In the last quarter of a century in the former Soviet Union republics that have become independent states (in almost all cases - against the will of their people) after the signing of the notorious Belavezha Accords, hysteria has been constantly forced relating the 'Russian occupation' of these freedom-loving countries. In some post-Soviet republics even museums of occupation were opened, where anyone who will take the trouble can see extensive exhibitions devoted to 'the horrors of Russian occupation'. These museums always produce a depressing experience on an inexperienced person and it is likely therefore school tours are often carried out in such museums. So to say, a rising generation is prepared. Is it any use wondering at the openly Russophobi sentiments among young people in some republics?
However, it appears that creators of these museums ought to have before talking about those 'horrors of Russian occupation' first understood the term 'occupation'. Here is how this term is interpreted in dictionaries: "Occupation (from Lat. Occupatio - capture, taking) - 1. Temporary seizure of foreign territory by military force. 2. The period of such capture and the civilian population stay in the occupied territories (colloquial). "
If we follow this definition, it is unclear how and when the Russian armed forces captured, for example, Georgia. And it is in this country that one of the museums in the post-Soviet occupation was opened. Nor is it clear in which year the Russian army invaded Ukraine and occupied it. The same ambiguity is in the issue of the 'occupied' Baltic states, which under the terms of the Treaty of Nystad of 1721 passed from Sweden to Russia. As a reverse example, one can cite the German forces actions in 1941-44 in the Soviet Union or the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, and anyone will understand clearly what the, so to say, classic occupation is. But Nazi occupation museums are out of fashion in today's Baltic States, as opposed to the 'Soviet occupation' museums. To be more exact, in the Baltic museums there are separate exhibitions devoted to the German occupation, defiantly equating the Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union, the defeated to the winners. Moreover, SS veterans now proudly march in parades under the banner of the Wehrmacht on the streets of the Baltic Cities, showing off their Nazi awards.
The same situation is in Ukraine, at least in some of its regions, where in every way the 'glorious' military past of the Ukrainian SS units are cultivated. There are certainly museums dedicated to the Nazi occupation in Ukraine, but they have remained from the Soviet era. Those that have remained. Although the Ukrainian people's contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany is truly enormous; the Ukrainians have much to be proud of. Suffice it to say that during the Great Patriotic War, 8 of 44 commanders of the fronts were Ukrainian. Without the help of the Anglo-Saxon allies, I think, the Soviet Union would in any case have won the victory over Germany (although nobody is going to diminish the contribution of the United Kingdom and the United States in the victory over Hitler, but it is difficult to agree with Putin, who declared not so long ago that we would have won the Great Patriotic War without Ukraine. No, we would not. Winning the war was a common victory of a single people. – ed. comment). Nevertheless, today in Ukraine that has made a huge contribution to the defeat of fascism and the salvation of mankind, museums of Soviet (read: Russian) occupation are being opened. And the idea is drummed into the younger generation's head that any occupation that was in Ukraine, was solely 'moskal'. And it was not by accident that in December 1991 in Belavezha three 'reformers' Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich, first made haste to tear apart three Slavic nations (apparently, not without help) in order to immediately deprive the Soviet Union of stability and durability.
The situation is even worse in Georgia. Not only occupation museums are being opened there, but also monuments to heroes of the war are blown up as was the case with the Memorial of Glory in Kutaisi. That is, in fact, the memory of the Georgian people is blown up, the people who have, like other peoples of the USSR, contributed to the defeat of fascism. Georgia's new rulers have embarked on a total russophobia, and the Soviet period is presented as one of the worst in the centuries-old history of Georgia.
But what so terrible did the 'occupiers' do in the same Georgia? Except for the fact that they have built dozens of factories, ports, health centers, schools, hospitals, laid hundreds of kilometers of railway... What kind of oppression does it come to, if the living standards of 'poor' Georgians in the Soviet times were almost the highest compared with residents of other republics of the Union? Maybe the Russian invaders in every possible way destroyed Georgian culture and identity? Did they ban the Georgian language? Did they stand on the Georgians' way to cinema, literature, the arts, sports, and politics? Did they bring the press and TV under their complete control? Anyone who more or less remembers the Soviet period, can not perceive such assumptions and statements other than absurd and lies.
And, for example, how many Ukrainian newspapers and magazines did German administration published in Ukraine in 1941-44? Or in the Baltics? Or in Byelorussia?..
No less surprising is the fact that currently the only Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov before recommissioning beared a name... Tbilisi! Strange? Very much. Have you ever seen any occupants to call their flagship by the name of the conquered country's capital? Can you imagine the Turks giving their most powerful ship the name of 'Athens' or 'Constantinople'? Or Germans giving their unfinished super battleships under the project H the name of St. Petersburg or Moscow and giving the aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin a new name of Paris? But the case of the 'occupation' Soviet Navy was not limited to the name of Tbilisi. There were also the Baku aircraft-carrying cruiser, the Tashkent cruiser (in Uzbekistan, by the way, there is also a Soviet occupation museum), and the Varyag aircraft carrier sold to Chinese was previously named Riga. And there were also Tallinn and Red Ukraine and others.
If we continue the theme of occupation, in this connection, it would not be bad to remember the British 'enlightened navigators' who fleeced dozens of countries for centuries, exchanging their dubious 'democratic values' for gold, diamonds and other resources, allowing a small island in the north-west of Europe to live in clover at the expense of others more than one hundred years. But today would anyone dare to make snide remarks about the British and blame them for the occupation and robbery of a good half of the world? It is Russia that is the 'prison of nations' but not at all the kind old England. Sometimes though the imbued with the spirit of true democracy, the British went too far – they tied the disaffected Indian nationals to gun muzzles and shot. But all this is such trifles compared to the Russian atrocities in the occupied territories, of which almost everyone is trumpeting all over the world...
Or if we take a 'torch of democracy' - the United States. Formerly North America was inhabited by Indians. And relatively recently at that. But these backward comrades with feathers and tomahawks had no idea about democratic values, so they were removed en masse to the other world, and the survivors were made drunkards and driven into the ghetto. That is nonsense that victims of the real occupation number in the hundreds of thousands; all this is done for the sake of democracy and, therefore, is justified. It is the Russians who could not get beyond the Urals, the Caucasus and Asia. Although the Russians did not perform genocide of the connected peoples and forced nobody into ghetto, but of course their "crimes " are still condemned by the whole world. As concerns the poor Indians... Well, things do happen, they just happened to be within reach of democratizers. In short, they may thank themselves for that.
American history is so rich with such events, in this regard, that one cannot but remember the American Negroes, or, as they are called now, African Americans. If anyone thinks that after Adolf Alois Hitler shot himself in his bunker and sergeants Egorov and Kantariya raised the Banner of Victory over the Reichstag, Nazism came to an end, he is seriously mistaken. In the most democratic country, the blessed United States, for long years after the war, black-skinned veterans felt second-class citizens as was indicated, among other, by numerous prohibitive signs in public places: "Colorod not allowed ", "White only ", etc. How the African Americans who fought in Europe felt to see suchlike at home? All the more so, under the endless tub thumping about democracy... But this is not now considered to be some something outrageous 'extreme'. It is interesting what one would have said about Russia, if in the middle of the XX century, at the entrance to public facilities there were signs hanging such as "entrance allowed only to the Slavs ", and in schools, children were taught separately according to race? Russia would have been probably abused for such barbarity more than one hundred years, but no one says anything bad as concerns America. Especially now, when America's President is Barack Hussein Obama. So what is the myth of Russian occupation in aid of if the majority of those who have for years wakened flame of Russo-phobia do not believe in this occupation?
It's that simple. The built in the XX century 'vertical power structure' of the Anglo-Saxon race over the rest of the world with its plundering and oppression does not provide for the existence of even a hint of the former grandeur of the former enemy number one - the Soviet Union. Plans for war against the USSR with the collapse of the latter, are perhaps out of date, but it may not be true that they are not adjusted to the new realities. As the ancient Romans put it, "Carthage must be destroyed. " And, we would add, robbed. Otherwise, the 'progressive society' would not have been made a fool for decades by Russophobic horror stories. There is no guarantee that after Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya it will be turn of Russia. That is, there is no guarantee that the 'democratizers' will not have a compulsive desire to bomb it too. All the more so, there will be more than enough reasons for a demonstrative flogging of Russia. Should it be necessary, the Russians will be called on everything starting from the march to Tsargrad. And the more strong and independent Russia will become, the greater the likelihood of such a course of events. That is why the Russophobic howl will not soon subside, and for more than a dozen years, the myth of 'Russian occupation' of freedom-loving peoples will be lingered over. And if Russia is not bombed so far by real bombs, but there has been long an information war on. But nowadays one thing is often inseparable from another.
