main characters whose can see the "pennywise")
Yes, what i mean for the "spoiler alert" is like "i want to know the end of the movie", like when i saw the "Passegers" i though, oh..it's just a plane crash movie, and then it surprised me that all of them are ghosts, and made me think "did i just saw horor movie?" Or "The Others" they were horor movies in disguise... :P

@Zuperkrunch That's adorable!!

@EUcomicartist

@Zuperkrunch that is krokodile Gena!! He's the co-protagonist and he's so so so kind. He works at the zoo and always was so lonely because people thought he was too scary. He made toys in his house for his friends... but then, he had none and no one would go. Then he meets Cheburashka and become good friends, Gena plays music for Cheburashka to dance and share all the toys and you have no idea how much I loved Gena ♥♥♥

@juriette ♥♥♥ Gena♥♥♥

Cheburashka was actually created in the Soviet era. The more you know...

I often whistle the Gena's birthday song. Someone who was very dear to me loved it a lot (not the whistling,but the original).
Sadly she has passed away (still missing).

Gods, is that Drutten.. From the seventies.. Svedish telly bought a lot of cheap east european childrens programs.. and this one got called Drutten och Gena. Is Japan very late to the party?

There was even a small candy box with Drutten Chewy sweets here. I liked them.

Awww <3 In Poland he's name is Kiwaczek, btw.

Russia has a change of mind every day
Day 1:WORLD DOMINATION HAHAHAHAHA
day 2: hey japqn i made this thing do want it?

@Ahnoisntmyname he just wants to dominate the world so he can spread his righteous cuteness to everyone x3

@Ahnoisntmyname
Ahah Japan is an expert at finding cute things from all over the world, we need no excuse to do it
We also are obsess with Moomin.

Even Disney cant beat eastern cartoons. They are old but gold.