When did Soviet Culture Become so Chic?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

interesting topic. I'd say Hitler is much more famous as the "Face of evil" due to the fact that he was such a famous public speaker who went out of his way to gather attention to himself whereas Stalin and his cohorts were always seen as dealing in the dark shadows of the underworld.

 

That and the fact that there is mountions of footage of the atrocities commited by the German armies while there is not that much of Soviet atrocities.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

interesting topic. I'd say Hitler is much more famous as the "Face of evil" due to the fact that he was such a famous public speaker who went out of his way to gather attention to himself whereas Stalin and his cohorts were always seen as dealing in the dark shadows of the underworld.

 

That and the fact that there is mountions of footage of the atrocities commited by the German armies while there is not that much of Soviet atrocities.

Your entire post proves the point that you, and a lot of others, are simply more learned in Hitler's evil moves than Stalins. But everything you said about Hitler and Germany applies to Stalin and Russia too.

 

Stalin was an avid public speaker - he wasn't that good at it (he had a fucked up accent) but he sure liked to talk.

 

And I don't know what heinous video there is of the Nazis. Maybe of them marching into Paris in 1940, but certainly there isn't that much video on the holocaust...at least I've never seen it.

 

No videos or pictures were taken during the gruesome Stalinish period because he was too busy trying to make the country look appealing. He was controlling art and culture with unrealistic "socialist realism".

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

interesting topic. I'd say Hitler is much more famous as the "Face of evil" due to the fact that he was such a famous public speaker who went out of his way to gather attention to himself whereas Stalin and his cohorts were always seen as dealing in the dark shadows of the underworld.

 

That and the fact that there is mountions of footage of the atrocities commited by the German armies while there is not that much of Soviet atrocities.

Your entire post proves the point that you, and a lot of others, are simply more learned in Hitler's evil moves than Stalins. But everything you said about Hitler and Germany applies to Stalin and Russia too.

 

Stalin was an avid public speaker - he wasn't that good at it (he had a fucked up accent) but he sure liked to talk.

 

And I don't know what heinous video there is of the Nazis. Maybe of them marching into Paris in 1940, but certainly there isn't that much video on the holocaust...at least I've never seen it.

 

No videos or pictures were taken during the gruesome Stalinish period because he was too busy trying to make the country look appealing. He was controlling art and culture with unrealistic "socialist realism".

That's all exactly what I meant Banky. I'm well aware of the atrocieties Stalin committed including The Ukranian famine.

 

That was my whole poibt by saying there's not alot of footage of stalinist tragedys. it was a conscious effort his part.

 

As far as the footage of Holocaust i've seen quite a large amount of footage taken from the liberation of the various concentration camps as well as some footage by german soldiers.

 

I myself do know more about the Nazi's because when I was growing up my grandfather used to talk about his experinces in the war. He served at Dieppe and a number of other battles and he had alot of knowledge on the subject.

[Highland 0]

Hitler is viewed as being more evil than Stalin because the Nazis committed such crimes in a short span of time, but the Soviets under Stalin killed many times the amount of people than the Nazis did.

The swastika, once an ancient symbol of good, has been corrupted to represent reprehensible evil: everyone knows what the swastika stands for today, the reason some people (like anti-globalisation protesters) wear the hammer and sickle is because they are morons, and think it is a sign of rebellion from the establishment and that it is a strike against globalisation.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Stalin didn't kill the people of such good movie makers.

 

Also, Hitler was funny looking; Stalin looked like a used car salesman or my OAC World Issues teacher.

 

Why has it become so chic? I never knew it was.

[Art Sandusky 0]

It isn't more chic now so much as we have a lot of old surplus Soviet materiel filtering over here, and for dirt cheap more often than not, so you're simply going to see more of it. The Hammer and Sickle is an AWESOME design too, I don't care what anyone says. It SCREAMS power. Thus, it looks cool. You also won't be crucified for it these days if you say you're a Communist, because as far as the majority of the population is concerned, Communism is nothing to worry about anymore. Considering the neutered versions in place in China and Vietnam, they've got a point. Cuba is just considered "that place where Castro is" more than "OMG COMMUNIST COUNTRY 90 MILES FROM US~" like it used to be.

 

Bottom line is that it isn't regarded as a threat anymore, so it's acceptable to wear clothes from there or read about the place or have posters from there.

 

Finally, Nazism preached superiority of a particular race, whilst Communism was tolerant of all races so long as they wanted to be accepted into the fold.

[Guest HungryJack]

Would you say denying international aid for the starving Ukrainians is genocide? I'm not necessarily saying it is, but an argument can be made for Stalin forcing the Ukrainians to die when many wanted to help them.

It's definitely genocide. Not only did he deny international help for them, but through his programs of forced collectivization, and his efforts to liquidate the kulaks( landowning peasants for those unfamiliar) as a class, he forced many Ukrainans to relinquish not only their possessions, but their land and all livestock as well.

 

This of course resulted in widespread famine and death, all because the Ukrainians refused to collectivize ( rightfully so, in my eyes). And because teh Ukraine contained the vast majority of arable land in the nascent Soviet Union, Stalin required it for the purposes of feeding the rest of the people.

 

 

As far as hItler being more evil than Stalin, I'd likely peg them evenly, due to The fact that they were both engaged in mass murder, and tried to rationalize it as being ecessary for the glory of the country, or race, as a whole. That said, i Don't know if Hitlers level of paranoia rivalled Stalins, as Stalins constant purges, show trials, murder of political rivals, etc are well-documented.

 

 

And concerning the wearing of the hammer and sickle, I see it more as a symbol of solidarity and power, which i suppose appeals to some people . I've got an old soviet rugby jersey around here somewhere, i think.

 

 

Good thread, this.

[MrRant 0]

Umm.. the Soviets (which is what we are talking about) weren't really that tolerant Kotz.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I think part of it is also just your general teenage rebellion.

 

The soviets were seen as something evil by the older generation, so, kids being kids who rebel against everything, accepted the soviets as "cool".

 

The didn't happen with the Nazis, because they were never as huge of a part of American culture as the USSR. Which sounds odd, but during the cold war, lots of stuff was influenced by the soviet "menace", I'd think.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Communism is nothing to worry about anymore.

Have you heard of North Korea? Get back to me in 3 years and we'll be discussing the evils of communism again.

 

And saying Russia isn't a threat anymore is a little presumptious. They're government is still as crooked as ever, they are having rigged election, and President Putin just fired his P.M right before an election. Russia will be an extremely big threat in a couple of years. Those motherfuckers are resilient. They are down and out like a bunch of cocksuckers in 1917. But they built up their power, and by 1945 they were the second strongest country in the world.

 

I don't think we know the half of the shit that is going on there right now. Much of the shit Stalin was in on during his reign was kept secret until Krushchov (the President that succeeded Stalin) pretty much brought it all out into the open. Yeltsin took it one further and allowed everyone to look at their private archives. Their is some ill shit going on there, and no one should understimate their potential connections with other countries.

 

 

 

Jack - Some people define Genocide as a blatent attempt to kill off a group of people. Like the Holocaust was done to kill the Jews. They took men, time, and planning away from their war effort to kill these people. They LOST the war because they became pre-occupied to kill the Jews. THAT is genocide. Stalin pissed on the Ukrainians, Kulaks, and others because he wanted to modernize the urban countries and bolster their economy. So some say that isn't genocide, its just a sign of him being a total heartless son of a bitch.

 

Kotz - Stalin's communist was not open to any races that wasn't Russian. Their anti-sematism nearly paralled the the Germans. They hated the Slavs, Ukrainians, Poles, Gypsies, (not nationality, but still), Georgians, and others. They were quite selective about how would prosper and who would die. But what scares me the most about Stalin is that he killed anyone. Hitler at least liked people who were of the Aryan race - and looked to preserve them to fulfill his ideal viewpoint of what the world should be. Stalin would kill anyone, regardless of friendship, race, or reasoning. The guy is so evil, he chills my bones.

[Nighthawk 0]

Stalin pissed on the Ukrainians, Kulaks, and others because he wanted to modernize the urban countries and bolster their economy. So some say that isn't genocide, its just a sign of him being a total heartless son of a bitch.

I would agree with that view.

 

Fun fact: The word genocide was invented in 1943 to describe Nazi policies of systemized murder.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Why are we lingering on Stalin so much? It's not like he was their leader for all 73 years of the nation's existance. The place underwent De-Stalinization for a REASON.

 

And Rant, I'd call killing everyone more tolerant than killing only certain types, oddly. Nazis didn't like certain types of people, Stalinist Russia didn't like ANYONE specifically.

 

EDIT: When I wear my Spetznatz beret, I don't think that I'm wearing the symbol of the Stalin-led Soviet state, I think of the original revolutionary ideals and Lenin and Trotsky and Gorky. To me, anyone who became prominent after Trotsky was forced out of the picture (minus Kruchshev, he was hardcore) was just a poseur to the original goals of the October Revolution.

[Cherry Blossom Viscount 0]

Heiedenreich = Reinhard Heydrich

 

Henry Himmler = Heinrich Himmler

 

Anyhoodles, I hate to say it, but those NAZI's had some damn good uniforms. If I ever get rich, I'm going to buy one and walk around my house in it. As chic as they are, you just can't wear one of those in public.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'd wear a WWI German helmet. With the spike and shit.

 

Many of you are also overlooking the antisemitism that was involved with Stalin's regime. Perhaps it was just coincidence that several of doctors, lawyers, and other educated urban professionals were jews, but they were killed or sent to the gulag regardless.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

*owns a CCCP shirt*

 

Incidently, I'm half Ukraine and I'd probably be messed up if my dad's side of the family ever saw me in it (since they're full-blooded Ukraine). Luckily, none of them live in Michigan, so I need not worry about that too much.

 

Personally, I agree with Kotz and just think the design is awesome. I'm not stating any sort of belief system when I wear the shirt (even though some may disagree). I'm just sporting a boss logo.

[Art Sandusky 0]

So are they~!

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

I'm just sporting a boss logo.

You're pissing the point.

 

Some may consider the swastika cool, so why is it so much more of a taboo to sport that symbol than the sickle and hammer?

[Art Sandusky 0]

To be honest, the swastika is boring in comparison.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

To be honest, the swastika is boring in comparison.

Charles Manson doesn't think so, hussy.

 

Shut your mouth, you're starting to get on my nerves. Just answer the question instead of giving irrelevent personal opinions. Who cares what you think looks nicer? Just as many like the swastika. Now just answer the question.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Because since the Nazis, it's associated with absolute hatred for all things not pure-bred blond hair blue eye white. The hammer and sickle represents an actual political system, not a set of hateful standards. When I see a swastika, they think death and destruction and violence and genocide and pushbrush moustaches and persecution and all that jazz. When I see a hammer and sickle, I think of an authoritarian revolutionary political system.

 

You say I'm injecting my own personal opinions instead of answering questions, but the thread has been started on your own opinions. And stop harking back on Stalin and think of the Soviet existance as a whole.

 

Swastika = Hitler, a man.

Hammer and Sickle = Soviet Union, a country.

 

Much less offensive.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Personally, I find the Swastika to be more powerful-looking. I think it has something to do with the color scheme of the red banner, white circle, black swastika combo, it just demands your attention.

 

I'm going to run with this answer: Stalin's Communist beliefs gave people purpose. The sickle and hammer were representative of the Russian's purpose, to better Russia. The Swastika is pretty much directly linked to the Holocaust...while the Sickle and Hammer's purpose was the betterment of Russia, the Swastika's purpose was to further Hitler's agenda.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

I saw a stripper once that had the Hammer and Sickle tattooed on her ass. It was strangely erotic.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Because since the Nazis, it's associated with absolute hatred for all things not pure-bred blond hair blue eye white. The hammer and sickle represents an actual political system, not a set of hateful standards. When I see a swastika, they think death and destruction and violence and genocide and pushbrush moustaches and persecution and all that jazz. When I see a hammer and sickle, I think of an authoritarian revolutionary political system.

 

You say I'm injecting my own personal opinions instead of answering questions, but the thread has been started on your own opinions. And stop harking back on Stalin and think of the Soviet existance as a whole.

 

Swastika = Hitler, a man.

Hammer and Sickle = Soviet Union, a country.

 

Much less offensive.

Everything that happened under the Soviet's watch until 91 was caused by Stalin. No one takes a class on Lenin, Krushchuv, or any other leaders - you take it on Stalin. Stalin was the Soviets. Even when they tried to clean up the mess Stalin caused, everythign resorted back to him. Many of the policies up until 91 were there because Stalin implemented them during his reign. I should've dumbed this down for you, as by talkign about most brutal aspects of the Soviet reign, I shouldn't have expected you to understand that I would be talking about Stalin not anything Boris fucking Yeltsin did.

 

This thread hasn't been started on my opinion. I am simply looking or interested in debating reasons for why the Soviets (or Stalin) because you're a fucking moron, is considered a lesser evil than Hitler. Many of you simply are undeducated in the comings-and going of the Soviets during Stalin's period. As that period is primarily what made Russia seem like such a threat...and why more people died on his watch than anywhere in the 20th century. All of the traitrs you used to describe the Nazis can and should be used to describe the Soviets as well. Maybe if they make an Oscar winning movie about the Grain Requisitions in the Ukraine or the Purges of 1937, people like you wouldn't have such an uneducated view of history.

 

Except being the total fag that you are, you say irrelevent shit like "because the logo is nicer". Everyone else tried to come up with logical reasons.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

a little harsh there Banky....this is Kotz we're talking about here.

 

 

In my own (less than stellar) opinion I think alot had to do with the idealogical ideas behind both Facism and Communism. Everyone knows(Knew) what Facism is, or at least what it was commonly associated with: The holacaust and the other horrors of World War 2.

 

Whereas Communism is due to either lack of information, or just plain ignorance on ths subject seen asthe lesser of two evils because it's basic principle of fair equal treatment for all strikes a cord in the human soul.

 

Of course Stalin and Khrushchev among others didn't actually accomplish that but it's still and i use this term loosely seen as the "friendlier" form of government and belief.

 

I don't agree with it but that's how I see it.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me if I am

 

Stalin turned on Hitler and helped the allies beat Nazi Germany

 

Didn't Hitler however help fight against the Japanese Red Army in WW1? I believe I heard that on a show I watched on the History channel. If that's the case, and WW2 never happened then Hitler would be in the position Stalin is as far as the way people kinda shrug off what he did now(at least in North America).

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me if I am

 

Stalin turned on Hitler and helped the allies beat Nazi Germany

 

Didn't Hitler however help fight against the Japanese Red Army in WW1? I believe I heard that on a show I watched on the History channel. If that's the case, and WW2 never happened then Hitler would be in the position Stalin is as far as the way people kinda shrug off what he did now(at least in North America).

Hitler turned on Stalin - and drove Stalin into arms of the Allies.

 

Hitler fought in WW1 for the Austrians. His entire platoon was washed out, and he miraculously avoided death. It almost makes his rise to power seem pre-ordained. But it wasn't.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

But still, do you believe had Hitler stayed within the confines of Germany after WW1 and just killed his own people like Stalin did(for the most part) would he be viewed the way we view Stalin today as "Ya, he was a tyrant...but he was no big threat to anybody outside of Russia"

 

Or even more do you believe with the money and man power Stalin would have saved on not having Germany try to invade he in turn would have gone about trying to slowly take over Europe?

 

Lot of what ifs but those kind of scenerios entrigue me

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

No. Geographically Germany was easier to get in and out of than the Frozen wastes of Russia so it would have been easier for people to get in and out with stories of genocide.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

But still, do you believe had Hitler stayed within the confines of Germany after WW1 and just killed his own people like Stalin did(for the most part) would he be viewed the way we view Stalin today as "Ya, he was a tyrant...but he was no big threat to anybody outside of Russia"

 

Or even more do you believe with the money and man power Stalin would have saved on not having Germany try to invade he in turn would have gone about trying to slowly take over Europe?

 

Lot of what ifs but those kind of scenerios entrigue me

I don't really understand the question.

 

Stalin was a threat to people outside of his country. he had anti-semetic beliefs just like Hitler. He kiled Poles, Ukrainians, Slavs, ect...

 

Stalin forged his alliance with Stalin at the begininng on WW2 because he was petrified of an attack from germany. Under no circumstances did they want to be left alone with Hitler. Stalin had just pruges 3/4 of his army in 1937, so he wasn't in any position to fight. But because he had the 2 year grace period of being alligned with Hitler, he was able to build up his manpower and money to fully utalize the biggest army in the world.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I don't really understand the question.

 

Stalin was a threat to people outside of his country. he had anti-semetic beliefs just like Hitler. He kiled Poles, Ukrainians, Slavs, ect...

 

Stalin forged his alliance with Stalin at the begininng on WW2 because he was petrified of an attack from germany. Under no circumstances did they want to be left alone with Hitler. Stalin had just pruges 3/4 of his army in 1937, so he wasn't in any position to fight. But because he had the 2 year grace period of being alligned with Hitler, he was able to build up his manpower and money to fully utalize the biggest army in the world.

Basically the whole thing is asking, if Hitler had kept within the confines of Germany and poorer nations surrounding it would he be viewed as Stalin is today, as in people would see the Nazi movement as they see the Communist movement today. Also it asks if that had occured Stalin would have had more than 2 years to rebuild his armies and finances because Germany never would have invaded, so in turn would he have tried taking over countries in middle europe and the middle east, thus turning the Sickel and Hammer into what the Swastika is today?

 

Quite frankly I believe that as soon as Hitler invaded France and had his dive bombers fly over England is when he became viewed as a global threat. From what I've read I haven't seen anything to indicate that other countries really cared when he entered Poland and Denmark.