Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing further from the truth. There were many Germans who chose not to collaborate with the Nazis but where not active in any organized resistance so outside of the interest of Gestapo. More Germans than Russian not collaborating with the regime: after all the Third Reich lasted only 12 years while Soviet Russia over 60.
If there were "many Germans" who "chose not to collaborate with Nazi" as you claim - i.e. if it was all about "choices," Hitler's regime wouldn't have been able to accomplish half of what it has accomplished, and the changes would have come from within the country. However truth to be told - changes in Germany came only with involvement of foreign force.
Quote:
They became brave when Russian tanks stopped to be a threat. There were brave before but every time they were crushed by these soviet tanks, be it in 1956 Budapest or 1968 Prague. Nevertheless they removed all communist implicated in collaboration with communist secret police or other opressive agencies while Russia proudly elects the president who was a KGB colonel.
I already explained the reason why Russia "proudly elects" a KGB officer, who wouldn't have had any chances in the nineties.
Quote:
Why not?
Because the system was set in such way, that no one could have access to practical side of economy and finances, unless they were part of Soviet establishment. "Independent thinking" was not tolerated in the upper echelon.
Quote:
No. I simply operate on what Yavlinsky said without injecting my own preconceptions.
It's not about your "preconceptions" - those you have plenty, it's your lack of knowledge on your part regarding the whole subject.
Quote:
No. Yavlinksy was never a contender to presidency or prime ministry. He was an outsider in this power play.
You prove my words above right here - those are your own preconceptions. Indeed Yavlinsky was a contender for prime ministry under Yeltsin, and later ( in 1996) contender to presidency. The reason Yeltsin has chosen Gaidar as his prime-minister was precisely because Yavlinsky refused to implement the reforms the way IMF/Yeltsin wanted it. That's why Yeltsin appointed Gaidar as his prime-minister, precisely as IMF wanted it.
Quote:
IMF and the West had a choice between some hard core communist or Gaidar who at least promised to reform Russian economy. They naturally chose Yeltsin and then Gaidar who was an economist by education so there was some common language.
Again not true. Why do you refuse to quote Yavlinsky here, who is talking about detailed discussion of his plan in Washington in the same interview, that you like to quote so much? What happened there? Or you like to quote only the material/information that suit your agenda?
Quote:
All you can do is accuse your opponents of using cliches because other than this you have nothing. Yavlinsky's words are very clear: he blames your favorite communist nomenklatura for the failure of any reforms in Russia:
Now the political side for capitalism in Russia. For sure, capitalism is a future for Russia, but capitalism which is limited by all these institutional issues, national traditions, national culture, [much] as you see it in Japan or you see it in every other country. But mainly, Lenin is still in the Red Square, we have a Communist Party, which Putin thinks and believes -- and he's said it many times -- is the most important party in the country, which in its offices has the portraits of Stalin and Lenin still. The nation didn't overcome its past yet, so we are not even at the end of the end. We are still in the agony of the end. We have seen a lot of good signs, but it's not the end of the end. We need much more time.
He doesn't even discuss reforms here - you are putting words in his mouth. He simply describes today's situation - the way he sees it. And this situation in political sense is quite different from the 90ies.
In fact, this is what the 90ies in Russia were all about;
Should I remind you who Felix Dzerzhinsky the Pole, ( not Russian by the way) was?
That's his monument, (or what used to be his monument.)
Vladimir Putin, a long time party member and ranking KGB officer can't guarantee any reforms: he simply protects the interests of his class: communist nomenklatura. As Yavlinsky said: Lenin is still in Red Square.
There's still a huge bust of Lenin on the main square in Ulan Ude. But the funny thing is that in Mongol or Central Asian cultures, it's a supreme insult to show just someone's head. So Lenin's head is still there.
If there were "many Germans" who "chose not to collaborate with Nazi" as you claim - i.e. if it was all about "choices," Hitler's regime wouldn't have been able to accomplish half of what it has accomplished, and the changes would have come from within the country. However truth to be told - changes in Germany came only with involvement of foreign force.
I claim? For instance The Catholic church in Germany remained defiant through the entire Third Reich. There was plenty of people who did not collaborate with the Nazis and they took government offices after the end of WWII. Third Reich existed for only 12 years and there were several attempts to assassinate Hitler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I already explained the reason why Russia "proudly elects" a KGB officer, who wouldn't have had any chances in the nineties.
But he would have plenty of chances in the 60, 70 and 80's. You forgot already that Putin could be as well the next First Secretary, he fits the bill with his loyal service to Communism worldwide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Because the system was set in such way, that no one could have access to practical side of economy and finances, unless they were part of Soviet establishment. "Independent thinking" was not tolerated in the upper echelon.
Practical side of economy? I am talking about any organized opposition in Soviet Union. There was none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
It's not about your "preconceptions" - those you have plenty, it's your lack of knowledge on your part regarding the whole subject.
But of course. Even quotes by Russian economist are nothing compared to your "knowledge" of the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
You prove my words above right here - those are your own preconceptions. Indeed Yavlinsky was a contender for prime ministry under Yeltsin, and later ( in 1996) contender to presidency.
He would never get any support in the Communist controlled Duma and you know it. Why even mention this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
The reason Yeltsin has chosen Gaidar as his prime-minister was precisely because Yavlinsky refused to implement the reforms the way IMF/Yeltsin wanted it. That's why Yeltsin appointed Gaidar as his prime-minister, precisely as IMF wanted it.
No. As Yavlinsky recalls it was Yeltsin who put pressure on his American friends (sen. Dole) to disregard Yavlinsky and his ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Again not true. Why do you refuse to quote Yavlinsky here, who is talking about detailed discussion of his plan in Washington in the same interview, that you like to quote so much? What happened there? Or you like to quote only the material/information that suit your agenda?
If you think there is any part of Yavlinksy interview that supports your point of view then quote it. You dont need my permission. LOL
In his interview Yavlinksy claims that Dole was pressured by Yeltsin not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
He doesn't even discuss reforms here - you are putting words in his mouth. He simply describes today's situation - the way he sees it. And this situation in political sense is quite different from the 90ies.
He discusses the overall situation of which the reforms were only a small part of. He talks about Communists who are still in power in Russia even though Soviet Union does not exist anymore and considers this the main obstacle to success of any reforms in Russia. I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Should I remind you who Felix Dzerzhinsky the Pole, ( not Russian by the way) was?
That's his monument, (or what used to be his monument.)
And do you think you will find any monuments dedicated to the ruthless murderer anywhere in Poland? What is your point. Now you blame the Poles for the revolution? LOL
There's still a huge bust of Lenin on the main square in Ulan Ude. But the funny thing is that in Mongol or Central Asian cultures, it's a supreme insult to show just someone's head. So Lenin's head is still there.
But rebel doesn't believe this kind of thing ever happened.
It happened but the communist party is still a major political power in Russia, isn't it? So what really happened? Nothing. Communists are still ruling Russia like it was 1954.
Was this supposed to be an argument in this discussion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
