1
   

I'm Wrong I'm Mistaken I Don't Care I Don't Apologize

 
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 03:06 pm
That's it. I'm turning the car around and driving straight home.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 03:07 pm
Oh hell, I don't own a car, and my licence expired a year ago. Carry on. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:18 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
as a dog returns to it's own vomit.....


...so bipo returns to the gratuitious insults for which he so recently scolded himself.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 07:02 am
dagmaraka wrote:
Ehm, what? Reagan the reason for Soviet Union to collapse? Really? Now that's news to me!

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Really? You must not have been paying attention.


Bill, not one of your best targeted posts. If anyone on this thread paid attention, it was Dagmaraka. She grew up in communist Slovakia, after all. Her family was personally persecuted by the Soviet-sponsored regime there. And they played as much of a role as they could in overturning it. If anyone here can be said to have an inside view on what made the Soviet system collapse, it's her. Compare that to the perspective you are likely to have acquired based purely on what the US media chose to tell you about it, and think again.

I have an opinion too (not because I'm European but because I studied Russia and Eastern Europe Studies and all). I'd say Reagan's cranking up of the arms race definitely seriously contributed to the economic crisis the Soviet Union slowly but certainly grinded towards. And that's about as far as it goes.

Other at least as important elements in the equation were the internal contradictions of the Soviet economic system in itself, the ever resurgent political opposition and civic movements in various Eastern European countries and the sincere enough desire on the part of some reform communists, Gorbachev being a brave example, to reform the system into a more tenable variety. A hopeless cause, but their work on it did lots to bring the old system down.

Without individuals like Gorbachev and Yeltsin or the political undercurrents they represented, the outcome would have been very different, just like it would have been without the dissident activists in CEE or without Reagan's pumping up of the arms race. To credit the eventual collapse of the Eastern Block to any one of them is just silly - and for an American to claim all credits for Reagan is both arrogant and silly.

There. I said my say.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 07:20 am
It is really good to read an alternative view of this!!!!

I hope Dagmaraka will do a long post about it.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 07:27 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
as a dog returns to it's own vomit.....


...so bipo returns to the gratuitious insults for which he so recently scolded himself.


merely a biblical quote Finn...gee you're sensitive......too sensitive.....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 07:33 am
Absent the WMD story, do i think that congress would have voted the use of force? I wonder. We in PA have 2 GOP senators who are usually split except on this issue. i doubt whether Specter would have voted the authority to use force on a flimsy ground of
'Well Saddam is a bad guy" foundation. Invasion needs a demon enemy. Bush used all the demonization skills he could muster. his cabinet was out there doing the spin, amd congress ultimately followed the "evidence" . I just dont think the use of force would have been so easily conferred without WMDs.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 07:34 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
princesspupule wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I do and will continue to oppose anyone who would argue that George Bush (or John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards for that matter) is a psychopath or sociopath.


But, do you agree that if any of them were to ignore the rules of a debate previously agreed upon by him, he should apologize for his mistake? Do you think that if a person, being human and subject to the human errors all men make, if asked to come up with 3, should at least recall having made 1 at some point in his life? Particularly when one was made within the past 90 minutes??? Confused


This issue on Bush apologizing for or admitting mistakes has become a childish game.


Finn, you act intelligent, then allow your partisan blinders to persuade your viewpoint past the point of rational thinking. You are constantly trying to justify your backing for such an abject failure as a president.

Here's where you are missing with the entire Bush administration. Anybody can stay steadfast and "on the path". That's the easy part, hell, my 6 year old nephew is a great example of this (ask him if he ate chocolate with his hands and face covered, he will say no), it doesn't take a strong character to stay on the same path, it takes a strong character to admit your wrong. This is what makes you mature, the ability to look at your decisions from the outside. The ability, and the confidence IN your ability, to admit when you made a mistake!!! This is what maturity is, this is what it means to be a man, yet you are completely glossing over this point.

Bush acted like a spoiled rotten kid, he showed NO semblance of maturity and the US saw this. Why do you think Bush has been slipping in the polls? Because he's a great debater? No, because he showed his true colors. America finally got to see Bush for who he truly is, and they don't like it. They don't like it for all the reasons I listed as well as others in this thread, but you choose to ignore it.

Quote:

Liberals keep insisting that Bush admit to mistakes for no other reason than it irks them that he will not, and Bush refuses to because he doesn't want to give in to them.


No, I actually think it's worse then that. He lacks the MATURITY needed to admit his mistakes. He doesn't even realize that he DID make a mistake, because he lacks the mental capacity to differentiate his true "image" with his person. He has too many people telling him what to say, telling him how great he is, and he actually believes he was right. This is the real scary part, he has the maturity level of about a 12 year old, just look at his reactions and actions over the past 4 years.

Quote:

Its incredible to me that anyone might truly think that Bush doesn't believe he has made mistakes or has never admitted to making a mistake.


So you are admitting Bush is deliberately lying to the American people? This is what you are saying, logic leads us to the conclusion that he is lying to the AMerican people.

A yes or no question for you Finn, simple as that. Does Bush KNOW he made a mistake? If you answer yes, then he is deliberately lying to the American public. If he says no, then he lacks the intellectual capacity to be a good leader, so which is it Finn, yes or no.

Quote:

It is not unreasonable for Bush to believe that his answering this question

1) Will not change the questioner's overall assessment of him.

2) Will likely be used against him.


That's because everything is black and white in his world of good and evil. THe world isn't like that, Bush could STILL get the American people on board if he would admit at least SOME semblance of failure.

You see, Bush is just a spoiled rich kid who is used to getting his way. He is acting exactly like a spoiled rich kid. He has taken NO blame for ANY policy decision or ANY action he has committed over the last 4 years, much as anyone who was never told "NO" would behave. This is a point Bush completely misses, as well as his backers.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 11:57 am
Dagmaraka, I want to offer you my sincere regrets and apologies. I did not mean to slight you in anyway with my flippant, insensitive remark. I meant nothing personal whatsoever.

Nimh, thank you for pointing out my error.

Btw, my opinion isn't formed solely from our slanted press. I spent several years living with a wonderful lady from the Magadan Region, Ukraine. Before coming to this country, she was a teacher of Russian History… and not unlike you nimh, her knowledge of a wide range of subjects was nothing short of staggering. I should add here that she agreed with me on very little :wink: … which translates to she taught me much. Interestingly, despite objecting to Soviet rule (for very, very good reasons), she couldn't always mask her Soviet pride. :smile: I miss her badly.

I agree with this statement completely:

nimh wrote:
To credit the eventual collapse of the Eastern Block to any one of them is just silly - and for an American to claim all credits for Reagan is both arrogant and silly.
I'd add to your reasons that the system itself was so flawed, that given enough time, it would have self destructed with no outside influence whatsoever.

I only meant the timing of the collapse can be attributed to Reagan's perpetual upping of the Anti in the highest stakes game of poker ever. The Soviet's didn't have enough money stay in that game (no one did, that was the point). My ill-timed comment should have been at least long enough to illustrate that this was my meaning. Of course I recognize there were many forces at work... but certainly Reagan's policies accelerated the demise of a system that, IMHO, was doomed to failure from it's conception.

Again, I do apologize for the ill-timing, and poor direction of my thoughtless remark.

Edit= fixed quotes
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 12:14 pm
Tip o' The Hat Bill
Class and Cheesehead are not oxymorons
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 12:51 pm
I havent got a clue whether Dagmaraka would be offended, I would think not at all. She probably thinks I overreacted and spoke before my turn ;-).

Blame it on coming across the "Reagan brought the Soviet Union down" myth one time too many on this board. Of course Reagan's way of upping the ante in the arms race must have sped up the tempo in which the Soviet economy headed for its unavoidable breakdown, no contention there. But that doesn't mean that if Chernenko had not died, for example, and young Gorby had thus never had the chance to move up, the Soviet Union might not still have dragged itself on another decade, with increasingly heavy-handed clampdowns masquing its inability to reinvent itself. If instead of Gorby, Andropov had presided over an increasingly restive population, he might have opted for the Chinese route: economic reform combined with violent political repression. That, too, might have given the ossified system a new temporary lease of life.

And then there's the movements from below. Without Gorbachev's rather idealistic decision to implement glasnost' (openness, free press) first and perestrojka (economic-systemic reform) later - thus dooming his sincere attempt to save the communist system by straight away opening up a democratic "Pandora's box" of systemic dissent - they wouldn't have had a chance, perhaps. But as it is they did, and they grabbed it with both hands. If it were not for the Baltic states pressing ever more boldly for independence, for Yeltsin undermining Soviet imperialism from inside, for reform communists in Hungary and Poland taking the ball and running with it, agreeing to the truly free elections Gorbachev himself would not allow in the SU, and cutting open the Iron Curtain (thus dooming the GDR to dissolution) - if they all had not continually pushed Gorbachev on, forced him to make ever new compromises, then who knows what wishy-washy mid-way reform Russia would have stalled at - look at Vietnam. And you're right - I agree that the system was so afflicted by its internal contradictions that, lacking the will anymore to rule through terror like Stalin had, it was fated to succumb sooner or later.

Reagan sure added a vital element to this brew, upping the pressure in the pressure cooker, and perhaps without his upping of the ante the breakdown would have taken longer. On the other hand, the success of his gamble in the end depended on various other things falling into place as well - without Gorbachev or the dissident and civic movements from below, the costs of the arms race might well not have led to a breakdown yet for another decade either. Look at Cuba - the economic strongarming on the part of the US has ever further corrupted its system, but it hasn't succeeded in bringing it down (alas).

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Btw, my opinion isn't formed solely from our slanted press. I spent several years living with a wonderful lady from the Magadan Region, Ukraine. Before coming to this country, she was a teacher of Russian History… and not unlike you nimh, her knowledge of a wide range of subjects was nothing short of staggering. I should add here that she agreed with me on very little :wink: … which translates to she taught me much. Interestingly, despite objecting to Soviet rule (for very, very good reasons), she couldn't always mask her Soviet pride. :smile: I miss her badly.

<smiles>

Thats sweet. And this bit - "I should add here that she agreed with me on very little … which translates to she taught me much" - really says something fundamental about you - and it's good to have people like you here on A2K. It should be the tagline for A2K Politics! ;-)

(Btw, I don't know a Magadan in the Ukraine, but I know a Magadan in the Russian Far East - and if thats where she was from (one of the nerve centers of the Gulag) she surely must have had good reason to object to Soviet rule!)

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I only meant the timing of the collapse can be attributed to Reagan's perpetual upping of the Anti in the highest stakes game of poker ever. The Soviet's didn't have enough money stay in that game (no one did, that was the point). [..] Of course I recognize there were many forces at work... but certainly Reagan's policies accelerated the demise of a system that, IMHO, was doomed to failure from it's conception.

Well, it seems we are fully in agreement ;-)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 01:12 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
as a dog returns to it's own vomit.....


...so bipo returns to the gratuitious insults for which he so recently scolded himself.


merely a biblical quote Finn...gee you're sensitive......too sensitive.....


I must be, because I actually assumed that your otherwise irrelevant posting; coming on the heels of mine, was intentional. Not only am I too sensitive, clearly I am too generous. I now understand that this was simply another irrelevant posting. I apologize for being too sensitive and assuming mindful intent.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 01:13 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
as a dog returns to it's own vomit.....


...so bipo returns to the gratuitious insults for which he so recently scolded himself.


merely a biblical quote Finn...gee you're sensitive......too sensitive.....


I must be, because I actually assumed that your otherwise irrelevant posting; coming on the heels of mine, was intentional. Not only am I too sensitive, clearly I am too generous. I now understand that this was simply another irrelevant posting. I apologize for being too sensitive and assuming mindful intent.


meowww sweetie.....
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 01:48 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
princesspupule wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I do and will continue to oppose anyone who would argue that George Bush (or John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards for that matter) is a psychopath or sociopath.


But, do you agree that if any of them were to ignore the rules of a debate previously agreed upon by him, he should apologize for his mistake? Do you think that if a person, being human and subject to the human errors all men make, if asked to come up with 3, should at least recall having made 1 at some point in his life? Particularly when one was made within the past 90 minutes??? Confused


This issue on Bush apologizing for or admitting mistakes has become a childish game.


Finn, you act intelligent, then allow your partisan blinders to persuade your viewpoint past the point of rational thinking. You are constantly trying to justify your backing for such an abject failure as a president.

And you Joe are constantly flabbergasted that anyone you graciously deem intelligent might actually disagree with you. Who is wearing the blinders?

Here's where you are missing with the entire Bush administration. Anybody can stay steadfast and "on the path". That's the easy part, hell, my 6 year old nephew is a great example of this (ask him if he ate chocolate with his hands and face covered, he will say no), it doesn't take a strong character to stay on the same path, it takes a strong character to admit your wrong. This is what makes you mature, the ability to look at your decisions from the outside. The ability, and the confidence IN your ability, to admit when you made a mistake!!! This is what maturity is, this is what it means to be a man, yet you are completely glossing over this point.

Not at all. If you would take the time to read what I write rather than immediately leaping to one of your obnoxious lectures, you would have seen that I characterized the back and forth as a childish game. The insistent demand that the question be answered, and the insistent refusal to do so. There is plenty of immaturity to go around on both sides.

It appears that you are glossing over the motivation behind the constant repition of this question. If Bush is everything you say he is, then that has already been made clear by his refusal to answer the question many times before. What, then, is the point of continuing to ask the question? Those who are asking the question ad nauseum do so because they wish to place Bush in a "gotcha position" not because they are sincerely interested in learning of what errors he thinks he may have made. He did show a willful peevishness in not answering the question the first few times it was asked, but now he has boxed himself into a no-win situation.

It was a stupid move on his part, and indicative of a unfortunate personality trait, but it is not indicative of the extreme character flaw you and others would have us all believe.


Bush acted like a spoiled rotten kid, he showed NO semblance of maturity and the US saw this. Why do you think Bush has been slipping in the polls? Because he's a great debater? No, because he showed his true colors. America finally got to see Bush for who he truly is, and they don't like it. They don't like it for all the reasons I listed as well as others in this thread, but you choose to ignore it.

It's amazing Joe; isn't it? You keep laying out all of these brilliant and irrefutable arguments and I keep ignoring them. What's wrong with me?

Quote:

Liberals keep insisting that Bush admit to mistakes for no other reason than it irks them that he will not, and Bush refuses to because he doesn't want to give in to them.


No, I actually think it's worse then that. He lacks the MATURITY needed to admit his mistakes. He doesn't even realize that he DID make a mistake, because he lacks the mental capacity to differentiate his true "image" with his person. He has too many people telling him what to say, telling him how great he is, and he actually believes he was right. This is the real scary part, he has the maturity level of about a 12 year old, just look at his reactions and actions over the past 4 years.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion no matter how unreasonable I may think it is.

Quote:

Its incredible to me that anyone might truly think that Bush doesn't believe he has made mistakes or has never admitted to making a mistake.


So you are admitting Bush is deliberately lying to the American people? This is what you are saying, logic leads us to the conclusion that he is lying to the AMerican people.

A yes or no question for you Finn, simple as that. Does Bush KNOW he made a mistake? If you answer yes, then he is deliberately lying to the American public. If he says no, then he lacks the intellectual capacity to be a good leader, so which is it Finn, yes or no.

Please spare me the Junior High debating tactics.

Bush is not saying "I have never made a mistake in my life."

What he has said, and rather foolishly, is "I can't think of any mistakes I've made right now."

If you wish to define this as deliberate lying (and I know you do), go right ahead, but what it actually is a clumsy attempt to not only not take the bait but to not get hooked either. By answering as he did, he hooked himself.

What he should have done was to answer the original question in a manner in which the silver tongued John Kerry would have: " I have made numerous mistakes over my life and during my administration. None of the mistakes I made during my presidency have, fortunately, had serious consequences for the American people, and, more importantly, I have learned quite a lot from each of them."

It would have been a disingenuous answer for certain, but it would have been just the sort of answer Kerry and numerous other politicians would have provided and the world would have moved on.

By the way, in his answer to this question during the debate he did admit to making mistakes with certain governmental appointments but that he would not specifiy the positions or name the people. Apparently that wasn't good enough for you. In your infinite wisdom you have somehow concluded that the only way Bush can answer the question with maturity and honesty is to announce to the world that

1) He made a mistake stealing the election in 2000
2) He made a mistake giving the filthy rich a tax cut
3) He made a mistake in lying about WMDs
4) He made a mistake in needlessly sending American men and women to their deaths in Iraq
5) He made a mistake running for re-election and not simply throwing himself off a cliff.


Quote:

It is not unreasonable for Bush to believe that his answering this question

1) Will not change the questioner's overall assessment of him.

2) Will likely be used against him.


That's because everything is black and white in his world of good and evil. THe world isn't like that, Bush could STILL get the American people on board if he would admit at least SOME semblance of failure.

I have no idea how this is relevant to what I wrote.

You see, Bush is just a spoiled rich kid who is used to getting his way. He is acting exactly like a spoiled rich kid. He has taken NO blame for ANY policy decision or ANY action he has committed over the last 4 years, much as anyone who was never told "NO" would behave. This is a point Bush completely misses, as well as his backers.


Yes, everyone misses the point but Joe.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 02:09 pm
Yet another wonderful post, nimh and an interesting link to boot! I'm glad we wound up in agreement! (You're a tough guy to disagree with :wink:).

nimh wrote:
I havent got a clue whether Dagmaraka would be offended, I would think not at all. She probably thinks I overreacted and spoke before my turn ;-).
Makes no difference. I was out of line and I appreciate your pointing it out.

nimh wrote:
(Btw, I don't know a Magadan in the Ukraine, but I know a Magadan in the Russian Far East - and if thats where she was from (one of the nerve centers of the Gulag) she surely must have had good reason to object to Soviet rule!)
Confused My memory is probably worse than your geography. I'm certain that she grew up in a tiny Gold Mining town (if you can believe that) that existed for the sole purpose of that endeavor. Something like a thousand residents, a thousand miles from the next nearest community. The only time we got into specific detail is when we were translating her resume and school history. If there is a University in the Russian Magadan Region you reference, perhaps that's where I made my error. I also recall her spending time at Lugansk, formerly Voroshilovgrad, city in eastern Ukraine... and thought that was where she attended school. I've always thought that her first time in Mother Russia was in Moscow, in route to the United States... but I could be wrong. Perhaps I am just spelling Magadan Region wrong? Or just crossed two facts in my memory… I don't know. I looked up the 25 regions that make up Ukraine and it only confused me more. Confused I probably have a copy of that resume around here… but it occurs to that at this point I'm probably just babbling for my own benefit anyway. Embarrassed She really was wonderful… but the strict Russian Orthodox religion proved a bit much for me. Sad
(okay, I'll stop babbling now)
(make that; for now :wink:)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 04:03 pm
<grins>

Well, if it was a town of only a thousand residents then it could well be anywhere, my grasp of Russian geography doesn't quite extend to that level of detail! Razz

Plus, Lugansk is indeed in the Ukraine ...

Then again, "a thousand miles from the next nearest community" doesn't sound like the Ukraine - whereas Magadan in the Far East would definitely fit that bill. And Magadan in the Far East (and the surrounding Kolyma) is indeed a centre of gold mining.

Why is this at all interesting? Because Magadan in the Far East is not just any town. It was the port to the Kolyma, perhaps the Gulag's most notorious concentration of forced labour/death camps, described in Varlam Shalamov's memoirs, Kolyma Tales).

To quote Anne Applebaum's Gulag - A History,

Quote:
In the same way that Auschwitz has become, in popular memory, the camp which symbolizes all other Nazi camps, so too has the word "Kolyma" come to signify the greatest hardships of the Gulag. "Kolyma", wrote one historian, "is a river, a mountain range, a region and a metaphor." Rich in minerals - and above all rich in gold - the vast Kolyma region in the far north-eastern corner of Siberia, on the Pacific coast, may well be the most inhospitable part of Russia. Kolyma is cold [..] - temperatures there regularly fall to more than 49 degrees Fahrenheit below zero in the winter [..] To reach the camps of Kolyma, prisoners travelled by train across the entire length of the USSR - sometimes a three-month journey - to Vladiviostok. They made the rest of the trip by boat, travelling north past Japan, through the Sea of Ochotsk, to the port of Magadan, the gateway to the Kolyma River valley.

When Dalstroi, the huge trust that was to exploit the region's mineral assets through the Gulag prisoners' forced labour, was first set up, it was, typically, out of nothing:

Quote:
the first years were fraught with the same chaos and disorganisation that prevailed elsewhere. By 1932, nearly 10,000 prisoners were at work [..] along with more than 3,000 voluntary "free workers" [..] The high numbers were accompanied by high death rates. Of the 16,000 prisoners who travelled to Kolyma in [the] first year, only 9,928 even reached Magadan alive. The rest were thrown, underclothed and underprotected, into the winter storms: survivors of the first year would later claim that only half of their number had lived.

Yet the first years that followed were still relatively benign. Prisoners got adequate food and warm clothing, three rest days a month, and didnt need to work "when the frost dipped below minus 60 degrees". Exiles still were allowed to keep books and papers, and exile families were not yet split up. (It's from such "favours" that one can tell how bad it was to become later.) It was the prisoners who built Magadan, "which contained 15,000 people by 1936". Applebaum quotes the writer Evgeniya Ginzburg:

Quote:
How strange is the heart of man! My whole soul cursed those who had thought up the idea of building a town in this permafrost, thawing out the ground with the blood and tears of innocent people. Yet at the same time I was aware of a sort of ridiculous pride ... How it had grown, and how handsome had it become during my seven years' absence, our Magadan! Quite unrecognizable. I admired each street lamp, each section of asphalt [..] We treasure each fragment of our life, even the bitterest.

By 1934, some sort of order seemed in place. "Death rates dropped from their high of 1933 as famine across the country receded and camps became better organised." But "the relative calm was not to last. Abruptly, the system was to turn itself inside out, in a revolution that would destroy masters and slaves alike": the Great Terror. It would devour camp bosses as well as inmates, and Magadan's camp boss, Eduard Berzin, was one of the most prominent to fall.

Ordered back to Moscow, "Berzin left Vladivostok as a first-class passenger, [but] arrived a prisoner." Purges swept the Kolyma camps and "by the time it was over, hundreds of people who had been associated with Berzin, from geologists to bureaucrats to engineers, were either dead or had themselves become prisoners".

The camps themselves "once again overflowed with new" prisoners. About another Siberian camp it's noted that "lacking barracks, prisoners built zemlyanki, dugouts in the earth". Death rates doubled within a year and "are presumed to be much higher in those far northern camps - Kolyma, Vorkuta, Norilsk - where political prisoners were sent in large numbers." NKVD orders appeared that "contained execution quotas for Gulag prisoners".

Meanwhile, Dalstroi still attempted to also attract free citizens to such places as Magadan, offering 20 percent higher wages, paid vacations and a generous pension. The propaganda press wrote glowingly of the city's appeal:

Quote:
The sea of lights that is Magadan by night is a most stirring and alluring spectacle. This is a town which is alive and bustling every minute of the day and night. It swarms with people whose lives are regulated by a strict working schedule. Accuracy and promptness begets speed, and speed becomes easy and happy work ...

The reality: "One prisoner recalled having been sent, with a building brigade, 600 kilometres north of Magadan to build a bridge. Once they arrived, they realized that no one in the brigade had ever built a bridge before. One of the prisoners, an engineer, was put in charge of the project, although bridges were not his specialty. The bridge was built. It was also washed away in the first flood."

Officially, working days were extended to 11 hours, in practice many prisoners worked longer. When new camps were established, the prisoners first had to build them:

Quote:
Janusz Sieminski, a Polish prisoner in Kolyma after the war, was also once part of a team that constructed a new lagpunkt "from zero", in the depths of winter. "At night, prisoners slept on the ground. Many died, particularly those who lost the battle to sleep near the fire."

Hunger and cold permeated everything. In 1939, a Kolyma doctor pointed out "that prisoners were being made to eat their food outdoors, and that it froze while it was being eaten." Vladimir Petrov, a prisoner in Kolyma, recalls a period of five days without any food deliveries in his camp: "real famine set in at the mine. Five thousand men did not have a piece of bread." In winter, it was so cold that "touching a metal tool with a bare hand could tear off the skin"; in summer, "the surface of the tundra turns to mud [..] and mosquitos appear to travel in gray clouds":

Quote:
as you were eating your soup, the mosquitos would fill up the bowl like buckwheat porridge. They filled up your eyes, your nose and throat, and the taste of them was sweet, like blood. The more you moved and waved them away, the more they attacked.

Worst of all was Dalstroi's punishment camp, Serpantinnaya, "located on the northern slope of the hills just above Magadan." A sentence there was equated with a sentence to death, and little is known about it because so few survived to tell the story. One survivor

Quote:
described the barracks as so overcrowded that prisoners took turns sitting on the floor while everyone else remained standing. In the mornings, the door would open and the names of ten or twelve prisoners would be called. No one would answer. The first people that came to hand were then dragged out and shot.

Meanwhile, Berzins successor, Ivan Nikishov, lived in luxury, having equipped himself "with a large personal security force, luxury automobiles, sweeping offices and a magnificent dacha overlooking the Pacific Ocean", the latter equipped with oriental carpets and crystal chandeliers. Yet many of the ordinary guards were simply opting for the only available opportunity to earn a little more, secure a little better pension - or had been sent to the camps themselves on strict orders, without having been told where their next job would be.

Reading Applebaum's book, I get the sense that Dalstroi, with its own "inmate troupe", which performed in Magadan, "benefiting from the many well-known singers and dancers incarcerated in Kolyma", became an odd mix between the Holocaust and the Frontier, a concentration of death and cruelty and at the same time the place where the desperate and adventurous went to carve out a new life. No wonder that your friend, if it was indeed this Magadan she had lived in, demonstrated this contradictory mix of "objection to Soviet rule" and "Soviet pride" - she would not be the only one.

... This post with thanks to Anne Applebaum's astounding book, which I am now halfway in reading ...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 04:54 pm
Got a little carried away there ... since all of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand of this thread, I think it's probably better off in a thread of its own ...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 05:15 pm
I posted in your new thread... even further off topic than you, I assure you. Embarrassed
Thank you for an awesome post. That one really struck me! Smile
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 12:10 pm
nimh wrote:
Thats sweet. And this bit - "I should add here that she agreed with me on very little … which translates to she taught me much" - really says something fundamental about you - and it's good to have people like you here on A2K. It should be the tagline for A2K Politics! ;-)


Indeed!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2004 01:50 pm
Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 06:07:08