Draft talk:Denial of Soviet occupation

Do you have any references...
...that point to such a denialism having any real intellectual legs? RaoulDuke 13:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope to add those references soon.

Denial of American occupation
...is the refusal to admit military occupations of many Western European countries, Asian countries, Middle Eastern countries, Caribbean countries, Latin American countries since the aftermath of World War II.

Does that look, more, less, or as stupid as what's in this article now? RaoulDuke 14:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have lived trough Soviet occupation, can you say the same about yourself? For more information about the occupation, click here.

--Earthland 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What you lived through, as horrible as it might have been, isn't relevant to need for this article. RaoulDuke 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your examples...
wow. so the Soviets used to say that there was no Soviet occupation of the places they were occupying. That's profound. I bet no other military power/empire in the world ever said such a thing before. Let's talk about deleting this puppy. RaoulDuke 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Denial seems to be the official position of the Russian Federation. They still claim occupation was somehow "liberation". Probably you have something personal against me. --Earthland 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. And Americans still say the same thing about Cuba and the Phillipines. so what? And you're the one who has twice made this "personal" and "about you," not me. RaoulDuke 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * More than fifty years of foreign rule and a lot of human rights violation, and in 14 countries at the same time is slightly different. Search for some information on communistcrimes.org. And they not only deny but also call themselves liberators, while everyone who don't agree with them are "nazis" and sometimes it causes big troubles.--Earthland 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When do we get "denial of English occupation of Wales and Scotland" (Now Ireland ...) and "denial of Yankee occupation of the South"? 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I reckon merge it with Soviet Union, that article could do with some RW relevant content and something along these lines would work. 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps imperialism? either way, there's no way that this topic deserves an article all on its lonesome. The Russians say the Russians don't occupy places. In other news, the sun came up today. RaoulDuke 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd work in Imperialism as that is hording some examples that could do with some extra work. 16:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging sounds like a good idea. It's interesting information, but I don't see how it warrants its own stub. -- 18:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My 2 goats
To be honest, I think there is a good case for this article, and its not being merged - it's another fork of the 'Holodomor didn't happen, there weren't any purges, and Stalin was a pretty nice guy actually' pseudohistory expounded by a lot of people in Russia, especially a lot of government people, during this period. I don't think that just because 'America did it too'/'it's too small a topic', which seems to be one of Raoul Duke's objections, we shouldn't have an article on this.

I don't think Earthland's doing himself any favours here with his arguing style, but this article does have a place, especially if linked in with the broader attempt to rehabilitate the Communists, and especially Stalin. --  ䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡   ䷶䷀䷵䷥
 * I'm becoming more convinced there's a place for the argument--but not as an article on its own. There's such a "thing" as, say, Holocaust denial; but it seems that on its own, the "denial of Soviet military occupation" is held only by--gauging by the references--Soviet military personnel and their apologists. A broader argument on this plus the Holomodor denial and the general antsiness on the part of some lefties to acknowledge Soviet crimes would be double plus good. On its own, this is destined for stubbiness. RaoulDuke 16:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe something along the lines of 'Stalinist Apologism' then? --  ䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡   ䷶䷀䷵䷥
 * These issues are not isolated to Stalinism; the Soviet Union denied the Holodomor all the way up until its collapse, and several prominent Holodomor deniers are not Stalinists. 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But the issues being 'explained away' for are mostly Stalin's ones - and the attempt to rehabilitate the communist period is largely directed at Stalin. How would you title it? --  ䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡   ䷶䷀䷵䷥
 * What about the Prague Spring? The Soviets' reaction to that was framed in fairly Orwellian terms. 16:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reality is certainly being denied in some of these quotes, but I'm not sure that makes it denialism. Not as in an organised movement like Global warming or holocaust denialism. On the other hand, maybe we're just not sufficiently familiar with eastern european politics.--BobNot Jim 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is true that no facts are being denied here, as with the Holodomor or Holocaust, the differences being more of an ideological nature. 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting propaganda letters on the topic. In this letter, they probably address the "occupation or not" issue: "We understand you have your own vision of the history, but do not permit yourselves to be hypnotized, do not let ignorant people thrust their opinion on you. If for 70 years there was one truth and now suddenly it is turned inside out, doesn’t it look weird? Or maybe such transformation of human minds is beneficial for someone? Be careful and don’t take things for granted."

Well, it sounds like a sort of mind control. --Earthland 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's a case for this subject, though the current article is a mess. Most Baltic nationals saw the arrival of the Nazis as a liberation. There is today a knee-jerk tendency to condemn them for this, which disregards the year of brutal occupation to which they had just been subjected, and which was to return.

Qwertyuiop 11:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)