Banning all things and people Russian

And when did the USSR do their people-shuffling into those nations, hm?
Pretty much up until the USSR ended, from what I've been told and seen.

The Soviets were bent on Russify-ing all of Eastern Europe, and kept at it till the USSR fell apart and the apparatus supporting said efforts ceased to exist (at least for a while).
 
Pretty much up until the USSR ended, from what I've been told and seen.

The Soviets were bent on Russify-ing all of Eastern Europe, and kept at it till the USSR fell apart and the apparatus supporting said efforts ceased to exist (at least for a while).

Got any sourcing on that?

From what I've seen, the major people-shuffling was more or less over by the middle of the century.
 
Ugh.
As to the name changes, I thought that that was just part of the whole Naturalization/Melting pot policy?
Kissinger for example changed his name from Hans to Henry IIRC.

Also, prior to the world wars Germans had a pretty large, pretty socially autonomous society in America, complete with their own schools that taught pupils in German IIRC.
It was much worse checking it. Full on remember no German.
In the fall of 1917, the fight against Germans in Europe was extended to their Kultur in the United States. This battle against all things German included a ban on the use of the German language in schools, universities, libraries, and religious services. Additionally, German societies, musical organizations, and theaters were shuttered and the German-language press in America was forced to shut down. Patriotic organizations claimed that the preservation of the German language would hinder German-Americans’ assimilation into American life and, even worse, brutalize young people: “Any language which produces a people of ruthless conquestadors [sic] such as now exist in Germany, is not a fit language to teach clean and pure American boys and girls.”[16] In most public schools, teachers were forced to sign loyalty pledges, and many pupils no longer dared to enroll in German-language courses. By March 1918, thirty-eight out of forty-eight states had restricted or ended German-language instruction in schools. Ohio, Iowa, and Nebraska passed the strictest language laws in the country; since their laws also prohibited the use of any foreign language in public places or on the telephone, the U.S. Supreme Court declared them to be unconstitutional in 1923 and 1925, respectively.[17] Public and university libraries ended their subscriptions to German-language newspapers, books written in German and even English books that dealt with Germany and Austria-Hungary (such as history books or tourist guides) were stowed in basements for the duration of the war. However, some libraries went so far as to destroy them or to sell them as wastepaper; several of these books were actually publicly burned along with German-language newspapers during local patriotic celebrations.

Most German-American congregations suffered from the language ban, and many of them eventually switched to English for their religious services. Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites were among the groups that were most heavily exposed to hostility, because their members were not only of German descent but also generally opposed to military participation. (Ironically, they had once left Europe to evade military service and find religious tolerance.) During wartime, however, their pacifist creed was taken as proof of their pro-German sympathies; the fact that most of them kept apart from their American neighbors made them even more suspect. In general, they chose not to comment on the public discourse; they continued to operate their own schools, cherished their old customs, spoke their German dialects, and resisted Americanization. None of them felt any loyalty toward Germany; they just wanted to be left alone to practice their faith and live according to their religious beliefs. Many so-called patriotic organizations were irritated by this behavior, and they renewed their efforts to force those groups to contribute to the war effort. Several members of these religious groups were beaten, churches were destroyed, their cattle was sold in order to buy liberty bonds in their names, and American flags were hoisted on their schools. These religious communities were left with two options: either to suffer this treatment or emigrate. The more liberal congregations chose the first option and worked out a compromise with the Wilson government in which they allowed their young men to participate in the civil service. Still, some Mennonites were drafted into the armed forces, and several of them were jailed as conscientious objectors. More than 1,500 Mennonites and Hutterites finally migrated to Canada during the war in order to escape further harassment and prosecution.[18] In times of frantic mobilization, when the German language was as much an enemy as Imperial Germany itself and when war opponents were seen as traitors, there was no room for tolerance for ethnic peculiarities and pacifist ideals.

These self-proclaimed patriotic organizations also started campaigns to Americanize the United States nominally. Hundreds of German names for towns, streets, parks, and public buildings were changed. Extremely recognizable German names such as “Berlin” or “Hamburg” became “Pershing” or “Belgium.” Many German-Americans sought to avoid further harassment by changing their family names, often shortening them or translating them into English. The same was true for most cultural societies. Actual legislation or local pressure led to changes in club names, the halting of publications (or at least a switch to English), an end to meetings for the duration of the war or even the outright termination of clubs. Several German theaters that were dependent on the language skills of their patrons had to give up performing in the years to come. Even music fell victim to patriotic scrutiny. Most well-known orchestras had conductors and musicians who were either German or German-American, such as Frederick Stock of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Ernst Kunwald of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, or Karl Muck, the conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra (who ended up in Fort Oglethorpe), to name only the most prominent. Many orchestras and opera houses stopped playing works by German and Austrian composers such as Beethoven or Mozart to avoid being labeled disloyal. For some patriotic societies, German music was particularly perilous since it stirred the emotions of listeners; for others, it was a perfect tool for German propaganda: “German music, as a whole, is dangerous, in that it preaches the same philosophy, or rather sophistry, as most of the German literature. It is the music of conquest, the music of the storm, of disorder, and devastation.”[19]

German-language newspapers also came under intense pressure from these so-called patriotic organizations. Many readers cancelled their subscriptions, companies stopped advertising in them, no one wanted to deliver them anymore, and vendors stopped selling them. Many of them switched to English, some merged with former competitors, others ceased operations for the duration of the war. Many ethnic societies and German-language papers failed to survive the war; still, not all of them were destroyed. Though strongly diminished, several continued into the decades after the war.

On the whole, the treatment of German-Americans during the war varied from region to region and depended on their numbers and on the behavior of local politicians and attorney generals. There was less harassment in places where there were few citizens of German descent, since they were not perceived as a real threat. Likewise, there were fewer arrests of German-Americans and less scrutiny in places where local politicians and lawyers resolved not to enforce laws to the fullest. However, when politicians and officials decided to use the situation to advance their careers, they were often able to incite a community to hatred against anyone who appeared to dissent – just as Joseph McCarthy did thirty years later. As a result of the war, many German-Americans preferred to conceal their ethnic background, as could be seen in the first postwar census, when about 900,000 German-born Americans seemingly vanished, only to reappear under the categories of American-born or other ethnicity.[20] Insofar as they held onto their German language, culture, and traditions at all, many German-Americans did so in private or turned it into folklore.
 
Got any sourcing on that?

From what I've seen, the major people-shuffling was more or less over by the middle of the century.
I'd heard this sort of this for years on SB and saw stuff on Twitter of a similar type, in threads relating to the early days of the Ukraine conflict/war, when the rebels still had some international good will before they blew that airliner.

I would also point out how Putin's rhetoric, and Russian national broadcasters, around the Baltic and Eastern Europe treats them as extensions of Russia that rightfully are subservient to Moscow. They imported their people to the Baltics and the like specifically so they could try shit like this down the line using the excuse of 'Russian speaking minorities being oppressed' because the nations do not obey Moscow any longer.

I would recommend watching vids by Artur Rehi who is an Estonian soldier with local, on the ground knowledge of how Russia is viewed by the Baltics and why. Also does excellent military analysis and history reaction vids.
 
Last edited:
Comparisons to what was done to Native Americans are disingenuous at best. The thing about Natives is that they are Native to these lands, and were moved so that others could have said lands. These Russians are not native to these other nations, and were moved there to undermine the populations and cultures of those lands. If anything, it's more comparable to say the Soviets have done to these other countries what was done to Natives as far as conquering them and disrupting their cultures and languages. The difference is that these countries have been given something of a second chance in reasserting themselves in their homelands, but there is still this threat represented by these people who are ethnically foreigners, which is underlined by what has happened in Ukraine. This isn't a bug, it's a feature. Is it a bit complicating that we are talking about people who are decedents of these foreigners? Yes, but only to an extent. If they wish to remain in these nations, among their people, then they should embrace these cultures and become a part of them. If they wish to remain Russian, then they should move back to Russia, and I can't find much fault in countries who wish to insist on this if these people both wish to remain Russian and remain where they are rather than moving voluntarily. This isn't Jackson moving tribes to steal their land, more like the other way around, if tribes had been able to remove white settlers who had moved onto their land.
You do realize that "native" is something of a massive stretch in Europe, right?
Just looking at my country, we started off on Crimea, then split into 2(3-4) separate subtribes, with one joining the "native" Balkan slavs to fight Byzantium.
The slaves themselves were not native to the land, either, with them coming in the 5th century and assimilating most of the "native" Greco-Roman byzantines who had in turn subdued the ancient Thracian tribes and states in the area, some leftovers of which the Slavs joined with.
Some of the slavs got Byzantinised, some did not.
Then we have the so-called Macedonians who claim that they are somehow the offspring of Alexander the great despite having a slavic language and culture.

The situation is the same with the Ukraine, which came into existence after the biggest Kievan Rus successor state consolidated the others and in a much different geographic size than modern Ukraine.
Furthermore, Eastern Ukraine, crimea and the south-west were added to the Ukrainian SSR by the commies, because they wanted to dilute the pro-capitalist Ukrainian kulak peasantry with Russian industrial workers.
Places like Odessa were part of Russia long before there ever was a Ukraine and they have deep cultural ties to Russia and a large ethnic and cultural Russian population.
To the people living in those areas though, it did not matter if they wre moved from one of the USSR's republics to another, since the change was probably even less pronounced than, say, moving a few cities from California to Oregon, since the USSR was far more centralized and legally uniform.

It was much worse checking it. Full on remember no German.

I am pretty sure that somebody will want to do the same with the various Latinos.
Not that it is necessarily a bad idea though, since polyglot countries eventually fall apart like Austria-Hungary did, this is basically the melting pot approach on steroids.
And multiculturalism is probably doomed to failure unless it is done in a very loose federation that eventually coalesces into a dominant monoculture through centuries of integration and something in common - land or religion or language, maybe a cause.But cause and idea based countries are IMHO the least viable long-term.
 
Last edited:
I'd heard this sort of this for years on SB and saw stuff on Twitter of a similar type, in threads relating to the early days of the Ukraine conflict/war, when the rebels still had some international good will before they blew that airliner.

'I heard people on SB and Twitter say things' is not a source.

]Here's what I've generally seen when I was looking around. There were other sources, but this easily compiled it in one place.
 
You do realize that "native" is something of a massive stretch in Europe, right?
Just looking at my country, we started off on Crimea, then split into 2(3-4) separate subtribes, with one joining the "native" Balkan slavs to fight Byzantium.
The slaves themselves were not native to the land, either, with them coming in the 5th century and assimilating most of the "native" Greco-Roman byzantines who had in turn subdued the ancient Thracian tribes and states in the area, some leftovers of which the Slavs joined with.
Some of the slavs got Byzantinised, some did not.
Then we have the so-called Macedonians who claim that they are somehow the offspring of Alexander the great despite having a slavic language and culture.

The situation is the same with the Ukraine, which came into existence after the biggest Kievan Rus successor state consolidated the others and in a much different geographic size than modern Ukraine.
Furthermore, Eastern Ukraine, crimea and the south-west were added to the Ukrainian SSR by the commies, because they wanted to dilute the pro-capitalist Ukrainian kulak peasantry with Russian industrial workers.
Places like Odessa were part of Russia long before there ever was a Ukraine and they have deep cultural ties to Russia and a large ethnic and cultural Russian population.
To the people living in those areas though, it did not matter if they wre moved from one of the USSR's republics to another, since the change was probably even less pronounced than, say, moving a few cities from California to Oregon, since the USSR was far more centralized and legally uniform.



I am pretty sure that somebody will want to do the same with the various Latinos.
Not that it is necessarily a bad idea though, since polyglot countries eventually fall apart like Austria-Hungary did, this is basically the melting pot approach on steroids.
And multiculturalism is probably doomed to failure unless it is done in a very loose federation that eventually coalesces into a dominant monoculture through centuries of integration and something in common - land or religion or language, maybe a cause.But cause and idea based countries are IMHO the least viable long-term.

The US did it again during the Second World War, we all talk about the Japanese internment camps but the German and Italian Americans who were sent to camps never even got an apology
 
So....

We should send all Islamics home to where they came from? And the Chinese?

Based Bacle! I approve!

Remember, Russians moving 100 KM from Russia into estonia while estonia and russia were both part of the same nation is inorganic settler colonialism, but somalis and iraqis flying 6000 km over 2 continents to settle in helsinki is just natural and organic migration.
 
And there is going to be more of this organic immigration, Macron decreed that if he is elected 60 million more rapefugees will be imported into Europe, so making place for cultural enrichment adds impetous for getting rid of Russian invaders.
i think we will see a huge crash before then.
 
I have conflicting feelings on the subject of the art. I understand how I would feel about an invasion but depicting the invaders as monsters (orcs?) can easily spillover into mistreatment of pows or civilians that are of Russian origin. Also while in my view it isn’t my fight I feel this framing is going to be appealing to a certain demographic in the west that yearns for a perceived great evil enemy to replace the nazis the simplicity of a underdog good guy vs the big evil empire is ingrained into the west by our media and the propaganda is going to play right into that. It’s going to let western leaders get away with all kinds of stupid things because of how they’ll frame it and the npcs will eat it up.
Part of my problem with the art is I doubt it’s for the people of Ukraine but more for the people of the west if that makes sense.
 
Remember, Russians moving 100 KM from Russia into estonia while estonia and russia were both part of the same nation is inorganic settler colonialism, but somalis and iraqis flying 6000 km over 2 continents to settle in helsinki is just natural and organic migration.

Yeah, honestly, I think that the Baltics should welcome their huge Russian populations since they add vibrant diversity to their countries with relatively little problems since the Baltics are already EU and NATO members, thankfully. The Balts will claim that the international community never actually recognized their incorporation into the Soviet Union, and that might be fair enough as far as it goes, but still, if one believes that immigration restrictions are inherently unjust, then why exactly was it so wrong for a lot of Russians to move to the Baltics in Soviet times in search of a better life? As I previously said, they integrate much better than certainly other groups do.

Oh thank goodness.


All this time I thought the Z stood for Zaryas name, not Russian Imperialist Revanchism in 2022.

Stupid Russia! Ruining the letter Z for everyone! And I like Zarya:

overwatch-zarya.gif
 
You do realize that "native" is something of a massive stretch in Europe, right?
Just looking at my country, we started off on Crimea, then split into 2(3-4) separate subtribes, with one joining the "native" Balkan slavs to fight Byzantium.
The slaves themselves were not native to the land, either, with them coming in the 5th century and assimilating most of the "native" Greco-Roman byzantines who had in turn subdued the ancient Thracian tribes and states in the area, some leftovers of which the Slavs joined with.
Some of the slavs got Byzantinised, some did not.
Then we have the so-called Macedonians who claim that they are somehow the offspring of Alexander the great despite having a slavic language and culture.

The situation is the same with the Ukraine, which came into existence after the biggest Kievan Rus successor state consolidated the others and in a much different geographic size than modern Ukraine.
Furthermore, Eastern Ukraine, crimea and the south-west were added to the Ukrainian SSR by the commies, because they wanted to dilute the pro-capitalist Ukrainian kulak peasantry with Russian industrial workers.
Places like Odessa were part of Russia long before there ever was a Ukraine and they have deep cultural ties to Russia and a large ethnic and cultural Russian population.
To the people living in those areas though, it did not matter if they wre moved from one of the USSR's republics to another, since the change was probably even less pronounced than, say, moving a few cities from California to Oregon, since the USSR was far more centralized and legally uniform.



I am pretty sure that somebody will want to do the same with the various Latinos.
Not that it is necessarily a bad idea though, since polyglot countries eventually fall apart like Austria-Hungary did, this is basically the melting pot approach on steroids.
And multiculturalism is probably doomed to failure unless it is done in a very loose federation that eventually coalesces into a dominant monoculture through centuries of integration and something in common - land or religion or language, maybe a cause.But cause and idea based countries are IMHO the least viable long-term.


Odessa and the Transnistria area were the only parts of Ukraine that were not already Ukrainian-majority back in 1926:

FWIW, if you're curious why southern Ukraine was less inclined to vote for the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionary Party (a Ukrainian autonomist party) in comparison to northern Ukraine in 1917, it might be because southern Ukraine was less Ukrainian than northern Ukraine was back then. Here's a 1926 map of the Ukrainian SSR by the ethnic Ukrainian percentage in various parts of it:

640px-Ukrainians1926ua.PNG

And even they were much more Ukrainian than they were Russian even back then:

 
Odessa and the Transnistria area were the only parts of Ukraine that were not already Ukrainian-majority back in 1926:



And even they were much more Ukrainian than they were Russian even back then:


Yeah, sure, revisionist maps produced by the side that has a vested interest in denying the Russian population's existence are very credible.
Keep trying.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top