The Truth about the Soviet Union

[tradcom]

Do you really think I was talking about the 1600s? Perhaps this article can help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_camps

[Contrarian Expatriate]

.

[globetrotter]

Do you really think I was talking about the 1600s? Perhaps this article can help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_camps

Here we have yet another dishonest debate tactic, a non-reply to my multiple points and yet another example of black-and-white thinking and an inattention to nuance.

You are completely intellectually incapable of discerning between the Japanese internment camps in the USA where very few people died, and the camps in Russia or Germany where 20 to 40 million died.

Let me point out a distinction for you, one that your 'Superior Russian Intellect' cannot comprehend:
-There are the camps where people were interred. Many nations.
-Then there are the camps where 40 million people died. That's Germany, you and your Russia.

This is a massive intellectual flaw in your Russian thinking, something I have seen repeatedly from many with your cultural and educational background.

To you IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT 20 MILLION DIED IN RUSSIAN CAMPS.

To you that is irrelevant and a moral and ethical non-issue.

To you, all you can see is that because other nations had camps, then Russia and you are excused because you had camps also.

To you, Russia is the same as Canada because Canada interred 8,000 Germans and did not kill them.

Never mind that in your camps 20 million died. No, your camps that killed 20 million are morally equivalent to the others that did not kill or where 500 died.

This is a massive intellectual, moral and ethical flaw that you have.

I will repeat this again, but you are incapable of cogitating this:

There is an intellectual, moral and ethical difference between a nation that had camps that killed 20 million and a nation that had camps that did not kill, or killed 500.

Can you understand this? No, you cannot.

Your superior Russian education and intellect is blind to this distinction.

You are making excuses.

Act like a man, take responsibility for what your nation did and stop trying to blame someone else to make yourself feel better and to diminish the horrific acts of your nation.

Russia and Stalin, more than any other person or nation, killed more people in camps than anyone else, including Hitler. Only the combined death toll of all of WW II and the total China death toll in the 20th C. exceeds Stalin and Russia's death count. Other nations with a very large population did not kill as many. USA - no. Brasil - no. Indonesia - no.

Stop lying, stop hiding and admit this as a man would.

[ladislav]

"The less informed only see the good things he did..."

Excuse me. LESS INFORMED?

The only way to not know about Stalin is to be illiterate, deaf, dumb and blind.

It is impossible to reconcile an intellectually rigorous society that highly values education and creates people who excel in other cultures, and at the same time say that many of them are not informed on Stalin.

The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

It does not take a PhD. to assimilate this sentence:

"Yeah, Stalin created a great deal of good but he killed about 30 million of us to do it."

This is not a difficult concept.

Well, I am just trying to be politically correct. OK, I will speak plainly. The utterly blind people there do not know or refuse to hear anything about the murders by Stalin. They only see that he made the country powerful, gave jobs to those who were his flunkies and approved of him. Plus as you may remember, Stalin himself said-" one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just statistics". The numbers are too huge to fathom and many blindly went to the battle under the slogan of "For Motherland, for Stalin" and have family members who did that. They are proud of his leadership in WWII and that he had developed industry and put everyone who he did not kill to work and gave those who followed him positions of power. And also you have a new generation that has grown up and who miss the 'power' and 'glory' of those days. The other aspects are simply not discussed or dismissed as "mistakes".

And of course, those who had died are not complaining. The obedient majority that did not die had good positions in society, raised patriotic kids and are now telling them how good it was under Uncle Joe. And they are the ones who are proclaiming about his greatness and his wise leadership and seeing him as their hero. Especially as they are seeing their pensions being eroded, Russia being reduced to a third world status, crime and depravity everywhere, so they say- "Oh, back then, things were different, we had a strong leader, now we have all these "Jews" in power who are selling the country to the West. And we are a laughing stock of the world. So what if he killed counterrevolutionaries? He killed traitors and punished them for their provocations and subversive activities. He did it all for us to eradicate these enemies among us so that we would all have a happy life".

This is how their logic goes. Sure it is dumb but the ones whose families had been killed in the purges do not get too vocal- they will be told- oh, your grandfather was a traitor, a spy, en enemy of the people, serve him right.

It is all emotional, and Russians are an emotional and poetic lot. Good for ballet, music and literature, bad for sensible governance.

The Chinese still adore Mao and think of him as the national hero. In the Philippines many still worship Marcos. And yes, there is the difference in degrees of murders and numbers, but in the 21st century it all gets blurred. People want heroes to worship and 20 million is simply a number and it is way in the past. Many just choose to ignore it or say that it is Western/Zionist propaganda.

Stalin was not a Russian, by the way. His was a Georgian, so was Beria. Stalin spoke Russian with a thick foreign accent, could never master the language well and had a complex. He was a dark Middle Eastern looking person and that contributed to him feeling bad about himself and that in part was why he was the way he was. He was a wacko that yielded absolute power. Many of his henchmen were either Polish as Dzerdzhinsky or Ashkenazi Jews as Kaganovich.

As you may notice, now Russia does not put non Russians in power anymore.

[globetrotter]

"The Chinese still adore Mao and think of him as the national hero."

Actually many prefer Deng Xiaoping and consider his reforms to be the reason why China is rapidly becoming a wealthy nation. Mao? Just so-so.

"So what if he killed counterrevolutionaries? He killed traitors and punished them for their provocations and subversive activities. He did it all for us to eradicate these enemies among us so that we would all have a happy life."

Killing 20-40 million of your fellow citizens so that you can have a better life?

Unacceptable anywhere, in any time, in any nation or any culture.

To hold such an opinion when one says things such as "Soviet culture promoted goodness and kindness in all its forms as much as possible." is impossible unless you lie to yourself.

Since Russians hold themselves up as paragons and exemplars of education and intellectualism they cannot hold have the former opinion without being hypocrites that lie to themselves, each
other and the world. They have an excellent education and they are intellectuals, so it is not possible that they are stupid - the other possible explanation.

Next time someone such as theyoungagegroup logs on here and immediately begins a campaign of apologizing for Russian atrocities, he might think twice as he will encounter someone such as myself who knows as much, or more, than he, and who will not tolerate his bullshit, lies and excuses.

His posts, frankly, have the same tone as pro-Russian comments on YouTube videos and other fora. I suspect that he could be an employee of the state, on a disinformation campaign.

[ladislav]

"The Chinese still adore Mao and think of him as the national hero."

Actually many prefer Deng Xiaoping and consider his reforms to be the reason why China is rapidly becoming a wealthy nation. Mao? Just so-so.

"So what if he killed counterrevolutionaries? He killed traitors and punished them for their provocations and subversive activities. He did it all for us to eradicate these enemies among us so that we would all have a happy life."

Killing 20-40 million of your fellow citizens so that you can have a better life?

Unacceptable anywhere, in any time, in any nation or any culture.

To hold such an opinion when one says things such as "Soviet culture promoted goodness and kindness in all its forms as much as possible." is impossible unless you lie to yourself.

Since Russians hold themselves up as paragons and exemplars of education and intellectualism they cannot hold have the former opinion without being hypocrites that lie to themselves, each
other and the world. They have an excellent education and they are intellectuals, so it is not possible that they are stupid - the other possible explanation.

Next time someone such as theyoungagegroup logs on here and immediately begins a campaign of apologizing for Russian atrocities, he might think twice as he will encounter someone such as myself who knows as much, or more, than he, and who will not tolerate his bullshit, lies and excuses.

His posts, frankly, have the same tone as pro-Russian comments on YouTube videos and other fora. I suspect that he could be an employee of the state, on a disinformation campaign.

Well, I guess you know better about Mao because you have been exposed to the Chinese more than I. I do see his portraits whenever I see China on the news, though.

Well, few true intellectuals proclaim Stalin to be a hero there. Mainly it is a certain sector of the masses who are nominally educated and also too young to remember what went on there. And their elderly eggers- on who had it good, had generous pensions and respect and who had benefited under him. And as I said- 20 million is just statistics.

Now, an important point and here is your quote:

Russia and Stalin, more than any other person or nation, killed more people in camps than anyone else, including Hitler. Only the combined death toll of all of WW II and the total China death toll in the 20th C. exceeds Stalin and Russia's death count. Other nations with a very large population did not kill as many. USA - no. Brasil - no. Indonesia - no.

Actually, there was no political and independent State called "Russia" when these atrocities went on. They were not committed in the name of, for Russia or Russian people or by Russia. Russian Empire as a country ceased to exist in 1922 and a new State called the Soviet Union-a multinational entity consisting of 12 nations ( republics) took over. Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia became independent, but the other countries did not. If you were there, you would basically see a whole new and very strange State arise.

Hitler was a German chavinist. Deutchland uber alles. He wanted Germans to be the master race. But Stalin was not a Russian chavinist to the point where he wanted the Russians to kill other nations. He did not do anything for the glory of Russia. He did not represent Russia, nor killed for it, fought for it, etc. He did not see Russians as a master race destined to rule the world. How could he? He was not Russian to begin with!

This allowed people who were non Russian to get into the government which was in Moscow and run it. Do remember that the capital of Russia was in St Petersburg.

But the Palace of the Soviets in Moscow was not a ruling body of Russia. It housed a government of a totally new State called the Soviet Union. This is not semantics, this is reality. Legal, historical, etc.

Jews, who had been virtual non citizens now had equal rights and also became government members. Also, people from lower classes and peasants were allowed to rule this new country. Half the government was now Ukrainian, Jewish, with Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians and all others mixed in. The idea was to create a new nationality- Soviet nationality, but as in Yugoslavia it failed, but that is another story.

It was kind of like the UK with 4 nations and a Scottish king on the throne, but these are arguably more or less culturally/racially and geographically similar.

But this new country would incorporate 12 nations and they were culturally and racially very different. They could not, as in the UK, become just " Soviet", the way the English, the N.Irish , the Scots and the Welsh can be just British.

There was no way that an Uzbek, a Russian and a Georgian would become "the same nationality". So, they eventually broke up. Even Russians and Ukrainians cannot live in the same country, imagine how it would be with Uzbeks and such others.

Imagine if the British Empire formed a country consisting of England, India, Nigeria, S. Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore and gave them all equal rights and create a real country. And imagine some Nigerian guy ruling this country from London. That would be unimaginable. But this is what went on there.

If you clamored for independence of any of these 12 or later 15 republics in those times, and were against internationalism and "the Great Soviet People", you would be immediately imprisoned and exiled or killed.

Now, that included if you were for the independence of Russia from this new monstrosity, If you were a Russian nationalist in the Soviet Union, that would be the surest way to get sent to the Gulags with no return ticket. I mean it. Same with Ukrainians who did not want their country to be part of the USSR. Gulag was full of them.

So, none of those murders were committed by Russia as a country. Stalin did not commit them for Russia or the Russian people. He was not even Russian and he did not care about Russia. He cared about reigning over the one sixth of the world called the USSR.

In the USSR, the Russians were only 49% of the population! Half of people in that country were non-Russians.

Russia declared its independence, on June 12, 1990, from that degenerate State called the Soviet Union and the leaders of Russia asked Gorbachev to move the capital of the USSR elsewhere.

Now, Americans routinely and wrongly called USSR- Russia but these were two completely different entities.

Now if you said that the Soviet Union and Stalin committed those murders, then you would be right.

Now, by looking at how you two gentlemen postulate your arguments I see the strong and the weak points in them each one stemming from the particular cultural backgrounds. American critical thinking and humanism are very admirable, but in many cases there would be big gaps in historical accuracies and taxonomies. The Russians would be emotional and defend the goodness. This is an interesting discussion to observe.

[ladislav]

PS: Russia did commit some atrocities in Czarist times when colonizing Asian territories but nothing on a big scale that would be called genocide. Most of the time when the settlers moved in, they did not kill the natives provided these would recognize that this is now the territory of the empire. Mixed kids would be a frequent occurence.

Russia did condone and conduct pogroms against its Jewish population but the Jews who converted to Christianity would be treated as Russians and not bothered for the most part. 2 million Jews left the Empire for the US because of what went on, though. They were allowed to leave and go to the US whereas the USSR locked the Jews in, and would not let them leave. Then they simply traded them for US wheat and let them go out in small numbers.

[tradcom]

First of all, I'm from Ukraine, not Russia, which you would have known had you taken the time to read my introductory post.

Second, a person who calls the USSR "Russia" is greatly misinformed, as stated by ladislav.

Finally, and most importantly, the 20 million number is a blatant lie. The actual number is around 3 million. Read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sta ... of_victims

[globetrotter]

Second, a person who calls the USSR "Russia" is greatly misinformed, as stated by ladislav.

This is called a Red Herring - the introduction of irrelevancies to dismiss an argument. To dismiss my argument based upon a grammatical error would be similar. I know fully well that the Russian SFSR was part of the FSU.

Question:
Where did all the FSU SR send their nuclear weapons?

Did they send them to Latvia? Or to Russia?

That shows you who was running the show. Russia was the leader in the FSU.

=================================

You continue to make more excuses and not address my criticisms.. This is appalling moral, ethical and intellectual behavior from someone who claims the FSU / Soviet culture promoted goodness and kindness in all its forms as much as possible. It is impossible for you to defend Stalin and state the former.

One or the other must be a lie.

I am amused that a current, or former, Ukrainian would defend the FSU when 6 - 10 million died due to Soviet-caused famine in Ukraine.

Your brainwashing runs deep if you guys are making excuses for Stalin. If this were 1933, you two would be dead or starving to death because of him. Yet here we are 78 years later and you make excuses, and discuss the irrelevancies of Russia being only part of the FSU.

I am still waiting for you to admit and accept responsibility and stop making excuses and denying responsibility.

I have done so for the hundred's of thousands of native Americans killed in warfare as North America was settled.

Why have you not done so for the millions killed in Soviet camps?

Is there something preventing you from doing so? Denial? Lack of honesty? Lack of intellectual rigor?

@Theyoungagegroup: Since you are the product of a culture that promoted goodness and kindness in all its forms as much as possible, how can you apologize for someone who was neither good nor kind, someone who founded your culture?

[tradcom]

You are the one using a red herring, globetrotter. In my original post, I clearly referred to the post-Stalin period, so this entire discussion is irrelevant.

I am not apologizing for anyone. All I'm saying is that I do not want any country demonized because of (grossly overestimated claims of) what one particular leader did. This is what happened to Germany after World War II and what Russia is currently fighting against.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Second, a person who calls the USSR "Russia" is greatly misinformed, as stated by ladislav.

Well, the USSR was indeed the Russian Empire so in that sense it is Russian. That it included non-Russian elements does not preclude its "Russian core." The common language was Russian and the vanguard of the Marxist Leninist movement was based out of Russia.

The Netherlands Antilles like Sint Martaan in the Caribbean are part of Holland and its African inhabitants are Dutch citizens. So Dutch encompasses more than just Holland, so too with Russia.

[globetrotter]

You are the one using a red herring, globetrotter. In my original post, I clearly referred to the post-Stalin period, so this entire discussion is irrelevant.

I am not apologizing for anyone. All I'm saying is that I do not want any country demonized because of (grossly overestimated claims of) what one particular leader did. This is what happened to Germany after World War II and what Russia is currently fighting against.

This is what happened to Germany after World War II.

Deservedly so and for good reason. The Germans could not even last 21 years before they tried to kill everyone.

Again.

You don't forgive something like that without a century or two of good behavior on the part of the Germans. Is that unfair? Why, yes it is.
Perhaps great-granddad shouldn't have tried to kill everyone, eh?

I am not apologizing for anyone.

Of course not. An arrogant product of the Former Soviet Union's superior education system would never apologize for, nor admit to, the horrors that Stalin committed. How is it possible that I as an American can honestly acknowledge the deaths caused by forming the USA but you cannot do the same with regards to the SU and FSU and Russia?

Yes, you are very clear that you won't apologize. The inability of you and people from your nation, from Russia, from Ukraine, from the FSU or SU, to take responsibility for the millions killed, to lie to yourselves that the number is exaggerated so that you can feel better about yourselves, to bring to you your Soviet culture that promoted goodness and kindness in all its forms as much as possible, is intellectually inexcusable.

That would not be so bad if you did not repeatedly claim that the SU and FSU systems created outstanding and superior educational graduates such as yourself, but you do indeed claim that repeatedly. So you claim your education is better than others, but at the same time you refuse to acknowledge or apologize for the horror committed to create the Soviet Culture that educated you. However you are very willing to point out the flaws of other cultures.

If you continue to post this drivel, I will hammer everyone of your 'arguments' and 'facts' in to the ground.

I won't let you post your lies here without pointing out that you are an intellectual hypocrite and an arrogant liar.

Am I making friends by doing this? No I am not.

However you don't get to promulgate your lies.

Do you want to continue this or do you want to post somewhere that will accept your nonsense as fact? Since you registered and immediately began a program of Soviet apologia, I am assuming you have other fora to go to?

In American idioms we refer to this as:

"Calling someone on their bullshit" or "Holding someone's feet to the fire."

You picked the wrong forum to try and post your propaganda to.

[tradcom]

Germany was forced into terms that effectively bankrupted the country and shamed an entire generation after World War I. How can you blame them for wanting their country to prosper? I'm not saying creating another world war is the best method to do so, but what the West did to that country in the 1920s and 30s was simply awful.

Now, the West, along with so-called "oppressed" countries like the Baltics and some non-Soviet former Communist states, is trying to do the same thing to Russia, except that the modern Russian government will not take this sort of abuse. This is the first and foremost reason it is portrayed in a negative light in the Western media. Once again, I'm not saying there is no truth to the Baltic countries' claims that they were occupied, for example, but portraying themselves as "oppressed" and especially denying continuity with their Communist counterparts is wrong.

I find it extremely ironic, globetrotter, how you completely avoid any points I make against your major arguments and then accuse me of using red herrings. You twisted my words about not apologizing for anyone into having a completely different meaning from the intended one. I am almost sure that you will also ignore this paragraph.

[ladislav]

Well, the USSR was indeed the Russian Empire so in that sense it is Russian. That it included non-Russian elements does not preclude its "Russian core." The common language was Russian and the vanguard of the Marxist Leninist movement was based out of Russia.

I see your point. But firstly you are confusing Russian Empire with Russia as a country. Russia just kept grabbing more and more land to feel more and more powerful and to be the biggest in the world. But they did not and could not try and turn all the diverse people from Poles and Finns to Uzbeks and Kazakhs into Russians. It would be an impossibility racially and culturally. And these people felt just occupied, nothing else. The Russian Imperial authorities would just put a Russian governor there and move some Russians into those places but generally they would not exterminate the people to clear land for themselves.

Soviet Union was Russian Empire? I have to disagree with you on legal grounds and on political grounds. The Russian Empire was abolished, the Czars were dead as doornails, the Orthodox church that was controlling everything and that along with the Czars cemented Russia was now virtually defunct, and a new weird country was born in the geographical area of the empire. There were now no documents or identifications or anything with the words "Russia", "Russian Empire" ," Russian citizen", anywhere. There was no "Glory to Russia" signs anywhere.

The citizens of the new country were not identified as "Russian citizens, Russian Empire Subjects" anywhere because there was no Russian citizenship! Only ethnicity for those who were in fact Russians-the half that were ethnically Russian did have " ethnicity: Russian" written into their internal IDs with citizenship listed as "Soviet".There was no name "Russia" on any of the Soviet legal forms, IDs or anywhere where the USSR was represented. No Russian insignia, no Russian flags on the international arena. Ukraine got a seat at the UN later and so did Belarus. But Russia did not have a seat there.

The Palace of Soviets would fly 12 and then, later, when the Baltics were annexed, 15 flags of all its constituent members. With the Soviet flag being the first.

The idea was to make a new country out of Russia +annexed non Russian territories which were so huge and so heavily populated, that would hold together. For this the revolutionaries had to placate the 51% of the empire (which Russia did conquer just to have more land but did not acculturate) that was not Russian.

They could not do it to Finland or to Poland, and the three Baltic states ( for now). These did not want to join in any unions of any kind.

So, after Finland, Poland, and the Baltics went their way, the agreement would be this- do not go the way of Poland and Finland and Estonia, let us unite into a multi national country of 12 republics where all would have equal rights and whose languages and cultures and ethnicities would be protected by law. We will form a union and each republic would have its own parliament, schools in its own language and would have the right, to, at any time, leave the Union if a referendum is passed. The only thing uniting us would be common customs and military. The Russian language would be used for inter-member communication because it was the most numerous and well known to all. Like English is used as a means of communication between England, Wales and Scotland, is it not?

And it is being used here by us and is used in all Commonwealth countries including India, Singapore and Nigeria. Does it make the entire place England? I don't think so.

There was also a RSFSR-a Russian Soviet Federative Social Republic- but it was legally weak and had little international power. It had to act under the auspices of the central Soviet government and get permissions from it.

Stalin had to placate the Russians- the largest group in the USSR because otherwise, they would rebel. So he promoted the culture the Ballet, and moved many Russians into other republics. But half of the Soviet Parliament in Moscow were still Ukrainians or from Ukraine. A Georgian who spoke with a thick accent at the helm with all these "country bumpkins" who could not even speak the language properly would have never been tolerated in the Russian Empire.

The problem was that they did not practice what they preached when it came to secessions. While all the laws were in place and anyone could secede legally, if they tried to do that , tanks would be sent to the aspiring independent country. The Union had to be preserved.

And that included if you were a Russian nationalist trying to raise Russian above USSR. You would be exiled. Or killed. If you stood in front of the Kremlin shouting- Glory to Russia! etc., you would be shot.

The central multinational Soviet government would be geographically based in Moscow but it did not represent RSFSR. It would represent all these other republics as well as one political unit. The Marxism and all that was not emanating from the RSFSR parliament and in the name of the Russian republic. It was coming from the Soviet, multinational parliament next door. Yes, geographically it was on the territory of the RSFSR, but legally it not was part of it or acting in its name. The Soviet Parliament was not legally Russian territory that was subject to the laws of the Russian republic. Eventually, Yeltsin had it removed and asked the Soviet Union to move its government elsewhere.

Stalin was not trying to make Russia glorious or to oppress or kill people in Russia's name, only in the name of the new political corporation which was called USSR.

When the Union broke up, of course Russia was now the biggest and started pushing its weight around like it always used to - but it could not legally force say, Ukraine to give up nukes. But it made it very clear that it would be desirable, otherwise, beware. It would not want a nuclear powered neighbor in Kiev, would it? Plus because the defunct Soviet government area was now in its territory, they simply appropriated all of the nuclear codes and now they held them. Give us back the weapons. What could Latvia or Ukraine do without the codes?

The two headed eagle went up again, the flag was again tri color and they were back in business minus the other 14 republics.

To give you a comparison- was the British Empire with India and Ireland and all that and its ambitions and conquests..was it all coming from England or from Great Britain? When we say that India was colonized, was it by England or by Britain? London was the capital of England but there was no English legal nationality. England was a nation that was a constituent nation of Britain and later, the UK. It was "Rule Britannia!" Not "Rule Anglia!". Was it not? The union of England and Scotland was cemented when they put a Scottish king on the throne in London. Not sure how it went with Wales, though. Three and later, four ( including N. Ireland) became the UK later.

The Netherlands Antilles like Sint Martaan in the Caribbean are part of Holland and its African inhabitants are Dutch citizens. So Dutch encompasses more than just Holland, so too with Russia.

You are right. But they are full Dutch territories and the inhabitants have Dutch passports and it clearly says "nationality Dutch" and all the institutions there are Dutch. It is legally the Netherlands. According to Dutch and international laws.

And are the inhabitants really African? Most of them have never been to Africa, do not hold any African documents, do not hold allegiance to an African country. Yes, they have dark skin and their ancestors were African slaves but I do not think that they, as "Africans" can get on a plane today and appear at any West African country and say- "here we are! take us in!" They are full Dutch nationals born and raised in a Dutch territory with Dutch legal documents and full Dutch rights.

But Scotts are not legally English and neither are Welsh. The Welsh and the Scots do not have passports saying "English citizen". They are not listed as "English" anywhere. You cannot say that Wales is an English territory and that England encompasses more than the land from the channel to the border with Scotland and that say, India was England. Or that Scotland today is...England.

You try and go to Scotland and Wales and say that it is England. Or worse yet, go to Belfast county and proclaim that it is England.

And the language all over Great Britain and the UK is English. Different accents, though. It does not make the Scots and Welsh English, does it?

So, the USSR was a multinational state very similar to the UK/ Great Britain.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Stalin had to placate the Russians- the largest group in the USSR because otherwise, they would rebel. So he promoted the culture the Ballet, and moved many Russians into other republics. But half of the Soviet Parliament in Moscow were still Ukrainians or from Ukraine. A Georgian who spoke with a thick accent at the helm with all these "country bumpkins" who could not even speak the language properly would have never been tolerated in the Russian Empire.

This is essentially my point. Russia was widely considered "first among equals" as quiet as it is kept. The political goals of the Soviet Union precluded any mention of Russia as you rightly pointed out. However, the Russian hegemony was duplicitous in that there was an implicit understanding that acknowledging Russia's unspoken place at the pinnacle was a necessity. I understand this is the primary reason Gorbachev is now reviled in Russia, because he is blamed for losing the control of that mighty Russian accomplishment that was the Soviet Union. Gorbachev is not so reviled in the other former Soviet republics; in some cases he is viewed quite favorably.

Relocating Russians throughout the republics created local intellectual and technical vanguards to foster the continuity of Russian preeminence.

Had Stalin attempted to elevate the Georgian, Armenian or Uzbek languages and folkloric traditions to the same level as Russian, this would have set up nationalistic uproar and insurrection in Russia proper.

So Russian language and unspoken cultural preeminence was the reason I considered the USSR to be the Russian Empire. With your input in mind, I would call it "a" Russian empire cloaked under the guise of ideological equality of Soviet nationalities.