Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:03, 23 June 2007

World War II

Stop reverting in that article. Though I agree with your stance I have to note you are violating the triple revert policy. Lets try and solve this on the talkpage and avoid getting you blocked over this issue.--Caranorn 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, knock it off. I had you reported only a few days ago for 3RR violation, and you're already back at it again. It doesn't matter that you're right (which you are) - this needs to stop. Bring it up at WT:MILHIST, if you must, but stop this 3RR. I would have reported you again for a longer block, had the assertions you removed not been so obviously and blatantly false. The Evil Spartan 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourced - Unsourced

Please don't remove sourced texts by claiming they are unsourced. Please read the references first. Thanks.

Also stop categorizing baltic states as "Russian speaking" although we have russian speaking residents, the countries don't qualify as russian speaking. Better category would be "Countries with russian speaking minority". Thanks. Suva 12:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have broken WP:3RR, please stop edit warring and let's discuss it instead. Or I have to report you. Thank you. Suva 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see . Such categories are, quote, "to categorize countries per official language". Cheers, --3 Löwi 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As a comparison, would you categorise Russian Federation among Category:Countries using US dollar for internal business? Digwuren 14:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a category doesn't even exist--Ilya1166 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not yet ;-) Digwuren 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Article of the day

Спасибо. Это очень интересная тема. А вы того читали? -- Дигвурен 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Baltic states.

I closed the mediation case because:

• Nobody wanted to be mediated.
• The reasons of these who wanted the section were just stupid.
• Baltic states ARE NOT russian speaking country. See the official policy on those categories in master category.

Would you please stop, or I have to report you to the admins. Thank you very much. Suva 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not make empty threats, I have done nothing wrong. You have been pushing your nationalist agenda and luckily it does not matter whether you think the reasons were stupid because wikipedia is not based on POV. I highlighted legitimate reasons on the page for why they should be included. --Ilya1166 07:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please drop your claims of "nationalist agenda", it has nothing to do with nationalism. For your information, my views are rather left wing. Also I am pro-globalization. I am just tired of russian propaganda wars and I don't want to see them here. I see you reopened the MEDCAB case, I agree to be part of the mediation process, but please make the MEDCAB text more neutral. It has nothing to do with soviet occupation or nationalism. It is just a matter of facts. Thank you for cooperation. Suva 10:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia vs Soviet Union

Ilya, seeing your edits of the Estonia article, it intrigues me, that you think that modern Russian and Stalinist Soviet Unions is basically the same country. Don't you think that Stalinist oppression of Russia and other countries within Soviet Union is a dark page of history, similarly that the Nazi rule in Germany ? I'm sincerely interested in your opinion. --Lysy 09:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that Stalin's oppression of the Soviet people is a dark page of history. What makes you believe that I think that modern Russian and Stalin's Soviet Union is basically the same country? I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Stalin's crimes were acknowledged by the Soviet government after his death in 1953, let alone modern Russia. The "occupation" of the baltics is a relatively new phenomenon that has emerged with their independence. Certainly if it was obvious that the Soviets illegally "occupied" the Baltics in 1940, Russia today wouldn't deny it in the post-Soviet era. Since this is still a debatable issue with valid arguments on both sides, this issue should still be deemed controversial rather than proven, as several Estonian/Baltic editors are trying to make it seem like it is. Of course the West backs up the Baltic States because the Soviet Union was their enemy and they want to denounce it, and because the Baltics are now their allies in the form of NATO and the EU.--Ilya1166 10:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In one of your edits, which you later corrected, you wrote that Russia denies that it occupied Estonia. Of course Russia never occupied Estonia, but that made me think that you sub-consciously associate Russia with Soviet Union. I know that despite that Germany officially condemns its Nazi past, there are groups of neo-fascists that are actually proud of Hitler and what he did. I was wondering if similarly in the former Soviet republics there are groups which praise Soviet regime ? --Lysy 10:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I believe that the Cold War is long over and Russia is not seen as an enemy of NATO but as a partner and a potential ally. Your view may be different of course. As for the "occupation", the same words may have different meanings and connotations in different languages. The fact is that the Baltics had Soviet troops and were in fact controlled and soon annexed by Soviet Union. I believe that we would agree on this ? --Lysy 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I wrote Russia because Russia is the country that the Baltic States target with trying to get it to apologise (not Kazakhstan, Belarus or any of the other republics) and even seeking monetary compensation in the form of "war reparations" from Russia for the "occupation" during Soviet times, (Russians are disgusted at this and see it as ungrateful for liberating the Baltic states from the Nazi menace, at a cost of many thousands of Soviet lives) and because even the West referred to the Soviets as "Russians". Yes there are neo-fascists in Germany, but this is a very, very small group of people. The German government condemning its Nazi past is not just a facade. Most Germans who grew up after the war are disgusted with the Nazi past, and grew up with a feeling of shame and guilt for their countries crimes.

Certainly there are groups that praise the Soviet regime. What is wrong with praising the Soviet regime? Besides Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union did nothing that bad. Russians and post-Soviet republics are not ashamed of their Soviet past. They did not commit the widespread atrocities to the world as the Nazis did, the damage was done mostly to its own people by Stalin. There are many in Russia and the former Soviet republics that are proud of the achievements of the Soviet Union. In the USSR there was none of the widespread corruption, crime and alcoholism that there is in Russia today. I don't know about the other republics, but most people in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine regret the collapse of the USSR. The Communist party in Russia is the second largest party in the whole country. In the 2004 Russian Presidential election, 9,440,860 people voted for the Communist Party. In the 2004 Ukrainian Presidential election there was 1,388,045 that voted for the Communist party.--Ilya1166 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind question this position, but Soviet Union did oppress other countries even after Stalin's death. The countries that attempted to get independent from Soviet Union were invaded by Soviet Army. Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968 immediately come to mind. --Lysy 11:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they did repress these uprisings to maintain Communist governments, this occurred relatively quickly with few casualties, while the West acted similarly and killed much more innocent civilians by preventing Communist uprisings in Vietnam and Korea. Over a million Vietnamese civilians died in the Vietnam War alone, with an estimated 1-1.5 million casualties in the Korean War.--Ilya1166 11:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I partly agree with you about Vietnam, although there were many differences, so I would rather compare Vietnam to Afghanistan, not Hungary (the West did not support Hungary militarily, like SU did in Vietnam). Nevertheless, do you think it was good that Soviet Army acted in Hungary or Czechoslovakia when the people there attempted to gain independence ? --Lysy 11:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As for not being grateful for liberating the Baltics, I don't know about the other countries, but from Lithuanian point of view one occupation was replaced with another one. Have you noticed that there was no active opposition in Lithuania against the German occupation ? On the other hand many thousand of Lithuanian partisans fought against Soviet forces well into 1950s until they were defeated. Given this, how can anyone think that the Baltics were liberated by Soviet Union ? This would be similar to claim that Red Army liberated Berlin in 1945. --Lysy 11:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You make it seem like no one in the Baltics wanted to be rid of the Nazi's. While initially the Nazis were greeted as liberators, as the Baltic republics thought they would be able to gain some degree of autonomy, they soon learned that the Nazis would not allow this and actually treated them worse.

Latvia, the Nazi Germans and their local accomplices carried out the most heinous and large-scale crimes against humanity to have ever been committed on Latvian soil. They annihilated over 90% of Latvia's pre-war Jewish community, as well as tens of thousands of other Jews whom they transported into Latvia from other parts of Europe. The Nazis also drafted tens of thousands of Latvian men into their army ranks to serve as live cannon fodder, in a shameless violation of the Geneva Conventions regarding the rules of warfare. The Balts were aware of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, but they still held out hope that life would be at least somewhat better under the new occupiers. It wasn't-the Germans kept in place many of the institutions that were set up by the Soviets, further devalued the currency by introducing the Mark at an even worse exchange rate, pillaged the countries for the war effort and introduced new forms of terror. While the native peoples had hoped that they would be allowed some degree of autonomy under Nazi rule, possibly keeping their countries semi-independent and maintaining local government, the Nazis would not allow this. The Baltic States were incorporated into the German province of Ostland and ruled by the Germans. The Holocaust also was unleashed in the Baltic States under German rule. A ghetto was built in Vilnius, Lithuania, which had one of the largest Jewish populations in the world.--Ilya1166 11:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right that the Jewish population of the Baltics could say that they were liberated by the Red Army (if they were earlier not murdered by the Nazis of course). However for Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians, this was hardly any liberation, as they did not regain their independence. One occupation was replaced with another one. --Lysy 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are calling it "occupation" again, like I said, if it was obvious that the Soviets illegally "occupied" the Baltics in 1940, Russia today wouldn't deny it in the post-Soviet era and since this is still a debatable issue with valid arguments on both sides, this issue should still be deemed controversial rather than proven.--Ilya1166 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not really want to discuss whether it was an occupation or not in your talk page. If you re-read the above para again, you'll notice that I qualified it with "for Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians". I only intended to exchange some opinions with you in hope that it would help us understand different positions better and I'm thankful that you talked to me. --Lysy 14:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, good chat.--Ilya1166 14:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the negative aspects of the current situation in Russia (corruption, alcoholism etc.) and the Soviet Union nostalgia, don't you think that it's in the hands of Russians to change this ? You live in the independent country with no totalitarian regime, so the future of Russia depends on the will of Russian people and there is no need to look back at Soviet Union. Am I right ? --Lysy 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is in the hands of Russian people to change their future, I was not arguing that the Soviet Union was better, I was explaining why some people still view the Soviet Union with nostalgia.--Ilya1166 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. This is the phenomenon common worldwide. People tend to believe that the world was nicer when they were young and healthy. In some aspects they may be right, in others they may be wrong. However, people often remember the good things better. --Lysy 11:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ilya, please believe me that discussions with Lysy may take lots of time and usually lead us nowhere. The guy truly believes that "Russian history research continues to be doctrine driven" and that there is "a certain censorship in modern Russia", an opinion he currently advocates on User talk:Dr. Dan. In other words, only Polish "history research" is free of bias and there is no censorship in Kaczynski's Poland. If you want to spend your time more profitably, please read Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn. --Ghirla 19:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Countries by language