[RandomName2020]

There was atrocities during Stalin times true. However they were purely ideological by nature; not against ethnicities, cultures etc (those were in fact actively preserved) - Stalin himself was from a tiny minority nation of Georgians. USA, OTOH, eradicated native Americans on a large scale, brought slaves with destroying their culture. USSR after Stalin was far, far less racist than USA, up until its fall in 1990s.

[type0]

> purely ideological by nature; not against ethnicities, cultures etc (those were in fact actively preserved) - Stalin himself was from a tiny minority nation of Georgians.

It doesn't matter what the official stance was, what matters what happened. My own relatives were sent to Siberia for being ethnic minorities, despite that they fought for the reds with the russian troupes in the finnish civil war. You can make excuses as much as you like that it wasn't because of ethnicity but reality was that ideology didn't matter back then. People are hateful by nature, especially to foreign cultures, taking away the lands that feeds your children and sending all men in your family to Siberian death camp doesn't sound like preserving any minority culture to me.

[threesixandnine]

Nothing you said is a proof that what happened has roots in state-wide hate against particular minority. It's personal and biased.

My grandparents were stripped of all land as well and I am 100% certain it was not because of ethnicity since they were of the same as the ruling ethnic majority.

What you are explaining is probably local authorities - humans hated your relatives because of their ethnicity and that was one of the reason they got sent to Siberia. Taking land though was widespread in USSR. It was taken from ethnic Russians as well.

The fact that minorities survived and thrived on the same scale as Russians and got sent and taken land from on the same scale as Russians and got sent to Siberia on the same scale as Russians is a proof that there was no policy to destroy particular minority on a state level. It was a policy to destroy enemies of the state.

[kafkaesq]

The fact that minorities survived and thrived on the same scale as Russians and got sent and taken land from on the same scale as Russians and got sent to Siberia on the same scale as Russians is a proof that there was no policy to destroy particular minority on a state level. It was a policy to destroy enemies of the state.

It is a matter of historical record beyond dispute that certain ethnic groups (e.g. Ukrainians, Poles, Germans, Balts, Tatars, Cossacks, Chechen and Ingush, in particular) were murdered, deported and suffered otherwise disproportionately during Stalin's reign.

You can argue whether this was motivated out of some pure "hatred" or not -- but if so, you'd be splitting hairs.

[kafkaesq]

However they were purely ideological by nature; not against ethnicities, cultures etc (those were in fact actively preserved)

Given the number of, literally, whole peoples picked up, stuffed into boxcars and dumped somewhere halfway across the country (and I bet you can name at least one very famous example from May 1944), and ample evidence of forced Russification in various contexts during the Soviet era -- this is, quite simply, a very weird and bizarre statement to make.

[RandomName2020]

Have you ever been to the former USSR? I am not sure about what you mean by "forced russification" - 15 republics of ex-USSR had two state languages one Russian, one local. Almost every product, produced for local consumption had bilingual package (much like in Canada), (industrial goods manuals however were purely in Russian). Parents could choose if they want their children to be taught in their native languages or in Russian. Every document was bilingual. universities were bilingual (and still are in some republics with significant Russian minorities). Local artist, writers and poets who wrote in local languages were kept in a high regard, received bonuses, medals and all that things.

Overall, "forced russification" was about as bad as "forced Anglification" in Canada. Most of the republics of USSR were similar to Quebec in terms of being dominated by the language and culture of the majority.

Have you seen Spanish-teaching universities in the USA? I have not.

[kafkaesq]

Have you ever been to the former USSR?

I'd prefer not get too much into personal identity or travel itineraries, if you don't mind. Let's just say I have plenty of shared personal context with the former USSR (enough to have found about the topic first through personal contacts, rather than stuff I read in the press or online).

I am not sure about what you mean by "forced russification"

It's kind of hard not to, these days:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#Under_the_Soviet...

Of course forced Anglicization has existed in nearly all parts of the former British Empire, also, and of course the original inhabitants (and other non-Anglophones) of these areas have been treated in many horrible ways long after independence, in some places still are up until the present day, etc, etc. But these are different topics.

Have you seen Spanish-teaching universities in the USA? I have not.

You might want to look at Puerto Rico.

[RandomName2020]

> "forced russification"

If you follow the definition literally, then yes. Yet, Russia always was very careful with the culture of the colonies, way more careful than Britain, France and Westerners in General.

> But these are different topics.

No, actually not. Russia is always disproportionately blamed for being a cultural oppressor, however as an Empire, USSR needed a single unifying culture and language. In that respect, Russians were much less oppressing and arrogant than the British, Spaniards or French.

> You might want to look at Puerto Rico.

I want one in Texas.

[kafkaesq]

Russia is always disproportionately blamed for being a cultural oppressor,

Might have something to do with the early 20th-century body count (whereas most of the other empires managed to get their megakilling sprees wrapped up by 1900 or so). Along with all those sinister Russian accents in Hollywood movies. But yeah, friends of mine have confessed this feeling to me, also (that, as Russians, they feel unduly blamed / hated by the world).

...however as an Empire, USSR needed a single unifying culture and language

Same justification used by... basically every other major empire on the planet, you know.

Either way, this is all getting very far afield from the topic of the original article.

[rdtsc]

> Have you ever been to the former USSR? I am not sure about what you mean by "forced russification"

I have. Yes they did forced Russification.

[eveningcoffee]

Russians have a question: "why do they not love us?".

Instead of admitting that this was wrong and horrible, and understand the part of Russians in it, some (I like to keep this option open that some do not) start to find utterly stupid excuses for it.

Maybe you try to be a different person? A better person, one that could be loved and cherished by your neighbours?

Saying that others did it too or that we also suffered does not cut it.

See, that you suffered because of a tyrant of your is your own fault, that you also together with your tyrant terrorised your neighbours is your fault. Until you keep justifying it, you will not find respect.