bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan) (11/19/85)
In article <828@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >"If you repeat something long enough, people will come to >believe it." Joseph Goebbels >[...] >Kruschev *never* said "we will bury you." What he said was >"we will survive you." This has an entirely different meaning. >[...] > tim sevener whuxn!orb Granted, Tim, it has a very different meaning. Funny, but even at the time *all* the press quoted Khruschev as saying "We will bury you!", with much emphasis on burial. Nary a word on "survive". What is your source for this apparently liberal interpretation of yours? -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/20/85)
> In article <828@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >"If you repeat something long enough, people will come to > >believe it." Joseph Goebbels > >[...] > >Kruschev *never* said "we will bury you." What he said was > >"we will survive you." This has an entirely different meaning. > >[...] > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > Granted, Tim, it has a very different meaning. > > Funny, but even at the time *all* the press quoted Khruschev as saying > "We will bury you!", with much emphasis on burial. Nary a word on "survive". > What is your source for this apparently liberal interpretation of yours? > William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill This was pointed out on a show about the decline in foreign language skills in the United States and the consequences of this decline. The speaker pointed out that Americans tend to be singularly ignorant of languages other than English. This has hurt us gravely both in terms of foreign policy and trade with other countries. The speaker mentioned the mistranslation of Khruschev's "we will survive you" as one of the premier examples of how important a correct translation can be in terms of foreign policy. Mistakenly translating Khruschev's phrase as "we will bury you" has been an eminent source of hostility ever since. The fact that *all* the press mistakenly reported this incorrect translation does not surprise me one whit. *All* the press has mistakenly reported many other things which turned out to be wrong. For example, *all* the press reported the US government's allegations that the Soviets were using "Yellow Rain" as a form of chemical warfare in violation of chemical warfare treaties in Southeast Asia. Where has the press reported the recent Scientific American article which conclusively demonstrates that, in fact, "Yellow Rain" is actually bee feces? The New York Times ran a short article on it. Otherwise it has hardly attracted the headlines of the original "Yellow Rain" charge, or the charge that the Sandinistas were receiving Soviet MIG's, or the General Advisory Committee's report (*not endorsed by ANY agency of the government*) on Soviet treaty violations. This is why I find it a joke when people complain about a "liberal bias" in the media. On the other hand, while Khruschev never said "We will bury you", Ronald Reagan *did* say: "The bombing starts in five minutes." Hopefully, the Summit Meeting may attain results just the opposite of this sentiment and some sort of rapprochement between the two superpowers able to blow up the planet. tim sevener whuxn!orb
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (11/20/85)
In article <454@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan) writes: > >Funny, but even at the time *all* the press quoted Khruschev as saying >"We will bury you!", with much emphasis on burial. Nary a word on "survive". >What is your source for this apparently liberal interpretation of yours? The Russian language, in which Khrushchev was speaking. He used a proverbial expression meaning "we will outlive you," which is standard Soviet dogma: capitalism will die from its internal contradictions and the proletarian revolution, and communism will reign supreme. It is as if the Soviet press, noting that Dave Stockman had been taken "to the woodshed" by Reagan and that Carter threatened to "whip Kennedy's ass," claimed that public figures were punished by flogging in the US. There is enough to dislike about the Soviets without projecting one's paranoid fears and making them into monsters bent on destroying the US by force. This is worth remembering in the context of the Geneva summit and arms negotiations. We ought to be careful to interpret correctly what the other side is saying, rather than reading our preconceptions into their words. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/21/85)
> >Kruschev *never* said "we will bury you." What he said was > >"we will survive you." This has an entirely different meaning. > >[...] > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > Granted, Tim, it has a very different meaning. > > Funny, but even at the time *all* the press quoted Khruschev as saying > "We will bury you!", with much emphasis on burial. Nary a word on "survive". > What is your source for this apparently liberal interpretation of yours? > > -- > William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill I believe that it is simply a translation problem. Somebody have the Russian source? Anybody got a Cyrillic keyboard out there? Jeffrey Myers
gtaylor@astroatc.UUCP (11/21/85)
The phrase "we will bury you" is idiomatic Russian. All it means is that you outlive your opponent and have the last word. -- She lost her luck/She lost her red shoes/she lost her wallet but she never lost her nerve./She wasn't lonely/no not much. -the Golden Palominos---------------------------------------- Gregory Taylor/...!uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor /Madison, Wisconsin
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (11/22/85)
If the Soviets have murdered approximately 30 million
of their own folks in the 68 years since the Revolution
began, what makes you think they wouldn't do in a couple
hundred million of US capitalist pig dogs ??
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/22/85)
> > On the other hand, while Khruschev never said "We will bury you", > Ronald Reagan *did* say: > "The bombing starts in five minutes." > I suppose Khruschev never beat his desk with his fists while other speakers at the United Nations tried to talk, or I suppose he never took off his shoes and beat the heals against the podium. Nice behavior for a world leader. How embarassing if Reagan or any other president did this. Khruschev's behavior was a frightening caricature of a disturbed little boy who wasn't getting his way. With a disturbed personality such as this, would it surprise anyone if he said "We will bury you or We will survive you?" What did he mean 'survive us'? After a nuclear attack, Russia will be alive andAmerica will be dead? Food for thought here. Did Khruschev say: "We won't have to defeat you from outside, you will be defeated from within, and your youth will raise our flag?" Communists causing unrest over here? Hmmmm. Sometimes I get the impression from the responses on the net that some youths already have their hands on the flag pole rope.
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (11/23/85)
[] > On the other hand, while Khruschev never said "We will bury you", > Ronald Reagan *did* say: > "The bombing starts in five minutes." No, no, no. This was just another widely reported misquote. What RR actually said, in idiomatic English, was "The friendly and sportsmanlike football game commences in five minutes." Isaac Dimitrovsky allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1) 251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 (212) 674-8652 You know the great thing about tv? If something important happens anywhere at all in the world, no matter what time of the day or night, you can always change the channel - Jim Ignatowski
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/25/85)
In article <13409@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > I suppose Khruschev never beat his desk with his fists while other speakers > at the United Nations tried to talk, or I suppose he never took off his shoes > and beat the heals against the podium. Nice behavior for a world leader. > How embarassing if Reagan or any other president did this. We all know that the personal style of a world leader is the most telling characteristic of an entire nation, right? Which must be why we're represented by a president who dozes during cabinet meetings and can hardly keep straight which nation he's visiting. > Khruschev's behavior was a frightening caricature of a disturbed little boy > who wasn't getting his way. With a disturbed personality such as this, > would it surprise anyone if he said "We will bury you or We will survive you?" > What did he mean 'survive us'? After a nuclear attack, Russia will be alive > and America will be dead? Food for thought here. And now for another episode of "Ray Frank, amateur psychoanalyst"! The only food for thought I perceive is how farcically misleading your arguments are. Kruschev was talking about competition of political systems, not particularly about war. > Did Khruschev say: "We won't have to defeat you from outside, you will be > defeated from within, and your youth will raise our flag?" Communists causing > unrest over here? Hmmmm. Actually, unrest is due to disenfranchisement (of power, representation, wealth, human rights, whatever): revolution (not necessarily communist) is merely one channel for the unrest. We can most effectively preserve our society by addressing our own internal inequities, rather than by looking for commies under the bed and building another generation gap. > Sometimes I get the impression from the responses on the net that some > youths already have their hands on the flag pole rope. I should hope so. Far better that than you and your little clique be the only ones allowed near it. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/26/85)
> > Did Khruschev say: "We won't have to defeat you from outside, you will be > > defeated from within, and your youth will raise our flag?"Communists causing > > unrest over here? Hmmmm. > > Sometimes I get the impression from the responses on the net that some > > youths already have their hands on the flag pole rope. > Mike Hubbensz writes:????? > I should hope so. Far better that than you and your little clique be the > only ones allowed near it. > -- Is Mike actually exposing himself as to where his loyalties lie (oops) I mean lay? Far better a communist flag flies over the good ole U. S. of A. than??? Than what Mike? C'mon, Reagan can't be that bad. ray ps Wouldn't it be nice if Russia had a Party and no one came, commrade.
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (11/26/85)
> In article <454@persci.UUCP> bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan) writes: > >Funny, but even at the time *all* the press quoted Khruschev as saying > >"We will bury you!", with much emphasis on burial. Nary a word on "survive". > >What is your source for this apparently liberal interpretation of yours? > > The Russian language, in which Khrushchev was speaking. He used a > proverbial expression meaning "we will outlive you," which is > standard Soviet dogma: capitalism will die from its internal > contradictions and the proletarian revolution, and communism will > reign supreme. It is as if the Soviet press, noting that Dave > Stockman had been taken "to the woodshed" by Reagan and that Carter > threatened to "whip Kennedy's ass," claimed that public figures were > punished by flogging in the US. There is enough to dislike about the > Soviets without projecting one's paranoid fears and making them into > monsters bent on destroying the US by force. > > This is worth remembering in the context of the Geneva summit and > arms negotiations. We ought to be careful to interpret correctly > what the other side is saying, rather than reading our preconceptions > into their words. > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes We also have to be careful with what *we* say, and how we say it. Physicist Freeman Dyson, in his recent book *Weapons and Hope*, points out that the word "deterrence," used so frequently in arms discussions in the West, translates in Russian as "intimidation." It's little wonder, given the Russians' paranoid proclivities, that they respond coolly to talk of "intimidation" by the West. -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Whirl is king. Aristophanes
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/27/85)
Re: We'll Bury You: Richard Carnes's explanation is exactly right. It means, metaphorically, we'll outlive you. (I know Russian well and am old enough to remember the episode). Actually, Khrushchev was in favor of a peaceful policy, and his bluster was to cover his rear. He cut military spending and bene- fits of the military, which was one of the causes of his down- fall. Since then, it has been twenty years of unrestricted build-up, detente or no detente. Gorbachev faces a dilemma. The economy is in deep, deep trouble (by Soviet, not just outside standards). Nothing can be improved without cutting "defense" (an inappropriate word, really). Will the marshals let him ? Can he, perhaps, compensate them with more power over the civili- an sector ? Will that work (they know how to produce quality stuff but not to count costs)? This is what disarmament prospects depend on, not smiles or curses or gaffes. What should US do ? Find out what the Russians want us to cut, and cut something else (1/2 :-)). And forget about that clown Khrushchev. He was much better than anyone since. Jan Wasilewsky
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/30/85)
> We also have to be careful with what *we* say, and how we say it. > Physicist Freeman Dyson, in his recent book *Weapons and Hope*, > points out that the word "deterrence," used so frequently in arms > discussions in the West, translates in Russian as "intimidation." > It's little wonder, given the Russians' paranoid proclivities, > that they respond coolly to talk of "intimidation" by the West. > > -- > > Michael McNeil > 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" > (415) 960-9367 > ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm > If this is why the Russians are so "intimidated" by us, then I will personally go to may local drug store and by an English to Russian dictionary and send it to Moscow, free of charge. I mean, after 40 years of negoiations, the Russians should be told the real meaning of deterrence. Well, that takes care of intimidation, next problem? ray the diplomat
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (12/02/85)
>If this is why the Russians are so "intimidated" by us, then I will personally >go to may local drug store and by an English to Russian dictionary and send >it to Moscow, free of charge. >I mean, after 40 years of negoiations, the Russians should be told the real >meaning of deterrence. >Well, that takes care of intimidation, next problem? > >ray the diplomat Before you send it off, look up "We will bury you". We can always count on Ray for depth. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/04/85)
In article <833@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >The fact that *all* the press mistakenly reported this incorrect >translation does not surprise me one whit. Me, either. They all reported the translation given by the official U.N. interpreter. >*All* the press has >mistakenly reported many other things which turned out to be wrong. >For example, *all* the press reported the US government's allegations >that the Soviets were using "Yellow Rain" as a form of chemical warfare >in violation of chemical warfare treaties in Southeast Asia. >Where has the press reported the recent Scientific American article >which conclusively demonstrates that, in fact, "Yellow Rain" is >actually bee feces? The New York Times ran a short article on it. Actually, it wasn't conclusive. The issue is still open. Scientific American is not an unbiased source. Its articles with foreign policy implications show a distinct "liberal" bias. (I put the word the word liberal in quotes, because I regard myself as a liberal, but do not agree with the pacifistic kind of policies thus supported.) They do this not by publishing unscientific articles, but by being selective about what articles they print. Note that none of the work supporting the chemical warfare theory ever appeared there. >On the other hand, while Khruschev never said "We will bury you", >Ronald Reagan *did* say: > "The bombing starts in five minutes." Yes, and he was *joking*. I did not and do not like Reagan, but I found this reasuring (sp?), not frightening. It showed that he put some distance between himself and the popular image of himself as a warmonger. If he really thought starting the bombing was a good idea, he wouldn't have said it as a joke. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (12/06/85)
> > If the Soviets have murdered approximately 30 million > of their own folks in the 68 years since the Revolution > began Almost all of them during Stalin's rule before World War II. Note that Khruschev was the one who revealed Stalin's crimes which, incidentally, virtually destroyed the U.S. communist party.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (12/06/85)
> > > > If the Soviets have murdered approximately 30 million > > of their own folks in the 68 years since the Revolution > > began > > Almost all of them during Stalin's rule before World War II. Note > that Khruschev was the one who revealed Stalin's crimes which, incidentally, > virtually destroyed the U.S. communist party. Khruschev revealed Stalin's crimes to whom? The Russian government? The Russian people? Do you for a moment believe either the people or the government were unaware of what was going on under Stalin (communism)? Can 30 million people just die or vanish mysteriously and not raise questions? The communist government knew all along what was going on, and so did the people. The difference between their system and our system, is that they could do nothing to stop the slaughter. How many people did Khruschev assist in their death under Stalin? Remember, the same government and mentallity is in power now as then under Stalin. ray
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (12/10/85)
> In article <833@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >The fact that *all* the press mistakenly reported this incorrect > >translation does not surprise me one whit. > > Me, either. They all reported the translation given by the official > U.N. interpreter. > > >*All* the press has > >mistakenly reported many other things which turned out to be wrong. > > >On the other hand, while Khruschev never said "We will bury you", Since I already posted a source (U.S. News and World Report,Dec.27,1957,p32) for Khruschev's comment, and there seems to be concern as to the press's misreporting, could someone explain the basis for this being an inaccurate quote. It is possible to say "we will bury you" in Russian and why would U.N. translator make an obviously critical blunder?
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/10/85)
> > > > > > If the Soviets have murdered approximately 30 million > > > of their own folks in the 68 years since the Revolution > > > began > > > > Almost all of them during Stalin's rule before World War II. Note > > that Khruschev was the one who revealed Stalin's crimes which, incidentally, > > virtually destroyed the U.S. communist party. > > Khruschev revealed Stalin's crimes to whom? The Russian government? The > Russian people? Do you for a moment believe either the people or the > government were unaware of what was going on under Stalin (communism)? > Can 30 million people just die or vanish mysteriously and not raise questions? Two points: a. Solzhenitsin estimates 20 million victims, not a biased pro-communist. Let us not multiply the dead. b. One should notice that it is much easier to notice a single case of unjust death than 20 million. Make a mental experiment: imagine that three of your friends vanished, then two others shown interest in their fate, only to vanish subsequently. Repeat 100 times. Either you will vanish yourself, or you will learn not to notice anything. c. One should not diminish the courage of Khrushchev: being in the ruling circle, his hands could not be very clean. It would be much easier for him to rule in the way Brezhnev did, without any admition of any past "irregularities". One may say that his was the only ethical act of the Soviet government.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/12/85)
>Scientific American is not an unbiased source. Its articles with foreign >policy implications show a distinct "liberal" bias. (I put the word the >word liberal in quotes, because I regard myself as a liberal, but do not >agree with the pacifistic kind of policies thus supported.) They do this >not by publishing unscientific articles, but by being selective about what >articles they print. Note that none of the work supporting the chemical >warfare theory ever appeared there. > You mean the analyses from the one laboratory (out of six, wasn't it?) that seemed to show mycotoxins, but couldn't be replicated? That's the "work" that Scientific American should publish to show themselves as unbiased? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/12/85)
> Khruschev revealed Stalin's crimes to whom? The Russian government? The > Russian people? Do you for a moment believe either the people or the > government were unaware of what was going on under Stalin (communism)? > Can 30 million people just die or vanish mysteriously and not raise questions? > The communist government knew all along what was going on, and so did the > people. The difference between their system and our system, is that they > could do nothing to stop the slaughter. How many people did Khruschev assist > in their death under Stalin? Remember, the same government and mentallity is > in power now as then under Stalin. > ray Khruschev made public what people were afraid to admit to themselves: namely the awful crimes which Stalin committed in sentencing millions to labor camps and prisons. Indeed Khruschev turned Soviet policy around to such an extent that Solzhenitsyn was granted the Lenin Prize for Literature (the highest literary prize in the USSR) for "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch" which depicts life in a labor camp for a normal innocent but totally naive Soviet citizen. (If you haven't read it, I would recommend it) Some of the people in the government now were those sent to Labor camps under Stalin. Those people do not wish to return to such a system. After Khruschev was deposed however new less brutal methods of repression were put into place: the use of psychiatric hospitals to deal with dissent, exile and isolation, demotions from prestigious posts. That the USSR is different now than in Stalin's time is shown by the treatment accorded Khruschev himself: although he was ousted from power, he was allowed to continue living in his dacha. Stalin, on the other hand, sent assassins halfway around the world to kill his old rival, Trotsky. I am not about to condone actions such as breaking up the recent vigil in Moscow commemorating the anniversary of the UN's Human Rights declaration. But it is totally inaccurate to say that nothing has changed in the Soviet Union since Stalin's time. tim sevener whuxn!orb
matthews@harvard.UUCP (Jim Matthews) (12/12/85)
In article <1920@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> > > >> > > If the Soviets have murdered approximately 30 million >> > > of their own folks in the 68 years since the Revolution >> > > began > >Two points: >a. Solzhenitsin estimates 20 million victims, not a biased > pro-communist. Let us not multiply the dead. > Not to pick nits, but Solzhenitsin estimates *60* million victims of Stalinism. Roy Medvedev, a far more reasonable source, estimates 20 million from Stalinism and 20 million from WWII (one third to one half of which he attributes to Stalin's incompetence and brutality as a military leader). There are no good estimates on the victims since 1956, but contrary to popular belief the Gulag is still in operation. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
matthews@harvard.UUCP (Jim Matthews) (12/13/85)
In article <434@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> Khruschev revealed Stalin's crimes to whom? The Russian government? The >> Russian people? >> >> ray > >Khruschev made public what people were afraid to admit to themselves: >namely the awful crimes which Stalin committed in sentencing millions >to labor camps and prisons. No, he did not "make public" Stalin's crimes. Khrushchev's "secret speech" was not published in Russia, and I don't believe it has been since. Furthermore, he denounced only the purges and executions of good Communists, a matter of thousands of deaths, not the slaughter of millions of ordinary Russians. Stalin was condemned for being a dictator, not for violating human rights. > Indeed Khruschev turned Soviet policy >around to such an extent that Solzhenitsyn was granted the Lenin Prize >for Literature (the highest literary prize in the USSR) for >"One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch" which depicts life in a >labor camp for a normal innocent but totally naive Soviet citizen. >(If you haven't read it, I would recommend it) Krushchev used "Denisovitch" as a tool against his Stalinist opponents, but he didn't relax censorship across the board, and he didn't shut down the camps that Solzhenitsyn depicted so eloquently. > >Some of the people in the government now were those sent to Labor camps >under Stalin. Those people do not wish to return to such a system. No, few of those people are still around, and even fewer are in any position of influence. Stalin's lasting influence is in the fact that the Brezhnev-Andropov-Gromyko generation got their jobs as a result of the purges. It is thus no wonder that these same men have presided over a partial rehabilitation of Stalin's name. >I am not about to condone actions such as breaking up the recent >vigil in Moscow commemorating the anniversary of the UN's Human >Rights declaration. But it is totally inaccurate to say that >nothing has changed in the Soviet Union since Stalin's time. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Things have changed, but only insofar as a system like Stalinism cannot be sustained indefinitely. The camps still exist, however, and the Soviet state has not repudiated the use of Stalinist methods against its people. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (12/17/85)
> Khruschev made public what people were afraid to admit to themselves: > namely the awful crimes which Stalin committed in sentencing millions > to labor camps and prisons. Indeed Khruschev turned Soviet policy > around to such an extent that Solzhenitsyn was granted the Lenin Prize > for Literature (the highest literary prize in the USSR) for > "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch" which depicts life in a > labor camp for a normal innocent but totally naive Soviet citizen. > (If you haven't read it, I would recommend it) > Could you elaborate how much of an extant Khruschev turned Soviet policy? Actions (not public statements), verifications of these actions, and then the sources supporting these actions? Have you read other books by Solzhenitsyn? What about his opposal to the type of thoughts you express concerning the Soviets and their policy towards the world? Have you heard of the "nomenklatura"? Do you believe a Soviet leader can radically depart from previous Soviet policy? > Some of the people in the government now were those sent to Labor camps > under Stalin. Those people do not wish to return to such a system. Please list these government people, their current positions in the Soviet government, an estimation of their power in the gov't and back up your assertions with sources. > After Khruschev was deposed When Khruschev was deposed, Kosygin and Breschnev pointed out what Khruschev did wrong. > however new less brutal methods of > repression to me any form of repression is brutal > were put into place: the use of psychiatric hospitals > to deal with dissent, exile and isolation, demotions from prestigious > posts. That the USSR is different now than in Stalin's time is > shown by the treatment accorded Khruschev himself: although he Khruschev is the only one to have been accorded such treatment, and such treatment is very rare. It is rare in the sense of political figures in general not only Presidents and General Secretaries > was ousted from power, he was allowed to continue living in his > dacha. Stalin, on the other hand, sent assassins halfway around the > world to kill his old rival, Trotsky. > > I am not about to condone actions such as breaking up the recent > vigil in Moscow commemorating the anniversary of the UN's Human > Rights declaration. But it is totally inaccurate to say that > nothing has changed in the Soviet Union since Stalin's time. > It is also totally inaccurate to imply that anything important has really changed in the Soviet Union since Stalin's time. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Scott Pilet
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (12/18/85)
In a previous posting I wrote: > Khruschev is the only one to have been accorded such treatment, and > such treatment is very rare. It is rare in the sense of political > figures in general not only Presidents and General Secretaries I should have clarified: Khruschev is the only one in the sense of being put out to pasture who was number one in the Soviet Union. > Scott Pilet
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/18/85)
> Some of the people in the government now [USSR] were those sent to Labor > camps under Stalin. Those people do not wish to return to such a system. > After Khruschev was deposed however new less brutal methods of > repression were put into place: the use of psychiatric hospitals > to deal with dissent, exile and isolation, demotions from prestigious > posts. That the USSR is different now than in Stalin's time is > shown by the treatment accorded Khruschev himself: although he > was ousted from power, he was allowed to continue living in his > dacha. Stalin, on the other hand, sent assassins halfway around the > world to kill his old rival, Trotsky. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Tim is right that USSR is a better place now. But I would ask him to give an example of a government person who was in a prison/camp. (Especially Kolyma camps, where huge masses of people starved and freezed to death, no monument though). Accidently, such people were frequently in Stalin government: some officers purged in 1937 were returned to service and became marshals. Concerning less brutal repressions: another view is that once Russians got Pavlovian fear instilled, the full scale brutalities are no longer necessary (if they ever were) to extinguish any intellectual challenge to autorities (let alone political opposition). Piotr Berman
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/22/85)
> > Khruschev made public what people were afraid to admit to themselves: > > namely the awful crimes which Stalin committed in sentencing millions > > to labor camps and prisons. Indeed Khruschev turned Soviet policy > > around to such an extent that Solzhenitsyn was granted the Lenin Prize > > for Literature (the highest literary prize in the USSR) for > > "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch" which depicts life in a > > labor camp for a normal innocent but totally naive Soviet citizen. > > (If you haven't read it, I would recommend it) > > > Could you elaborate how much of an extant Khruschev turned Soviet policy? > Actions (not public statements), verifi cations of these actions, and then > the sources supporting these actions? There were two changes under Khrushchev: 1. declaring fast increase in the individual consumption as the national goal (instead of self-sacrifice for the sake of Fatherland); 2. substancial decrease in the personel and funding of the military. My published source is Roy Medvedev's biography of Khrushchev. > Have you read other books by > Solzhenitsyn? What about his opposal to the type of thoughts you express > concerning the Soviets and their policy towards the world? > Have you heard of the "nomenklatura"? Do you believe a Soviet leader > can radically depart from previous Soviet policy? Soviet attitude reversed from Khrushchev optimism (it was not very realistic) to more traditional paranoia (the fear of Chinese danger) and militarization. The previous generation of leaders was scared of any experimentation. They viewed themselves as surrounded by Chinese and American bases (Norway, West Europe, Turkey, Gulf States and Pakistan, Japan). They were scared of experiments in economy and politics. Gorbachev, a true product of nomenklatura, will move very causiously and only in couple of years we will know whether he has any changes in mind (he probably does not know yet, he was not selected for being the first class tinker anyway). > > posts. That the USSR is different now than in Stalin's time is > > shown by the treatment accorded Khruschev himself: although he > > was ousted from power, he was allowed to continue living in his > > dacha. Stalin, on the other hand, sent assassins halfway around the > > world to kill his old rival, Trotsky. > > Khruschev is the only one to have been accorded such treatment, and > such treatment is very rare. > Obviously, Soviet elite by know nows that whoever helps to kill political opponents, may be killed himself. Of course, not a moral revolution, but a change nevertheless. In particular, I would not expect any grand advanturism in foreign relations, which Soviet are accused to plan (in fact, even Stalin was rather cautious in this respect). > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > Scott Pilet The general problem is: how to deal with USSR, as with people like "you and me" or as with an "evil empire". I would say that the middle is true: do not expect an invasion in Europe anytime soon, do not expect nicer behavior in Afganistan either.