Latvia to forbid Soviet symbolics for the upcoming 9th of May - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Azaz3l;40280513]Actually if you think deeper than soviet propaganda, being a state with socialist economy allowed SU to stand out against germans and launch a counter-offensive. Russian empire was poorly industialised in 1917[/quote] Actually Russia was heavily industrializing since the 1890s, and by 1913 was catching up rapidly. The war knocked it back by a few decades, and under Soviet mismanagement, some aspects of the economy (especially agriculture) never recovered to the 1913 level. [quote]switching to socialist economy and forcing mass industrialisation allowed the country to catch up with west and even surpass it in terms of military. Germans would've made it to Moscow fast if Russia was one of these poorly industrialised countries back then. Not to mention soviet idealogy and propaganda that somewhat encouraged soldiers to fight for their home country.[/QUOTE] I'd strongly argue that if the revolution never happened and Russia continued under the Tsars, it would have fared better in war.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40282007] I'd strongly argue that if the revolution never happened and Russia continued under the Tsars, it would have fared better in war.[/QUOTE] It was impossible, monarchy imploded and was pretty much done for by 1917.

[QUOTE=gudman;40282130]It was impossible, monarchy imploded and was pretty much done for by 1917.[/QUOTE] Well if we discount the war, it was possible. Alternatively, allowing for WW1, for the Provisional government to hold onto power, Russia would be much better off as well. Either of them in power would pretty much result in the same thing given a few decades.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40282326]Well if we discount the war, it was possible. Alternatively, allowing for WW1, for the Provisional government to hold onto power, Russia would be much better off as well. Either of them in power would pretty much result in the same thing given a few decades.[/QUOTE] Well war wasn't really going anywhere at that point. It did already started, so making a discount here seems unfair. Provisional government... my honest opinion? They didn't stand a chance against any kind of coup, they were barely standing on their legs because of how drastically diffirent and radical most of the parties involved were.

One of the major reason people were upset with the tsarist government was because they lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war despite superior numbers. They wouldn't have fared better under the Tsar in World War I.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40281347]why are you glorifying nazi volunteers? especially when theres loads of proof that they did commit warcrimes by prominent historians...[/QUOTE] Not sure why he said Wiking Division, but the purely Latvian divisions committed no crimes. Their only choice if they wanted to serve was the two specific SS divisions or just doing hard labour/auxillery work. They didn't choose the SS out of love for the Aryan race or something. They wanted to defend their country from the red tide which inevitably took them over. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion[/url]

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40283876]Not sure why he said Wiking Division, but the purely Latvian divisions committed no crimes. Their only choice if they wanted to serve was the two specific SS divisions or just doing hard labour/auxillery work. They didn't choose the SS out of love for the Aryan race or something. They wanted to defend their country from the red tide which inevitably took them over. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The involvement of the Latvian Legion in war crimes is a matter of controversy. Many Latvian historians maintain that the Latvian Legion itself was a front line combat unit and did not participate in any war crimes and state that the Latvian Legion, being an organization of conscripts, was exempt, qua organization, from the opinion rendered at Nuremburg trials.[5] Although it was claimed that the Latvian Legion, which was formed more than a year after Latvian Jews were executed or sent to concentration camps, was not directly involved in the Holocaust,[citation needed] the members of Arajs Kommando, as well as some other legionaries did participate in the mass killings before the Legion was formed.[8] Some 600 members of the Arajs Kommando were transferred to the Latvian Legion in late 1944.[18] Actions by police battalion actions, not affiliated with the Legion, are also alleged to have continued after formation of the Latvian Legion in the Winterzauber operation in July 1943[/QUOTE]

Hey guess what! They are both awful, disgusting, despotic dictatorships! Anyone trying to play the 'well, x was worse than y' game with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is a mongoloid and I hope you know that.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40283876]Not sure why he said Wiking Division, but the purely Latvian divisions committed no crimes. Their only choice if they wanted to serve was the two specific SS divisions or just doing hard labour/auxillery work. They didn't choose the SS out of love for the Aryan race or something. They wanted to defend their country from the red tide which inevitably took them over. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion[/url][/QUOTE] This awfully popular miconception is what really wrangles my johnnies. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's almost as if people don't even realize being a small nation in the middle of, quite literally, the war of the century between two of the biggest military powers of the time doesn't leave much room for compromise. Us Baltic people were FORCED to fight for the side that happened to be the overlord for the short time being as the frontline sweeped back and forth over helpless multitudes of people, hopeful eyes set on the rising sun each morning, waiting for the west to deliver it's fabled "liberty" - bargained to the USSR instead post-WW2 as part of an appeasement policy. Try perspective: you either put on the khaki draftee uniform the officer is handing you, as the lackey to his side is anxiously running his fingers over the holster of his weapon, or your home is burned in front of you as any male family is lined up and shot as potential rebels and females faced a far more grim fate. War is not about heroics. It's about who's left alive in the end to tell the tale to their liking. My own grandfather was one of these people, and he never speaks of it. His own mother and father were shot and burned in their own home in front of him, a boy of 5, when they refused to turn in their cattle and supplies, and he was saved from the blaze by townspeople from nearby. This is not some sob story, this happened around the country, no, countries, as brothers from the same family were drafted to fight for opposing sides, and actually DID fight against eachother in the final battles. The Battle of Sõrve Säär strikes me as such, as the last german barges, filled to the brim with panicked refugees, were retreating from Estonia via Saaremaa (Estonia's largest island), leaving Estonians in the 3rd Estonian Volunteer SS Brigade (perhaps whatever remnants were left from battlegroup Narwa) to battle with their own (sadly, more than often literally) brothers in the 8th Estonian Riflemen Corp. That same grandfather lives in Saaremaa now, and tells me locals still occasionally come upon rusted helmets, spent casings, misc. military debris, and chillingly, assorted bits and pieces of human remains while digging around. Hell, there's a bona-fide war memento running right from the beach far into the forested inland - the old Dragon's Teeth. No blame can be put on these men for making the most of the situation. Nor the "draft dodgers" for that matter. These "traitors" sailed right across the Finnish Gulf to form the "Suomenpoisit" (roughly translates to "[our]boys in Finland") batallion in the Finnish army, to fight "For the sovereignty of Finland, For the honor of Estonia" as their motto put it. At their prime, approximately 3500 strong, they fought in both the Winter and Continuation Wars. But back home all these men fought for their family and country, not some deranged ideology. THIS is why they kept fighting even after both sides had forsaken them - one was doubling back home to save it's ass, the other spilling over our borders to free us of our freedom. The least we could do was make it mean something in the end. Shit, the Battle of Sinimäed alone (now referred to as the Thermopylea of the Baltics" or the "Verdun of Estonia" and, get a load of this, the "European peoples' fight against bolshevism") actually held back the final Soviet advance on their own for a while, as the last mix-and-match forces formed a rag-tag "last stand" - Estonians, Latvians, even Norwegians and Danes, didn't matter by then, all brothers in arms, fought until the waning days of the summer to prevent the Red Army from passing the Sinimäed (Blue Hills, in translation), and thus breaching the Tannenberg line, and their sacrifice gave hundreds of thousands the final opportunity to pack their belongings and fare well to their loved ones who stayed behind. And when the dust had settled and the unsung heroes made forgotten by the USSR, they would methodically go on to eventually root out up to 30,000 people, stuff them into trains and send them off to Siberia. Tens of thousands of others faced forced redistribution of labor, conscription into the Red Army, or were executed. That's Estonians ALONE. I don't even know what they did to people from the other Baltic nations. To add insult to injury, the imperialist-minded Russians these days are outright demanding we make Russian a secondary national language. And you wonder why we're not exactly on good terms.

This thread is a fucking wasteland

[QUOTE=Muukkis;40280837]That still doesn't really justify petty bullshit like this ; soviet symbolism may evoke bad memories for the people who suffered through the occupation but just like with Nazi symbols (or hindu/celtic symbols that get people spooked for their similaries) people should really begin to get over it since Soviet / German atrocities that happened during WW2 have been history for ~70 years. Granted, a lot of people who suffered through the ordeal are still alive but the reality is that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are [I]dead[/I], they're no longer posing a threat at all. There isn't even any excuse for banning soviet emblems since unlike nazi symbolism it's not even used as a way to incite ethnic hatred, it's just giving the finger to old soviet veterans who fought and died in WW2, many of whom call Latvia their homeland.[/QUOTE] You're naive. The Soviets oppressed us for decades and you want us to forget it just like that, like it's nothing. Well, let me tell you something: it takes generations for shit like this to be forgotten. The memory of it is still fresh, like a wound. And why should we forget how the Soviets forcefully instated violent puppet governments who hunted down and killed their own people, why should we forget Soviets trying to erase the Polish from history at Katyn, why should we forget expropriations and class purges performed in the name of Communism, the hunger, the cold, the secret police straight out of Orwell's [I]1984[/I], the forceful relocation of entire peoples? You're also naive for believing Russia has lost its hunger for power and influence. Granted, they're no superpower anymore, but deep down inside Putin's soul, and deep down inside the soul of whoever will replace Putin, there's a longing for what they lost, for reclaiming what's "theirs". Our big "friendly" Eastern neighbour has always been like that, and the people living at the border of the old USSR know this oh so well. From our perspective, decades of Soviet boots pushed down our necks have been the worst. Never again.

[QUOTE=gudman;40282519]Well war wasn't really going anywhere at that point. It did already started, so making a discount here seems unfair. Provisional government... my honest opinion? They didn't stand a chance against any kind of coup, they were barely standing on their legs because of how drastically diffirent and radical most of the parties involved were.[/QUOTE] Yeah, if the commies didn't take over, I'd bet that a former Tsarist general probably would (as they tried to during the civil war).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40282007]Actually Russia was heavily industrializing since the 1890s, and by 1913 was catching up rapidly. The war knocked it back by a few decades, and under Soviet mismanagement, some aspects of the economy (especially agriculture) never recovered to the 1913 level. I'd strongly argue that if the revolution never happened and Russia continued under the Tsars, it would have fared better in war.[/QUOTE] Uh there was an attempted revolution in 1905, WW1 only temporally got the people behind the government because of Patriotism and the call to defend the nation/people. Revolution was inevitable, Russia yes was industrialised and did well in 1913 but compared to other countries was out of question behind.. The war sped up the inevitable revolution. I believed that the longer Tsar had control the worse the nation was going, he was inept as a leader and when he personally took charge of things on a military level he was blamed for all their future military losses and blunders. There were mass rifle/ammo shortages, soldiers ill-equipped for fighting the Germans with their tactics basically relying on numbers but as seen in the Battle of Tanneburg a small ,well-equipped army with proper leadership and equipment can beat a large force. The Russians had terrible leaderships, there was a divide between the aristocratic military leaders and peasant soldiers. There was a brief improvement in 1916 but by then the homeland had suffered greatly and by 1917 GG the Monarchy was fucked. The Russians did have some success with Austria-Hungary and put them at breaking point at one rate, but with the Germans to back them up, Russia would have to come up with something good (seen in the Brusilov Offensive, Russians did very well and infact stopped the use of human wave tactics and infiltration/shock troop tactics but by then Russians lost 1 million men in the offensive and at the home front, famines and morale went low.). But of course this is Histography and we can argue this all day (and I probably could)

[QUOTE=zugu;40287923]You're naive. The Soviets oppressed us for decades and you want us to forget it just like that, like it's nothing. Well, let me tell you something: it takes generations for shit like this to be forgotten. The memory of it is still fresh, like a wound. And why should we forget how the Soviets forcefully instated violent puppet governments who hunted down and killed their own people, why should we forget Soviets trying to erase the Polish from history at Katyn, why should we forget expropriations and class purges performed in the name of Communism, the hunger, the cold, the secret police straight out of Orwell's [I]1984[/I], the forceful relocation of entire peoples? You're also naive for believing Russia has lost its hunger for power and influence. Granted, they're no superpower anymore, but deep down inside Putin's soul, and deep down inside the soul of whoever will replace Putin, there's a longing for what they lost, for reclaiming what's "theirs". Our big "friendly" Eastern neighbour has always been like that, and the people living at the border of the old USSR know this oh so well. From our perspective, decades of Soviet boots pushed down our necks have been the worst. Never again.[/QUOTE] Here you have a perfect exemple of sterotyped anti-soviet/russian person.

[QUOTE=AWarGuy;40287972]Uh there was an attempted revolution in 1905, WW1 only temporally got the people behind the government because of Patriotism and the call to defend the nation/people. Revolution was inevitable, Russia yes was industrialised and did well in 1913 but compared to other countries was out of question behind.. The war sped up the inevitable revolution.[/quote] The revolution mainly happened due to the incompetence of the tsar and loss of power from the traditional parts of society which supported him. Had the last tsar not been a complete fuckwit and they stopped trying to constantly meddle in the Balkans, they wouldn't have been dragged into such a war. [quote]I believed that the longer Tsar had control the worse the nation was going, he was inept as a leader and when he personally took charge of things on a military level he was blamed for all their future military losses and blunders.[/quote] Yes, hence if he was actually competent things would be different. [quote]There were mass rifle/ammo shortages, soldiers ill-equipped for fighting the Germans with their tactics basically relying on numbers but as seen in the Battle of Tanneburg a small ,well-equipped army with proper leadership and equipment can beat a large force. The Russians had terrible leaderships, there was a divide between the aristocratic military leaders and peasant soldiers. There was a brief improvement in 1916 but by then the homeland had suffered greatly and by 1917 GG the Monarchy was fucked. The Russians did have some success with Austria-Hungary and put them at breaking point at one rate, but with the Germans to back them up, Russia would have to come up with something good (seen in the Brusilov Offensive, Russians did very well and infact stopped the use of human wave tactics and infiltration/shock troop tactics but by then Russians lost 1 million men in the offensive and at the home front, famines and morale went low.). But of course this is Histography and we can argue this all day (and I probably could)[/QUOTE] I would more argue that infrastructure breaking down, food shortages, and conservative nobles in the government and military made things much worse. The Russian army could hold its own in a fight, but mismanagement of it and poor logistics made things much worse. The factories could actually produce enough for the army (Russia produced more shells than Germany in 1916) but getting them to the front lines was the hard part. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Azaz3l;40288015]Here you have a perfect exemple of sterotyped anti-soviet/russian person.[/QUOTE] The Soviet Union was the worst thing to happen to Eastern Europe and Russia.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40288024] The Soviet Union was the worst thing to happen to Eastern Europe and Russia.[/QUOTE] Oh no, Nazis and concentration camps are nothing. Soviet Union is the evil empire.

[QUOTE=Azaz3l;40288044]Oh no, Nazis and concentration camps are nothing. Soviet Union is the evil empire.[/QUOTE] Both were awful places.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40281347]why are you glorifying nazi volunteers? especially when theres loads of proof that they did commit warcrimes by prominent historians...[/QUOTE] It was mostly small as fuck groups as i can see. I mean hell they wanted to remove megele's name from the vet list for being so fucked up. Also history is written by the victors and if we lost, ours would be the firebombings in japan.

This has been an interesting and enlightening thread to read. Mainly everyone is wrong or just in the extremes.

[QUOTE=Azaz3l;40288044]Oh no, Nazis and concentration camps are nothing. Soviet Union is the evil empire.[/QUOTE] Wow, you seriously believe that the Soviet Union was not bad or anything? You're either russian or from some western countries which has no fucking idea what the fuck happened in Eastern Europe.

[QUOTE=Azaz3l;40288044]Oh no, Nazis and concentration camps are nothing. Soviet Union is the evil empire.[/QUOTE] Hitler killed a total of 10 million of his own people. Stalin killed around 30 million. Mao killed a whopping 70 million.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40288258]Hitler killed a total of 10 million of his own people. Stalin killed around 30 million. Mao killed a whopping 70 million.[/QUOTE] It's not a contest.

[QUOTE=Calkkuna;40288260]It's not a contest.[/QUOTE] I never meant to imply it was. What I'm saying is that Hitler was nothing compared to Stalin and Mao and saying otherwise is stupid.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40288271]I never meant to imply it was. What I'm saying is that Hitler was nothing compared to Stalin and Mao and saying otherwise is stupid.[/QUOTE] I think his post was supposed to be sarcastic.

[QUOTE=Calkkuna;40288284]I think his post was supposed to be sarcastic.[/QUOTE] His implication was that the Nazis were worse than the Soviets.

[QUOTE=Retardation;40281029]by whom?[/QUOTE] Over 30 000 of MY people were deported to Siberia and half of my dads side of the family died there. You're an ignorant asshole. Also, communism sucked donkey dick compared to what life we live now.

[QUOTE=Hammerz;40288293]Over 30 000 of MY people were deported to Siberia and half of my dads side of the family died there. You're an ignorant asshole.[/QUOTE] Stalin can suck a fat one.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40288024]The revolution mainly happened due to the incompetence of the tsar and loss of power from the traditional parts of society which supported him. Had the last tsar not been a complete fuckwit and they stopped trying to constantly meddle in the Balkans, they wouldn't have been dragged into such a war. Yes, hence if he was actually competent things would be different. I would more argue that infrastructure breaking down, food shortages, and conservative nobles in the government and military made things much worse. The Russian army could hold its own in a fight, but mismanagement of it and poor logistics made things much worse. The factories could actually produce enough for the army (Russia produced more shells than Germany in 1916) but getting them to the front lines was the hard part. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] The Soviet Union was the worst thing to happen to Eastern Europe and Russia.[/QUOTE] No army can hold its own without proper supplies, the Russian infrastructure was inferior compared to Germany which limited both supplies and fast troop movement. The issue with Balkans, agreed but the Serbs were largely Slaivc and Russians were calling out to defend their fellow own Slavs maybe a different leader would have done otherwise. Food shortages, was included in my home front argument and to add that with low morale and all, soldiers were deserting, especially in mass numbers with the short-lived Transitional government. And was USSR worst thing to happen to Eastern Europe and Russia? I say yes to an extent, Nazi Germany and winning WW2 defiantly increased Russian influence with satellite states and all fucking things up, but there were atrocities committed by the Soviets before WW2, mass shootings and all increased during WW2 and put a big strain on the population with starvation, war etc, so Nazi Germany-USSR go hand and hand.

[QUOTE=Retardation;40288550]so what you're saying is this; the total combined losses of the SU during WW2 stands at: 26.6 million. this is both civilian and military casualties. according to you, Stalin somehow personally managed to kill an additional 30 million. apparently 56.6 million soviet people died in 30 years. right? except that makes no fucking sense, because the population of the SU was growing exceptionally during Stalin's rule. if we do the math, you're saying that every family in the SU had a close relative executed or sent to the Gulags and nobody gave a shit when in reality, this would spark massive riots, if we follow your made-up statistics. i'm not even taking into account the huge industrial growth prior to WW2 which could not have a been achieved when you've executed 50% of your labor force.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#Brief_history[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Number_of_people_executed[/url]

[QUOTE=Retardation;40288635]did even you read those? they come nowhere near 30 fucking million people dead. at the absolute maximum, stalin is responsible for 9-10 million deaths and that's taking into account holodomor which i really shouldn't.[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't it take holodomor into account? Also those 3 sources I provided give at least 10 million dead.