Maybe the West misunderstands USSR history?

I’ll take issue with that a little bit Rising Sun. The first of the modern movements to replace monarchies with a democracy, albeit a republican (little “r”) surely has to figure among the fundamental sea changes to sweep the world. Considering it involved the removal of the predominant world power at the time - the British Empire - it would seem to be a rather large event. It is sobering to reflect, however, that without French assistance, this probably would not have succeeded, or at least would have taken far longer to accomplish. There were many interests in France at the time that were greatly troubled by the overthrow of a monarchy, even an enemy one, but nevertheless, it happened. And, Rising Sun, lest we forget, the elimination of the United States as a place to harbor prisoners of the British, contributed to the settlement of Australia.

Revolutions do not necessarily need to be followed by or accompanied by tyrranies or bloody aftermaths to be called revolutions.

Lol, Egorka. I will defer to your greater knowledge of what Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky may or may not have done!

Actually Egorka, I’m ready to make peace. I’d like to forget all about the cold war. It created big problems on both sides of the fence. The waste in resources devoted to this on both sides was just incredible. OK, maybe not forget, but we should at least forgive one another and move on.

Let me take a little issue with that, Sneaksie. The question of race is a rather thorny one because there are quite a few scholars who take the position that jews are not a race at all. There apparently is no biological/genetic basis for determining who is or is not a jew. It turns out, according to what I have read and gathered, that jews and arabs are essentially the identical people - they are both semitic people. Like the Japanese and the Koreans, there is simply no discernible difference among them. There are scholars who say that jews are just another “socio-economic group” in the semitic clan that peoples the middle east. Interesting. Add to that the very strong possibility that Hitler had some “jewish blood” in him and we have a case of monumental self-loathing.

This stuff has its fascinations.

hi royal.
We all are ready to forget about cold war. And i’m really glad we could speach with each other in this formun frankly about;)
You absolutly right the cold war was a more problem for both sides. And we need to change the our relation for the better way.
But… it could be not easy for the… west.
Just look for the USA.
Do you know what is the Johnson-Venic correction to the law that forbid the export of hight-tehnologic goods to the USSR. this was admitted in the mid 1970.
So even after the dissapearing of the USSR through the 17 years this correction is STILL ACTUAL against Russia ( althout the according the “offisial” position the Russia is not a treat)
What is this - the stoopid bureaucracy or the dual standarts policy?:wink:
I don’t know but this is obvious the Wasington is not ready ( or do not wish) indeed to change the relation.
Besides as we saw it in the Ugoslavia the Wasington stilll prefered to use the old cold war approachs for solving of the political problems fro a position of rough power when the ONLY that one right who is strong.
The war against the Islamic terrorism could join us but again the USA prefered to solve its own aims by the attacking of the Iraq.
But this is whole other thread…
Cheers.

It doesn’t matter because aim of your government remained the same more than 15 years after USSR was divided into several independent states, after help Russia offered during 9/11. The only friendship USA approves is being master. No, thanks. We are not some minor east-european country which jump, sit or send troops to Iraq to please Washington.

Royal744, what you say here is reasonable and it 's more or less how I see it. The only issue here is that the Jews disagree with it! The Jews concider themselve as chosen. And it implies many things… and it is one of the foundations of their culture. You can not take it away without damaging their system of beleive. That is how I see it based on the limited knowledge that I have.

I remember I had similar discussion with my Grand Mother (She was Jewish. Actually my all female line of ansestors is Jewish. Do you know what it means in the Jewish law? It means I am a Jew.) when I was a teenager. I can not remember the exact context but my Granny mentioned that according to the story of her mother who remembered living in the Jewish getto (it was not getto in the Nazi sense. It was just a location/town almost comletely populated by Jews) when someone would convert to Judaism he would have become a Jew in etnic sense. At least that is what the Jews tradition said.

I remember I was a bit confused then by this statement (my mother was there and also could not understand how can one just turn into different nationality in a matter of minutes). I objected that maybe the Granny did not understand it right. I remember saying that what if it was a black guy that converts. What then? The granny was a bit puzzled by this example, but said: “I do not know, but that is what everyone was asaying and that is what they clamed.”

And my granny was right. Because for the Jews you DO change antionality and etnicity, because they see these notions only in the context of Judaism.

Jews are no more a race than are Catholics or Muslims or Buddhists or followers of any other religion. Whatever their more homogeneous ancient origins may have been, for at least the past millennium they have been simply people of different racial origins who have a religion in common just like Catholics etc., to the extent that any religion has common ground as there are various branches of each religion. The Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews have been so widely dispersed and inter-mingled with various races that it is impossible to treat either of them as a distinct race.

A simple illustration that Jews are not one race is Ethiopian Jews, many of whom are now in Israel after fleeing Ethiopia in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. They are a different race to European Jews. Their existence, as black Jews who were not Jews by conversion, would have caused egorka’s granny some confusion if she had known about them. :smiley:

Recent history on the Ethiopian Jews here http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ejolim.html

Or maybe they’re not really Jews. Ethiopian Jews weren’t accepted as genuine Jews by non-Ethiopian (i.e. predominantly Askenazi) Israeli rabbis http://www.cofc.edu/chrestomathy/vol3/franco.pdf pp. 77 -80.

Interestingly, there has been conflict between Ethiopian and Soviet Jews in Israel, which is race based and confirms that Jews are not one race, as illustrated here

The hesitancy of native Israelis to implicate race as a factor in the
Falasha’s [Ethiopian Jews] assimilation difficulties was exhibited in the case of a violent clash between Ethiopian and Soviet immigrants in 1991 at the Diplomat Hotel, where members of both groups were being temporarily housed
by the government. Three men and women from the Soviet Union
were wounded after a scuffle involving the use of stones, iron bars
and possibly knives (Haberman, 1991, 1). Clyde Haberman wrote,
“At first glance, and to the embarrassment of Israeli officials, the
incident seemed to reflect nasty racial divisions between the black
Jews from Ethiopia and the white Jews from the Soviet Union. Some
former Soviet citizens accused the Ethiopians of being lazy, while the
Ethiopians complained that the people on the other side had not left
anti-black prejudice at home”

http://www.cofc.edu/chrestomathy/vol3/franco.pdf at p.80

See also http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html and http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/3/858?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=50&journalcodepnas on the varied racial / genetic sources of modern Jews.

The same confusion between race and religion occurs in relation to Muslims now, with anti-Muslim sentiment often being called ‘racist’, which is plain nonsense.

RisingSun, if you answered to me you got confused.

I personally also do not see Jews as a separate race.
My point is that the Jews see themselve as different to anyone else. And this one of the foundations of their faith. It is not just a small addition in a specific group, it is the corner stown.

Call it race or whatever. But this is a fact - they underline their “differenceness”.

Understand that it is not normal logic that applies here. Do you undersatnd what I mean?

Just in case anyone thinks that drifting into matters concerning Jews as a race or anything else has nothing to do with Western understanding of USSR history, it is very much at the source of USSR history, as illustrated by this summary of the significance of Jews in the creation of what became the USSR.

It is most interesting that the author, in the sections I have made bold, makes the common assumption that Jews were not Russians etc, but treats them as a different race outside the true Russian etc heritage. It reflects, probably unintentionally, exactly the same attitude that the Nazis had towards Jewish German citizens whose ancestors had been in Germany for generations, but who somehow weren’t true Germans.

The final section in the quote illustrates that Russians weren’t alone in being suspicious or fearful of Jewish internationalists, much as similar concerns were held at a lower level about Catholics being subordinate to Rome which, even in my childhood in Australia in the 1950’s, was still a significant issue.

A Taboo Subject

Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country’s total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied.

With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and – as chairman of the Central Executive Committee – head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.

A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. “An intelligent Russian,” he once remarked, “is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins.”

Critical Meetings

In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical.

Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik “October Revolution” of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party’s Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews.

To direct the takeover, a seven-man “Political Bureau” was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev). Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet – whose chairman was Trotsky – established an 18-member “Military Revolutionary Committee” to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews. Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man “Revolutionary Military Center” as the Party’s operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky).

Contemporary Voices of Warning

Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.” The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”

The Netherlands’ ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: “Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

“The Bolshevik Revolution,” declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, “was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct.”

As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that “because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel.”

And before Egorka and Chevan get stuck into finding faults in this quote, which is just one view, I’m just presenting it to illustrate my opening statement in this post.

Firstly :smiley:

On of my favorite quotes by JFK
[i] What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women – not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

[/i]While Kennedy’s statement is idealistic. Its seems that many in Washington are seeking a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war.

With the current tension between the US and Russia we should be very careful how we proceed. A new cold war is a very distinct possibility.

Egorka

I wasn’t referring to your personal opinions about Jews at all.

I was focusing on the difference between a race and a religion.

I was actually thinking much more about the views of people who aren’t Jews, rather than Jews’ own belief about themselves, which are worlds apart.

A lot of people who have strong views about or hostility towards Jews wouldn’t even know that Jews conceive of themselves as the chosen people, or know anything about Judaism. Their hostility comes from other sources, frequently envy and the mistaken belief that all Jews are [insert the speaker’s preferred prejudice here]. The same morons usually have equally uninformed prejudices against migrants, blacks and other people who aren’t like them. It’s the same in all countries, although how it is expressed differs greatly.

As for Jews seeing themselves as the chosen people, they’re not unique. All of the major religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - and each of their sub-branches all think they’re the chosen people and that adherence to their particular brand of worship is the only path to heaven. Even if one of them is right, there will still be an awful lot of disappointed souls in the afterlife.

There’s nothing wrong with idealism.

It ought to be encouraged more, rather than derided, as in common usuage where it is said sneeringly or dismissively “He’s just an idealist.”

It’s a pity that ‘politician’ and ‘idealist’ are contradictory terms.

If all the politicians around the world were working towards Kennedy’s ideal, the world would be a vastly better place.

Its seems that many in Washington are seeking a Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war.

With the current tension between the US and Russia we should be very careful how we proceed. A new cold war is a very distinct possibility.

I’d be more worried about a hot war, provoked by the bellicose approach Bush & Co have adopted.

I wouldn’t bet on it being with Russia.

Check out, for example, the situation in nuclear armed Pakistan, and its links at government and other levels with al Quaeda and similar brands of lunacy. That might be a problem well before Iran gets nuclear weapons.

I totally agree. I wasnt meaning to down Kennedy’s remark but it does seem to be a goal that would be very hard to reach.

A bit off topic but I meet a man once at a physics seminar. He works/worked on Nuclear weapons … mainly new and better guidance systems. Naturally he couldnt tell me much about what he did. What sticks out is that I remember he said that he would bet money within the next 30 years we will see a nuclear war. Even be it just a small one. I hate to say it but I think he is right. India and Pakistan would be a strong example.

And since I like quotes :smiley:

[quoting a message from Khrushchev to Kennedy concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis] “We and you ought not pull on the ends of a rope in which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence.”

Only part I dont like it the YOU have tied the knots of war. Seems to me they both tied it. However this is a man the was normally seen as a nut (especially in the west) but this comment comes from a person that has a strong grip on reality concerning war. The failure to relate and empathize with you enemy can have disastrous effects.

Yes, exactly my point. The so called pogroms uring the history of the past few handred years (not all of them as I can not generalise that much) were happening due to economical reasons, which is hardly an excuse for the acts of violense obviously gainst the innocent Jews. And the racial/religious aspects were more of overstructure based on the existing economical conflict.

But it’s also correct to say that hatered grows like a snowball - let it start and will grow very quick!

As for Jews seeing themselves as the chosen people, they’re not unique. All of the major religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - and each of their sub-branches all think they’re the chosen people and that adherence to their particular brand of worship is the only path to heaven. Even if one of them is right, there will still be an awful lot of disappointed souls in the afterlife.

Well, I can only say that I an orthodox Christian. In my Religion ANYONE can save his soul - even Jews, Muslims or pagans. It is better to be a kind, generous, modest Jew than hateful, griddy, selfproud Christian. That is how I beleive and that is how the Orthodox Christianity teaches. I beleive that Christianity shows the right way to the salvation, i.e. the easiest way, not the only way. But at the end what counts is the state of one’s soul and if it is filled with the vanity and hatered then it will not be able to be in communion with God. The denomination is not a ticket to Heaven!

But as always the problem is that poeple not only don not “know anything about Judaism”, but they do not even know their own Religion! As the result the brutality commited by people calling themselve Christians. The paganism is creaping from everywhere. Paganism - is a folk religion. The religion of our sick fallen mind. And the product of it is vanity, hatred and greed.

Just 2 sidenotes:

  1. Khrushchev knew much more about reality of war - that is for sure!

  2. Before the nukes were setup on Cuba they were also setup in Turkey. Fair?

The reference to "YOU’ also struck me immediately in reading K’s comment, which I haven’t seen before.

As you say, they both tied the knot but one of them, even in predicting the disasters to follow if they couldn’t agree to back off, couldn’t resist blaming the other one.

It reminds me of a instructive event I saw many years ago. A dispute between two sisters aged under four years resulted in one pushing the other off a fairly low deck onto grass, with the victim landing on her back with her head a few inches from a cast iron object which would have caused a grave injury if it had connected. When berated by her irate father, the offending child screamed “She made me do it!”. That’s the same justification that Japan used for attacking in December 1941. Nations aren’t much more developed or less capricious than little children, just a bloody sight more dangerous.

  1. Thats for sure

  2. Thats why I dont like the YOU comment in the quote. Classic example of fighting fire with fire. The knot of the crisis was completed by placing nukes in Cuba. Therefore they both did it.

edited to add:

  1. contd…perfect example RS!

Of course it was fair.

The nukes in Turkey were aimed at the bad guys. :wink:

The nukes in Cuba were aimed at the good guys. :wink:

It only became a problem when the bad guys aimed nukes at the good guys. :wink:

What most people didn’t know at the time, and just about everyone nowadays still doesn’t know, especially in America where it was trumpeted as a great victory in facing down the Soviets and getting rid of the missiles in Cuba, was that the US agreed to remove its nukes from Turkey and secretly did so shortly afterwards. Which is what it was really all about from Kruschev’s perspective.

So, who really won? :wink:

I agree this “You” sounds too sharp. I just wanted to say that from Khrushchev’s perspective he was right. I mean he was not the first mover. I reffer to nukes in Turkey (not a thanksgiving meal, but a country).

But obviously objectivly it was like pooring oil into fire. So from moral perspective Khrushchev’s actions were doubious, but they were not extraordinary or exceptional in the political sense.
Do you understand what I mean?