Russia: 'Phallic' Case Threatens Internet Freedom

Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty ^ | June 2, 2006 | Brian Whitmore

[sergey1973]

"Of course Romanov - the Ukrainians and Cambodians and Jews and Armenians all killed themselves - there was no genocide. "

This is an absurd twist of your opponent arguments, span.

Of course Ukrainians, Cambodians and Jews were murdered in Communist and Nazi Genocide. What others object is to your claim that Russians (whether you count them by ethnicity, place of residence, etc.) were the only perpetrators and benefactors of Communist regime while non-ethnic Russians were exclusively among the victims. At least that's how I see your arguments.

This is a nonsense. Russians (whether as ethnic group or residents of Russian federation) under Soviet regime were among both Perpetrators and Victims of the regime as other major ethnicities of fmr. USSR. In fact, under Stalin, yesterday's perpetrator could become tomorrow's victim. Yagoda and Ezhov--two Stalin's NKVD heads and henchmen responsible for Great Terror of the 1930's--were later demoted and shot during Stalin tenure. Stalin's own relatives were imprisoned. It's rumored that Stalin's wife Nadya Aliluyeva was shot by Stalin rather than committed suicide in 1934.

We can discuss endlessly the ethnicity of the top Soviet henchmen and say should they be counted as Russians or not.
Personally I don't care if Stalin and Beria origin was Georgian or Kaganovich origin was Jewish. What matters really is that they were Communists carrying out the murderous policies of communist ideology. Ethnic Georgians also perished in droves under Stalin USSR--the fact that their ethnic brethren were on top of USSR machine did not helped them as a group at all.

It does not deprive Russians as people of responsibility for the Soviet regime. As the largest group inside the fmr. USSR they were also the largest group inside Communist Party and the Soviet Security apparatus responsible for carrying out repressions. It's also the fact that many Russians even today, continue viewing Stalin as the father figure who made Soviet Union a great power.

But they were also the largest group of GULAG slaves and many millions of them perished during collectivization, Great Terror and other Stalin repressions. You can read it in a number of books, like "Great Terror" by Robert Conquest, "Gulag: A History", by Anne Applebaum, etc. You can blame many Russians for having a slave mentality and continuing to believe in Communist mythology which is a big factor in helping Putin regime to stay in power. But it's preposterous and ludicrous to deny that millions of Russians were also among the Soviet Communist regime victims.

[sergey1973]

"The Russians killed 100 million in the last century".

I never knew that Mao Tze Dung and Pol Pot were Russians too -:)))) I always thought they were Chinese and Cambodian respectively, but maybe you know more than I do. Or as I recall, you claimed that Chinese acted as "Russian Agents".

Well, let's look at some historical facts. Stalin (as terrible as he was), wasn't particularly keen of Mao seizing the power in China in 1949. Probably he understood that Communism did not abolish Nationalism and Imperialism.

After the death of Stalin, Soviet-Chinese relations gradually disintegrated and hit rock-bottom, including a series of military clashes in the Far-East in the late 1960's. You may read here an interesting piece of info here on USSR-China relations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_Split

[steve-b]

Puty-Poot is just upset that someone is pointing out his shortcomings.

[spanalot]

"I never knew that Mao Tze Dung and Pol Pot were Russians too "

Both despots you mentioned were supported by the Russians throughout their reign of savagery - Mao's funding by the Kremlin started in 1924.

[spanalot]

"What others object is to your claim that Russians (whether you count them by ethnicity, place of residence, etc.) were the only perpetrators and benefactors of Communist regime while non-ethnic Russians were exclusively among the victims."

You and your friends can spin all you want - the fact remains that the Kremlin has been and is in RUSSIA and that it was the agent of death for 100 million.

I won't suffer your sophist games gladly either.

And the Tsarist regimes were as bloodthirsty as the communist and hope is fading for the current russian state.

[sergey1973]

"You and your friends can spin all you want - the fact remains that the Kremlin has been and is in RUSSIA and that it was the agent of death for 100 million. "

My posts has nothing to do with whitewashing Kremlin (or Russia for that matter), but it was a refutation of your ludicrous claims you made in previous forums that ethnic Russians were not among victims of Communism (or only a few of them). Again, for a special cases like you, read books like "GULAG: A History", by Anne Applebaum, "Great Terror" by Robert Conquest, "Stalin: In A Court of Red Czar" by Seemon Seebag Montefiore and plenty of other books by Western (not Russian) researchers. Russian-Soviet communism was a deadly force aimed against Soviet people of all ethnic and religious groups. At one time or another a particular group that deemed the biggest threat to the regime was targeted the hardest (i.e. Ukrainian Peasantry genocide of 1932-1933, forced relocation of ethnicities, like Chechens, Crimean Tartars, etc) but people of all groups and ethnicities were a target of paranoid Stalin's regime wrath and the fact that Stalin's own relatives were in Prisons and Gulags (as a few wives of top politburo members) illustrate it perfectly. I simply gave you the historical facts and research that you can find easily and read yourself if you are interested.

So quit demagoguery, span and quit accusing anyone who disagrees with you on some points as being Kremlin propagandists. It's a ludicrous and completely dishonest tactic, and it's not unlike Communists accusing anyone who oppose Communists as "Nazis" or Muslims accusing anyone who criticizes Islam as "Islamophobes" or "Racists". Your baseless accusations and character assassination attempts simply do not impress me and do not stick with me -:)))

[sergey1973]

"Both despots you mentioned were supported by the Russians throughout their reign of savagery - Mao's funding by the Kremlin started in 1924."

Again, look at the facts I gave you in wikipedia. You can find plenty of other sources on Soviet-Chinese relations on Google, public libraries, etc. At one point Kremlin did support Mao, but after the death of Stalin the Soviet-Chinese relations deteriorated over who is the leader of the Communist world (plus old Russian-Chinese territorial disputes came to surface), and the two Communist super-powers nearly went to war after skirmishes in the late 1960's in the Far East Soviet-Chinese border.

Plus, China supported US in ousting Soviet Troops from Afghanistan because it saw the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan as an attempt to encircle China. Current Russian-Chinese seemingly cordial relations driven by Putin may be in a long term a terrible danger to Russia. China did not forget that it lost Far-East to Russian Empire in the 19th century. Many Chinese have moved into the Far East and China with it's ever growing and increasingly restive population at some point may revive the claims on Russian Territory.

That's a politics span--the often unprincipled Darwinian game of the survival of the fittest.

[spanalot]

"At one point Kremlin did support Mao, but after the death of Stalin the Soviet-Chinese relations deteriorated"

Does that "point" include the time when Russia and Mao exterminated 60 million? That is some "point".

You are not fooling anyone.

[sergey1973]

"You are not fooling anyone."

I fool anyone ? -:)))) How ? By posting a few links to articles about Soviet-Chinese relations ? Maybe you want to say that I wrote them myself ? -:)))) I never knew that I was a speed writer who could make historical papers up in a few minutes -:)))

FYI, Cultural revolution and Great Leap forward that claimed the lives of tens of millions of Chinese happened long after the death of Stalin in the late 1950's when USSR and China were fighting each other for Communist world domination. So please quit your nonsense span about me airbrushing anything.

If you repeat nonsense a hundred times, it won't become truth.

[sergey1973]

Here are the articles on Chinese-Soviet relations I posted on another forum plus CIA report.

http://www.answers.com/Sino-Soviet%20Split

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9313563

http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter98_99/art05.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/15/spotlight/

Below are the links about Chinese Famine during the Mao's "Great Leap Forward" in 1958-1961 when the bulk of Chinese Communism deaths occured.

Stalin had been dead and the USSR headed by Kruschev at a time who had already denounced Stalin in a secret speech of 1956. Mao, who idolized Stalin, hated Kruschev. At a time Soviet Union and China had an ideological split over Communism and its direction. Plus, USSR supression of anti-Communist Hungarian uprising of 1956, made China nervous that Kremlin could interfere in China's affairs too due to ideological differences. So USSR and China where anything but friendly at a time.

Mao's" Great Leap Forward" was Mao's emulation of Stalin's Industrialization and Collectivization in the USSR of 1929-1933 that brought Ukrainian Famine-Genocide and "lesser famines" throughout former USSR. Kruschev who was one of the key figures in Stalin government at a time and the Native of Ukraine, knew the first hand what these policies will lead too. While he was one of the Stalin stooges, he at least learned something from this terrible period.

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/hunger/famine/chinese_famine.html

http://www.answers.com/Great%20Leap%20Forward

In other words, to argue a point, back it up with some research. I didn't find any evidence from more-or-less reliable sources that Russia-USSR at a time of Mao's "Great Leap Forward", supported, encouraged or facilitated Mao's Policies. Kruschev ordered all the military advisors and Soviet Civilians (engineers, scientists, etc) to be completely withdrawn from China in 1960. Later, during Mao's "Cultural Revolution", USSR and China nearly went to war over Far Eastern border.

This is not to say that Soviet Communism overall was any better than Chinese one--it's elementary respect for historically documented facts.

[spanalot]

"USSR and China were fighting each other for Communist world domination"

I missed that war - I know of the Russian genocide of 40 million and the Chinese genocide of 60 million and the Korean War and the VietNam War, but I missed the SinoSoviet war?

When was that and I am sure that many millions must have perished (if you say so).

[sergey1973]

Ok--that was a bad word choice--they were rivals for domination of Communist world. The USSR and China in fact nearly went to war in 1969 and there were border skirmishes that left hundreds of Soviet and Chinese soldiers dead

The rest are historical facts in the links I provided. So if you disagree with them, you can write email to the sites where these articles were published.

[spanalot]

The trick to understanding official Russian or Chinese pronouncements of a rift is to believe not a word of it.

Here is the truth from a retired general.

---

In that report, written 29 years ago, I listed 50 advantages to the implementation of the 1928 program if the West could be convinced of the legitimacy and irreversibility of the Sino-Soviet split. The first ten of those advantages to implementing the World Communist Program were as follows:

"1. It justified a major reduction in Free World forces and, at the same time, justifies a high level of defense preparedness for both Russia and China." [It resulted in an inversion of the balance of power in the world.]

"2. It induced a complacent, do nothing, if not indifferent attitude toward the critical military balance of power." [It became politically incorrect to even question the Sino-Soviet conflict's legitimacy.]

"3. It Justified a more aggressive Soviet program in 'competition' with China in Asia, Africa and South America." [They were both involved in the generation and support of communist "Wars of National Liberation".]

"4. The 'peaceful coexistence' role of the U.S.S.R. and the supposedly more aggressive role of China complement each other in reducing the Free World For example: one approach worked better in Syria and the other approach worked better in Tibet." [That performance has been repeated many times.]

"5. The Sino-Soviet split helped get the U.S. committed in a big way, but not too big for Russia and China, in a land war in Southeast Asia - - supported by both Russia and China." [While we were dissipating Forces in Vietnam they were consolidating power in the Middle East and North Africa.]

"6. The alleged breakup of the world communist monolith into supposedly 'loose and pluralistic grouping(s) of communist states,' justifies for many the disintegration of the Free World Alliances buildup over many years, for containing communism. 'Polycentrism in the East breeds polycentrism in the West.'" [29 years later, we have a new rendition in Perestroika and a communist world push for a "comprehensive" UN controlled security system under a communist dominated UN. Effort to move NATO into East Europe is part of the dialectic.]

"7. The split justifies a repolarization of the world struggle along specious and phoney lines, i.e , 'The basic conflict is not between the U.S. and Russia, nor ever between the U.S. and China. It is between Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism." [Disinformation.]

"8. The Sino-Soviet split has been used to justify a weakening of NATO, i e., "it may have outlived its usefulness." [The central push is now for former Soviet Union countries to come into new groupings in the move toward a "comprehensive" security system.]

"9. The Sino-Soviet split hoax, along with the war in Vietnam, has been used to force the isolation of America on the international scene." [Today, the U.S.A. almost stands alone in opposing a second five-year term for Boutros-Ghali as Secretary General of the United Nations.]

" 10. The Sino-Soviet split and the resulting reapproachment between East and West European countries has contributed to the rise of nationalism in East Europe and a weakening of the West European coalition." [Orchestrated for convergence.]

Report Conclusions - - (written 29 years ago!)

"1. For military force structure planning purposes, the Sino-Soviet conflict must be considered a hoax so as to reduce, if not minimize, long-term national risk."

"2. There is sufficient documented evidence available to severely challenge the popularly held view that the Sino-Soviet split is genuine, deep and irreversible."

"3. From all the arguments and evidence supporting the hypothesis of a genuine split, there are at least as good arguments, and perhaps more consistently reliable information which supports the idea that the popular view of the Sino-Soviet split is specious, misleading and a masterful deception."

"4. The Sino-Soviet split payoff to the communist world, even as a highly advertised genuine conflict, is so great that both Russia and China would be foolish not to exacerbate it for the eyes and ears of the Free World."

"5. The Sino-Soviet split, as a hoax, is one the highest payoff operations of the entire world communist movement since its very beginning."

"6. The Sino-Soviet split payoff to the Communist World, as a hoax, is sufficiently great to make the deception a major foundation - - if not cornerstone of Sino-Soviet foreign policy. Almost no expense or inconvenience would be too great to assure the continued Western faith that the split is genuine."

"7. In the Free World, the Sino-Soviet split thesis offers something to everyone. Almost everyone wishes to believe it. Disbelief creates too many problems in required actions. Therefore, there is a natural propensity to reject any idea that the Sino-Soviet split is not genuine. Moreover, with all the affirming publicity, much stemming from within the Sino-Soviet Camp, we are well conditioned to believe it in much the same way Pavlov's dogs responded to the bells."

"8. The 1928 Program of The Communist International tempered by personality factors, historical necessity, and opportunism, provides a consistent, coherent, reasonably predictably model of understanding of the world socialist movement and Sino-Soviet relations. The popularly held model of Sino-Soviet conflict understanding is inconsistent, incoherent, and unreliable as a basis for prediction and expectation."

"9. Part of the foundation on which the Sino-Soviet split thesis is built, is in fact specified as part of the 1928 COMINTERN Program."

"10. The Future of a free and independent United States and Free World depends to a considerable extent on an accurate understanding of the alleged Sino-Soviet conflict and taking appropriate courses of action."

"11. Assuming as true the model of understanding of the Sino-Soviet split and the world revolutionary processes, hypothesized, developed, and tested in this paper, we should expect the following:"

Predictions - - (made in 1967 - - 29 years ago)

"a. Secret Sino-Soviet cooperation in the democratic penetration, subversion, economic warfare and - - in the more backward countries - - externally supported flagrant aggression and orchestration of wars of national liberation." [Proven by time.]

"b. Continued efforts of communist forces to expand the war in Southeast Asia to increase U.S. commitments." [Proven by time.]

"c. That India will either move peacefully and reliably into the Marxist camp or the liberation struggle will soon move into the violent phase." [Moved toward the Marxist camp.]

"d. The Marxist world will soon exercise hegemony over the Moslem Middle East." [Mostly done.]

"e. A gradual increase in the numbers of Wars of National Liberation in the more advanced 'semi-colonial' countries." [Done. In Canada the conflict thesis is French Separatist, in the U.S.A. it is racial, in Ireland it is Protestant vs. Catholic, in Rwanda it is tribal, Tutsi (mostly Christian) versus Hutu (mostly Animist).]

"f. A continued, but reduced, public exacerbation of the Sino-Soviet split thesis by both Russia and China until they are ready for a major showdown with the U.S. " [Proven by time.]

"g. An increased level of urban guerilla warfare and arson in the U S in concert with increased violence in South Vietnam and increase pressure against mobilization." [Watts, D.C., TET, Tricontinental Congress, etc.]

"h. A globally coordinated attempt by the Marxist world to over saturate U S. commitments, to force a U.S. back down in Southeast Asia, with tactical nuclear weapons if necessary." [Dunkirk type evacuation, Tricontinental Congress success.]

"i. The above sequence fulfillment would be regarded as the completion of another step - - in the struggle for world domination - - that was basically programmed in the 1920's."

Report Conclusions Continued

"12. The strategy of deterrence and massive retaliation tended to ignore the gradual revolutionary processes of wars of national liberation, as they were originally planned and are still being conducted - - with some refinements."

" 13. The strategy of flexible response reacts to wars of national liberation after they have reached the violent phase, and after they have undergone many years of previolent preparation. A more applicable strategy is needed."

" 14. Although there are many causes on which the pre-violent phase of wars of national liberation feed - - and if causes do not exist they are created - - however, under the 1928 Program hypothesis, it is orthodox, doctrinary and practical that the liberation forces require and are provided, external assistance from the Marxist world."

" 15. The World Socialist Movement has progressed to the point where the advantages accruing from the Sino-Soviet split thesis will start to diminish. Under the 1928 Program hypothesis, world socialist solidarity will then become more popularly acclaimed. [Proven by time - - the chiefs of state have already hugged and kissed in public in the treachery of the Leninist/Gramscian Perestroika deception.]

Sino-Soviet Split - - A Disinformation Program!

[sergey1973]

If it were all disinformation, then how does it explain.

1960 Withdrawal of Soviet personnel from China

1969 Skirmishes on Soviet-China border.

1972 Nixon visit to China.

1980's Chinese support to expel Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

Soviet Aid to India in it's border disputes with China.

Isn't it too much for pure ploy ?

[spanalot]

"1972 Nixon visit to China. "

How is this a sign of a sinosoviet split - youre really grabbing for straws - give it up.

[sergey1973]

"Proven by time - - the chiefs of state have already hugged and kissed in public in the treachery of the Leninist/Gramscian Perestroika deception"

Well--if Perestroika is deception, then

1. Collapse of Warsaw block, Destruction of Berlin Wall is deception and Nato enlargement in the East is some sort of entrapment.

2. All those leaders who helped to bring down Communist regime in E. Europe, including Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Lech Walesa, etc. were all mere fools who believed communist propaganda and they achievements mean nothing.

Sorry--but this logic does not sound sane to me.

[sergey1973]

"How is this a sign of a sinosoviet split - youre really grabbing for straws - give it up."

So in FR, any opinion that is contrary to yours, is not acceptable--right ? -:)))Anyway, you have your references, and I have mine. If you didn't read anything that I provided, let me post it for you here.

http://www.answers.com/topic/sino-soviet-split

"In July 1971, Henry Kissinger secretly visited Beijing and laid the groundwork for President Richard Nixon's visit to China in February 1972. Although the Soviets were initially furious, they soon held a summit of their own with Nixon, thus creating a triangular relationship between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow. This ended the worst period of confrontation between the Soviet Union and China."

"In the 1970s, Sino-Soviet rivalry also spread to Africa and the Middle East, where each Communist power supported and funded different parties, movements, and states. This helped fuel the war between Ethiopia and Somalia, the civil wars in Zimbabwe, Angola and Mozambique, and the rivalry between various groups of radical Palestinians. Unlike the Soviets, the Chinese did not actually send troops to any of these trouble spots, but their competitive intervention helped create and maintain instability."

[sergey1973]

Here is another reference on Soviet-Chinese relations from Heritage Foundation 1985 Article "Is Bejing Playing Its Moscow Card ?"

Of course you can disregard them and believe only whatever you want to believe, but it means disregarding a number of researchers who studied Soviet-Chinese relations for years. So it's seems mathematically improbable that all of them got it wrong in the same way.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/asb36.cfm

"In the 36 years since the founding of the People's Republic of China, relations between the PRC and the Soviet Union have swung spectacularly. The two countries closely cooperated against the U.S. during the Korean War. Throughout most of the 1950s Sino-Soviet relations were close. By the end of the decade, how- ever, serious strains emerged over territorial disputes, ideo- logical differences, intra-communist bloc rivalry,.conflicting strategy toward the West, and personal animosity between Nikita Khrushchev and Mao Zedong."

"In 1960 Khrushchev withdrew all Soviet advisors and aid from China. Relations between the two communist countries deteriorated steadily, and in March 1969, the two sharply clashed militarily in several places along the Sino-Soviet border. During the spring and summer of 1969 the Soviet Union mobilized its forces in the region in apparent preparation for a major attack against China. Concerned that such a war would rapidly escalate, and seeing an ideal opportunity to take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split, the Nixon Administration warned Moscow that an attack against China would threaten U.S. interests. The U.S. position reduced the im- minent threat of war, and by fall 1969 the crisis had abated some- what. Nonetheless, Sino-Soviet tensions remained high until the early 1980s."

[spanalot]

Do you really expect us to believe that there was some "jealousy" because Kisinger went to China?

And what shism was there in Africa - Russian and China succeeded in destabilizing the entire continent and ruin any western investment that had been made there in the prior 100 years

[sergey1973]

span--the references you gave me a bunch of conspiracy theories that belong in a shrink office or in a good fiction book.

First, ask yourself a question who could plan and predict way back in 1928:

The China becoming Communist.

China and USSR need to become rivals (or pretending to be rivals to fool the West).

The Creation of United Nations, NATO, Warsaw Pact, World War II, Cold War, War in Vietnam, and a bunch of other events.

You've got to have a Divine power to predict and plan for that.

Just look at one of the points.

"d. The Marxist world will soon exercise hegemony over the Moslem Middle East." [Mostly done.] "

Does it mean that Saudi Arabia 10,000 + Muslim oil billionnaire Princes are Marxists ? Do they pay tribute to Russia ? Or are they closet Marxists (like closet homosexuals). What about US troops in Iraq and mad Mullahs in Iran ? Where is Marxist domination there ? Egypt--secular authocracy, Israel--Middle East only liberal democracy and Jordan--Muslim Monarchy--are they all Marxist too or under Marxist thumb ?

Overall--span, If you believe every well stated conspiracy theory, feel free to do so, but don't expect me or someone else not to question it.