EDITORIAL: The Writing on the Russian Wall


The Writing on the Russian Wall

Last week in Russia, billboards were going up and they were coming down.

In Omsk, a billboard advertising a children’s theater piece which declared “We await you, merry gnome!” was hastily ripped down in anticipation of Russian “president” Dima Medvedev’s visit, lest the diminutive little president take offense.  If that sort of behavior reminds you of the insanity that went on during the time of Josef Stalin, you’re not alone.  Some idiotic Russophile commentators would like to paint Dima as some sort of “liberal,” but it’s perfectly clear his own countrymen don’t see him that way. If they did, the merry gnome would still be merry.

And speaking of Stalin, in Moscow, city workers were rushing to throw up billboards praising the contribution of Josef Stalin, the worst killer of Russians in world history, to the Soviet military effort in World War II, in celebration of the Russian “victory” in that conflict.  Human rights leader Lyudmila Alexeeva put it bluntly: “Stalin is a criminal, and it is a shame to advertise his regime that killed millions of people.”

With all due respect to Ms. Alexeeva, we’d choose a bit stronger word than “shame.” Perhaps “atrocity” or “abomination” or simply “crime.”

The mere fact that Russians would even consider putting of billboards of Stalin in downtown Moscow shows what a shocking deterioration Russian civil society has undergone under Vladimir Putin.  How would the world — how would Russia — react if Germans starting putting up billboards celebrating Adolf Hitler?

But Germans, of course, would do no such thing.  Why is it possible, then, that Russians would? And more important, why is it possible that a sizeable minority would not vociferously oppose such an action with highly visible mass protests — if for no other reason than to show the outside world that Russia is not a nation of savages?

It is because, of course, most Russians like Stalin and those who don’t can’t be bothered to do anything about it.  They’ll turn their backs on this the same way their grandparents turned their backs when Stalin came for their neighbors.  They’ll allow school textbooks to be rewritten and filled with the most ridiculous lies rationalizing Stalin’s behavior, they’ll tell such lies to their own children when asked who that mustachioed man in the billboard is, they’ll allow their new KGB leader to emulate Stalin in any way he likes.

Because, after all, they’re Russians.  So they’ll publicly celebrate and lionize the greatest mass killer of Russians in the nation’s history, right up until they time their country, once again, collapses.

67 responses to “EDITORIAL: The Writing on the Russian Wall

  1. @to paint Dima as some sort of “liberal,”

    The grim gnomes:

  2. No, it’s just a shame.

    Russia’s other Victory Billboards:


    Featured: merry gnomes from Germany and from outer space. Stalin will surely enjoy a good company.

    • And I think the picture of the Nazi soldier throwing a hand grenade is from Poland in 1939, so maybe it fits the theme after all, becuase they and the Soviets have been allied at this time.

    • Want to take a bet Robert that the brainless Putin stooges will ignore this blog.

      They will just not be able to fabricate any lies to white wash this chapter of their infamous history.

      Heil to Ribbentrop and Molotov and their murderous regimes.

      • Bohdan,

        How can Putin stooges ignore this blog? According to Website Outlook, this blog is the 1,002,267th most visited blog in the entire world in terms of traffic over the last 3 months. And in the last week, it has been the 2,022,034th most visited.


        Plus reading your own wisdom, Bohdan, is a must read for every man, woman and child on our planet.


        There are three deep flaws in your “analysis” Artie.

        First, Website Outlook is simply a joke. They rely on data from Alexa, data that is totally discredited because it is based on toolbar sampling projections, not hard facts. We have a public counter, which shows we have three times more daily VISITS than Website Outlook records for our PAGE VIEWS (a number typically about double visits for this blog). All they are doing is guessing, they have no access to WordPress traffic data, and they’re guessing badly.

        Second, you fail to recognize that most people in the world don’t have the slightest interest in Russia. To compare our traffic to that of a porno site or a games page is simply stupid, even by your own bizarre standards. We’re the only significant Russia blog in the world to display a public counter, and we have ten times more comments per post than any other Russia blog on the planet, backing up our traffic. Based these criteria, we’re by far the most significant Russia blog on the planet.

        Third, given the amount of time you spend commenting on our blog, you’re attacking yourself with your stupid gibberish, if you really believe it. But you don’t, of course, which just makes you a lying rat.

        • What an idiot you are, you brainless moronic baboon!!! It is you that should learn to read and understand the English language correctly!!!

          My second paragraph is quite explicit in that it states “They will just not be able to fabricate any lies to white wash this chapter of their infamous history.” Which in layman’s English means they will have to have read this blog to be able to decide whether to reply, or ignore this blog, because how can a normal person ignore a blog and not reply to it UNLESS they have read it in the first instance.

          Understand that simple point you useless simpleton??? After all it is written in plain English and is not encrypted in any way.

          And oh, by way of an after thought you cretin! when I replied to La Russophobe’s article on the two candidates, Yanukovych and Tymoshenko, in the Ukrainian Presidential elections I was quoting verbatim – WHICH MEANS I AM NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE EVEN ONE LETTER OF THAT QUOTE, – so that when La Russophobe used their (Russian) spelling for Yanukovych’s name, i.e. Yanukovich, I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW SUIT! Got that simple point right moron! Then you, you of all people, had the audacity to attack me for quoting La Russphobe’s Russian way of spelling that name, AND as a lame excuse you accused me of not knowing the Ukrainian alphabet – another one of your lies, one more to add to the hundreds of lies you already have made up. In all fairness La Russophobe replied to explain the reason for its use!!! But you had the temerity, the audacity to ignore their helpful advise – now that’s a worry, you brainless baboon.

          Furthermore, for a brainless moronic baboon to attempt to try to teach me English or for that matter Ukrainian (which uses cyrillic, an alphabet based on the Greek alphabet) is also a worry in itself. A big, big worry.

          It is no small wander that your metal ability is attacked by so many of the contributors on this wonderful blog, who also happen to have given you many different unpleasant names. Ever wonder why? But don’t wonder too hard, as your lack of grey matter has earned you that distinction fairly.

          Finally, it has been a long held belief of mine, and I quote for your benefit “show me a communist, and I will show you a sleazy, lazy liar!”

          PS It has always mystified me why you have not attempted to explain, in your quaint imbecile way that pigs can fly? Well oops there goes a flying cow! LOL!

          • Wow, Bohdan, you must have a degree in cryptolinguistics no less to come up with this:

            “They will just not be able to fabricate any lies to white wash this chapter of their infamous history.” =

            “They will have to have read this blog to be able to decide whether to reply, or ignore this blog, because how can a normal person ignore a blog and not reply to it UNLESS they have read it in the first instance”.


            Just an advice, judging by how your friends write and spell in their OWN language (Andrew is the case in point, and not the only one), you may reconsider the harsh tone towards other people’s English on this site — just an independAnt opinion.

  3. Wow Bohdan after that “thrashing” our baby Arty won’t be able to sit down for a week!!!,

    • Yes, after skimming over Bohdan’s wit and depth of thought, I have been ROTFLMAOing – rolling on the floor laughing my ass off – and haven’t sat down even for a minute.

      • Ah Artie how obvious it is that the only strong point that you have is…. stupidity is a virtue!

        And I bet you are in fact ROTFHLMAOing – rolling on the floor hysterically laughing my ass off – as it fits your nature superbly. Only please, ever so please, keep it up for days, no better still weeks, ah what the hell – be a devil and keep it up for months, so that all the decent people using this blog will get a rest from the lying crap that you so excel in, you brain dead baboon.

        • Bogdan wrote:
          [And I bet you are in fact ROTFHLMAOing – rolling on the floor hysterically laughing MY ass off – as it fits your nature superbly.]

          Bogdasha, keep YOUR ass out of the equation. The only person here interested in your ass is Andrew.

          And learn how to copy-and-paste intelligently.

          But thank you for making me laugh again.

          • Wowie Artie, getting crude again, but never mind the froth at your mouth is giving you away, just like that on a raving and irrelevant lunatic.

            Ever thought of visiting a psychiatrist, you need help as all the signs are there. Go before it’s too late and you get locked up.

            I know that La Russophobe has threatened to ban you on more than one occasion in the past. Personally I cannot wait until the time arrives when La Russophobe actually does BAN YOU! Sanity will then return, and the greatest majority of us can then get back to discussing the issues raised in these blogs.

  4. Let us not miss a single opportunity to remind the world that it was the moscovites , that were
    the first allies of the Nazis and not let them
    spread their lies about others as Nazi collaborators . If it was not for Hitler getting
    the idea that he does not need the moscovites ,
    they would have gone on hanging on to his cat
    tails . They absolutely deserved each other .
    Still do .

    • By this measure, the Poles were Nazi’s allies first:


      Then, the French and the Brits:


      • Well neither the Poles or the British and French made agreements to invade and occupy other countries in ALLIANCE with Nazi Germany, which is what the Russians did.

        Eff off Arthur.

        • Why are you calling me Arthur? The British and the French agreed the Nazis can occupy parts of another country. And the Poles and Hungarians invaded another country together with the Nazis.

      • A non-aggression pact = “Nazi’s allies first”. I congratulate you your perfect logic, Arthur T. But how about this?


        Now explain to me please why the Soviets invaded and occupied their “allies first” (and then murdered hundreds of thousands of people there, and detained or deported millions), and why did they do this together with the other “non-aggression” “ally first” of Poland? I’m really curious, so elaborate please.

        In the meantime, you might also see an another video. This time it’s the propaganda of the other invader (at one point, they show a column of captured policemen, in dark-blue uniforms – almost all of the thousands of kidnapped Polish policemen were later executed in 1940):

        • You mean to claim that Poland did not invade Czechoslovakia?

          Again, genius, 2 names = 2 different persons. AT is independAnt of Arthur.

          • And, actually, you made my point, Bohdan. You cannot judge who was whose ally based on treaties in Europe of the 1930s.

            • But I guess you may “judge who was whose ally based” based on the official videos from their joint victory parades?

                • Because non-allies usually do not stage a joint victory (and both the German and the Soviet propaganda videos talked about “victory”) parade after defeating their enemy together (featured prominently in the German newsreel, the Soviets were more selfish and apparently insisted they destroyed Poland on their own alone). But this is what the allies do.

                  I also regret the German chronicle did not include scenes of infantry parading. I think it could be interesting to compare the Nazi and Soviet (and now Russian) goose-stepping techniques.

                  And here something about the Polish policemen, who were kidnapped and murdered in their thousands by the Soviets:

            • For a long time I gave you the benefit of the doubt AT, but now I can see that I made a terrible mistake and that you in fact are tarred with the same brush as “A” and furthermore you also are a lying communist baboon in the same mold as T!

              Be good enough to supply the facts baboon boy Mr II for the following quote that you made “And, actually, you made my point, Bohdan. You cannot judge who was whose ally based on treaties in Europe of the 1930s.” Because I can – unlike you – honestly say that I never made or insinuated those words!

              Over to you, as I just can’t wait to read your reply.

              • Frankly, Bohdan, could not get what you said. Please don’t drink before posting. “you in fact are tarred with the same brush as “A” and furthermore you also are a lying communist baboon in the same mold as T!” — cryptolinguistics again?

                “a lying communist baboon” — never lied at this site yet, not a communist, not a baboon either. You are a liar Bohdan.

                @your last question: I said there was a Polish-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact, you pointed out there was a Soviet-Nazi Pact. Both pacts were violated. You just cannot judge who was whose ally in those days looking at pacts.

                • @I said there was a Polish-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact, you pointed out there was a Soviet-Nazi Pact. Both pacts were violated. You just cannot judge who was whose ally in those days looking at pacts.


                  You said there was a Polish-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact, I pointed out there was a Polish Soviet Non-Aggression Pact too (and it was signed 2 years before the one with Germany, then re-signed). Both pacts were violated (in September 1939). You just cannot judge who was whose ally in those days looking at non-aggression pacts alright, because non-aggression pacts are not about any alliances, it is about lack of aggression towards each other.


                  The Soviet-Nazi alliance was not in their non-aggression pact, it was in the secret protocol (about aggression, twoards many other countries), and in their actions of 1939-1941 (said aggression, including together towards Poland – with Hitler canceling his prior to the war , and Stalin entering WWII by just breaking the non-aggression pact without any diplomatic moves, because he was a greater barbarian at the time).

                  Capiche? Now go and tell the other Nashis.

                  • Re: “Corrected” Corrected what? Are you attempting to correct me? Hm. Not sure what the point of this paragraph is. Read my original post if you want to hear what I want to say.

                    Re: “Now” — So what’s the point? Germany, Britain, France, Poland and Hungary divvied up CZ, Germany and SU divvied up the Baltics and Poland. Then all agreements and alliances were violated. As I originally said — its not possible to say who was whose ally just based on treaties and protocols.

                    Re: Nashi — what is this supposed to mean? That I am a member of Nashi? That I know Nashi? That anyone who contradicts you is Nashi?

                    So, in the main, no capisco.

                    • @“Now” — So what’s the point? Germany, Britain, France, Poland and Hungary divvied up CZ,

                      Ah. So, how many hundreds of thousands of Czech or Slovak people were murdered by Poland? Heck, just thousands? Hundreds? Dozens? Any?

                      So how can you compare it, or even say it’s somehow equal? And Poland didn’t even have any non-aggression pact with Czechoslovakia. (Like the one USSR had with Poland.)

                      And what exactly part of Czechoslovakia has been annexed by the forces of “Britain, France”?

                      Btw, did you know one part of said “CZ” (Slovakia, then a South Ossetia-like “independent state”) also invaded Poland the next year? “Invaded” as in “attacked” (not just an entry like the Polish one in 1938), people lost their lives.

                      And why do you continue to ignore the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact? Was it also evil? Was Poland thus an “ally first” of the Soviet Union (as like you insisted it was in the case of a mirror pact with Germany 2 years later)? Why was it uniliterally broken by the Soviet side, with a massive act of military aggression (more than half million soldiers, thousands of tanks and aircraft), without even cancelling this pact at all? Explain all of this please.

                      @Germany and SU divvied up the Baltics and Poland.

                      Yes. And thus they began WWII together – as aggressors, and as combat allies (in Poland). It was not to “save world peace”, but to start the new world war. And remember, it was hardly a bloodless affair like “CZ” – several hundred thousand Polish people were killed only in September 1939 (and about 6 million in total).

                      It’s such a shame Poland bowed to the British and French pressure and didn’t declare war on the eastern aggressor. Because in this event Britain and France would have to declare war too. And even actually told the defenders not to resist. Thousands resisted and killed at least 737 Soviet invaders (Soviet official figure, probably many more) but they did this against the orders. And anyway, tens of thousands who had surrendered without resistance were later systematically murdered anyway (shot in the backs of their heads), as “enemies of the Soviet state and people’s power”. This is how the Soviet Union understood “non-aggression”.

                    • Robert, I understand you are trying to say something, but I fail to comprehend what exactly. What is your point? My was that it is difficult to make a judgment that the Soviet Union was the Third Reich’s ally based on any treaties. Treaties were concluded to be broken in those days. This applies to the Polish-Soviet, Soviet-Nazi, Nazi-Polish pacts. Maybe you could also summarize your point in a paragraph, and I may actually agree with it.

          • @You mean to claim that Poland did not invade Czechoslovakia?

            I also mean, let’s look for everything regarding “Czechoslovakia 1938” in your own artricle regarding the supposed “allies first” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact ). Ready? Here we go:

            “German policy changed drastically in late 1938, after the annexation of Sudetenland sealed the fate of Czechoslovakia and Poland became Hitler’s next target. In October 1938 the Nazi foreign minister Joachim Ribbentrop presented Poland with the proposition of renewing the nonaggression treaty in exchange for allowing the Free City of Danzig (Gdańsk) to be annexed by Germany and for permitting the building of an extraterritorial motorway and railway between East Prussia and Germany proper through the Polish Corridor. Poland refused to accept these demands. As a consequence, the non-aggression pact was unilaterally abrogated by Adolf Hitler on April 28, 1939,[15] during an address before the Reichstag, as Germany renewed its territorial claims in Poland. After another few months of rising tension, Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, initiating World War II.”

            Now, I’m confused about what you want to say here:

            1. So what is a supposed link between this non-aggression act and the practically bloodless Polish occupation of a very small part of Czechoslovakia (total population of only over 200,000 people) four years later? I mean, when Poland was invaded by Slovakia (in 1939), “at least” some people were killed in some limited fighting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29 ).

            Not to mention that in the Soviet invasion thousands of people were killed, and hundreds of thousands were murdered later (that’s many more than the total population of Zaolzie – I mean, the people who LIVED there, compared to the people who died in the Soviet invasion of occupation of Poland).

            Let me quote your favourite website ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland ):

            “Soviet authorities regarded service for the pre-war Polish state as a “crime against revolution”[19] and “counter-revolutionary activity”,[20] and subsequently started arresting large numbers of Polish citizens. During the initial Soviet invasion of Poland, between 230,000 to 450,000 Poles were taken as prisoner, some of which were executed. NKVD officers conducted lengthy interrogations of the prisoners in camps that were, in effect, a selection process to determine who would be killed.[21]
            During 1939–1941 1.450 million of the people inhabiting the region were deported by the Soviet regime, of whom 63.1% were Poles, and 7.4% were Jews.[10] Previously it was believed that about 1.0 million Polish citizens died at the hands of the Soviets,[25] however recently Polish historians, based mostly on queries in Soviet archives, estimate the number of deaths at about 350,000 people deported in 1939–1945.[26]”

            I guess, to compare it with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_.281938.E2.80.931939.29 (“About 35,000 Czechs emigrated to core Czechoslovakia (the later Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia) by choice or forcibly.[42] The behaviour of the new Polish authorities was different but similar in nature to that of the Czech ones before 1938.”) you’ve got to be either a braindead idiot Russian, or a “smart” idiot Russian who actually knows history but thinks the others don’t.

            2. How was this an “alliance first”? Was the Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1932 (two years earlier) an “alliance first-first” between Warsaw and Moscow? To quote your own link:

            “To allay any fears that the warming of relations between Poland and its western neighbor were anything but peaceful, on May 5, 1934 Poland renewed the Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, first signed in July 25, 1932.

            As a consequence of the treaty, Poland was able to maintain friendly relations with Germany for the next five years, while maintaining good relations with France and Great Britain, though it may have also led to foreign policy inattentiveness regarding the activities of the crumbling League of Nations and disinterest in the collective security schemes proposed by French in the early 1930s.”

            How was this an “alliance” and how this “first”, if the “alliance” with the Soviet Union was first, and actually first was the real, continued alliance with France and Britain (against Germany)? Please elaborate.

            • @As a consequence, the non-aggression pact was unilaterally abrogated by Adolf Hitler on April 28, 1939,[15] during an address before the Reichstag, as Germany renewed its territorial claims in Poland. After another few months of rising tension, Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, initiating World War II.

              And when the Soviet Union took part in the invasion (and the initiation of WWII – on the German side), they were less civilized, and just broke the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact with their sneak attack.

              “The pact was unilaterally broken by the Soviet Union on September 17, 1939, during the Nazi and Soviet invasion of Poland.”


              • Sorry, didn’t have the time/attention span to read this… Finished at “your favorite site”. You see, I use Wikipedia as I have no intention doing any more serious research for posting here. I post for entertainment mainly and have a real job and a life. If you care to summarize what you wrote in a paragraph, I might grace you with a response. Otherwise, my sick leave is almost over, so I won’t be showing up here until the next one.

                • Excuses, excuses, excuse me but it is you who is the lying jerk!

                  You also are excellent at playing the poor, hurt ignorant ignoramus, especially when people show you up for the idiotic moron that you are by the incessant and irrelevant waffle to the subject matter that is your trademark.

                  Tell me? I am intrigued by your comment that you have two economic degrees. Why two, I thought that one was enough, unless you failed the first one. Or did you buy both as some hock shop in Soviet or Putin’s ruSSia, where they have huge stacks of pre printed diplomas, requiring that you pay the required fee and bingo your name is printed on the blank dotted line. Sure saves a heck of a lot of attending classes, learning time and sitting for exams.

                  It was interesting to read your comment that “my sick leave is almost over”, in which case I would have liked to have given you my best wishes for a speedy recovery – BUT AS I DON”T LIE, you get zilch comrade!

  5. Should be ” coat tails ” , sorry .

  6. Yes Oleksander, you have accurately written the truth as it happened. Sadly there were a lot of brainless fools that did not believe in the atrocities that the Nazis were committing, especially so against the “Juden” in their “Final Solution”, and in fairness also to all the other races that fell into the “untermensh” category.

    It was only after their concentration camps were liberated/overrun by the Allies that the real truth about these extermination ‘lagers’ became known to the entire world.

    Whereas with the soviet communists, they did not lose the war and hence their GULAGs were never liberated and therefore their atrocities could not be shown to the world.

    Nevertheless, it cannot be disputed that the differences between the two regimes were;
    1. Average lifespan in the Nazi lagers was three months, as compared to two years in the soviet lagers – that is the Soviets got eight times more free slave labor out of their ‘Zeks”, then the Nazis.
    2. The Nazis never reached double digit figures on the “untermensh” they murdered. Whereas the Soviet figures for the “enemies of the State” ran into the tens of millions.
    3. Consequently, when comparing Hitler to Stalin, the former was a minor player as opposed to the latter when taking into account the millions of humans exterminated in furthering their murderous and Godless regimes!

    Just wait, you have not as yet seen the true picture of KGB Vozd Putler and the direction he is steering his ruSSia in, to achieve his ‘final solution’. The real sufferers of which undoubtedly will be the citizens of Russia.

    • Bogdan, this statement ages you. These facts are quite well known to everyone since 1956


      …and that’s why EACH Soviet/Russian leader has been warning against a repeat of this for the last 54 years


      • Well actions speak louder than words moron.

        Each Russian leader since Stalin has said one thing, but done another.

        Look at the personality cult of Putin, and his rehabilitation of Stalin for example.

        “Plans by the Moscow city authorities to display posters glorifying Stalin’s role in winning World War II are eliciting strong opposition from human rights advocates, Lifenews.ru reported on Thursday.

        The posters, which will go on display throughout the capital in the month leading up to Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebrations, will take the form of informational stalls that picture Josef Stalin and include text detailing his role in orchestrating victory in the war.

        Moscow’s department for publicity and design came up with the plan after pensioners and veterans’ organizations repeatedly requested that officials display pictures of Stalin as part of the wider set of decorations set up for anniversary celebrations.

        It has been decades since Stalin’s image has been used publicly for the event.

        Lev Ponomarev, a prominent activist and head of the organization For Human Rights, said that the decision to display the dictator offends the millions of people who died during the years of the Stalinist repressions.

        “A public billboard with a glorification of Stalin is unacceptable. There will most definitely be protest demonstrations. And we will not only be participating in them, but instigating them,” Ponomarev said. “This is a step by city authorities that will evoke opposition throughout society. [Moscow Mayor Yury] Luzhkov is issuing a challenge to Muscovites, and this is a serious political step. Clearly, he wants to use this to escape discussion of the accusations of his corruption and the deterioration of social life in Moscow,” the activist added.

        Former Soviet dissident and acclaimed rights activist Lyudmila Alexeyeva supported her colleague.

        “Stalin was a criminal, and his regime, which killed millions of people, is utterly disgraceful to publicize,” she said. “It’s the same as glorifying Hitler in Germany. We will be protesting these decisions without fail.”

        Alexeyeva added that the Soviet people have their soldiers, and not Stalin, to thank for victory in World War II.

        Estimates of up to 30 million people died in the Soviet Union as a result of the Stalinist repressions and widespread famine in the 1930s and 40s, not counting the tens of millions who died as a result of World War II.

        The protests echo similar concerns from war veterans and activists in the city of Volgograd last January, where a beverage company announced that Stalin’s portrait would be gracing soft drink labels in honor of the 67th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad.

        Russian society is largely fractured in its reconciliation of Stalin as a war hero and Stalin as a ruthless dictator. In 2007, then-President Vladimir Putin mandated a revised school history textbook that called Stalin “the most successful Soviet leader ever” and lauds his qualities as a “great organizer.” President Dmitri Medvedev condemned the dictator in a speech last October, but Putin spoke out in the leader’s defense several weeks later in a live telecast, arguing that the question of Stalin was a “subtle” one. ”


        • Last time I checked Putin did not run the City of Moscow. In fact this is what “Putin’s stooge” Gryzlov says about the City of Moscow initiative:


          As for the revised school book — care to give me the exact quote with at lease two sentences before and two sentences after the “efficient manager”???

          • @Last time I checked Putin did not run the City of Moscow

            Yes. He is only kept prisoner at the Kremlin by the rebel City of Moscow authorities. Sometimes he manages to break out of there in a large cavalcade of cars (stopping all the traffic in a part of the city), but they always force him to get back there anyway.

            • Oh wait, I forgot, actually Putin eventually managed to flee to Novo-Ogaryovo, and the prisoner now kept at Kremlin is Medvedev (of course also completely independent of Putin).

              • No doubt you think Putin controls everything, including poster design and installation. Do you picture him like Dr. Evil in his secret lair? “What shall I do today to glorify Stalin — Ah, posters!!”. “And tell Gryzlov to say he doesn’t like them to confuse everyone!” “…not that loud! or Robert will hear and expose us on the LR site”.

                So, what is your suggestion? The prime minister should issue a decree banning the posters? Or a public address stating he does not like them? Or a phone call to the city office? This would not be exactly good governance either.

                • My suggestion? To order free elections and then shoot himself.

                  • Sadly (but seriously – sadly) we both know who will win in free elections. And then the winner will shoot himself. And what’s next?

                    • I guess you don’t know what “free elections” mean. It would mean all their crimes would be publicily exposed, and they would lost their control over mass media.

                      My proposition was be to shoot himself immedietally. A honorable way out, in accordance to the old customs. Other than being more or less lynched, die in prison, flee the country in disgrace (but who would take and not extradite him?), or at best he would step down in exchange for amnesty for himself, like Pinochet or Jaruzelski (and who then had legal problems anyway, Pinochet arresrted abroad and Jaruzelski being tried in Poland right now), but this one option is unlikely given his crimes are of so much greater magnitude.

                    • On the other hand, maybe you’re actually right, considering how many Russians would vote for Stalin today, even as Stalin killed millions of them.

                      Russia is such a very special place.

      • Ah Artie T this statement reveals the modus operandi that is you, pure and simple.

        If I were you – and thank God I am not – it would be the last thing on my mind worrying about other people’s health and here I quote you verbatim “Bogdan, this statement ages you” instead I would be high tailing to the nearest head shrink (i.e. psychiatrist ) as fast as my stumpy legs could carry my fat and bloated body in an endeavor to save myself from all those nasty people calling me names. I mean how dare they. LOL

        Now how about you ‘spilling your guts’ and telling us why the sudden change in names. After all criminals have a reason for using aliases, or are you trying to run away from your past?

        Now having said this in reply to your usual lying comments, ‘let us’ – and I’m not referring to the green salad – return to the matter of this blog, which is that criminal Stalin and his rehabilitation by the latest criminal Putin.

        A good start would be naming each (and for your benefit that means every one) of the Soviet/Russian leader, together with the actual quote that refers to your quotation, which is “…and that’s why EACH Soviet/Russian leader has been warning against a repeat of this for the last 54 years.”

        And don’t give me your usual crap by answering my question with one or more of your questions. A straight forward and only a straight forward answer, will be acceptable in this instance.

        • Why Artie T? Also, why usual crap — yesterday I posted here for the second time in my life.

          Khruschev — see his speech at the XXth Congress of the CPSU:

          Brezhnev — did not criticize Stalin harshly, but did speak about “overcoming the cult of personality”:




          Yeltsin — just an example:


          Putin — see above.



          • For some reason, my response is “awaiting moderation”.

            • AT, the way that you reason and write is so similar to baboon boy that I honestly thought that he had invented a new alias – a view, I note, that was shared by other contributors.

              For my part I apologize for confusing you with that brain dead moron! as I can see that you have done one thing that is unlike baboon boy and that is answering questions. Sure you have tried to answer my questions – and I quote verbatim “naming each (and for your benefit that means every one) of the Soviet/Russian leader, together with the actual quote that refers to your quotation” – in part. Why I say in part is because you have omitted Chernenko and Andropov who followed in that order after Brezhnev. Am I right or wrong?

              Furthermore , my quote specifically further asked you for, and again I quote verbatim “together with the actual quote that refers to your quotation”. This you have not done, instead giving me references that I have to wade through to find and extract the necessary data, if it is there. And believe me I will do this to prove or disprove your argument.

              In the meantime, I would appreciate, the necessary quotations by the two Secretary- Generals that for one reason or another you have not listed.

            • Well come on Artie T, I am waiting expectantly for your full reply.

              • Funny how AT forgets that Kruschev was quite happy to use the cult of personality apparatus to further his own power, it was not until Gorbachev that the Gulags were shut down.

                Of course they have been opened again under Putin, now they call them “filtration” camps.

                Disparaging the previous leader while continuing his repressive policies was and is a normal part of Russian politics and culture.

                • No, seriously Andrew, look up “Gulag”.

                  • Well AT, they were still called gulags until Gorbachev shut them down.

                    The simple fact is that mass terror and political and cultural repression did not begin or end with Stalin.

                    Lenin killed just as many people, and Khrushchev continued the practice (most also forget he was one of Stalins most willing and effective executioners…..).

                    Seriously AT, look up the history of Russian political repression.

                    Several million people were sent to gulags during Khruschev’s government. Well over a million of them died, not as bad as Lenin and Stalin to be sure, but he was quite happy to use the same system.

                    I suggest you learn some history AT.

                    • They were still GULAGs under Gorbachev? I thought there was only one GULAG. As far as I know, not unless Gorbachev came to power in 1960, when GULAG was officially liquidated. But okay, in the Andrew universe history does not matter.

  7. ‘Artie T’ is simply a compliment to your exquisite use of the English language.

    Can’t you take a compliment? Why are you russophilic freaks so paranoid?

    • In this case, Mona Lisa, you are beautiful too.

      Hope my reference to you as “Mona Lisa”, as well as my compliment, do not make you, russophobic freak, so paranoid.

      Arthur, who is also referred to Artie at this forum is not the same person as I am. Bien compris?

      • Yes, but your first letter is the same as mine – “A”. These morons have huge difficulty reading, so they read only the first letter of the word.

  8. @My was that it is difficult to make a judgment that the Soviet Union was the Third Reich’s ally based on any treaties.

    How about actions: like a joint-venture of together invading a third country to brutally occupy, destroy and annex it whole, starting a new world war and killing hundreds of thousands of people only during their initial invasion, and then concluding all this with a joint victory parade?

    @Treaties were concluded to be broken in those days. This applies to the Polish-Soviet, Soviet-Nazi, Nazi-Polish pacts.

    Actually, the German-Polish non-aggresion pact was not broken. It was officially revoked (by Germany) several months before WWII, already in April 1939 – but I already told you this more than once, didn’t I?

    • How about actions: the French, the British the Nazis, the Poles, the Hungarians dismantle CZ — does this make them allies. So unilateral revokation is not the same as breaking? Ok — so Poland was a Nazi ally before the pact was revoked. Then Nazi decided that they did not want Poland as an ally, while Poland remained a committed ally of the Third Reich — that’s much worse and also strenghtens my original point.

      • @So unilateral revokation is not the same as breaking?

        No, Sherlock. The Germans gave Poland 4 months to prepare for aggression, they also issued ultimatums and so on, then declared war after preparing provocations so they would have even a semi-plausible pretext for this. Now compare it to the Soviets who gave Poland 0 seconds to prepare, then just sneak attacked, without any diplomacy at all until 1941 (when suddenly Poland and Poles existed for them again). But maybe you really just see no difference.

        @Ok — so Poland was a Nazi ally before the pact was revoked.

        No, Poland was not “a Nazi ally before the pact was revoked”. Poland was the French ally all time, and then also British (relations with Britain were more complicated). Poland also was an ally of Romania (in 1939 they agreed the Romanians would stay neutral, but after the Soviet invasion when all was lost the government and much of the army escaped to Romania and from there to France) and had close friendly relations with Hungary and with… Japan.

        The non-aggression pact with Germany was just a move to end the state of perpetual cold war with Germany ever since 1918 (sometimes hot, like in 1918-1922 in Silesia and Greater Poland), including the economic conflict which almost ruined the both countries, and it came after a similar pact was signed between Poland and the Soviet Union.

        Also I’d like to remind you Germany in 1934 was hardly a world pariah or anything like that. Two years later in 1936 there would be even Summer Olympics in Germany – just like the Winter Olympics to be in a certain country in 2012…

        Now, about the fate Czechoslovakia – even’t the people of Czechoslovakia didn’t really give a sh!t. After Czechoslovakia ceased to exist the ethnic Germans in the west rejoiced, the Slovaks in the east got their own “independent” country (for the first time ever, but in 1990 they split again whenever they got a chance), and the Czech citiziens of the Protectorate didn’t resist until… May of 1945 (when the operette “Prague uprising” was organized by the collaborationist Czech police and the collaborationist Russian forces of General Vlasov of all people). Heydrich drove around in Prague in an open car, and he was killed by the people who had to be air-dropped there, because there was no homegrown resistance (unlike in Warsaw, or even in Paris), actually there was more resistance to the Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces in 1968. So if the people of “CZ” didn’t really care about their country, I don’t know why anyone else should. If you do, this is just some crocodile tears about another “and you are lynching Negroes” thing again.

  9. Or is it the brutality that make SU and Germany allies in your view? I don’t think brutality automatically implies an alliance.

    Joint actions may imply an alliance, but then the relatively bloodless joint action by the French, the British, the Poles, the Hungarians and the Nazis against CZ imply as much an alliance among these nations as the relatively bloody US and German invasion of Poland.

    Based on this, the French, the British and the Poles were allies with Germany before SU became a German ally, which exactly was the point.

    • What was the “joint action by the French, the British, (…) against CZ”? Do you think inaction in defense is an action of aggression? Do you really think their misguided and very desperate search for the solution for the continued “peace in our time” and status quo is the same as a Soviet-Nazi secret conspiracy of violent partition of Eastern Europe and actually starting a world war?

      Btw, French conduct in 1938 quite closely resembled the French conduct in 2008 (Georgia, with South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the role of Sudetenland, and the “opressed Russian citiziens” as the new “opressed ethnic Germans” – in both instances the French-brokered deals were then broken). Yes, there were of course some differences. For example, the French did not sell military equipment to Germany…

      Now, what do you think the Soviets and the Nazis conducting a joint victory military parade on their designated demarcation line (soon to be turned into a new official border) lacked so you decided they were not allies against Poland, after all? Watch the German newsreel again and then tell me exactly what is indicating their supposed “non-alliance” to the Soviet forces in their conquest of Poland.

  10. …SU and German of course

  11. putin/medvedev = stalin jr.
    Simple, no?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s