ATD Chat Thread XVII

[Namba 17]

I think Namba's been reading a bit too much official Russian propaganda

It seems, that you're an expert about Russian propaganda and about my reading preferences. Could you, please enlighten us about it? What is an aim of it? Are Kostomarov, Soloviev, Kluchevsky, Karamzin - Russian propagandists? Do you know who they are at all?
Do you consider yourself an educated European and me - dirty subhuman who can take knowledge from some primitive propaganda only just because I live in Russia?

(as evidenced by calling Kiev first "Russian" capital, when "Rus" back then had nothing to do with what's the core of Russia these days - i.e. Muscovy).

If you cut this "propaganda" BS we can discuss this question. I'm fan of History, btw, so I know pro and contra of the theory I spoke about. It would be interesting to see if you do.
You may start with answering the question what was the territory of an ancient Russia or Kievan Rus, what language did they speak on this territory and what religion did they have.
Then we can proceed with Dukes' dynasties... right?

That said I'm sure the life of average Russian peasant/worker was just as atrocious as the life of average peasant/worker in Ukraine or Belarus

What you know exactly about the life of an average Russian? What do you mean by "atrocious"? What was the household income? What they could afford and what could not?

 

[Namba 17]

Frankly any era. I don't think you can find a time when a Russian commoner was better off than his counterpart in central Europe even if you go back a thousand years.

"To have a cow in Europe is a sign of luxury. To have no cow is Russia is a sing of awful poverty"

 

[Namba 17]

Not due to the Soviet Union though. The Baltic countries were already more economically sound before 1940. The Soviet occupation didn't do them any good, not even relative to Russia.

I wouldn't say that "didn't any good" is a right term, but my point was that USSR didn't rob the national republics. They could make better without USSR or could not, but they did had the highest living standard in the USSR during all occupation - USSR didn't make live in Russia better at the expense of the Baltic countries.

Yeah, as bad as the Soviet time was for many in Russia: it's not like the country was doing well in Imperial time either. It was economically backward and had an oppressive and ruthless government for ages.

See above
Also, in 1913 Russian Empire had 5th economy in the world after USA, British Empire, Germany and France. And catching up France quickly.
Stupid Nikolashka and WWI ruined everything though.

 

[Theokritos]

Also, in 1913 Russian Empire had 5th economy in the world after USA, British Empire, Germany and France. And catching up France quickly.

By which metric? In University we were taught the following numbers for GDP per capita around 1913 (in $, but not measured with today's dollar value, considering inflation the numbers would be higher today):

United States: circa 5,300
Great Britain: circa 5,150
Switzerland: circa 4,260
Netherlands: circa 4,000
Germany: circa 3,600
France: circa 3,500
Italy: circa 2,500
Russia: circa 1,500

 

[Namba 17]

Russia itself has always been on periphery of Europe.

Hard to imagine where China and India were
USA is on Europe periphery as well, btw

Ukraine ... part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Western Ukraine was and for some comparatively short period of time Central.

Baltics were conquered by Teutonic knights and received massive mercantile immigration from Hanseatic cities

Such as Novgorod... oh, wait! It cannot be! It's European periphery off the main trading routes! Namba read too many Russian propaganda!

 

[Namba 17]

So basically, for Russians, as bad as Stalin was, it was in their mores to expect high levels of suffering, so it felt "continuous" when Stalin arrived?

It's a very complicated question and if you wish we can discuss it. But it will take a lot of time for me to write smth more or less correct and explain it. It's really not that easy question.

 

[MadArcand]

It seems, that you're an expert about Russian propaganda and about my reading preferences. Could you, please enlighten us about it? What is an aim of it? Are Kostomarov, Soloviev, Kluchevsky, Karamzin - Russian propagandists? Do you know who they are at all?
Do you consider yourself an educated European and me - dirty subhuman who can take knowledge from some primitive propaganda only just because I live in Russia?

Obviously not. However trying to paint USSR as some state where Russians were victims of some Georgian-Ukrainian-Jewish complot definitely gives me the vibe of modern historical Russian revisionism (i.e. everything that was good during USSR times was of course Russian achievement, everything bad was caused by Georgians (Stalin), Ukrainians (Khruschev) or even the "perfidious Jews"). And unfortunately I'm exposed to way too much of this propaganda where I live.

If you cut this "propaganda" BS we can discuss this question. I'm fan of History, btw, so I know pro and contra of the theory I spoke about. It would be interesting to see if you do.
You may start with answering the question what was the territory of an ancient Russia or Kievan Rus, what language did they speak on this territory and what religion did they have.
Then we can proceed with Dukes' dynasties... right?

Want to talk of tribal times of Krivichians, Dregovichians, Drevlyans and Severians? Or more about the later Rurikovich principalities? I'd consider the core territory to be duchies of Kiev, Pereyaslavl & Chernihyv, extending westwards into Halych & Volodymyr and northwards through Smolensk, Polotsk etc. all the way to Novgorod. Muscovy, Vladimir & Ryazan were later additions. As for language & religion - really? Would be a proto-east-slavic language (Ruthenian?), from which the East Slavic languages differentiated over time. And Slavic paganism until Vladimir & christianization.

What you know exactly about the life of an average Russian? What do you mean by "atrocious"? What was the household income? What they could afford and what could not?

More than you could imagine, given that my father emigrated from the USSR to Czechoslovakia in the early 80s.

 

[Namba 17]

On the other hand, the core of the Soviet Union was of course Russia (Russian Federative Socialist Republic). That's where the revolution had started in 1917, that's where the Communist state had its origin and base. It was the loyality of the Russian people to the Soviet Union respectively Red Army that made the Union work. Had Ukraine or Belarus or any SSR decided to do away with Communism, it would have been doomed. The Red Army would have forced them back on track. When Russia decided to do away with Communism, the Soviet Union was doomed.

What do you mean by "Ukraine" decided? Who should decide this? As I just showed, most of the Soviet leaders of 70th-80th were either Ukrainians or from the Ukraine. How about "Ukrainians oppressed everybody"?
As for what made Union work... it's another complicated question and we can discuss it as well if you wish

 

[MadArcand]

Such as Novgorod... oh, wait! It cannot be! It's European periphery off the main trading routes! Namba read too many Russian propaganda!

Oh yes, Novgorod. An eternal shame for the Russian people that cultured, mercantile & very civilized Novgorod got crushed and conquered by militant backwards Muscovite Mongol lackeys. The whole history of Russia could've gone a much better way had Novgorod prevailed. Alas, the uncultured militarists tend to conquer the cultured polities more often than not (an even greater shame for the whole world was the fact that Germany got united not by Austrians/Bavarians/some Rhenish principality but by the comparatively barbaric militant Prussians, directly causing two world wars).

 

[Namba 17]

By which metric? In University we were taught the following numbers for GDP per capita around 1913 (in $, but not measured with today's dollar value, considering inflation the numbers would be higher today):

United States: circa 5,300
Great Britain: circa 5,150
Switzerland: circa 4,260
Netherlands: circa 4,000
Germany: circa 3,600
France: circa 3,500
Italy: circa 2,500
Russia: circa 1,500

By GDP. And trying to find a source I found that even 4th.

 

[Namba 17]

Obviously not. However trying to paint USSR as some state where Russians were victims of some Georgian-Ukrainian-Jewish complot

Reread what I wrote. Your interpretation is wrong.

Want to talk of tribal times of Krivichians, Dregovichians, Drevlyans and Severians? Or more about the later Rurikovich principalities? I'd consider the core territory to be duchies of Kiev, Pereyaslavl & Chernihyv, extending westwards into Halych & Volodymyr and northwards through Smolensk, Polotsk etc. all the way to Novgorod. Muscovy, Vladimir & Ryazan were later additions. As for language & religion - really? Would be a proto-east-slavic language (Ruthenian?), from which the East Slavic languages differentiated over time. And Slavic paganism until Vladimir & christianization.

I'll answer this later. It's too late now.

More than you could imagine, given that my father emigrated from the USSR to Czechoslovakia in the early 80s.

Answer my question then, please.

 

[Namba 17]

backwards Muscovite Mongol lackeys.

And this person accuses me of propaganda
They were so lackeys that said to Mongols that they might went to hell

 

[MadArcand]

Answer my question then, please.

I can't tell you what the household income was. Google gives me 195,6 rubles as average monthly income, which actually seems even too low for what I'd expect. However from what my father told me and what I actually remember from the two visits to USSR in my childhood, everything struck me as discount versions of things we had in Czechoslovakia. Flats were significantly smaller and the blocks in much poorer condition, buses were at least a generation behind (they still had the "cucumber buses"), so were TVs and other appliances (the almighty Rubins!). The income and lifestyle of middle class people like teachers & doctors in the USSR was basically on the level of lower class manual workers here. Shortages of many common goods were far more common in the USSR than in the satellite states (where they were hardly unheard of). Honestly I'd guesstimate the quality of life at maybe half of what it was here.

 

[MadArcand]

And this person accuses me of propaganda
They were so lackeys that said to Mongols that they might went to hell

Yeah, after a century and a half of paying tribute.

 

[VanIslander]

REMINDER: Political Discussion is NOT PERMITTED.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Wayne Gretzky
Mario Lemieux
Bobby Orr
Gordie Howe
5. Jaromir Jagr
6. Nicklas Lidstrom
7. Dominik Hasek
8. Jean Beliveau
9. Mark Messier
10. Eric Lindros
11. Joe Sakic

One forum came up with this list.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Folks, let's cool the political talk, please and thank you.

 

[Habsfan18]

The annual THN yearbook has just been released and along with it another edition of the Top 50 players in the NHL list.

I can’t post the complete list due to copyright issues and site rules, but I can post the top 15 for discussion purposes.

1. Nathan MacKinnon
2. Connor McDavid
3. Sidney Crosby
4. Artemi Panarin
5. David Pastrnak
6. Leon Draisaitl
7. Victor Hedman
8. Elias Pettersson
9. Brayden Point
10. Nikita Kucherov
11. Brad Marchand
12. Auston Matthews
13. Jack Eichel
14. Patrick Kane
15. Alex Ovechkin

 

[VanIslander]

In addition to obvious Crosby, Kane, Ovechkin,....

2. McDavid
11. Marchand

A short career, and then there's Marchand, who led his team with 10 even-strength playoff goals to the Stanley Cup, was 1st in goals (2nd in points to Crosby) in the World Cup, and 5th in scoring over the entire decade of the 2010's.

Who is more deserving of the top-200 project?

 

[Johnny Engine]

- "Man, I think MacKinnon might actually be better than McDavid right now" is a thought that I've had over and over again this season, and it sets off my recency bias alarm bells every time. Now, I'm closer to Portugal than I am to most of Western Conference, but it's an opinion that's getting harder and harder for me to shake.
- One defenseman in the top 15 strikes me as wrong. Roman Josi's gotta be a more valuable player at this point than most of the guys in the bottom half there, right? But of course, this is nothing new with mainstream hockey media.
- That said, I think we've circled back around to a similar place to immediately after the lockout where we had Lidstrom, Pronger, Niedermayer, and the 4th best defenseman could have been just about anybody (immediately after Niedermayer's fake retirement, they had Tomas freaking Kaberle as their #3.) Then we had a period of time where any list of the top-10 defensemen was wall to wall with stud #1s (Keith, Doughty, Karlsson, Weber, Chara, Suter, Subban, Pietrangelo, Burns, Giordano, Ekman-Larsson...that's not a top-10, it's me randomly naming names and besides there are 11 names there.) And I think we're back to a place where Hedman and Josi are way better than the next best guys, and if the next best guy is Carlson then it really doesn't look great. I'm a big Jaccob Slavin fan, but I'm not sure where I'd place him next to some of the next few forwards you'd add to that list.

 

[Habsfan18]

Next up on the D list (in order) are Josi, Jones, Carlson, Pietrangelo, Heiskanen.

I agree that we seem to have hit a bit of a “rough” patch in terms of elite D. This of course can be attributed to the fact that Doughty, Keith, Chara, Weber, Karlsson etc are all getting older. With guys like Heiskanen, Makar, Hughes, Werenski and Provorov on the rise I think these lists could look much different in a few short years though.

 

[Theokritos]

Now, I'm closer to Portugal than I am to most of Western Conference

You made me look that up and wow, I wasn't aware that's literally true.

 

[MadArcand]

Definitely if you count Azores. Still closer to Portugal than actual west coast I'd assume, too.

 

[Theokritos]

Still closer to Portugal than actual west coast I'd assume, too.

That's right. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was only the Azores, but it's also true for Portugal proper.

 

[Theokritos]

In fact, St. John's (NL) is closer to Berlin (!) and Helsinki (!) than to Vancouver.

It's also closer to St. Petersburg than it is to Los Angeles.