When was it better to do science in Russia?

It is hard to expect a different attitude to the history of your country, when the shops are flooded with new "heroes" - mega-exposers of the horrors of totalitarianism Rezun-Suvorov, on TV they spin nonsense like "Russia that we lost", "Shtrafbatt" and the like. The tendency is that the despair of the totalitarian past is evidence of high moral qualities. Anyone can kick a dead lion. Moreover, if there is something for it-not without it.

Here is a quick hand picked up a few links. I haven't found any other very interesting previously read things, so I'll try to find them. I recommend reading the books to the Tentator. Of course, if you read continuous revelations, under your already formed vision, then the picture will turn out to be appropriate - such as it is now.

About the war:
Books:
http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/38417...tner=fromgoblin
http://www.labirint-shop.ru/books/79124/
http://www.labirint-shop.ru/books/166165/

Article:
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/26/35.html

About repressions:
http://oper.ru/torture/print.php?t=1045689096

To Bad Den & Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg:
Most likely, "irretrievable losses of 11,440,100 people" meant only military losses. The real number, of course, is higher - about 20-25 million.

This post was edited by Salix - 05/19/2008 00: 16

The survey was created incorrectly, as usual, if you don't want to search for the truth. I am surprised that there is a person who believes that " all the best remained in pre-revolutionary Russia."

The survey was created exactly as it was created. You can ignore my lyrical clarifications-imagine these periods without any clarifications: "before the 17th", "between the 17th and 41st"," between the 45th and 1990","between the 90th and 2008".

In the first paragraph, it was necessary to write, for example, like this:"Before the revolution, with a high general level of culture, education, freedom of creativity and funding."

Well, damn it, because it seems to have already found out that none of this happened. There were only good plans, which partially began to be realized, but were again destroyed by circumstances (war). There were a small number of universities in large cities where education and science were really more or less developed and corresponded to Western European ones. But given the scale of the country and the state of failure in other areas , this is extremely small. The level of culture among the nobility? Very controversial, read the classics. Freedom? I wonder what will happen to a man who turns against the regime and the tsar? Why is it that when you are imprisoned and exiled for this in monarchical Russia, you do not reject it, and when you are imprisoned for the same thing in the totalitarian USSR-oh horror!

And in other paragraphs it should have been written "In the conditions of total terror and under the yoke of bloody gebni"? I tried to label the periods neutrally, regardless of my likes and dislikes.

The further away in time a certain period is from us, the more difficult it is for us to judge it. In order to avoid reproaches for false idealization, I will quote the statement of a contemporary, a remarkable scientist Veniamin Petrovich Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, who worked actively both before 17 and after: "Fate willed that my earthly life coincided with two epochs in the history of the development of mankind and my homeland. The first one lasted from my birth to the year of my great father's death for 44 years. It was a bright, relatively calm historical era

I want to respond with your words: I am afraid that V. P. Semenov-Tien-Shansky confuses the reverent memories of his former youth with the reverent memories of pre-revolutionary times.

This post was edited by Salix - 05/19/2008 00: 56

Famine was not confined to Russia alone. For example, in 1909-1914, the United States starved due to drought. In Soviet Russia, however, there were worse things than the famine years (by the way, 1921-1923; 1932-1933; 1946-1947) - this is the genocide of one's own people with the help of famine.
...
A lot of interesting things are said about this here: http://www.rmc.org.ua/actions/tyqios/. So, if in tsarist Russia several thousand people died during the famine years, then in 1932-33 7-8 million people died throughout the Soviet Union and from 3.5 to 4 million people in Ukraine; about 3 million in 1921-1923 and about 1 million in 1946-1947.

Yeah, pro, holodomor...
There are also a lot of interesting things here:
http://contrtv.ru/common/2607/
http://narodna.pravda.com.ua/history/46713afe4b9e8/

It became interesting, I searched the Internet on the topic of human losses of the USSR in World War II - to find out what they write. I found the most fantastic figures-from 8 million to 60. And almost everywhere there are references to the research of respected doctors of sciences, foreign experts, academicians, historians, etc. Of course, they all carefully studied the archives, originals, applied complex analysis methods, etc. Fun.

In my opinion, this is close to the truth:

"according to the results of research conducted by the Department of Population Statistics of the State Statistics Committee of the USSR and the Center for the Study of Population Problems at the Lomonosov Moscow State University, the total direct human losses of the country for all the years of the Great Patriotic War are estimated at 26.6 million people.
...
So, irretrievable losses are losses of list personnel. 11,444,100 people — this is an operational record, as they say, in hot pursuit, according to the data that emerged after the battle.
...
Some people overstate our losses. For example, Stanislav Govorukhin said that we lost 40 million people. If he meant military personnel, then only 34,476,700 people wore greatcoats during the war, and not all of them died. If we mean all the losses of the country, then they amounted to 26.6 million people Govorukhin in one of his films says that we lost 10 — 14 times more than the Germans. And how much the Germans lost, he does not know."

http://gpw.tellur.ru/page.html?r=facts&s=losses

This post was edited by Salix - 05/19/2008 00: 55

Of course, if you read continuous revelations, under your already formed vision, then the picture will turn out to be appropriate - such as it is now.

I'm afraid you can be accused of the same thing. There is one difference in the argumentation of our positions. It was necessary for the Soviet regime to distort history: to denigrate the pre-revolutionary period of history and to highlight its dignity against this background, and to hide the traces of its terrible crimes against the people. The authors of modern "incriminating" historical works have no reason to distort the facts: to exaggerate the victims of repression, etc. It may have been profitable in the 90s, but now that the Communist Party and all that is no longer a threat, but only causes laughter. The books that you recommend to read, alas, cause nausea already with their covers and reviews written on them. You see, even if the numbers of victims are exaggerated, even if they are greatly exaggerated, still these victims are huge and do not cease to be a crime from any angle of consideration.

The survey was created exactly as it was created. .

The survey reflects only your position and cannot be objective. It seems like the first point of the survey should reflect my position, but for some reason you don't accept my wording.

I want to respond with your words: I am afraid that V. P. Semenov-Tien-Shansky confuses the reverent memories of his former youth with the reverent memories of pre-revolutionary times.

You see, 44 years is far from old age, but on the contrary the flowering of the creative forces of a scientist. As for the enemies of the tsarist regime - for example, the brother of the regicide, Lenin freely entered Kazan University. And what would have happened to the brother of the enemy of the people in the USSR?

Well, damn it, because it seems to have already found out that none of this happened.

That's what you found out for yourself. I won't try to change your mind again. Your attitude is typical religious fanaticism. Dominus vibiscum, Salix.

In this survey, for example, there are a lot of riddles for me... First, it is not very clear what is meant by "science"here. Then it depends on what goals this "science" pursues. For example, quite a scientific article at one time was "On the use of the May beetle in the soap industry" (and this is in the EO, by the way, and not anywhere else).

Second - I don't really understand "better" for whom? But this, in my opinion, is a direct consequence of the first one.

Third, it is not very clear how one can judge a particular time objectively. Yes, of course, to study and compare different sources, to draw conclusions, BUT... Conclusions are usually subjective. Sources, as a rule, are no less subjective or more so - many of them were made directly or indirectly, but by order. And not only now or in Soviet times-probably from the very beginning of keeping chronicles, etc. Any, even the most reliable information (even the same statistics), if desired, can be turned almost inside out, making a "very small" inaccuracy or pulling details out of context.
Perhaps, of course, my youth affects, and some things I simply do not understand, but...

And also - I don't really understand what is meant by "better"here? Opportunities? Labor remuneration? Or something else?

Fornax13:

The survey concerns science as a whole, not any particular field. What you personally understand by the word "science".

It is better for scientists in terms of working conditions and scientific activities.

> ...what is meant by "better" here? Opportunities? Labor remuneration? Or something else?

Opportunities for scientific activity.

Of course, the survey is subjective. Everyone can understand different subtleties in different ways.

This post was edited by Salix - 05/19/2008 06: 42

On the question of totalitarianism and the oppression of scientists in Tsarist Russia. I found it right there on molbiol.

"In 1870, Sechenov was forced to leave the Medical and Surgical Academy. One of the reasons for this decision was the official refusal of the Academy Council to elect the outstanding Russian scientist I. I. Mechnikov to the free Department of Zoology. N. N. Zinin, a chemist, tried to help Sechenov move to the Academy of Sciences, but the Academy's doors were closed to the liberal-minded scientist. For some time he worked in the laboratory of his long-time friend D. I. Mendeleev. "It is possible that I will become a chemist, but, of course, these are dreams," he wrote bitterly in one of his letters. Eventually, Sechenov got a position as a professor of physiology at Novorossiysk University in Odessa.

.. In 1888, after the Academy of Sciences rejected his candidacy for the third time, Sechenov decided to retire ...

.. Sechenov spent a year at his estate Teply Stan, then, at the insistence of friends, accepted a modest position as a private assistant professor at Moscow University. Perhaps at that time he was the most famous private docent in the world. German physiologist Ludwig suggested that Sechenov move to Germany and work in his personal laboratory, but Sechenov refused.

Only in 1891 was he elected a professor.

Only in 1904 did the Imperial Academy of Sciences "consider it a special pleasure" to elect the great scientist as its honorary member.

He died of pneumonia on November 2, 1905."

http://gelios-fond.ru/page/content/view/38/58/

This post was edited by Salix - 05/19/2008 04: 21

This is very interesting - what kind of weapons did we send by train to Germany? Sapper shovels and bayonets? So there were enough of their own. And "Katyusha" and "thirty-four" something in the ranks of the Wehrmacht on 22.06.41 was not observed... Well, as for the lack of troops on the border.... At least even the monarchists have heard about the Brest Fortress (but apparently not all). And as a result, the incompetent communists won the most brutal meat grinder in history (we recently celebrated on May 9-have you heard about it?), and the brilliant Nikolai won 2 wars in a row.
Stop talking nonsense from the grandstand and shitting on the history of your country. At least in memory of those people who gave their lives, including so that Tentator could poke around in bedbugs and teach people on the Internet.

This podium is not so high , but tell me, what does all this have to do with the science that it seems to be about?

In this survey, for example, there are a lot of riddles for me... First, it is not very clear what is meant by "science"here. Perhaps, of course, my youth affects, and some things I simply do not understand, but...

And also - I don't really understand what is meant by "better"here? Opportunities? Labor remuneration? Or something else?

It is rather strange to ask on this site what science is. This is our professional activity.

The survey was created incorrectly, as usual, if you don't want to search for the truth. I am surprised that there is a person who believes that " all the best remained in pre-revolutionary Russia." It is unlikely that anyone seriously thinks that there was nothing good in Soviet science.

Of course, no one thinks so. But that's not the point, it's a comparative assessment. What can Soviet science oppose to Mendeleev, Pavlov and Timiryazev, whose best works appeared before the revolution? Kurchatov and Korolev, who took half of the materials from the NKVD and intelligence?

This is documented
and the accuracy is quite approximate - up to hundreds.
Missing persons are also included here.

Why not 9 million? Then the figure will be "even better" (it sounds disgusting about the dead)? Let me remind you that about 9 million dead (I don't remember exactly, but this false figure is not worth remembering) was the official and documented figure of losses in the Second World War under the genius of all nations, Generalissimo I. V. Stalin.

On the question of totalitarianism and the oppression of scientists in Tsarist Russia. I found it right there on molbiol. "In 1870, Sechenov was forced to leave the Medical and Surgical Academy.

Well, that quote gave away how you actually get to know historical literature. Let it be known to you that I. M. Sechenov, after leaving the Moscow Art Academy in 1871-1876, was the head of the Department of Physiology at Novorossiysk University in Odessa, and in 1876-1888 he was a professor of physiology at St. Petersburg University (capital!), where he also organized a physiological laboratory. At the same time, he lectured at the Bestuzhev Higher Women's Courses, of which he was one of the founders. And only in 1889 he became a privatdozent at Moscow University. We will not talk about the reasons for these biographies, well, it's not the tsarist regime's fault, but we will focus on a curious moment from your message: "One of the reasons for this decision was the official refusal of the Academy Council to elect the wonderful Russian scientist I. I. Mechnikov to the free Department of zoology" (by the way, the reasons for the refusal are also simple; from Sechenov's letter To Mechnikov: "I suggested you... The commission that examined your works also offered you to become an ordinary professor.... After that, both by law and reason, the question of your election should have been raised to the balls." But here it was suggested to solve a different question beforehand-does the Medical and Surgical Academy even need a zoology teacher as an ordinary professor? This is a legitimate choice of the Academy, and what does the regime have to do with it?). Tell me, who in Soviet science or now would leave a warm place on principle, in protest against the policy of the institution or injustice against a colleague? This is what I would like to draw attention to first of all in the discussion of this topic: nobility has disappeared, values that are higher than personal well-being have disappeared. You see, this is called intelligence. Yes, unfortunately, in Soviet Russia there were almost no intelligent people in the true sense of the word. They were actively fought against. A classmate of mine told me that in the post-revolutionary years, his grandfather was beaten up on the street just because he had pince-nez on his nose. The word "intellectual" in Soviet times was a dirty word (read Lotman). And why should we be surprised that now there are almost no noble, intelligent and highly cultured people in Russia, even in the environment where they should be by definition-in science?

Tentator
I won't argue with you about the story. Not so long ago, Goldschmidt's memoirs about his trip to Sov were published in Priroda. Russia: he vividly describes the squalid life of our scientists, but writes very interesting things about the situation in general (including several varieties of caviar in the markets-this is in the 20s!). Some may talk about the treaty of friendship and the border between the USSR and Germany, but I recall the words of Churchill, who said that after the infamous Munich Treaty, Stalin did what many would have done in his place. Of course, when the revolution took place, no one knew that it would be even worse, but still it came from something that was really bad.

I don't trust the current history interpreters on both the left and right. The "secrets of post-Soviet demography" have yet to be revealed. I judge by the history of my relatives. My great-grandmother, a 14-year-old girl, came from Ukraine to Vladivostok in the 90s of the 19th century, because there was a terrible famine there. She said there wasn't even any grass. She was completely illiterate (which was generally typical of the peasants of Little Russia, who formed the backbone of the settlers in Primorye). My great-grandfather (he was a Cossack) was exiled to Sakhalin for responding to an officer who slapped him in the face. My grandparents said that before the revolution, there was complete lawlessness in the seaside villages: because of the land or the wife, a neighbor could kill a neighbor and not be punished. After 1920, there was at least some order. The village schools were really good, but who taught them? - former Narodnaya Volya residents exiled to Sakhalin and pardoned after 10-20 years of stay there. They did bring knowledge to the people, but not out of love for the king. Chekhov, who was in Vladivostok, did not fail to notice the low level of doctors, who completely suffered from alcohol cravings. After the Russo-Japanese war, the city lost many benefits, and then the Japanese intervention followed... Of course, in this situation, the majority of the population welcomed the changes that gave rise to hope. There were also hopes in 1992...

I was engaged in science and teaching before and after Perestroika - I can only compare these two periods. Before... it was better. On my scholarship of 90 rubles, I could even look great! Each student had a textbook (now one Dogel textbook is available for 12 people!), at the workshops everyone had a microscope and binoculars (since then the optics have not been updated), and the zoology workshops themselves were served by 4 laboratory assistants (now - 1). For the summer internship, we took about 100 students to Riazanovka, where two teachers shared a house with a kitchen and 3 rooms (now the biological station is completely abandoned, almost everything is looted). Our university was opened only in the 50s, but a professor from the West immediately came here, and far from loyal to the communists (now you can't even lure an average associate professor from Tula to us...). By the way, our head of the department was the son of a nobleman, knew 4 languages and corresponded with Puzanov, who sent him a poem in the Stalinist years that ridiculed Soviet biology ("An old ancient woman came and brought a pinch of soda ..." - it was about Lepishinskaya). Enthusiastic people worked, almost every year students and teachers went on expeditions that are now simply unthinkable (how do you like at least a trip of 20 people at once to Kunashir? Or Vorontsov (the one!) I took several students to the Caucasus with my own money). Naturally, talented entomology students also appeared in such an environment (you know many of them well - Belokobylsky, Belyaev, Storozhenko, etc.). Perhaps if I had lived and worked before the revolution, I would have missed those times. But I do not regret that I did not live then, because now I would simply not be there in any scenario of fate... And so I am, and not only me, but also other forum visitors, whose relatives were miraculously not tortured in the tsarist dungeons and Stalin's camps

Why not 9 million? Then the figure will be "even better" (it sounds disgusting about the dead)? Let me remind you that about 9 million dead (I don't remember exactly, but this false figure is not worth remembering) was the official and documented figure of losses in the Second World War under the genius of all nations, Generalissimo I. V. Stalin.

About better/worse - what are you talking about?
To be precise, Stalin called the figure of 5 million at the Potsdam conference and later, in his work "On the Great Patriotic War" - 7 million

These times were exactly before the 1st World War

And when Malcolm Burr, Robert Shelford, Nikolai von Adelung worked...

I voted for the first point (before 1917) solely for personal reasons. As far as I know, my ancestors then lived (financially) better, some much better...

On the other hand, I, my beloved, was born only as a result of the catastrophic processes of the twentieth century, which led to an incredible mixing of different classes and social groups.

You're out of luck with people! I've also met brave scientists.

Survival from the pulpit of undesirable people and retirement to make way for the young (especially when it's really time) - these are examples that are a little off topic. And Landau is really interesting. First of all, the whole story happened only 19 years after the revolution: well, it's too short a time to intimidate everyone and destroy those who can't be intimidated. All these five noble physicists were dismissed with the damning phrase "Dismiss for participating in an anti-Soviet strike", and three of them were shot within a year... So the intelligentsia was destroyed. And again, Juglans, understand that there are no current "Schwartzes" not for some mysterious reason, not because salaries are bad or apartments are not given, but for a completely understandable reason: they will not appear from scratch for a very long time.
Yes, I came across the most interesting transcripts of Landau's interrogation on the Web: http://stalinism.ru/content/view/1303/4/. One can only guess how these protocols were obtained.It is ludicrous to assume that this vile Soviet-Deponent bureaucracy was uttered by Landau: "Under the guise of fighting for 'pure science', our anti-Soviet group tried in every possible way to separate theory from practice, which not only hindered the development of Soviet science, but also entailed, given the enormous applied importance of physics, a delay in the development of the productive forces of the USSR." And even more interesting are the comments of these Stalinist apologists; reading them, you understand that Russia will not expect anything good for a very long time...
And also about the anti-Semitism you wrote about: Moisey Abramovich Koretz, a student and friend of Landau's, mentioned in these protocols, was also dismissed from the institute. For what? For the same thing that he was previously expelled from the Komsomol: hid the origin. And if you hadn't hidden it?

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/19/2008 19: 15

Come on, what are you saying! A sea of reasons.

I have no doubt that if you were a historian, you would be guided by such reasons. With the same reasons, you can accuse any scientist: entomologist or physicist, slander any institution. But still, we now have many good historians, including the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. And I think it is unfair to suspect all modern historians of deceit and impurity. For example, the author of one of your favorite school history textbooks, A. N. Sakharov (as we joked at school, Andrey Sakharov), is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and an authoritative historian. Or why lie to a professor at the Russian State Social University who, using several calculation methods, comes to the conclusion that the ratio of victims from the USSR and Germany is 10: 1 (http://www.tdibp.by.ru/0505/sokolov/)? He has already defended all his dissertations.

Do you always judge books by their covers and advertising abstracts?

The cover of a book is important because it often shows who the book is addressed to; the cover is often a portrait of its audience. Stalin on the cover - this book is clearly not addressed to me.

Your wording is full of sympathy for the pre-revolutionary period. My own formulations are neutral for all historical periods.

Well, then this is a direct lie, in the best traditions of the system you are defending. In your formulations, you knowingly claim "a huge (qualitative) leap" and "stagnant but stable time" and "lack of money", thereby interfering with the voting results and partly imposing your point of view, but for some reason you consider my formulation about the high level of culture biased. Isn't this demagoguery? And you also teach me what a real scientist should do. It is necessary to correct the items for "Before 1917", "From 1917 to the beginning of the 2nd World War", "After the 2nd World War to Perestroika"," From the 1990s to this day " without any additional definitions of the era, which each has its own. I vote for the first point in the hope of your conscience.

Your messages may look convincing (lots of links, quotes, and numbers), but they do. Very meticulously and thoroughly collected only those facts, figures and evidence that confirm your point of view

Excuse me, what other figures and facts should I pick up: from the official Stalin-Khrushchev-Brezhnev reports? Or from Soviet history books? Is there really a single person who doubts their total falsehood? I know this not by hearsay, my great-uncle was the head of the department of the Population Census Department of the Central Administrative District of the USSR. No amount of facts or figures will convince you - I have spoken many times with ardent supporters of the Soviet regime and have always come across a reinforced concrete wall of absolute confidence in the infallibility of the party and faith in our "bright past". Isn't this religious fanaticism? I don't know what the reason is. Most likely, in this destructive imposed symbiosis of child psychology and a totalitarian educational system designed to break and standardize.

Unlike you, I've re-read the literature in my time

I admire your reading, but I'm afraid your "brain got over the shock" too soon. Many people still can't get over this shock. Do you know why? You argue about the numbers: 20 million more or less, as if we are talking about the fact that you were hung with potatoes at the bazaar. For you, these are simple numbers. Let it not be 110, let it not be 60, or even 20, let it be 1 million, 1000, 100, or even 1 person, even that unfortunate boy who was brutally murdered in the basement of Yekaterinburg, completely innocent with four girls-sisters. We are talking about innocent people killed, about monstrous crimes that no bargaining can detract from. You and Bad Dan argue about the casualties of the war, admitting that Germany lost less than the dead. You are not surprised that a huge country, having been warned, after a monstrous, deadly collictivization and industrialization for its people, arming itself in order to bring the "light of the world revolution" to the globe, suffered great losses and fought for 5 years with a small Germany, which recently recovered from the reparations of the previous world war, and is at war with almost the whole world. And at the same time, you also deny the incompetence of the leadership, that is, only Stalin. Why do you have such holy confidence in the infallibility and generalship of this graduate of the Georgian theological seminary, who robbed the royal stagecoaches before the revolution?

In fact, this is all an empty argument: a political system built on blood, lies, fear and meanness cannot last long. All the delights of the life of scientists and science in Soviet times, if they existed, were temporary and obviously doomed. "The house built on blood will be destroyed by the Lord, as all Babylon was destroyed before."

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/19/2008 19: 00

  
It is rather strange to ask on this site what science is. This is our professional activity.

I don't dispute that it's rather strange. But sometimes it seems that we are talking about different things here.

a sometimes it seems that we are talking about different things here.

Indeed, let's move on to the direct subject of discussion. Let's talk about a much-loved question-the salaries of scientists in different eras.

Before the revolution, a professor received an average of 15.4 times more than a worker (VOLKOV S. INTELLECTUAL LAYER IN SOVIET SOCIETY http://samisdat.com/5/55/554-4gl1.htm). At the end of the 19th century, the average salary of a worker was 187 rubles per year, and in 1913 it reached 300 rubles, and in some industries in St. Petersburg and Moscow it was significantly higher [Vernadsky G. 1944. A history of Russia. New Home Library. New York. P. 202.]. A. N. Kosygin said that his father, a skilled St. Petersburg worker, could support a housewife wife and three children on his salary, pay for a three-room apartment, without frills, but decently feed and clothe-shoe the family. [Antonov M. Capitalism in Russia will not happen. Chapter 7 . LIBERMAN-KOSYGIN REFORM - "REVOLUTION OF THE PHILISTINES" http://m-antonov.chat.ru/capital/ant_glava_7.htm]. That is, in comparison with the working professor received 2879.8 rubles a year at the end of the XIX century and 4620 rubles in 1913. In order to understand how much it was: a pound of meat in 1914 cost 19 kopecks; a kilogram, if it were then a measure of weight, would cost 46.39 kopecks. A liter of milk cost 14.5 kopecks (http://www.contr-tv.ru/common/2189/).

For comparison, in the late 20s, a professor received only 4.1 times more than a worker. Apart from housing and other conditions (which have worsened immeasurably as a result of the policy of “compaction” carried out everywhere in the cities in relation to the “bourgeoisie”), the level of security of the educated stratum has fallen 4-5 times only in terms of wages. Moreover, its upper strata suffered the most (if primary school teachers received up to 75% of the pre-revolutionary content, then university professors and teachers-20%, even in the late 20s, the real salary of scientists did not exceed 45% of the pre-revolutionary one). The most difficult period was 1922-1924, when the real salary of a Moscow professor was lower than that of a teacher. The welfare of some groups of intellectuals did not reach the subsistence level. This figure in 1925 was 29.38 rubles. (the average working salary in the country was 36.15 rubles in 1923/24, 45.24 rubles in 1924/25 (346)), and the salary of rural teachers in Siberia was 21.5-25 rubles. In 1927/28, they received 30-37 rubles. (in 1928/29-40-46), while the average salary of factory workers there was 53.67 rubles., construction-56.80, small industry - 50.75, metalworkers-68.94, the average salary of employees of institutions-56.5. The regime made an exception only for a narrow stratum of heavy industry specialists and top scientific cadres, “justifying”their actions. this deviation from ideological postulates is a temporary acute need for these personnel. In the 1940s and 1950s, employees ' salaries exceeded those of workers, most significantly in the late and mid-1950s. However, in the future, there was a steady decline in the relative wages of knowledge workers of all categories, a process that did not know any stops and especially intensified in the 60s, when wages in almost all areas of knowledge work fell below the working level. In the early 70s, even scientists were paid lower wages than workers, and by the mid-80s, the last group of intellectuals (ITR industry), which has maintained wage parity with workers for the longest time, was also lower. (VOLKOV S. INTELLECTUAL LAYER IN SOVIET SOCIETY http://samisdat.com/5/55/554-4gl1.htm)

There are many examples of opportunities in science before the revolution. Here are some of them. In 1914, V. A. Dogel together with Professor I. I. Sokolov made a trip to East Africa and Arabia. During this trip, a large amount of scientific material was collected, in particular on protozoa, which V. A. Dogel studied for a number of subsequent years. After receiving his master's degree, A. N. Severtsov goes abroad for two years to get acquainted with the work of Western European laboratories. During his trip, Severtsov visited the French biological station Banyulas, the Russian zoological station in Villafranca, Munich, where he studied special histological techniques under A. A. Boehme. Then, on Boehme's advice, he went to the zoological station in Naples, where he collected remarkable material on sharks and electric rays. When the working season at the Naples station ended, A. N. moved to Kiel to work in the laboratory of the famous cytologist W. Flemming. Here he studied cytology under the guidance of Flemming and at the same time processed material on the metamerism of the head of an electric stingray. In 1898. In Moscow, Severtsov defended his work on the electric ramp as a doctoral dissertation. With regard to the equipment of laboratories, institutes and universities: everyone who has been to a scientific institution must have seen remnants of its former splendor: Zeiss microscopes, preparations, luxurious visual aids from papier-mache, collections, preparations, reagents, etc.

More about the level of science. Regarding the "huge (qualitative) leap after the 17th year, despite the terror and repression", we read in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: "For the further development of science in the country, it was of great importance that in the last decade before the Great October Socialist Revolution the level of science was very high" (BSE, 1957, vol. 50). P. 434). Again, we read in the book by Sergei Volkov: "The educated stratum created by the communist regime, known as the" Soviet socialist intelligentsia", was characterized by a low level of quality. Only in some of its elite ranks (for example, in the sphere of exact and natural sciences, which are less susceptible to ideologization, where the traditions of the Russian scientific school were partially preserved, or in the military-technical sphere, on which the fate of the regime directly depended), it could retain a certain number of world-class intellectuals. The whole mass of the rank-and-file members of this stratum was much lower than not only the pre-revolutionary specialists, but also the foreign specialists of our time.
The main part of the Soviet intelligentsia received an extremely superficial education. In the 20-30s, the so-called “team method of teaching " became widespread, when if one of the students successfully answered, the entire group was credited. Specialists trained in this way, and even from people who had an extremely low educational level at the time of admission to the university, could not, of course, go to any comparison with the pre-revolutionary ones. A few native speakers of the old culture have completely disappeared into this mass of semi-literate educated people. The intellectual environment formed in the 20s and 30s continued to reproduce itself in the future: the quality of the specialists trained at that time was set as a standard for the future. The image of a typical Soviet engineer, doctor, etc. was formed just then - in the pre-war period. In the 50s and 60s, these people, having taken all the leading positions and completely replaced the remnants of pre-revolutionary specialists in teaching, trained their own kind and could not raise any others.
In the 70s and 80s, the rest of the intellectual stratum continued to receive extremely poor education in subjects that form the level of general culture. In higher education institutions of natural and technical profile, they were completely absent, and in higher education institutions of humanities, the informative content of the course of even the main disciplines in the specialty was extremely small, 2-3 times inferior even to the level of the 40s-50s and not comparable with the pre-revolutionary one. Concrete material was everywhere replaced by abstract schemes of the prevailing ideology: training became almost completely "problematic" in nature. " (http://samisdat.com/5/55/554-4gl1.htm). This is where the modern Russian provincialism of science is rooted.

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/20/2008 02: 29

Or why lie to a professor at the Russian State Social University who, using several calculation methods, comes to the conclusion that the ratio of victims from the USSR and Germany is 10: 1 (http://www.tdibp.by.ru/0505/sokolov/)? He has already defended all his dissertations.

Doctor of Philology, not a historian, I would say.
"I tried to count Soviet losses by three alternative methods. The first method: I took the data published by General Volkogonov in Izvestia in May 1993 on the monthly irretrievable losses of the Red Army in 1942, compared them with the data on the monthly loss of the Red Army wounded for the entire war, such data is available, they are published in the book of the head of the former sanitary department Smirnov "War and military Medicine", determined the month when all irretrievable losses can be considered killed, and not prisoners-it turned out to be November, and based on this, he calculated, roughly estimated the volume of losses of the Red Army's irretrievable ones by those who died and died of wounds during the entire war. It turned out to be 22.4 million or 22.9 million, depending on whether Volkogonov's data included non-combat losses."
It's called' average temperature in the hospital'

Tentator
Well, don't waste so much time on this scribble! It's all empty. You'd better visit your teacher. Then, you write that now there is no nobility, no decency, etc. You need to appeal to yourself. Do you personally have the nobility and decency? How can a decent person write that there is no decency-it means that he writes so not only about everyone present on the forum, but also about himself, his still living teachers, parents, etc. If there is no decency, then what is the use of quoting from the latest history books, if the historians themselves are dishonest? There is a certain ambivalence in this argument. It is all the more obvious because outside the former USSR, where Stalin was not present, we see very similar trends: narrowing the horizons of scientists, low linguistic literacy, commodity-money relations in science, a huge army of gray students, etc ... lack of moral ideals.

About the "temporary charms of the Soviet era". The apartments are not a temporary boon; they are still home to the scientists that ZIN is proud of. Honestly, I would EVEN respect Putin if he even gave our young scientists a guest house...

This post was edited by Juglans - 05/20/2008 02: 01

This is called "average temperature in the hospital"

This is called the bourgeois word "statistics". A doctor of philology is not forbidden to study statistics nowadays, thank God.

[head hits the table]

Not only did the whole of Europe work, but, as we recently discussed, so did the USSR itself. Even the most pro-Soviet historians say that the Soviet army outnumbered the German army by 2.5 times. By the way, do you often fall like this?

Under the leadership of the "graduate of the Georgian theological seminary", the USSR won the war.

That's it. That's what I was talking about.

Then, you write that now there is no nobility, no decency, etc.

Uh, no. I wrote that there is practically no intelligence and nobility, because what is there is a drop in the bucket. Basically, the carriers of the old culture were miraculously preserved and remained in the same large institutes and universities that were least touched under the Soviet regime. For example, D. S. Likhachev, who worked in the Pushkin House, or a model of intelligence, Yu. M. Lotman. But I repeat: there are only a few such people and they are gradually leaving.

It is all the more obvious because outside the former USSR, where Stalin was not present, we see very similar trends: narrowing the horizons of scientists, low linguistic literacy, commodity-money relations in science, a huge army of gray students, etc ... lack of moral ideals.

Yes, there are such trends all over the world, but the reasons for them abroad (Ortega y Gasset wrote about them at the beginning of the 20th century) and in our country are different, and now they overlap and aggravate each other.

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/20/2008 02: 24

But, Tentator, dear: You still haven't answered about yourself. I understand that decency is a drop in the bucket, but the whole question is whether you are part of this drop... Why is this important? If you don't log in, then there is reason to doubt the sincerity of your messages. If you do, why do you write them and give them labels? "A decent person does not speak - he acts" (c)

But, Tentator, dear: You still haven't answered about yourself.

I can't judge myself. I was very lucky: I had three teachers in my life who were distinguished by both decency and intelligence; my very first teacher, to whom I probably owe everything, because I met him at the most receptive period of my life, died this year. I really hope that I learned from them what I admire about them. I don't give out labels, but I reason. And to talk about all this is also to act, for it is criminal to remain silent. I don't know about Likhachev; his granddaughter has repeatedly appeared on television and described him as an exemplary family man and an intelligent person.

In Europe and the United States, the salaries of b.m. researchers correspond to, or are lower than, those of qualified engineers. A little more salary in Europe and a little less in the states. That is, they are more or less comparable. In universities, the spread of salaries is much higher: it strongly depends on the specific university, on the country, and other factors. Therefore, I would like to draw the following conclusion: the decline in the salaries of researchers relative to the average level of salaries of qualified employees is a global trend, and it is quite a long-standing one. Therefore, it is incorrect to draw conclusions based on the fact that a hundred years ago the difference was fifteen times and it was good, but then this difference kept decreasing and therefore it got worse. I mean, yes, technically it was getting worse. But this is a global trend throughout the 20th century. About the distant 20-30s I will not undertake to judge, but in the second half of the 20th century, scientists may not have been particularly chic, but they were not poor - for sure.

This post was edited by Salix - 05/20/2008 03: 05

About Likhachev and other exemplary intellectuals. I think that if you rummage through the laundry, then many will find their "skeletons in the closet", their shortcomings, unpleasant moments in character and ugly actions in life. Even Lenin once stole a cherry, but I suggest not to stoop to such a level and do not rummage in the laundry. Even if a person is not perfect, but this should not detract from his dignity. Of course, if these disadvantages do not outweigh a certain level.

This post was edited by Salix - 05/20/2008 03: 14

Tentator
But if you're lucky, why can't others be? Why don't you admit that provincial universities in Soviet times did not have decent and qualified professors? After all, decent people do not shout at every corner about themselves and that there is no decency. (The same Likhachev said that there are a lot of decent people). Or were your teachers different?

You can reason by judging and trying to understand. The fact that no one wants to understand anyone here is clear. However, it is clear that in your words there is not only protection, but also condemnation (and those who cannot stand up for themselves...). This is not a crime, but somehow not very... (I do not write about others, because they, like me, clearly do not fall under the definition of "decency" sensu Tentator). Alexander III, who is remembered with a shudder in Poland, is probably decent (and Nicholas II is even a saint!) - I am certainly not in their company. "But there is a merry company in hell... "(c)

Why don't you admit that provincial universities in Soviet times did not have decent and qualified professors?

I admit they were, but very little. To talk about the good, to seek out its grains - this is useful only for self-love and false patriotism, and to talk about the bad is necessary in order to fight it. Lyubishchev said: "He who puts up with the present does not believe in the future." Not to talk about the current low level of culture and its causes means not to believe in the future. Of course, I am not the only one who speaks about the extermination of the intelligentsia in Soviet Russia and its consequences; Yu. M. Lotman, a model of intelligence for me, spoke a lot about this in his "Conversations on Russian Culture". Or did the spoons jangle in his house, too, and dirty laundry didn't translate? Where" here " no one wants to understand anyone? Your own question: Are you talking about yourself or everyone? And whether you fall under the definition of decency is also up to you.

And decency is not the right word. I have something else in mind. There were just a lot of decent people, of course. Decency is a necessary but not sufficient quality of an intelligent person. I'm talking about the level of culture in general. You can be decent, but not be, for example, a noble person. You can be a qualified specialist, but a poorly educated person. For example, in one provincial university, I observed the following picture: students turned on the radio during a break; an amazing Chopin mazurka was played. The teacher came in and demanded that "this stuff" be turned off immediately. It was very unpleasant.

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/20/2008 03: 56

Or why lie to a professor at the Russian State Social University who, using several calculation methods, comes to the conclusion that the ratio of victims from the USSR and Germany is 10: 1 (http://www.tdibp.by.ru/0505/sokolov/)? He has already defended all his dissertations.

Someone is definitely lying or deluded, either a professor at Moscow State University or a professor at the state Social University. Both there and there are solid and respected historians. How do you decide for yourself which of them to believe?

..but for some reason you consider my statement about the high level of culture to be biased.

Not true. Here is your original phrase: "... with a high overall level of culture, education, creative freedom and funding... " I did not challenge the high level of science and culture in several central universities. But it is completely inappropriate to talk about the general high level of science and culture, which was shown to you at the very beginning of the discussion by Juglans. Plans and good intentions thwarted by the war don't count.

However, as for the second point, I agree, it would be more correct: "Despite the terror and repression, science was able not only to survive, but also to develop." For the subsequent periods, those indubitable properties are indicated, which, I hope, you will not dispute. The pre-revolutionary one does not have such obvious properties, so I left it without a comment. I didn't find out how to edit comments

And you also teach me what a real scientist should do.

No, I'm teaching you what NOT to do.

Excuse me, what other figures and facts should I pick up: from the official Stalin-Khrushchev-Brezhnev reports? Or from Soviet history books? Is there really a single person who doubts their total falsehood?

And what do your trusted contemporary historians, who received Soviet education and upbringing, use-aren't they archives and sources from the Soviet period?

No amount of facts or figures will convince you - I have spoken many times with ardent supporters of the Soviet regime and have always come across a reinforced concrete wall of absolute confidence in the infallibility of the party and faith in our "bright past".

You should not have referred me to the supporters of the Soviet regime. I can scold the Soviet regime myself, it won't seem too much. The point is different. In my opinion, all sensible people argue with you here, and not just "supporters".

I wonder through what prism you assess the development of modern China? There seems to be a harsh communism-totalitarianism.

I admire your reading skills...

I have a lot of talents. From a slingshot that's still a good shot

You argue about the numbers: 20 million more or less, as if we are talking about the fact that you were hung with potatoes at the bazaar. For you, these are simple numbers. Let it not be 110, let it not be 60, or even 20, let it be 1 million, 1000, 100, or even 1 person, even that unfortunate boy who was brutally murdered in the basement of Yekaterinburg, completely innocent with four girls-sisters. We are talking about innocent people killed, about monstrous crimes that no bargaining can detract from.

I didn't understand the essence of the claims. Let my emotions stay with me. How do you imagine a discussion on historical topics-it is necessary to fight in hysteria? In my opinion, you show the most disrespect for the dead, no matter at what time. As for the murder of the royal family , I don't see any difference between the murder of the tsar's children and any of the millions of others who died from starvation before the revolution and from starvation, repression, etc.after the revolution, destroyed by the Nazis during World War 2. Another small omission: throughout history, royalty quite successfully cut/strangled/poisoned each other and without the help of the Bolsheviks.

You and Bad Dan argue about the casualties of the war, admitting that Germany lost less than the dead. You are not surprised that a huge country, having been warned, after a monstrous, deadly collictivization and industrialization for its people, arming itself in order to bring the "light of the world revolution" to the globe, suffered great losses and fought for 5 years with a small Germany, which recently recovered from the reparations of the previous world war, and is at war with almost the whole world. And at the same time, you also deny the incompetence of the leadership, that is, only Stalin. Why do you have such holy confidence in the infallibility and generalship of this graduate of the Georgian theological seminary, who robbed the royal stagecoaches before the revolution?

Are you familiar with the term "mobilization economy"? How did it happen that Germany became the owner of a modern mobile army, ask the Good Brandashmyg. There were reasons for that. By the time of the attack on the USSR, Germany was NOT "at war with almost the whole world." By then, let me tell you, Zap. Europe had already been conquered. That left only England, which was preoccupied with purely defensive matters and had no wars on land (except in Africa, of course, but compared to the scale of the European fronts, this can be overlooked). You either don't know the story, or you deliberately distort the real situation. More than twenty years have passed since the First World War. A new generation has grown up. It is hardly appropriate to say that Germany "barely recovered". Germany made reparations payments so sloppily that "in January 1923, due to delays in German payments of post-war reparations, Franco-Belgian troops occupied the Rhineland ..." Then Germany received not weak cash injections and loans (mainly from the United States), with which it modernized the industry: "in 1924-1929. Under the Dawes Plan, Germany received $ 2.5 billion from the United States and $ 1.5 billion from England“,” by 1929. Germany has overtaken England in terms of industrial output (12% of the world's total)", " Ralph Epperson (American historian): Without the capital provided by Wall Street, Hitler and World War II would not have existed."After the 30th year, reparations payments were completely canceled. Next:"...Investment in light industry increased only 1.7 times from 1933 to 1935, and in heavy industry-4 times. " Restrictions on the size of the army were not observed. The Soviet Union was isolated all this time. Regarding the Soviet Union's assistance to Germany and the peace treaty of '39:" ... will Hitler risk attacking the USSR, leaving France in the rear, or will he try to secure his western rear before the start of the Eastern campaign? The German proposal for a pact seemed to point to the second option. Moscow had only a choice between the plague and cholera. Experts predicted a rapid defeat of Poland, and after that the Wehrmacht would reach the old Soviet-Polish border... Attempts to reach an agreement with the Polish leadership on a joint repulse of German aggression on the western borders of Poland failed. In the end, the question was either war immediately... or postponing the conflict indefinitely... The owners of the Kremlin can hardly be called angels, many tend to see them as fiends of hell, but they certainly were not suicides." I don't think much of Stalin's generalship and many other talents, let that reassure you. But it is impossible to call the entire policy of the then USSR incompetent.

..A political system built on blood, lies, fear and meanness cannot last long. All the delights of the life of scientists and science in Soviet times, if they existed, were temporary and obviously doomed. "The house built on blood will be destroyed by the Lord, as all Babylon was destroyed before."

It smiled.

This post was edited by Salix - 05/20/2008 06: 42

This is called the bourgeois word "statistics". A doctor of philology is not forbidden to study statistics nowadays, thank God.

"This "is called" average hospital temperature". Even a student is not prohibited from studying statistics. If only he would study normally, and not talk nonsense.

Statistics are the biggest LIE!!! One of the first American oligarchs, John Peartont Morgan, liked to say that there are three categories of lies - small, medium and large, but there are also STATISTICS, because statistics, with skillful "use" , can explain everything and everything.

I have been to various universities, and my experience shows that there are few good teachers in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and the provinces.

Well, you and I agree here; then what's the point of arguing?

Intelligence is nothing to me.

Well, you never know what is missing and what is not clear in the United States; they also found a role model. The Soviet intelligentsia, which S. V. Volkov writes about for the most part, is really capable of causing only vomiting, and has nothing in common with the concept of intelligence, which implies the qualities of the soul, such as tolerance, sensitivity, aging, nobility, openness to knowledge. Unfortunately, I don't remember the author of the words, but the idea is wonderful: "intelligence is the ability to understand more than is beneficial to you." By the way, what do you respect Yu. M. for besides being intelligent in this sense?

And note that he himself did not understand this.

But it's not about that. I know that I am harsh, but I am harsh in my arguments on matters of principle , in my responses to harshness and demagoguery.

But it is completely inappropriate to talk about the overall high level of science and culture

We are talking about the level of culture in Russia before the revolution – for the last time – we are talking about science; you, too, when you speak of a "huge (qualitative) leap", do not mean Soviet art criticism. Yes, before the revolution, science developed in conditions of a high general culture of scientists, and not only in central universities. You can give a lot of names, but I'm already tired of it: it's still no use. But give me at least one example that refutes this.

I didn't understand the essence of the claims.

The essence of the claims is that historical events are not separable from each other. You can't just talk about what life was good for scientists in Soviet Russia, you need to remember what price it was good for. Either you artificially refine history, or human life doesn't matter to you. The latter is wild for me.

Then Germany received not weak cash injections and loans

So, if it has not already fought with anyone but England, then what, for example, is the risk of "attacking the USSR, leaving France in the rear" (Your quote)?
How do all these influences on German industry relate to the capital gained from the plundering of pre-revolutionary landlords, factory owners, the aristocracy, and the peasantry? Either you have the USSR as a "nuclear superpower", or when it comes to the results of the war, it is far from Germany, which was revived in one generation. The reasons for signing the 1939 non-aggression Pact are very clear. Stalin had two alternatives: either join the Allies or join Germany. The latter was excluded, because both had the same goals and interests and no one wanted to share. Stalin also did not join Britain and France, although they counted on his help, promising support to Poland. The calculation was stupidly simple. Under the treaty of ' 39, Germany and the USSR divided Eastern Europe between them. Territories with 20 million inhabitants were being withdrawn from the USSR. According to this treaty, the northern border of Lithuania became the border of the USSR and Germany, Lithuania itself, part of Poland, Bessarabia, Galicia, and Northern Bukovina were transferred to the USSR. A participant in the signing of this agreement, Deputy State Secretary of the German Foreign Ministry F. Gauss later wrote: "Delineating the spheres of interest in Eastern Europe would give the Soviet Union the opportunity to seize the most important strategic positions in the Baltic States. For these positions, almost two and a half centuries ago, Tsar Peter the Great fought a 21-year war, and Stalin took him as a model. Now they were falling from the sky without any struggle, thanks to the pact with Hitler." The second side of Stalin's calculations, which failed him, is also transparent: Germany, supported in the east by food and raw materials, will attack Poland; Britain and France will not refuse to support the latter, but they will not be able to defeat Hitler without an alliance with the USSR. Hence the holy confidence in non-aggression against the USSR and distrust of Sorge's dispatches.
The same Gauss writes: "The assurances he (Stalin) received from Ribbentrop and, by extension, from Hitler convinced him that Hitler would attack Poland as soon as he obtained Soviet cover from the rear. Stalin, unlike Hitler, had no doubt that Britain and France would fulfill their obligations to Poland. Therefore, he considered the emergence of a war between the great Powers and Germany to be assured." Here, as the famous writer says, is the whole Newtonian binomial.

And in general, gentlemen, frankly speaking, I feel sorry for my time on this argument. I don't want to repeat thoughts that don't reach biased brains. If a person cannot compare two phrases in his brain: Marshal Jodl's confession that "the German command, relying on the loyalty of the Soviet government to the German-Soviet treaty, was able in the spring of 1940 to throw all its forces against France, Belgium and Holland, leaving only 5 or 6 divisions in the east" and "The USSR fought back not only from the German-Soviet from the German industry alone, but also from all its allies and the industries of the countries it has captured" and to conclude that the former is the cause of the latter, even a miracle is powerless. As Bernard Shaw said, the main lesson of history is that young people do not learn any lessons from history. Further, I am almost completely sure that almost all of the apologists of Stalinism are very deceitful, and if they were now offered to return to those "blessed" Stalinist or even Brezhnev times, the hell with two they would agree to return there. Chickpeas, there are certainly some crazy ones when we didn't have them. But, despite all the frothing at the mouth of these apologists, one thing pleases: this regime is gone and will never return. And Russia has only one way: to return to the original cultural values that were developed by the beginning of the 20th century, including the "unique Russian" intelligentsia, discarding everything superfluous, because no one can now degenerate something new. No, science will remain in St. Petersburg and Moscow universities, in a number of academic institutions, where it has always been, and where it was part of the general high culture, but the rest of science will have to be forgotten.

This post was edited by Tentator - 05/21/2008 01: 14

John Peartont Morgan used to say that there are three categories of lies

These are the words of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: big lies, monstrous lies, and statistics."

Tentator, it doesn't really make sense to argue with you. Not because there are not enough convincing arguments to refute your skillful (we must pay tribute!) because it is impossible to change your mind, just as it is impossible to turn a predator into a vegetarian. I've read all the posts, both yours and your opponents'. Whose point of view I fully share, perhaps it is superfluous to say. I will allow myself only a few remarks.

  
And in general, gentlemen, frankly speaking, I feel sorry for my time on this argument.

Well, duck and don't waste it. With you, everything is already clear to us, do not mark your precious biser before...(how do you put it milder?) apologists for Stalinism.

I don't want to repeat thoughts that don't reach biased brains.

That's it! That's a good idea. Only in the category of such brains should, first of all, include your own.

As Bernard Shaw said, the main lesson of history is that young people do not learn any lessons from history.

And your example is the best proof of this.

one thing pleases me: this mode is gone and will never return.

And the arrival of the current" popularly approved " regime in people like you, I suppose, inspires faith in the revival of Russia? Well, well...

No, science will remain in St. Petersburg and Moscow universities, in a number of academic institutions, where it has always been, and where it was part of the general high culture, but the rest of science will have to be forgotten.

How about the rest of the country (outside the Moscow Ring Road)? Amazing arrogance!

And in general, dear Bolivar, don't you think that this topic (in order to avoid further escalation of tension) should be sent to hell?
Everyone has gone too far, both in content and form.

I advise you to send the topic to "Conversation". I do this on "my" forums

The dispute in this section has indeed entered a "suffocating phase".

And as for military history, the tradition of lying is too great.
Just the other day, a friend of mine came to me with a documentary that was dug up somewhere (whether it was torn off from TV, or from somewhere else, but quite recent!!!). In this film, based on documentary evidence (!), it was again proved that the Poles in Katyn were shot by the Germans. And this was after documents were opened in 1990 or 1991 and it was officially recognized that Polish officers were shot on orders from the Kremlin (I don't remember the details). Therefore ,I do NOT want to argue with the statements that "under the leadership of Stalin, the war was won", IT is DISGUSTING.