Ukrainian city demolishes monument to Russian general who beat Napoleon.
Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2014, 08:08 AM - Edit history (2)
Source: RT News
Ukraine’s anti-Russian drive targeting war monuments continues. The latest victim is the Russian army commander who fought against invading Napoleon troops and chased them back to Paris. The monument to Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov, who is praised in Russia as one of the best military commanders in the country’s history, was demolished in the city of Brody in Western Ukraine, reports Korrespondent newspaper. The bust sculpture was taken off its plinth on Monday by municipal workers with a crane. The plinth was later demolished.
Local residents cheered the demolition, shouting “Glory to Ukraine, glory to heroes,” the Ukrainian nationalistic slogan which came to national prominence lately due to its use by the Maidan protesters. The site where Kutuzov’s monument used to be may eventually host another monument dedicated to those people killed during the protest wave which ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, according to a vesti.ua report.
The nationalist Svoboda party, which played a key part in the Maidan protest, had been trying to demolish the Kutuzov monument since at least 2008, arguing that he had nothing to do with Ukrainian history. Opponents of the initiative said that the military commander’s decisions as head of the Russian army led to Napoleon’s abandoning the idea to retreat from Russia through Kiev, which prevented likely pillaging of what is now Ukraine. Prior to the invasion Kutuzov served as the military governor of Kiev and fought against French allies, the Turks. The military campaign led to territorial gains for the Russian Empire and made it impossible for Napoleon to invade the country from the south.
Read more: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-kutuzov-monument-demoliotion-594/
This is really sad. Only a person with no sense of history would do such a disgraceful thing. Kutuzov was a genuine hero. Do the xenophobic radicals of Svoboda have no respect at all for their nation's past?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)WTF? What the fuck? Really? He was a reminder of the Russian Empire under the Tsars'.
At least Bonaparte was for the end of feudalism and for religious acceptance. The Napoleonic Code quite literally influenced every democracy on the planet (though the US was founded some 20 years prior, and one could say he was influenced by the US constitution and philosophy, there was a give and take, almost certainly).
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)A more accurate reading is that Napoleon was a imperialistic usurper of the French Revolution, a self agrandizing social climber, and the great butcher of his age. Many of his contemporaries actually considered him to be the personification of the "Anti-Christ."
Just to give one example: While Kutuzov (who I have never seen referred to as "scorched Earth Kutuzov"
was still in the field, leading his forces in the liberation of Russia from the Grande Armee, Napoleon had already decamped back to Paris, leaving his surviving troops to freeze and starve in the frozen wastes. It is estimated that no more than two percent of the half a million soldiers Napoleon vain-gloriously led into Russia returned to their homes alive.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)in your justification of the latest outrage from the CIA's bogus "revolution" du jour.
What flavor of nationalist radical iconoclasty does it take, also reminiscent of the worst image of the Cultural Revolution, to want to use their first moment in power simply to destroy (without a proceeding or debate of any kind) a historical monument from the 19th century, no matter what one may think of the figure depicted? This is historical vandalism, a throwing of memory down the hole. If Yanukovich had done it, you'd have been appalled, whether it was striking at Napoleon or his enemies.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2014, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)
You must understand the nature of Napoleon's army. In many ways it is the first "Modern" Army in the sense it is made up of Division and Corps. Each Corp had its own supply lines which ran to the divisions in that corp. In history the closest thing to the French Corps was the Roman Legion and the Mongol Tumen. The Division, the Tumen and the Legion ended up with roughly 10,000 men each. The Corps, under Napoleon 30-40,000 men.
This is important for any army maxis out at about 50,000 men. Armies larger then 50,000 is just to hard to supply. The three units above are ways to divide an army into smaller Armies that can be combined on the day of battle. This permit much larger armies for each Division, Legion or Tumen have their own supply lines. Thus Napoleon's army pf over 600,000 men was not one army but 16 Army Corps (in effective 16 armies marching as independent but interrelated Armies). Each of those armies were designed to live off the land. i.e loot the area for Food and fodder. This was often done by Light Cavalry units of such armies, which do to this function had a bad reputation among the peasants. So bad was reputation of Light Cavalry that when General Braddock n Pennsylvania had a problem getting horses for his plan attack on Fort Duquesne later Fort Pitt, today Pittsburgh, in 1754, Ben Franklin send out a letter to the German settlers of Pennsylvania that unless they agree to sell their horse, a Colonel (whose names I forget) "The Hussar" (A Polish Term for Light Cavalry that became a European wide term by the mid 1700s) would go out and get them himself. The term was used to put fear in those Germans, who came up with the horses. That is how bad Light Cavalry was held by the peasants not only of Europe but even the US.
Anyway, the Light Cavalry would spread out from their base units and steal anything not nailed down, including food and fodder, leaving whole areas barren. Wellington Notice this in his Spanish Campaign against Napoleon's troops and made sure he had food for his troops before he started any attack for the French Army would leave nothing (Wellington's grain supply ended up coming from New England, even after the War of 1812 has started,it was funny, American Ships full of Wheat would sail out New England, after war was declared and be intercepted by a British Frigate who would then escort it to Spain and Wellington. This was the main reason New England opposed the War of 1812, and why when England decided to blockage US Ports in that war, started with Georgia and worked they way up North.
Anyway, I bring up Wellington to show stripping land of everything was characteristic of the French Armies of the Napoleonic Wars. Wellington did not do it, for he had to depend on Spanish support, the French told the Spanish to lump it. When it came to the invasion of Russia, they was no way in 1812 for Napoleon to feed his army of over 600,000 men other then by raping the countryside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_of_the_French_invasion_of_Russia
AS to Moscow, the Russian abandoned the City, but left it intact. The subsequent burning of Moscow occurred as the French Troops, did what they had done in rural area, strip the place bare. In rural area an occasional fire would burn one building, but such a fire would burn much of the city if left uncontrolled. Thus it is after the French Took Moscow and as they troops look around for loot that the city caught on fire and was burned. Notice it was the FRENCH through their own greed that lead to the burning of Moscow. The Russians had just left and burned nothing (through it appears the Russian took all the food with them).
Thus once Napoleon had taken Moscow, he had two choices, stay the winter but that required him to send out his light Cavalry troops to get the food and fodder his men and horse needed and by the time he took Moscow, most crops were in and well hidden. Furthermore all the area between Moscow and Poland had been raped by his army, thus no food or fodder to be gathered. The second choice was to fight south and retreat through the Ukraine.
The Pinsk (Prepet) Marshes separate Russia from the Ukraine as to the Ukraine's northern border. Napoleon's Army had traveled north of the Pinsk Marshes and had stripped it bare. Thus this was Napoleon's first choice but while he won the Battle of Maloyaroslavets on October 24, 1812, that "Victory" told Napoleon he had not yet defeated the Russian Army and thus decided to retreat the way he came. The problem was not only was it Winter but his army on the way To Moscow had already stripped the country side bare. Less then 10% of his army made it back to Poland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsk_Marshes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maloyaroslavets
I bring this up, for Russia did NOT adopt a Scorch Earth Policy against Napoleon, the Scorch earth policy was the policy of Napoleon's own army. It had been the key to his victory for with that policy Napoleon could field more troops then any other country in Europe. The downside is the peasants quickly turned against such an army. In the early years of the Wars, the peasants had been neutral as to French invasions, for to most peasants who was ruling them did not matter, they still had to pay whatever their "Masters" wanted them to pay. The problem starting with Spain, when Wellington refused to do what the French was doing, and thus was able to turn the Spanish peasants from Neutral to pro-British. Both the Prussians and Russians found this same problem after they had been defeated in the Battle of Jena in 1808, their peasants did not care who won or loss, for it did not affect them. Until what Napoleon was doing with his troops was shown to affect those peasants, those peasants were neutral. When it became clear the French Army was doing much more harm then even the Russian Army was capable of doing, the peasants turned against the French and ended up destroying Napoleon.
Thus it was the Scorch earth policy that came from French Army living off the land that did in Napoleon not any scotch earth policy of the Russians.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)..."When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly (then Minister of War) chose to follow the scorched earth principle and retreat rather than to risk a major battle. His strategy aroused grudges from most of the generals and soldiers, notably Prince Pyotr Bagration. As Alexander had to choose a new general, there was only one choice: Kutuzov. He found popularity among the troops mainly because he was Russian (most of the generals commanding Russian troops at that time were foreign), he was brave, he had proven himself in battle, strongly believed in the Russian Orthodox Church, and he looked out for the troops’ well-being."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kutuzov#The_Patriotic_War_.281812.29
They French armies definitely stripped the surrounding areas bare as they past, but the Russian's tried to leave them nothing also.
MADem
(135,425 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)..."In 1812 Czar Alexander I was able to render Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Russia useless by utilizing a scorched-earth retreat method, similar to that made by the Portuguese.[19] As Russian forces withdrew from the advancing French army, they burned the countryside (and, allegedly, Moscow[20]) over which they passed, leaving nothing of value for the pursuing French army. Encountering only desolate and useless land Napoleon's Grand Army was prevented from using its accustomed doctrine of living off the lands it conquered. Pushing relentlessly on despite dwindling numbers, the Grand Army met with disaster as the invasion progressed. Napoleon's army arrived in a virtually abandoned Moscow, which was a tattered starving shell of its former self due largely to the use of scorched-earth tactics by retreating Russians. Having essentially conquered nothing, Napoleon's troops diminished. Tragically, the effects of this policy on the civilian population in those areas in which it was applied was equally, if not more, devastating than they were on the Grande Armée."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth#Napoleonic_Wars
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)You take the resources of your conquered territory. What wasn't done was raze entire villages if there was anything left that was useful.
I fail to see why Ukrainians would celebrate a Czarist. It seems more an attempt at Russiafaction by ethnic Russians who were proud of his military achievements.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Why "Ukrainians" would "celebrate" a "Czarist."
The question is why would neo-nationalist extremists want to start knocking over pieces of furniture as if it was of great sacred importance to whatever fictional nation-construct they've got in mind. Ukraine was just subjected to a coup d'etat with out and out fascists in the lead, and they are now looking to create bullshit conflicts and ethnically cleanse the country so that a coalition with neoliberals can sign a brutal austerity package with the Western imperialists. Part of that is knocking over a statue and see who complains: they are then defined as the enemy and turned into foreigners, even if they'd lived there their whole lives. Get the "Ukrainians" and "Russians" of this shared nation wanting to kill each other over symbols, and paying no attention to the capitalists and CIA who just executed a plan to destroy the place's peace and economic potentials. You're always there to cheerlead this shit on, interestingly.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I think the historical revisionism is quaint though.
People one normally would associate with the left are going all out to defend a Czarist!
If someone is offended because symbols of totalitarianism are toppled then I have no sympathy.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You look approvingly on the creation of artificial divisions and the fake issues stirred up by nationalists. Let the people fight over some statue, stir up the "Ukrainians" into hating the "Russians" who live in the same country. No one's defending the czarist general - only the historical memory. You are defending the destruction of historical memory by a new coup d'etat regime that unites neoliberals with fascists and neo-Nazis. Sweet. (Disgusting, that is.)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The statute toppling was a reaction to Russias extorting all these years. Russia did the same shit to Belarus.
But don't worry nothing to see here, it's all a CIA fascist conspiracy. When I get to my computer I'll debunk your nastiness. You love to take things personal when you have no argument.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You sure try to make it so by just making up shit. Like, did I say "it's all a CIA fascist conspiracy"? It's not remotely so. The Ukrainian fascists are absolutely all-too real. (So is the Russian imperialism; I don't believe in false dichotomies, but I especially and will always oppose secret policy by my own government.)
No, the Ukrainian fascists have been around a long time - a lot of them are right here in New York - and they don't need the CIA supporting them. Possibly the coup d'etat would have happened even without your friend Victoria Nuland and her factotum in Kiev sitting down to plan who should be in the new cabinet. They're playing Geostrategy, I get it. It might be that they have an impact, or it might be that it's more like their fantasy football league. Either way, they just had a big win after the toppling of the democratically elected government and the formation of a coalition of neoliberals with neofacists. Nice.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Which is their long term plan. You of course would probably have no problem with that because you falsely attribute fascism to the west when only at most 10 percent of the western population could be called that. Russia will continue taking Ukranian resources, the western regions will become more polarized (a self fulfilling prophecy no doubt) because they are already poorer than the east and any split up of the country will take money and resources away. But! Because they are a bunch of scary fascists who cares! Fuck 'em!
Ukraine will never be unbound by imperialist interests.
Once Putin subjugates the Tartars it will get even more fucked up, but it's all OK, Russia has everyone's best interests in mind!
And you are worried about a few fucking statutes. Give me a break.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Although statutes are also relevant when there is no respect for rule of law.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The constitution calls for an ad hoc prosecution by the Verkhovna Rada. "Ad hoc" lowers the bar so low that it is a mere formality. No third party, no lawyers, impeachment is very easy. As it should be, impeachment is a political process.
The fact that he tucked tail and ran once impeachment proceedings were mentioned, proves he had no intention to be around when they went through.
Anyway, phone autocorrect, I am surprised that post even made sense.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)+1
How many Ukrainian's lost their grandparents to the Gulags or manufactured Soviet famine? Millions...
aquart
(69,014 posts)International relations are Byzantine.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In 1815 Mount Tarbora exploded in the East Indies. This threw so much dirt into the air that 1816 became known as the year without a summer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Prior to 1816 the primary food crop planted by most farmers was Corn (referred to as "Maize" in England). Those farmers in New England that planted Wheat in 1816 was able to get that crop in before the early frost. Those farmers that planted corn, saw they crop killed by frost. You had massive famine in New England (and elsewhere). It was hard on the poorer elements in New England, but the fish industry still provided food and food could be imported from Pennsylvania and the South, but it was expensive.
This started the switch from Corn to Wheat in the US. New Englanders took this policy with them Westward into the northern areas of the American mid-west and started what by 1900 was the massive wheat fields of the Great Plains.
Yes, British intervention into Spain in 1808 (which lasted to 1814) started the switch to wheat, a crop that saved many a New Englander's life in 1816.
I can not find a source, but Potatoes are known to survive frost and colder weather better then most other crops. Potatoes were well known to Americans prior to the Revolution, but the main crop remain Corn. I suspect that since Potatoes survived 1816 better then corn, Potatoes planting expanded after 1816, but then dropped after the potato blight of the 1830s (the same blight that hit Ireland hard). Please note the Potato crop in Ireland FAILED in 1816, it became to wet, but revived the following year till the blight hit. The blight was a bigger hit for it affect the Irish over many years, not just one growing season.
The massive crop failure is also believed to have convinced more New Englanders to move West. I can see a family, do to food shortages seeing their grand parents die early and maybe one or two children. Staying would bring back to many bad memories so the family decided to move west.
Those farmers that had planted Wheat did not come under such pressure, they had enough to eat and feed their families.
Just pointing out, yes Politics can be Byzantine, but sometimes what happens in one part of the world, ends up affecting another. How could someone think a British move into Spain in 1808 would lead to a massive Internal AMERICAN move from New England to the Mid West in 1817?
http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/a/The-Year-Without-A-Summer.htm
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Too much of one, even. They have a very narrow, sick sense, wherein the "traditional" nationalist mythology they invented to aggrandize themselves yesterday is applied retroactively to all prior history, which appears either as a process leading up to the glorious emergence of this particular national construct as the greatest and most precious ever, or as a series of enemy attacks, in which the enemy is everyone and anything that doesn't conform to the "traditional" nationalist mythology they invented to aggrandize themselves yesterday.
These people seriously chant "Glory to ___" (the name of the fucking country wouldn't matter) and "Glory to the Heroes," and the low-information media consumers of the West are supposed to think it's a turn toward freedom and democracy. Whose freedom, of course, is always the question. In this case, the freedom of Nazi sympathizers to rewrite history for everyone else who is unfortunate enough to have come under their sway.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Thank you very much for commenting on this string.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I've been thinking about nationalists a lot lately, thanks to Golden Dawn in Greece.
The funny thing is, they lined up with Russian nationalists (and against the "Zionists" who have "attacked Ukraine" so they're against what's happened in the Ukraine.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I assume the Golden Dawn members are Orthodox? Even more likely, they simply don't want to miss a chance to stand against the EU leadership, who seem to be supporters of Ukraine's new order.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)A lot of them were "12 Gods" followers. They had a split over this. Their current support for Orthodoxy is a tactical move, they know it's more popular. The real religion of G.D. is their nationalism and race superiority. The essence of them, however, is macho gangsterism. They want power by any means, power for power's sake, because it's such a thrill to exercise it. Their belief is in the strong dominating the weak. Serious psychosexual issues; they're like a textbook illustration of fascism as Wilhelm Reich understood it (though this isn't true of all fascism at all times). They're very obsessed with homophobia, of course.
By the way, their ideology is explicitly Nazi -- in favor of National Socialism as it arose in Germany -- so calling them that is not a metaphor or an exaggeration.
But maybe you have a point - worth researching. Western Ukraine is largely Greek Catholic (which isn't very much Catholic but recognizes the Pope) as opposed to Russian Orthodox (which is actually more "Greek" .
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2014, 08:36 PM - Edit history (2)
I did not know that. Those are also fascinating details about GD. I wonder if the initials, being the same as Grossdeutschland, are meant to have any hidden meaning?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)No relation to anything. They are XA, Xrisi Avgi, and often write it so in English as well, so G.D. is incidentally the initials of the English translation, nothing more.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Thanks for the clarification.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)They are Eastern Rite (Byzantine) Catholics. The order of the mass is different and priests are allowed to be married (I have a great grandfather who was a Ukrainian Catholic priest), but all sacraments recognized by the Western Rite (Roman) Catholics are recognized by Eastern Rite Catholics. Same creed, same prayers, different language. And as was noted, they all recognize the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)So why should another country's imposition of its own history on the first country be applauded?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Interesting.
But I guess you think nations are made of something eternal and immutable and exist even before anyone discovers they exist. Which would make you totally typical, so don't sweat it. I know you're easily riled. Poor guy.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)
Not to mention the fact that the statue wasn't of Napoleon......
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The question was rhetorical. It wasn't whether Napoleon passed through exactly that town. The French did conquer that territory, and were later pushed out. Some people wanted a statue to honor the general. People who aren't insane obsessive nationalists would leave the damn statue alone and maybe put up one to their own hero (unfortunately in this case it might be some collaborator to the Nazis). And in the context of this ongoing discussion, your pointing out that the statue isn't of Napoleon (as if to imply I'd said anything of the sort) is cheap. About as relevant and necessary as pointing out that you're not actually the mayor of Baltimore. Now maintain your boyish good looks and stop trying to justify the reactionary right-wing extremists who are trying to seize power and start a civil war with the Russians who live in the Ukraine.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,210 posts)The Duchy of Warsaw was officially created by French Emperor Napoleon I, as part of the Treaty of Tilsit with Prussia. Its creation met the support of both local republicans in partitioned Poland, and the large Polish diaspora in France, who openly supported Napoleon as the only man capable of restoring Polish sovereignty after the Partitions of Poland of late 18th century. Although it was created as a satellite state (and was only a duchy, rather than a kingdom), it was commonly hoped and believed that with time the nation would be able to regain its former status, not to mention its former borders.
The newly (re)created state was formally an independent duchy, allied to France, and in a personal union with the Kingdom of Saxony. King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony was compelled by Napoleon to make his new realm a constitutional monarchy, with a parliament (the Sejm of the Duchy of Warsaw). However, the duchy was never allowed to develop as a truly independent state; Frederick Augustus' rule was subordinated to the requirements of the French raison d'état, who largely treated the state as a source of resources. The most important person in the duchy was in fact the French ambassador[citation needed], based in the duchy's capital, Warsaw. Significantly, the duchy lacked its own diplomatic representation abroad[citation needed].
In 1809, a short war with Austria started. Although the Duchy of Warsaw won the Battle of Raszyn, Austrian troops entered Warsaw, but Duchy and French forces then outflanked their enemy and captured Kraków, Lwów and much of the areas annexed by Austria in the Partitions of Poland.During the war the German colonists settled by Prussia during Partitions openly rose up against Polish government[1] After the Battle of Wagram, the ensuing Treaty of Schönbrunn allowed for a significant expansion of the Duchy's territory southwards with the regaining of once-Polish and Lithuanian lands.
As a result of Napoleon's campaign in 1812 against Russia, the Poles expected that the Duchy would be upgraded to the status of a Kingdom and that during Napoleon's invasion of Russia, they would be joined by the liberated territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland's historic partner in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. However, Napoleon did not want to make a permanent decision that would tie his hands before his anticipated peace settlement with Russia. Nevertheless he proclaimed the attack on Russia as a second Polish war.
That peace settlement was not to be, however. Napoleon's Grande Armée, including a substantial contingent of Polish troops, set out with the purpose of bringing the Russian Empire to its knees, but his military ambitions were frustrated by his failure to supply the army in Russia and Russia's refusal to surrender after the capture of Moscow; few returned from the march back. The failed campaign against Russia proved to be a major turning point in Napoleon's fortunes.
After Napoleon's defeat in the east, most of the territory of the Duchy of Warsaw was retaken by Russia in January 1813 during their advance on France and its allies. The rest of the Duchy was restored to Prussia. Although several isolated fortresses held out for more than a year, the existence of the state in anything but name came to an end. Alexander I of Russia created a Provisional Highest Council of the Duchy of Warsaw to govern the area through his generals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Warsaw
And Lviv and Brody came back under Austrian control. But they probably would have anyway, since Austria had allied with Napoleon for the attack on Russia (the Schwarzenberg right wing in the diagram above), so it's unlikely they would have been given back to a new Poland. But Napoleon can be seen as someone wanting to restore a country that had recently been partitioned by great powers that surrounded it, with local support.
There's no reason for the people of Brody to be particularly grateful to a Russian general who defeated Napoleon several hundred miles away. The statue was probably erected by the Soviet Union, yet another great power that invaded the area to claim it.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Are you kidding?
I think you need to brush up on your history before making ridiculous comments like that.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)And the Ukraine, like a great many other stretches of land, was one of its possessions.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,210 posts)As noted below, Brody was in Poland/Poland-Lithuania, then the Austrian Empire. The Soviets took it at the start of WW2, and again after the Germans took it, and then expanded Ukraine to include it.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)The boundaries have been rather fluid down the years. The last adjustments were Soviet, and quite bloody. I expect we agree on the basic point, that a Czarist general is no figure in the history of the place, or any 'hero' of the Ukraine, wherever its bounds might have been at the time.
MADem
(135,425 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)What we're seeing here is an effort to take a multi-ethnic republic and turn large parts of its native population into foreigners.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)(snip)
In an October 2009 poll by FOM-Ukraine of 1,000 respondents, 52% stated they use Russian as their "Language of communication"; while 41% of the respondents state they use Ukrainian and 8% stated they use a mixture of both.[1]
A March 2010 poll[2] by Research & Branding Group showed that 65% considered Ukrainian as their native language and 33% Russian. This poll also showed the standard of knowledge of the Russian language (free conversational language, writing and reading) in current Ukraine is higher (76%) than the standard of knowledge of the Ukrainian language (69%). More respondents preferred to speak Ukrainian (46%) than Russian (38%) with 16% preferring to speak both in equal manner.
We may not like the history that produced these results, but clearly, there is a big chunk of citizens of the Ukraine who may be ethnically Ukrainian in the opinions of those who place great value on the fiction of ethnicity, but who don't therefore view themselves as Ukrainian nationalists or as anti-Russian. This is also a clash between the ethnonation and the nation of citizens. It's not unlike Yugoslavia, where most of the young were well past the old Balkan ethno-hatreds when these were revived in the wake of the neoliberal dissolution programs of the late 1980s. Suddenly you had a rediscovery of the Serbian or Croatian racial "essence." It's no coincidence that the government after the coup d'etat that got rid of the president who'd been elected by the majority includes such ethno-nationalists who want to suppress the speaking of Russian.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Just like British Generals were part of American colonial history.
Check a map of the Russian Empire 1812.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)"Ruthenian" history if you want to go back before the 13th Century, sure.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)You're arguing with the wrong person when it comes to Eastern European history.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Half the people there are Russian. The Russian general expelled the French invaders at a time when there was no independent Ukraine. All nations are constructs and right now we're seeing how incredibly stupid and destructive it is to construct too much. Russians and Ukrainians speak dialects of the same language. They are separated by variants of medieval religionism and by violent nationalist opportunists. In other words, by bullshit. Their real interests are shared. The last thing they need is to fall backward into the kind of re-nationalization and fragmentation process that massacred the people of Yugoslavia. You see the result: now a coup government of fascists and neo-liberals is negotiating an austerity program with the IMF and the EU, so that they can be fucked over by the same bastards who have been screwing Greece to the wall. And this being justified by "Glory to the Ukraine" and a bunch of dumb provocations to start a civil war among a people who were one and are now supposed to die and kill each other because they're suddenly "Ukrainians" and "Russians." Great work.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Most recent census data show the population to be 77.5% Ukrainian and 17.2% Russian. For reference, this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Ukraine_census_2001_Ukrainians.svg
The population of Lviv oblast? 94.8% ethnic Ukrainian (and from here, 95.8% native Ukrainian-speakers). The Crimea is the only region of Ukraine with a non-Ukrainian majority. (And there are more Crimean Tartars there than there are ethnic Russians.)
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)Most Ukrainians--even the Russian speaking ones--do not consider themselves to be part of Russia.
So a statue of a Russian who accomplished his feats on Russian soil is not going to be of much consequence to Ukrainians.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Until 1774 at least.
rdharma
(6,057 posts).... who fought in the American theater of the Seven Years War. And I believe that many of them deserve statues.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The promotion beyond that was sort of his own call, in collaboration with the others who went for independence.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)His "Britishness" exists only by virtue of the fact that he was born in the American colonies and fought for the British up until the point of the American revolution, when he ceased to be British and then became an American.
Kutuzov was a Russian fighting for the Russian Empire whose ties to Ukraine were nominal at best.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)....we were talking about a British military figure who forged his legacy somewhere else in the British Empire other than in the American colonies, and where the British had erected the statue themselves, AND.....
.....if instead of the United States having declared its independence from England over two centuries ago and the two nations eventually became very close allies, the British had continued to rule over the American colonies until much more recently and post independence there was still a lot of distrust and animosity between the two countries.
You are killing yourself with your failed analogies.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,210 posts)In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the Middle Ages until 1772, when Austria took it over, when Poland was divided up by Austria, Russia and Prussia. Back in Poland when it was re-created after WW1, then occupied by the Soviet Union at the start of WW2, invaded by Germany, then re-occupied by the Soviet Union, who enlarged Ukraine to take it in.
Kutuzov, a Russian general, is no more part of Brody's past than Napoleon was. After him, it remained under Austrian control.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If the city where it stood has only so briefly been a part of Ukraine, I wonder why then Svoboda felt a need to desecrate the monument? They really must have little or no concern for their nation's history, but, rather, are just trying to win PR points through outlandish, Russophobic gestures.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,210 posts)It's a monument to a man who didn't have anything to do with the city. Why do you hold it sacred? He died of natural causes at the age of 67. RT's description of it as a 'war monument' is strange - he didn't die in a war, there was no fighting in that area that he was associated with, he wasn't from there. It's basically a statue of a foreigner, which they've taken down (not 'demolished' - they used a crane to lower the bust carefully to the truck, as the video shows).
"A local council approved the move of the memorial to a less prominent location in December". So, the locals haven't thought much of it for some time.
Frankly, I now think this should never have been in LBN. "City in western Ukraine proceeds with plan to take down a bust of Russian who had nothing to do with the city" - this is not important news of national interest in the USA.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Believe what you want. You are, of course, entitled to hold any opinion that suits you (as am I).
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Everything happening under the sun anywhere is a CIA backed fascist plot, get with the program!
MADem
(135,425 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)They only destroyed the plinth upon which it sat, and they plan to use the location for a more modern monument to the victims of the recent troubles.
Phobias can cause hurt feelings. I imagine the gay people in Russia, victims of the homophobic policies of the Putin regime, can educate the Russian government on that score...!
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Wasn't there a major pogrom of the Jews by the Ukrainian population of the city in Aug 1941?
I think I read about that somewhere...........
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Nelson's victory at Trafalgar brought to an end the French Emperor's hopes of naval supremacy. Kutuzov, though, defeated the man himself in battle; in fact, he did so repeatedly. It can also be argued that Kutuzov's victories brought an end to Napoleon's Empire.
How anyone thinks he can justify destruction of monuments to such men, especially at two centuries removed from their times, is beyond my comprehension. Would one destroy a bust of Julius Caesar just because Rome once ruled over England?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, I guess you and RT will tell them who their nation really is
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Or did you think they were not?
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Ukraine
If Kutuzov was Ukrainian born, or if he had fought any significant battles in Ukraine, then I might agree that removing his statue would be unfortunate and a disservice to history, even if he did so under the Russian Flag.
However, he was not a Ukrainian and he did not actually fight any battles on Ukrainian soil, so at best the statue was a Soviet relic, and at worst it was essentially akin to the Russians pissing on Ukrainian soil in order to mark their territory.
So if Ukrainians want to get rid of it, they'll get rid of it. The same goes for statues of Lenin.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)What about "Russians" who happen to live in the same place?
Plus these two supposedly antagonistic quantities speak at most dialects of the same language, though they insist on separate names for it, since, you know, you gotta preserve that totally essential and natural god-given utter construct of what you think your "nation" is.
Nationalism is bullshit on all sides.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)....and go on and on about "Nations, what are nations?" and blur the lines between nations and cultures.
But the fact of the matter is that in humanity, people do group together and consider themselves a specific nation or a specific culture.
And when one nation has a long history of oppressing the other nation to the point where it seeks to slowly exterminate that national identity and absorb it into their own national identity, people are going to be upset. Naturally.
And sorry to tell you, Ukrainian is no less a separate language from Russian than French is a separate language from Italian. Unless you want to tell me that Italian and French are the same language as well.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Our World would be a far less free and open place if Napoleon Bonaparte had not finally been brought low. His invasion of Russia was just the last of his bloody and horrible crimes against humanity, but it was a crime which had to be punished and reversed, or we would all be poorer for it. Kutuzov lead the men who punished Napoleon for that crime.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)You should do some research before you put your foot in your mouth!
Ever hear of Alushta, Ukraine? Gen. Kutuzov was even wounded in the head during the battle there.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)The statue celebrates Kutuzov's service during the Napoleonic Wars, and his service there was not defined by anything that took place on Ukrainian soil.
The greater issue though is that he was a Russian general who fought for the Russian Empire and whose legacy was forged on Russian soil, and Ukrainians choose not to identify with that.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)You're funny!
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)Kutusov was a Russian-born general who fought for the Russian Empire and whose ties to anything related to Ukraine were extremely nominal, at best.
If Ukrainians don't feel the need to have statues of people who have nothing to do with their own nation's history, they don't have to continue to have them around. Especially if the only reason they were erected in the first place was because of some campaign for Russification.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Never mind that at the time there was only the Russian empire and the French invasion, and this is a general that helped to repel it, in an event of great historical significance no matter whom you would have preferred at the time. Never mind how many times the borders and the names of the places have shifted. To those who are now deciding to take up sides that didn't even exist for most people until quite recently, it's all about how "Ukrainian" neo-nationalists (following a fascist-led coup d'etat!) are going to define "Ukrainian" territory and "interests" retroactively, as if there is an eternal "Ukraine" within the borders of today (or maybe a Greater Ukraine that needs a bit extra: why not?) that magically extends back into periods when there was no such thing. And as if this construct is now for "Ukrainians" (suddenly defined not as citizens of a state but as an ethnocultural category) and not for the "Russian" citizens of Ukraine who, of course, are about as numerous and belong in the same country. They're now foreign, it belongs to the ethnic-in-the-making "Ukrainians" - especially the ones waving some damn flag and claiming some just-invented tradition. The louder and more aggressive and more ready to beat on random liberals and peaceful cohabitors they are, the more righteously "Ukrainian" they will become.
For all of these references above in quotes, by the way, you can fill in a lot of different nationalisms, including "Russian." Nationalism is a plague that infects many peoples in much the same way, but ends up putting these very similarly afflicted peoples at each others throats as if they are suddenly so unbelievably different.
Here's to the Yugoslavians of 1991 - the substantial number, mostly young, who had never given a thought to whether they were "Croatian" or "Serbian." Who were then shanghaied into one side or another under threat to their lives. Let it not be so again!
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)I know you want to dismiss centuries of history and culture (that actually predates Muscovite Russia) as some sort of vague, fuzzy transcendental notion, but there is actually a Ukrainian people, with a distinct language and culture.
Ukraine. It's not just the latest fad.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)We can retroactively designate these constantly changing bits of territory by the name that now applies to them, as if "Ukraine" (or any of these countries) is some kind of eternal territorial thing.
The nation illusion is now setting up the latest pointless conflict and probable mutual mass murder between two groups of people who were barely distinguishable from each other yesterday. The worst within each group -- the flag-wavers and inventors of supposed national traditions -- will be forcing all the ones who didn't really care if they were "Russian" or "Ukrainian" to go along or be fucked/terrorized/cleansed/expelled/killed.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Unless they hold a little bit grudge for this kind of stuff:
"The industrialization had a heavy cost for the peasantry, demographically a backbone of the Ukrainian nation. To satisfy the state's need for increased food supplies and to finance industrialization, Stalin instituted a program of collectivization of agriculture as the state combined the peasants' lands and animals into collective farms and enforced the policies by the regular troops and secret police. Those who resisted were arrested and deported and the increased production quotas were placed on the peasantry. The collectivisation had a devastating effect on agricultural productivity. As the members of the collective farms were not allowed to receive any grain until sometimes unrealistic quotas were met, starvation in the Soviet Union became more common. In 1932–33, millions starved to death in a famine known as Holodomor or "Great Famine". Scholars are divided as to whether this famine fits the definition of genocide, but the Ukrainian parliament and other countries recognize it as such.
The famine claimed up to 10 million Ukrainian lives as peasants' food stocks were forcibly removed by the Soviet government by the NKVD secret police."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#The_Ruin
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)But they damn well should have respected it!
EX500rider
(12,583 posts).......historical military figures.
You pro-statutes of Southern Civil War Generals also by chance?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You're dreaming. How is he responsible for crimes committed by leaders of the the Soviet Union?
Talk about grasping at straws.
As to your question: Just because I don't salute the Confederate flag or even want to see the damn thing flying does not mean I would desecrate a statue dedicated to Lee or Jackson. There are thousands of Confederate soldiers buried at any number of Civil War battlefields. Are you suggesting we dig them up and throw them in a ditch?
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Hint: he's Russian
I guess if your grandparents were killed by the NKVD and your country occupied by Russian's for decades you might not be fond of anything Russian from any era.
Israeli Philharmonic can't play Wagner and he died in 1883.
Yes I know the Nazi's were fond of him. The Russian's were also not afraid to pull the "Russian Hero" card when they needed it.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 07:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Redwoods can live ten times as long as the turtles. It's all a matter of when the grudge no longer has any meaning.
I have a friend whose mother came from a little town near a City which used to be called Konigsberg. Do you know what the Russians did there? He doesn't hate Russians for being Russians, so what right do you have to do so?
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)So the Iranian's and Chilean's shouldn't hold any grudge against the US for pass actions either I suppose....or does that just flow one way?
Turtles and redwoods notwithstanding, if your parents died in a Soviet Gulag you might not be a big fan of the Russian's. YMMV
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Letting ancient animosities die a natural death is more to the point.
But let me try a joke:
First man: "Last night I had a dream that I was dead and the Devil was carrying me off through the apple orchard in a sack!"
Second man: "It could have been worse."
First man: "Jesus, Mary and Joseph! How could it have been worse!"
Second man: "He might have made you carry him."
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Oh I agree there, it's just not ancient history yet for some people over there I imagine.
Certain cultures (not saying this about the Ukrainians) seem to hold past grudges longer then other.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Very true, indeed.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)A Russian general who fought Napoleon is obviously responsible for Stalin and the famine in Ukraine because... he's Russian! It's essence! Can't be avoided! Ethnonational categories are eternal!
So are you American? Why did you kill the Indians and the Filipinos, can you tell me that?
This is craaaaaaazy. Its significance is to get people at each others' throats today. Divide, and conquer, have them wanting to kill each other over whether they're Russian or Ukrainian speakers, or which flag is prettiest, while the new "revolutionary" government imposes the same Troika austerity that has devastated Greece and other countries the last six years.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)....but I didn't say he was responsible for anything now did I?
I did say if your parents or grandparents died in a gulag or were intentionally starved to death by Soviet/Russian authorities you may not be fond of anything Russian to the day you die. People are funny that way.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)If your parents or grandparents were murdered in cold blood by SS forces or killed by the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe or kidnapped to work as forced laborers in the German Reich (which happened to about 3 million Soviet teenagers mostly from the occupied Ukraine) during the Nazi invasion that cost at least 20 million lives in the Soviet Union, you may not be fond of anything collaborationist to this day (such as the Ukrainian right wing parties that are now in power and hang portraits of the wartime collaborationist leader in city hall). People are funny that way.
Meanwhile, here's the reality on the Russian/Ukrainian split: it's a game for hardline minorities on either "side." The majority of the country speaks Russian more than Ukrainian. The last thing they need is to create a bunch of new ethnic animosity, just as the banksters and the Troika move in for the economic kill shot.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)
MADem
(135,425 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)If the old USSR, I can see their point. They don't want to be part of that crowd anymore, and they have a right to self-determination.
Further, the statue was not destroyed--only the plinth it sat on was. They should mail the thing back to Russia, C.O.D., where it can be placed where folks will appreciate it.
I'm no fan of Svoboda, but this sounds like a sop to them--let them have a small thing, rather than a big one.
I also have to say, all the whining about "Russophobia" leaves me a bit cold, given the rampant HOMOPHOBIA that Russia indulged in before, during and after the Olympics.
Now they know what it's like to feel a bit of unreasonable hatred. The shoe pinches on the other foot, as it will...
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It would be meaningful to know. I kept running into dead ends, and never did learn.
You may be right about Svoboda. I'm sure we will never give them a dime.
As to the Russians, they are a good and generous people who have an acute sense of justice (having experienced so little of it throughout their history). I honestly believe they will soon come around to recognizing the rightness of the cause of LGBT equality. I really did believe President Putin was too sophisticated and cultured to make the kind of remarks he made just before the Olympics. That was a huge disappointment to me. I had largely admired the man, and now it is hard to feel anything like that about him.
We do need to recognize how much Russia has already lost in the last thirty years or so. They were a super power with the greatest Empire the World had ever known. Now they have only their homeland and little else. One thing I would bet my life on, though, they will never accept their homeland being taken from them. They will come at you in their millions and they will stomp your very bones into the Russian soil, I have no doubt of it. We must never push them that far.
On a different front: Didn't you like how President Obama handled the Ukraine subject in his speech today. I think he struck just the right balance. If only he can prevail over what I imagine are intense pressures to get deeper involved there. We should support the Ukrainian people, but let them decide their own future. He was damn near perfect.
MADem
(135,425 posts)on in that article...but this is to be expected from RT. The headline is just inaccurate.
If you look at this video, the statue is gently lifted from its plinth, and gently placed in the back of the truck. There's no "destroying" happening at all, which makes the headline a bit puzzling, to say the least.
I think they're intending to relocate the thing.
I am behind the curve and have not yet caught Obama's speech. I've had some pressing tasks on the burner today, so I'll have to find it online. I've heard a few snippets of opinion here and there but have no real clue thus cannot comment intelligently.
Generically, though, I don't think anyone is interested in invading Russia. They're like Persians, and most other cultures, when it comes to nationalism--they can gripe amongst themselves but they don't like anyone else coming in and trying to take over. Which is reasonable. I think it's possible to support self-determination and excoriate people who try to overstep without making warfare the first choice. I'm guessing the Ukrainians feel the same way, particularly since they've spent many centuries indeed having to serve somebody who didn't have their interests and culture at the forefront.
As for Putin, he is what he is--and he's very good at what he does. He's a product of his environment and his KGB years. He is probably the best at intel/spycraft in the world; that doesn't make him a nice guy, certainly. He certainly has a personal life that's nothing to boast about, but that's no requirement for leadership.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I hope you are right. His memory really does deserve that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)and turn the thing into road fill. Instead, they went to the trouble of bringing in a very large crane, carefully strapping the thing, lifting it off, and placing it into a truck and taking it away.
The plinth, OTOH, they just broke up into chunks. It doesn't look like it could be easily prised from the ground; it probably would have broken if they tried that.
Bill76
(39 posts)aquart
(69,014 posts)Just as it's a lot to make me love anything Ukrainian. This Russian hero only reminds them they weren't saved by a Ukrainian hero, which is dick shrinking.