6 ms·

In Soviet Union places were named in honor of the people that did something good for the country. Stalin's daughter didn't do anything significant in her life -

In Soviet Union places were named in honor of the people that did something good for the country. Stalin's daughter didn't do anything significant in her life - why would anyone name anything in honor of her????? People in the West has so perverse understanding of Russian/Soviet realities due to exorbitant amount of anti-Russian and especially anti-Soviet propaganda. I wonder if there was even a single positive thing ever published on the West about USSR. And people laugh at me when I say I don't believe any news (they believe they're becoming enlightened by reading or watching fake news which is any news source).

FillardMillmore 7y ago
I see the ignorance of my question now - essentially the question was borne out of a lack of knowledge about how common the name 'Svetlana' is. The only 'Svetlana' I knew about was Stalin's daughter. My brain made a connection where one didn't exist. You are most certainly correct about the lack of understanding in the West about Russian/Soviet realities. Do you have any books you'd recommend to aid in an understanding of this? I recently picked up 'Everyday Stalinism' by Sheila Fitzpatrick - focusing on the lives of the average person during Stalin's time in power but it certainly casts a more negative light on this time than positive. With that said, I'd be more than interested in reading accounts that cast a more positive light on things. I've also read 'Khrushchev Lied' by Grover Furr - this book focuses more on half-truths and omissions of truth made in Khrushchev's secret speech about Stalin. Reading about Grover's history, it would seem he is not entirely unbiased but there were details in there that gave pause for thought. As for whether there was anything positive published in the West about the USSR, have you heard about Walter Duranty's writing for the New York Times and the subsequent Pulitzer Prize? That is, of course, a somewhat facetious example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty There were certainly positive things written about the USSR during the war (as they became allies with Western forces), with Stalin being affectionately called 'Uncle Joe' - things of course got less positive during the Cold War and the Red Scare. Are there no news sources you trust? Aren't there news reports that cite primary evidence that you would deem as trustworthy? And if you don't get your current info from news sources, where do you get it from?
- anticodon 7y ago
  I do not know any truthful books about Soviet history, especially in English. We lost the cold war and winners always write the history. So even in contemporary books in Russian there's all kinds of nonsense about Soviet history. I was a teenager when USSR collapsed so I can only guess from my own short experience living in USSR and from tales of my parents and grandparents. It's radically different from anything you can find in any book. Memories of horrible years of "freedom" are brighter though. We had nothing to eat (millions died because of hunger but nobody cares, there's no Amnesty International to punish somebody for this), but were inundated in a flood of all kinds of bullshit. Soros-published books for the schools that contained nothing but lies about history and economics. Good and enlightening Soviet science shows were replaced with gross shows showing nudity and all kinds of fake science (psychics, UFO freaks, etc). Academics running the old shows said that they were closed specifically by request from the very top. Same for education: it was deliberately destroyed by direct guidance of US advisers. But we're still struggling... But I do not know if there's a book about it. It's a taboo theme both here and especially on the West. Everybody just reinforces the same old meme how "repressive" was Soviet society and how everybody was happy to become free (just conveniently omit the ending: "free from education, free from having work, free from having enough food, free from having self-esteem"). Regarding news: I simply avoid consuming any news. I do not want to receive anything from news. I don't need it. I work as a developer, in my job it's not necessary to know the "news". They doesn't affect my life much and even if they does, there's nothing I can do about it. All the news I consume against my will (by browsing social media where it's almost impossible to avoid seeing shared articles). So my ultimate goal is to stop consuming social media as well, but I lack the willpower. I also believe that it's good to know what is happening around IT (new languages, frameworks, etc) but all IT sources also publish lots of news about current politics (e.g. witch hunt against Huawei), so it seems as almost impossible to avoid news.
  - FillardMillmore 7y ago
    Thanks a lot for taking the time to share your experience. There's probably not many better ways to learn about the realities of a foreign country than by chatting with someone who actually lived there and can tell stories from first-hand experience. It's also somewhat curious that the ties of our professions (programming, development, IT) can serve as the channel by which this information is shared - as always, my appreciation of HN in this regard is immense. > Good and enlightening Soviet science shows were replaced with gross shows showing nudity and all kinds of fake science (psychics, UFO freaks, etc). Academics running the old shows said that they were closed specifically by request from the very top. Same for education: it was deliberately destroyed by direct guidance of US advisers. This bit in particular intrigued me. What would be the point of steering science and public academia in this way? To lower the level of public discourse to the advantage of the US? I did not realize such things were so tightly guided by US advisers after the collapse, though I hold no illusions that Boris Yeltsin was lobbied for and supported by the US (it might more accurately be described as 'election meddling' - which made it ironic during the investigation into Russian meddling in US elections that very few news outlets were brave enough to address the actions of the US in other countries' elections and in Russia's in particular). > Everybody just reinforces the same old meme how "repressive" was Soviet society and how everybody was happy to become free (just conveniently omit the ending: "free from education, free from having work, free from having enough food, free from having self-esteem"). Many here in the US claim that Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika contributed to the momentum of the collapse. I've heard it said before that while many here in the US hail Gorbachev as a kind of unwitting hero (due to this contribution and his affectations and coordination with Reagan), many who lived through his time in power view him more as the one who ruined everything his forebears had worked to build and achieve. Just for my own edification and curiosity, can you speak to how he's commonly viewed by former citizens of the Soviet Union? Your take on news consumption is cogent and refreshing. Many of us probably pay more attention to it than necessary. As for social media, if you use it responsibly, it can be a net benefit rather than a net detriment. I've personally excised myself from social media because I don't agree with their data privacy practices. I don't know what social media you use, but Facebook has a feature I believe where you can deactivate your account - for 30 days (or so), you can log back in and reactivate your account without losing anything. At the very least, it could be useful for a trial run if you simply want to attempt to get rid of it without the risk of losing everything if you decide you want to keep it two weeks later.

FillardMillmore 7y ago

I see the ignorance of my question now - essentially the question was borne out of a lack of knowledge about how common the name 'Svetlana' is. The only 'Svetlana' I knew about was Stalin's daughter. My brain made a connection where one didn't exist. You are most certainly correct about the lack of understanding in the West about Russian/Soviet realities. Do you have any books you'd recommend to aid in an understanding of this? I recently picked up 'Everyday Stalinism' by Sheila Fitzpatrick - focusing on the lives of the average person during Stalin's time in power but it certainly casts a more negative light on this time than positive. With that said, I'd be more than interested in reading accounts that cast a more positive light on things. I've also read 'Khrushchev Lied' by Grover Furr - this book focuses more on half-truths and omissions of truth made in Khrushchev's secret speech about Stalin. Reading about Grover's history, it would seem he is not entirely unbiased but there were details in there that gave pause for thought. As for whether there was anything positive published in the West about the USSR, have you heard about Walter Duranty's writing for the New York Times and the subsequent Pulitzer Prize? That is, of course, a somewhat facetious example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty There were certainly positive things written about the USSR during the war (as they became allies with Western forces), with Stalin being affectionately called 'Uncle Joe' - things of course got less positive during the Cold War and the Red Scare. Are there no news sources you trust? Aren't there news reports that cite primary evidence that you would deem as trustworthy? And if you don't get your current info from news sources, where do you get it from?

anticodon 7y ago
I do not know any truthful books about Soviet history, especially in English. We lost the cold war and winners always write the history. So even in contemporary books in Russian there's all kinds of nonsense about Soviet history. I was a teenager when USSR collapsed so I can only guess from my own short experience living in USSR and from tales of my parents and grandparents. It's radically different from anything you can find in any book. Memories of horrible years of "freedom" are brighter though. We had nothing to eat (millions died because of hunger but nobody cares, there's no Amnesty International to punish somebody for this), but were inundated in a flood of all kinds of bullshit. Soros-published books for the schools that contained nothing but lies about history and economics. Good and enlightening Soviet science shows were replaced with gross shows showing nudity and all kinds of fake science (psychics, UFO freaks, etc). Academics running the old shows said that they were closed specifically by request from the very top. Same for education: it was deliberately destroyed by direct guidance of US advisers. But we're still struggling... But I do not know if there's a book about it. It's a taboo theme both here and especially on the West. Everybody just reinforces the same old meme how "repressive" was Soviet society and how everybody was happy to become free (just conveniently omit the ending: "free from education, free from having work, free from having enough food, free from having self-esteem"). Regarding news: I simply avoid consuming any news. I do not want to receive anything from news. I don't need it. I work as a developer, in my job it's not necessary to know the "news". They doesn't affect my life much and even if they does, there's nothing I can do about it. All the news I consume against my will (by browsing social media where it's almost impossible to avoid seeing shared articles). So my ultimate goal is to stop consuming social media as well, but I lack the willpower. I also believe that it's good to know what is happening around IT (new languages, frameworks, etc) but all IT sources also publish lots of news about current politics (e.g. witch hunt against Huawei), so it seems as almost impossible to avoid news.
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  Thanks a lot for taking the time to share your experience. There's probably not many better ways to learn about the realities of a foreign country than by chatting with someone who actually lived there and can tell stories from first-hand experience. It's also somewhat curious that the ties of our professions (programming, development, IT) can serve as the channel by which this information is shared - as always, my appreciation of HN in this regard is immense. > Good and enlightening Soviet science shows were replaced with gross shows showing nudity and all kinds of fake science (psychics, UFO freaks, etc). Academics running the old shows said that they were closed specifically by request from the very top. Same for education: it was deliberately destroyed by direct guidance of US advisers. This bit in particular intrigued me. What would be the point of steering science and public academia in this way? To lower the level of public discourse to the advantage of the US? I did not realize such things were so tightly guided by US advisers after the collapse, though I hold no illusions that Boris Yeltsin was lobbied for and supported by the US (it might more accurately be described as 'election meddling' - which made it ironic during the investigation into Russian meddling in US elections that very few news outlets were brave enough to address the actions of the US in other countries' elections and in Russia's in particular). > Everybody just reinforces the same old meme how "repressive" was Soviet society and how everybody was happy to become free (just conveniently omit the ending: "free from education, free from having work, free from having enough food, free from having self-esteem"). Many here in the US claim that Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and Perestroika contributed to the momentum of the collapse. I've heard it said before that while many here in the US hail Gorbachev as a kind of unwitting hero (due to this contribution and his affectations and coordination with Reagan), many who lived through his time in power view him more as the one who ruined everything his forebears had worked to build and achieve. Just for my own edification and curiosity, can you speak to how he's commonly viewed by former citizens of the Soviet Union? Your take on news consumption is cogent and refreshing. Many of us probably pay more attention to it than necessary. As for social media, if you use it responsibly, it can be a net benefit rather than a net detriment. I've personally excised myself from social media because I don't agree with their data privacy practices. I don't know what social media you use, but Facebook has a feature I believe where you can deactivate your account - for 30 days (or so), you can log back in and reactivate your account without losing anything. At the very least, it could be useful for a trial run if you simply want to attempt to get rid of it without the risk of losing everything if you decide you want to keep it two weeks later.