Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

militera.lib.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#61

Post by leaveyou »

antocv wrote: post #57
leaveyou wrote: post #4

Thanks to the OP for this link. I just found out why USSR didn't invade Romania (a long time subject of speculation in Romania). We were poor, communists enough, defenseless and not much of a threat. This is so funny when I remember how many naive Romanians thought our army had some "secret weapon " :D (actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D).

For westerners, "actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D)" I think this means the secret weapon was heavy farts?

yes, we liked to call them "weapons of mass destruction"...

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#62

Post by nikatwork »

Perdition wrote: post #54
ajuc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should people in states bordering Russia care what Russia thinks of their independence and alliances?

Because that is political reality. Do you see any armies marching to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity? Russia isn't a small state that can be easily threatened, and nobody in the West has the stomach for a real war. I bet Russia could take all of Ukraine with no response beyond a boycott and some air-strikes. P.S. The US has done far worse things than what Russia is currently doing in order to keep South Ameri…

How does the US doing bad things justify Russia doing bad things to a territory independent of both? That makes no sense at all. And the fact that Russia can get away with it does not ethically absolve their actions.

If we followed your ideas, the Baltic states would never have broken away from Russia. That actually worked out quite well for them.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#64

Post by Synaesthesia »

brc wrote: post #50
notastartup wrote: post #19

As someone very interested in Soviet Union, it's system, this is a great resource. I'd love it if this was available on kindle or a paperback. Even Russians will say Soviet Union is shit or people will react like, 'why are you learning russian and so obsessed with Soviet Union', I think it's because I think it could've been a great system, it's a noble ideology that men and women of all races are integrated and all r…

I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time . At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.

That's not true, look at Sweden, France, Germany, UK ... all practising socialism. It's helped their people with free health care, education. There are many good things about socialism.

The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#65

Post by valtih1978 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #29
Perdition wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why it is happening. NATO was set-up to counter the Soviets (dominated by Russia) and it is a slap in the face for Russia to allow NATO right on their border when they are trying to become a real world power again. NATO might have gotten away with limited defence/economic pacts with former Soviet satellites, but full NATO and EU membership was bound to provoke a reaction from Russia. Apparently the US State D…

> Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed. Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea Gotcha. Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?

Just to inform your ingonrance. The Eastern and South Ukraine is a Russia. It was attached to the Ukraine be the bloody communist criminals. Look at the map http://13571113.blogspot.com/2014/03/republic-of-novorossiya...

New government of Ukraine is neonazi, installed by the US during this winter. This is done second time. First time it happened in 2004, why american citizen Uschenko has imposed antisoviet propaganda in the school program, the WWII nazi criminal, Stepan Bandera, was made a national hero. It was indoctrinated a neonazi idea that russians are inborn slaves and biogarbage, russian language was banned. Antisoviet/antirussian brainwashing was absolutely successful but economic programme has failed. Therefore Uschenko has lost the office. But, in 2013, US has re-installed its puppet government in the Ukraine again, by force. How do you react?

The new government was much more neonazi (look for "svoboda" party and "far right groups patrolling Kiev"). The first law was to ban the russian language again. They have declared that they will remove the russian fleet (which is located in crimea forever, since Crimea is another Russian land, attached to Ukraine by mistake by Soviet Authority, when ). Now, how do you prove that Russian people (the total population of the Crimea, Doneck, Odessa) should welcome the US-installed russophobic mankurts in Kiev, who chant "slotter the russians" (https://www.google.ee/search?q=москалей+на+ножи) in their fascist marches? You do not bother to prove that. Your propaganda has already put all shit in your head.

1. Russian people in the Ukraine (almost the half of the pouplation) have all the right to run away from your neonazi puppets. 2. They have full right to live with other russians. 3. Russia has all the right to meet the aspirations of frightented people in Ukraine and defend its national interests, which are the Black Sea fleet, russian population united with the rest of the Russia and no NATO in the Ukraine.

You dehumiliate the russian hostages in Ukraine because you want the whole Ukraine to go under Western domination. You want it to separate from the Russia because (as Bzhesinzki puts that) Russia will loose its ability to stand against US Empire only if it looses the Ukraine. You is an imperialist, brainwahsed by the Western propaganda. Crimea has came back home. The "Independent Ukraine" is American, anti-Russia project. The population is russian and feels bad there. It must be ukrainized, turned into ukranians (anti-russians). All russian regions must return back to Russian home, immediately. Start respecting territorial integrity of Sovient Union, not Ukraine.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#66

Post by guard-of-terra »

leaveyou wrote: post #4

Thanks to the OP for this link. I just found out why USSR didn't invade Romania (a long time subject of speculation in Romania). We were poor, communists enough, defenseless and not much of a threat. This is so funny when I remember how many naive Romanians thought our army had some "secret weapon " :D (actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D).

Why would USSR invade Romania? The only scenario I can think of is reinstating Communist government.

Seriously, USSR didn't have plans to occupy and assimilate random foreign countries. Not as far as I know.

And don't forget USSR depended heavily on Romanian furniture :)

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#67

Post by Maakuth »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #64
brc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time . At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.

That's not true, look at Sweden, France, Germany, UK ... all practising socialism. It's helped their people with free health care, education. There are many good things about socialism. The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not.

This is only true for the American populist definition of socialism. Here in Europe we usually talk about social democracy, where basic needs of people (healtcare, education, not starving) are addressed by the state, but one is free to form private enterprises (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model). This is quite different from the brand of socialism the USSR was aiming for, where all private property would have been abolished.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#68

Post by contulluipeste »

blumbo wrote: post #58
brc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time . At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.

i'd like to hear more about this, exactly how horribly miserable would you end up if you have trillions and you would be forced to give up 99% of your wealth?

Giving it all up was just the "equalizing" part. Being incriminated, prosecuted and sentenced for having employed in some way other people's work was the real face of the system.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#69

Post by simonh »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #26

Quote From Part VIII: Soviet Communists are frequently reproached for having attempted to build a socialist society but having produced something which closely resembles a prison. Such a charge is entirely unjustified. In the Soviet Union some of the inmates have larger cells than others, some eat well, others badly. There is complete confusion-a lot remains to be done to tidy up the situation. True socialism, in whi…

The basic point is valid regarding communism and forced equality, but e.g. plenty of countries have very efficient, well funded and cost effective nationalized medical services. It's a particularly poor example to choose to try and make the point.

The problem with communism isn't that so many of it's services are nationalized, it's that one-party politics leads to an ossified, excessively powerful, corrupt bureaucracy with no checks and balances.

Any political system that lacks dynamism and protects cronyism would suffer the same problems, regardless of it's ideological base. That's why in practice Fascism and Communism produce functionally indistinguishable resultant states.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#70

Post by PeterisP »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #66
leaveyou wrote: post #4

Thanks to the OP for this link. I just found out why USSR didn't invade Romania (a long time subject of speculation in Romania). We were poor, communists enough, defenseless and not much of a threat. This is so funny when I remember how many naive Romanians thought our army had some "secret weapon " :D (actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D).

Why would USSR invade Romania? The only scenario I can think of is reinstating Communist government. Seriously, USSR didn't have plans to occupy and assimilate random foreign countries. Not as far as I know. And don't forget USSR depended heavily on Romanian furniture :)

Keeping/reinstating Communist governments through military force was a cornerstone of USSR foreign policy for many decades at that point - e.g. Prague Spring.
Post reply on HN