Bush says Cold War captivity one of great wrongs

And what about Lenin? Wasn't he Russian? Were not Bolsheviks Russian Party? (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party). There are many historians (e.g. Richard Pipes) who say that USSR had less to do with communist ideology, and more with Russian imperial tradition. In other words communism was a prop for the tumbling Russian empire. I think totalitarianism was a constant part of Russian politics since the times of Ivan the Terrible. You seem to be very much impressed by the fact that Stalin was Georgian. But Catarina II was German, and all her successors too. And so what? President Eisenhower was German too. And so what?

And what about Lenin? Wasn't he Russian? Were not Bolsheviks Russian Party? (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party). ==

The word "russian" has 2 means: first, russian by citezenry, second, russian by ethnicity. In russian language there are 2 differnet words which translated on english by one "russian": "rossyiskii" - means russian by citizenry, "russlii" - russian by ethnicity.
Russian EMpire has inside amny enthinicties. Like any empire for example British Empire.

SO "Russian Social Democratic Labor Party" is translation on english. In original it was "Rossyiskii" means russian by citizenry. People in that party was mostly non russian by ethnicity citizens of Russian Empire. So when that patry grabs power in 1917 then Civil War began. War was between non-russians supporting bolshevicks and Russian national White Movement. It took 4 years.
Bolshevicks promised many ethnicities national independence that why in Civil war many of them supported and helped bolshevicks. For example, national latvian rifle divisions was guards of Lenin goverment and helped them a lot.
Later of casue bolshevicks withdrew thise promise of independence and in 1940 SOviet Union annexed baltic states.

I think totalitarianism was a constant part of Russian politics since the times of Ivan the Terrible. You seem to be very much impressed by the fact that Stalin was Georgian. But Catarina II was German, and all her successors too. And so what? President Eisenhower was German too. And so what?==

You know I stress that Stalin is georgian and that russians wasn't in charge of USSR until Gorby (which is truth) as answer to as many people indentified "SOviet Union" as "Russia" then began to blame ETHNIC russians for misdeeds of Soviet Union. At same time they compeletly ignore that Soviet Union was international and anti-russian state. State where russian tradition was being destroyed and where the leadership wasn't russian.

Ekaterina II came to Russia as wife of russian czar. Hitler's party was elected by germans on free election.
But Lenin and Stalin came in Moscow as winners over russian side after Civil War. See difference.
They took former capital Moscow and residence of Partriach the Kremlin as their residence. They spoke russian language but they was anti-russians by sense.

It was just like if indians from India won over britons in British Island then set in London. Then renamed empire as "Commonwealth of English speaking people". But someone called it British Empire nevertheless. I presume that britons would be against it.

Soviets didn't support Russian Empire. They just assembled thier own empire from former parts of Russian Empire. They used of cause some of former mechanism too.
SO it is correct when we address events in between 1922-1991 then we talk about Soviet Union and soviet people of 100+ different ethnicities. No "Russia" and no "russians".

BTW ethnically Lenin was half chuvasian and half jew. His mother was jewish. Stalin was georgian. Hruschev, Brezhnev, Chernenko was ukranians.

I'm far from convinced by your arguments. What decides about ethinicity? First of all language . If Russian is your mother tongue then you are Russian, whether your grandmother was Jewish or Kalmuk, what does it matter? (By the way, I'm told Pushkin was a quarter-Negro. Is it true?)

"War was between non-russians supporting bolshevicks and Russian national White Movement. It took 4 years."

I know nothing about ethnic makeup of Bolsheviks. But it is impossible that they could take over power in Russia without active support of russian people. How else could they win the war? They had no wunderwaffe and somebody had to fight in their army. Do you really want me to believe that White Russians were defeated by an army made up of Jews, Latvians, Poles and other minorities? (and White Russia had also the support of English and French) Be serious Ivan.
There was no invasion from Mars in 1917. The civil war that ensued was a war between two segments of Russian society: White Russia and Red Russia. Red Russia won.

"They spoke russian language but they was anti-russians by sense."

That is something I can't understand. The French Revolution destroyed the Church in France and French nobility, which were definitely a great part of French tradition. Was the French Revolution anti-French?
People in Soviet non-russian republics and in satellite countries were forced to learn Russian language, and it was not only communist propaganda but Russian literature and culture and history, and all those stories about how beautiful is Moscow (I can remember them well from my russian textbook). That's what you call anti-Russian empire?

Please tell me exactly in WHAT sense they were anti-Russian.

Please tell me exactly in WHAT sense they were anti-Russian.==

Many senses. Soviets destroy russian tradition, religion as part of it. Way of life. Instead they inplemented newly created "soviet people" nation.

Yes they insisted to learn russian language but how could they do against it if number of ethnic russians was half of sobiet people. BTW it is an explaination why they won. Ethnic russians was only half or less in Empire.
In today for example Russia russians are majority near 80%. So I beleive no anti-russains power may win in today Russia.
Commmies robbed russian resouces for sake of development of "friends". No russians was heads of Soviet state. And so on.

If Russian is your mother tongue then you are Russian, whether your grandmother was Jewish or Kalmuk, what does it matter? (By the way, I'm told Pushkin was a quarter-Negro. Is it true?) ==

True. Pushkin was quarter-negro. Whose is russian is defined quite same as who is polish or german or italian. If you have definition about it then just substitute it with word "russian".

Do you really want me to believe that White Russians were defeated by an army made up of Jews, Latvians, Poles and other minorities? ==

I don't tell that no russians was between bolshevicks. Some were. As in White movenets there were some non-russians.
BUT in those time no one knew exactly what will the bolshevick power. SO people at time took sides by thier national instincts.
Plus bolshevicks bribed minorities by land and promise of independece.

=== Please tell me exactly in WHAT sense they were anti-Russian.==

"Many senses. Soviets destroy russian tradition, religion as part of it. Way of life. Instead they inplemented newly created "soviet people" nation."

Put another way, the SOVIETS were anti-Russian in the same way extreme leftists in our country are anti-American.

They hate what is good and decent - virtue, freedom, tradition, bourgeois prosperity - and love control, despotism, social engineering, and mind control.

Put another way, the SOVIETS were anti-Russian in the same way extreme leftists in our country are anti-American. ==

You know it is interesting comparison:). BUT I would say that "soviets" is what russians and not only them had to be in Soviet Union by force of repressions. Of cause commies are willingly soviets.

If in America they compelled you to be a "leftist" and foregt who you are and want to be under threat of to be thrown into prison camp or executed then comparison would be equal.

"You also left out how it was SOVIET help in getting around the limitations of the Versailles treaty that helped the Germans to rebuild their military forces. Before and DURING the Nazi regime."

I will just mention one name here - Hjalmar Schacht. Read a bio of this man and you will know, who financed Hitler.

There is no black and white in history.

"Put another way, the SOVIETS were anti-Russian in the same way extreme leftists in our country are anti-American."

No, this comparison doesn't hold water. We're not talking about political and ideological positions but about ETHNICITY. You may say about Mike Moore that he is stupid American, "not real" American or anti-american American, you may even call him traitor, but you can't deny that HE IS American. When you say he is not American it is a metaphor, not literal meaning.

I might agree that Soviets were anti-russian in a sense, but what RusIvan says is that they were NOT Russians at all (do I understand you correctly Ivan?), and today's Russians have no reason to feel a least bit ashamed or guilty of their past. It is the same "victim philosphy" as in Germany (we didn't do, we were Hitler's victims, just like you), but in Russia it is raised to the position of official state ideology.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.