On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:07:23 AM UTC-4, David P. wrote:
> While addressing the Western Bloc at the embassy on Nov. 18, 1956, in the presence of communist Polish statesman Władysław Gomułka, First Secretary Khrushchev said: "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us, don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!" The speech prompted the envoys from 12 NATO nations and Israel to leave the room.
>
> During Khrushchev's visit to the US in 1959, L.A. mayor Norris Poulson in his address to Khrushchev stated: "We do not agree with your widely quoted phrase 'We shall bury you.' You shall not bury us and we shall not bury you. We are happy with our way of life. We recognize its shortcomings and are always trying to improve it. But if challenged, we shall fight to the death to preserve it". Many Americans meanwhile interpreted Khrushchev's quote as a nuclear threat.
>
> In another public speech Khrushchev declared: "We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can". In a 1961 speech at the Institute of Marxism–Leninism in Moscow, Khrushchev said that "peaceful coexistence" for the Soviet Union means "intense, economic, political and ideological struggle between the proletariat and the aggressive forces of imperialism in the world arena". Later, on Aug. 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you," a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism" (in the Russian translation of Marx, the word "undertaker" is translated as a "grave digger," Russian: могильщик,) based on the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable". In his memoirs, Khrushchev stated that "enemy propaganda picked up the slogan and blew it all out of proportion".
>
> Some authors suggest that an alternative translation is "We shall be present at your funeral" or "We shall outlive you". Authors have suggested the phrase, in conjunction with Khrushchev's overhead hand clasp gesture meant that Russia would take care of the funeral arrangements for capitalism after its demise. In an article in The NY Times in 2018, translator Mark Polizzotti suggested that the phrase was mistranslated at the time and should properly have been translated as "We will outlast you," which gives a different sense to Khrushchev's statement.
>
> Khrushchev was known for his emotional public image. His daughter admitted that "he was known for strong language, interrupting speakers, banging his fists on the table in protest, pounding his feet, even whistling". She called such behavior a "manner, which suited his goal... to be different from the hypocrites of the West, with their appropriate words but calculated deeds". Mikhail Gorbachev suggested in his book Perestroika and New Thinking for Our Country and the World that the image used by Khrushchev was inspired by the acute discussions among Soviet agrarian scientists in the 1930s, nicknamed "who will bury whom", the bitterness of which must be understood in the political context of the times.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you

"Even implacable Romans - never known for their sentimentality - could shed a tear
for the enemy; and even an arch-enemy at that. Enter Scipio Aemilianus Africanus,
destroyer of powerful Carthage, the city that so nearly could have been Rome.

At the final destruction of powerful Carthage in 146 BCE — Rome’s long-standing
and bitterest enemy — Scipio lamented the fall of such a mighty power:

“Scipio, beholding this spectacle, is said to have shed tears and publicly lamented
the fortune of the enemy. After meditating by himself a long time and reflecting on
the rise and fall of cities, nations, and empires, as well as of individuals, upon the fate
of Troy, that once proud city, upon that of the Assyrians, the Medes, and the Persians,
greatest of all, and later the splendid Macedonian empire, either voluntarily or otherwise
the words of the poet escaped his lips:

“The day shall come in which our sacred Troy
And Priam, and the people over whom
Spear-bearing Priam rules, shall perish all” (Iliad, vi, 448, 449)
[Appian, Punic Wars 19.132]

At this, his moment of supreme victory, the great Roman commander wept.

Like Achilles, Scipio wept for himself. For his own people, the Romans, and for
their inevitable demise. Scipio was struck by the impermanence of human life.
He lamented the mortality of man, understanding in that moment of Carthage’s
destruction, that inevitability, all great empires, including even illustrious Rome,
must pass to dust.

The ancient Greeks and Romans reflected often upon impermanence as a theme.
They knew that the relentless march of history made it inevitable. Great empires,
great cities, great nations, and great men, all would rise and fall. Time was the
only essential ingredient. Troy, Thebes, Persepolis, Carthage, Syracuse, Jerusalem,
and eventually even Rome herself, all fell eventually to bloody sword and fire.

“For the cities which were formerly great, have most of them become insignificant;
and such as those that are at present powerful, were weak in the times of old.”

[Herodotus, Histories. Book 1.5]"

USSR fell. The US and its allies won Cold War 1.0.
May be the world would be better if winning leaders wept of the fall of the USSR.
Putin and a lot of Russians would be happier.

On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 7:32:43 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:07:23 AM UTC-4, David P. wrote:
> > While addressing the Western Bloc at the embassy on Nov. 18, 1956, in the presence of communist Polish statesman Władysław Gomułka, First Secretary Khrushchev said: "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us, don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!" The speech prompted the envoys from 12 NATO nations and Israel to leave the room.
> >
> > During Khrushchev's visit to the US in 1959, L.A. mayor Norris Poulson in his address to Khrushchev stated: "We do not agree with your widely quoted phrase 'We shall bury you.' You shall not bury us and we shall not bury you. We are happy with our way of life. We recognize its shortcomings and are always trying to improve it. But if challenged, we shall fight to the death to preserve it". Many Americans meanwhile interpreted Khrushchev's quote as a nuclear threat.
> >
> > In another public speech Khrushchev declared: "We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can". In a 1961 speech at the Institute of Marxism–Leninism in Moscow, Khrushchev said that "peaceful coexistence" for the Soviet Union means "intense, economic, political and ideological struggle between the proletariat and the aggressive forces of imperialism in the world arena". Later, on Aug. 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you," a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism" (in the Russian translation of Marx, the word "undertaker" is translated as a "grave digger," Russian: могильщик,) based on the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable". In his memoirs, Khrushchev stated that "enemy propaganda picked up the slogan and blew it all out of proportion".
> >
> > Some authors suggest that an alternative translation is "We shall be present at your funeral" or "We shall outlive you". Authors have suggested the phrase, in conjunction with Khrushchev's overhead hand clasp gesture meant that Russia would take care of the funeral arrangements for capitalism after its demise. In an article in The NY Times in 2018, translator Mark Polizzotti suggested that the phrase was mistranslated at the time and should properly have been translated as "We will outlast you," which gives a different sense to Khrushchev's statement.
> >
> > Khrushchev was known for his emotional public image. His daughter admitted that "he was known for strong language, interrupting speakers, banging his fists on the table in protest, pounding his feet, even whistling". She called such behavior a "manner, which suited his goal... to be different from the hypocrites of the West, with their appropriate words but calculated deeds". Mikhail Gorbachev suggested in his book Perestroika and New Thinking for Our Country and the World that the image used by Khrushchev was inspired by the acute discussions among Soviet agrarian scientists in the 1930s, nicknamed "who will bury whom", the bitterness of which must be understood in the political context of the times.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
> "Even implacable Romans - never known for their sentimentality - could shed a tear
> for the enemy; and even an arch-enemy at that. Enter Scipio Aemilianus Africanus,
> destroyer of powerful Carthage, the city that so nearly could have been Rome.
>
> At the final destruction of powerful Carthage in 146 BCE — Rome’s long-standing
> and bitterest enemy — Scipio lamented the fall of such a mighty power:
>
> “Scipio, beholding this spectacle, is said to have shed tears and publicly lamented
> the fortune of the enemy. After meditating by himself a long time and reflecting on
> the rise and fall of cities, nations, and empires, as well as of individuals, upon the fate
> of Troy, that once proud city, upon that of the Assyrians, the Medes, and the Persians,
> greatest of all, and later the splendid Macedonian empire, either voluntarily or otherwise
> the words of the poet escaped his lips:
>
> “The day shall come in which our sacred Troy
> And Priam, and the people over whom
> Spear-bearing Priam rules, shall perish all” (Iliad, vi, 448, 449)
> [Appian, Punic Wars 19.132]
>
> At this, his moment of supreme victory, the great Roman commander wept.
>
> Like Achilles, Scipio wept for himself. For his own people, the Romans, and for
> their inevitable demise. Scipio was struck by the impermanence of human life.
> He lamented the mortality of man, understanding in that moment of Carthage’s
> destruction, that inevitability, all great empires, including even illustrious Rome,
> must pass to dust.
>
> The ancient Greeks and Romans reflected often upon impermanence as a theme.
> They knew that the relentless march of history made it inevitable. Great empires,
> great cities, great nations, and great men, all would rise and fall. Time was the
> only essential ingredient. Troy, Thebes, Persepolis, Carthage, Syracuse, Jerusalem,
> and eventually even Rome herself, all fell eventually to bloody sword and fire.
>
> “For the cities which were formerly great, have most of them become insignificant;
> and such as those that are at present powerful, were weak in the times of old.”
>
> [Herodotus, Histories. Book 1.5]"

https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/when-victors-weep-ed17a8d786e6
>
> USSR fell. The US and its allies won Cold War 1.0.
> May be the world would be better if winning leaders wept of the fall of the USSR.
> Putin and a lot of Russians would be happier.

ltlee1, <news:dfae3713-6c74-499c-95bd-80ab7d5c8ea3n@googlegroups.com>

> USSR fell. The US and its allies won Cold War 1.0.
> May be the world would be better if winning leaders wept of the
> fall of the USSR.
> Putin and a lot of Russians would be happier.

If the claim is they would be happier if the USSR wasn't fell,
then it's not true. If the claim is that they would be happier
if the Atlanticist leaders "wept" then it's also not true since
this interpretation includes "winning leaders". The USSR "fell"
on it's own, because a lot of the Russians and non-Russians in
the USSR wanted to end it in the form in which it existed, and
external influence caused a minor impact to this sentiment.

The Putin's statement about "geopolitical catastrophe" usually
is misinterpreted simplistically, as if he wanted to restore it.
One can find in various Putin's speeches clear clarifications
that it's not really the case. The Atlanticism exaggerates this
misinterpretation mainly for it's own cultist purpose.

There were no narratives about Atlanticist "victory" in the
early 90s, also there were no narratives about "Pax Americana"
in the global scale. Such rationalizations had been promoted in
hindsight since the late 1990s. And the reason for that seems
more clear nowadays.

The America's leadership over part of the world (what they call
"free world" now) happened in the post-WW2 period mainly in the
opposition to the Soviet bloc, so that the USSR was the entity
by which Americans found the meaning of their existence. It was
against what American / Atlanticist ideologues elaborated their
ideological constructs and narratives of propaganda. It's what
made the USSR the key and integral part of America itself, and
this is why the importunate mediation on the USSR is persistent
and evergreen in the American discourse even after 30+ years.

After the end of the USSR, America somehow tried, but could not
find a proper meaning of its existence, so the Atlanticism has
become sort of desperate maniac believing that a crusade against
Russia - whom they misinterpret as a "semi-finished" USSR - can
help it restore the meaning of its own existence.

Today Russia has to somehow deal with this obsessively maniacal
species that has developed such a strong and unhealthy fixation
on Russia.

China in turn can use this situation as a kind of lightning rod,
although the Atlanticist unhealthy fixation on China as well is
also gradually gaining momentum.

On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 8:56:24 AM UTC-4, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> ltlee1, <news:dfae3713-6c74-499c...@googlegroups.com>
> > USSR fell. The US and its allies won Cold War 1.0.
> > May be the world would be better if winning leaders wept of the
> > fall of the USSR.
> > Putin and a lot of Russians would be happier.
> If the claim is they would be happier if the USSR wasn't fell,
> then it's not true. If the claim is that they would be happier
> if the Atlanticist leaders "wept" then it's also not true since
> this interpretation includes "winning leaders". The USSR "fell"
> on it's own, because a lot of the Russians and non-Russians in
> the USSR wanted to end it in the form in which it existed, and
> external influence caused a minor impact to this sentiment.
>
> The Putin's statement about "geopolitical catastrophe" usually
> is misinterpreted simplistically, as if he wanted to restore it.
> One can find in various Putin's speeches clear clarifications
> that it's not really the case. The Atlanticism exaggerates this
> misinterpretation mainly for it's own cultist purpose.
>
> There were no narratives about Atlanticist "victory" in the
> early 90s, also there were no narratives about "Pax Americana"
> in the global scale. Such rationalizations had been promoted in
> hindsight since the late 1990s. And the reason for that seems
> more clear nowadays.
>
> The America's leadership over part of the world (what they call
> "free world" now) happened in the post-WW2 period mainly in the
> opposition to the Soviet bloc, so that the USSR was the entity
> by which Americans found the meaning of their existence. It was
> against what American / Atlanticist ideologues elaborated their
> ideological constructs and narratives of propaganda. It's what
> made the USSR the key and integral part of America itself, and
> this is why the importunate mediation on the USSR is persistent
> and evergreen in the American discourse even after 30+ years.
>
> After the end of the USSR, America somehow tried, but could not
> find a proper meaning of its existence, so the Atlanticism has
> become sort of desperate maniac believing that a crusade against
> Russia - whom they misinterpret as a "semi-finished" USSR - can
> help it restore the meaning of its own existence.
>
> Today Russia has to somehow deal with this obsessively maniacal
> species that has developed such a strong and unhealthy fixation
> on Russia.
>
> China in turn can use this situation as a kind of lightning rod,
> although the Atlanticist unhealthy fixation on China as well is
> also gradually gaining momentum.

1) Why victorious leaders wept?
“I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves. And the enemy was in us.
The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, the rest of my days.” [Chris Taylor, Platoon]

2) << After the end of the USSR, America somehow tried, but could not
find a proper meaning of its existence...>>
America is a young nation. It is not yet of one people. It needs an external enemy to define itself.
American yellow journalism, of course would do everything to invent inhumane enemy to maximize profit.

Most Americans only know Khruschev's "We will bury you" episode in which he was viewed as some kind
of clown per yellow journalism. But Peter Carlson who followed Khruschev's visit closely had a very
different opinion: A Giant Among Men with many talents.

"While the book teems with strange comic incidents — K throwing a tantrum before an audience of stunned
Hollywood stars after being told he couldn’t go to Disneyland (bellowing, “What must I do, commit suicide?”)
the set pieces are the tip of the iceberg. The book’s funniest sections are due to K’s own remarkable wit.
Carlson sees the heroically benevolent dictator as a “giant among men” who was alternately terrifying and
hilarious."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2009/06/18/a_giant_among_men_author_peter_carlson/

ltlee1, <news:bba78be4-0180-43ac-9d6d-b324b99fac65n@googlegroups.com>
> On Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 8:56:24 AM UTC-4, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>> ltlee1, <news:dfae3713-6c74-499c...@googlegroups.com>

>>> USSR fell. The US and its allies won Cold War 1.0.
>>> May be the world would be better if winning leaders wept of the
>>> fall of the USSR.
>>> Putin and a lot of Russians would be happier.

>> If the claim is they would be happier if the USSR wasn't fell,
>> then it's not true. If the claim is that they would be happier
>> if the Atlanticist leaders "wept" then it's also not true since
>> this interpretation includes "winning leaders". The USSR "fell"
>> on it's own, because a lot of the Russians and non-Russians in
>> the USSR wanted to end it in the form in which it existed, and
>> external influence caused a minor impact to this sentiment.
>>
>> The Putin's statement about "geopolitical catastrophe" usually
>> is misinterpreted simplistically, as if he wanted to restore it.
>> One can find in various Putin's speeches clear clarifications
>> that it's not really the case. The Atlanticism exaggerates this
>> misinterpretation mainly for it's own cultist purpose.
>>
>> There were no narratives about Atlanticist "victory" in the
>> early 90s, also there were no narratives about "Pax Americana"
>> in the global scale. Such rationalizations had been promoted in
>> hindsight since the late 1990s. And the reason for that seems
>> more clear nowadays.
>>
>> The America's leadership over part of the world (what they call
>> "free world" now) happened in the post-WW2 period mainly in the
>> opposition to the Soviet bloc, so that the USSR was the entity
>> by which Americans found the meaning of their existence. It was
>> against what American / Atlanticist ideologues elaborated their
>> ideological constructs and narratives of propaganda. It's what
>> made the USSR the key and integral part of America itself, and
>> this is why the importunate mediation on the USSR is persistent
>> and evergreen in the American discourse even after 30+ years.
>>
>> After the end of the USSR, America somehow tried, but could not
>> find a proper meaning of its existence, so the Atlanticism has
>> become sort of desperate maniac believing that a crusade against
>> Russia - whom they misinterpret as a "semi-finished" USSR - can
>> help it restore the meaning of its own existence.
>>
>> Today Russia has to somehow deal with this obsessively maniacal
>> species that has developed such a strong and unhealthy fixation
>> on Russia.
>>
>> China in turn can use this situation as a kind of lightning rod,
>> although the Atlanticist unhealthy fixation on China as well is
>> also gradually gaining momentum.
>
> 1) Why victorious leaders wept?
> "I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves.
> And the enemy was in us.
> The war is over for me now, but it will always be there, the rest of my
> days."
> [Chris Taylor, Platoon]
>
> 2) << After the end of the USSR, America somehow tried, but could not
> find a proper meaning of its existence...>>
> America is a young nation. It is not yet of one people. It needs an external
> enemy to define itself.
> American yellow journalism, of course would do everything to invent inhumane
> enemy to maximize profit.
>
> Most Americans only know Khruschev's "We will bury you" episode in which he
> was viewed as some kind of clown per yellow journalism. But Peter Carlson
> who followed Khruschev's visit closely had a very different opinion: A Giant
> Among Men with many talents.
>
> "While the book teems with strange comic incidents - K throwing a tantrum
> before an audience of stunned Hollywood stars after being told he couldn't
> go to Disneyland (bellowing, "What must I do, commit suicide?") the set
> pieces are the tip of the iceberg. The book's funniest sections are due to
> K's own remarkable wit. Carlson sees the heroically benevolent dictator as
> a "giant among men" who was alternately terrifying and hilarious."
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2009/06/18/a_giant_among_men_author_peter_carlson/

Khrushchyov was a controversial figure, and a product of the epoch.
I once posted here about him <https://tinyurl.com/yg6p2kdg>.
There are extreme opinions in different camps. Some seek to glorify,
idealize and romanticize him (mainly for "de-Stalinization"), and
others seek to depict him as a clownish buffoon.

But he was neither giant nor clown.

Denunciation of the "cult of personality of Stalin" wasn't a
Khrushchyov's personal conscience and genius, it was a demand from
the most part of then Soviet "nomenklatura". The Stalin's way of
management meant occasional sacrifice of some of the high / middle-
ranking managers, and after the death of Stalin they longed to start
breathing calmer. The Khrushchyov's "de-Stalinization" had been done
abruptly, so it produced cracks within the "international communist
movement". On the other hand, it was implemented half-heartedly and
inconsistently, which contributed to subsequent misinterpretations
and myths related to the Stalin's policies (and many of these myths
and misinterpretations still remain somehow alive).