Current Ukrainian orthography is exactly the same as it was before -- it was always different from Russian because it is -- surprise -- a different language. Again, stupid Westerners see that people (especially politicians) use Ukrainian language more often (some extremely poorly, too, so Ukrainians have to ask them to speak Russian instead of broken Ukrainian), and believe that this is some kind of language reform.
Nevertheless words "" and "" happen to be written exactly like that in both languages.
GE -- soft in Ukrainian and Belarusian,hard in Russian: 0413. Please note that this is in the main part of Cyrillic alphabet that is common among all languages that use cyrillic of any kind.
HA -- soft in all languages: 0425. The same.
Hard GE, specific to Ukrainian language: 0490. Note that this letter is placed in Unicode separately from the common sequence of cyrillic alphabet, and is among other accented cyrillic characters that are specific to particular languages.
It is important that in Belarusian language "hard GE" can't be pronounced at all, yet "HA" still exists as a separate letter and sound -- it is much softer than even "soft GE", in both Belarusian and Ukrainian.
The only kind of "logic" that I see in this is that since Russian language has no "soft GE", more widespread use of Ukrainian language may sound for a foreigner as softening "GE" to what he perceives as "latin H" in all names that he hears in Ukrainian instead of Russian. For a local, be he Russian,Ukrainian or Belarusian, there is a huge difference between all three sounds/pronunciations and letters, so it's absolutely inappropriate to mix them, or try to teach people who speak those languages, how they are supposed to write those words.
"Latin H" corresponds to cyrillic U+0425. How could you find anything about latin letters in a dictionary written in Ukrainian, and entirely in cyrillic alphabet, I have no idea.
Ukrainian and Belarusian languages have "soft GE" and "HA" that are completely different letters. "HA" is an equivalent of "H", "soft G" has no direct equivalent in a Roman alphabet, and is closest to "G". Ukrainian language has separate "hard GE", and Russian has "GE" that is pronounced hard (exactly like "G") and looks exactly like "GE" in Ukrainian and Belarusian that is pronounced soft in those languages.
Some idiots in US at some point decided that it's proper to use "H" to represent both "soft GE" and "HA", just because neither of the characters are the same as "hard GE", nevermind that it created huge amount of ambiguity because "soft GE" still sounds nothing like "HA", and there are many words that differ by those very letters, such as "golod" and "holod". On the other hand, "hard" and "soft" GE are related, and there is no ambiguity in using "G" to represent both. Same words may have "hard GE" in Russian, and "soft GE" in Ukrainian and Belarusian (all three represented as the same character in cyrillic alphabet). Nobody but ignorant Westerners would ever think of stuffing either "HA" or "H" into the place of "soft GE", and if someone tried to do so, he would be accused in mocking Belarusian and Ukrainian pronunciation of common Slavic words.
This mutilation of languages demonstrates that people who write this crap know nothing about Russian and Ukrainian language, have absolutely no respect for those countries culture, and gather all their information and opinion from their fellow "researchers" who don't have a basic knowledge necessary to read the original documents about things that they are talking about.
They can just as well claim that Count Dracula ruled Ukraine for the whole time when it was a part of Russia or USSR -- they would have just as much evidence for that as they have for supposed genocide at the hands of Russians, and most of American population wouldn't know any better, anyway.
Kaganovich was an asshole, and many Communists fought against his policies, yet he wasn't responsible for "millions dead" or any other ridiculously inflated stuff.
To clarify things -- Government had to export grain to keep the economy from halting (or people would die for other reasons), and in theory they could reduce the amount of their export earlier, and that could save some people. But to completely compensate for massive drought that happened across the whole grain-producing region, hardly limited to Ukraine, they would still have no resources, and whatever they would do, people still wouldn't have enough to survive, this way or another. As I have said, Communists mishandled the situation, but it was nowhere close to intentionally killing people, or doing anything specifically against Ukrainians and not, say, Russians. There are many examples of shitty leadership, famines, and both combined through the history of the world, and no one claims that those were "genocide".
It's "Golodomor" in Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian. "Holod" is a completely different word there, so no one who speak those languages can use shitty "Holodomor" transcription invented by Westerners who don't even know the languages in which all original documents about those events were written.
Do you claim that Russians and Ukrainians shouldn't talk about this, and only Americans can have an enlightened opinion about things that happened almost a century ago in a country that was their greatest enemy at the time?
Check any research that used original documents as the source -- your numbers "elsewhere", of deaths that may in any way be attributed to Stalin/NKVD's actions are inflated at least 10 times by your friendly american "historians" aka propaganda workers.
Twenty years ago Russians were too busy changing their political system to debunk every monstrously exaggerrated, opportunistic accusation thrown around by all kinds of "historians".
For a company to function, many employees of the company have to have access to the company's data. All of them, if they are inclined to do so, can copy it. Heck, many of them can sabotage it, and destroy the company.
Guess what the company can do about it? It can stop treating the employees as shit. Especially stop pretending that the company is some amorphous entity that makes its owners/shareholders entitled to profit, and can impose idiotic demands and shitty conditions and pitiful pay on everyone else in it. Employees do their work, this is why they have access to company's things. Nothing, ever, happened in a company without some employees making it happen, so if any of you wonder, why people can destroy your precious company, keep it in minds -- THIS IS BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE COMPANY.
There is nothing wrong with avoiding overbroad access where it isn't necessary for things to work, however there is no way to make any company "secure" from the very people whose only responsibility is to keep things running. Don't piss them off, and remember that you didn't become Presidents, CEOs and VPs by understanding how to operate anything that makes your company what it is. Every time you eat your lunch, think how many people you have abused today, and what will happen if any of them will press a few buttons.
1. US has military bases all over the world, including Cuba, of all places. Does it mean, US occupied the whole world?
2. Poland and Romania seem to be so concerned about freedom that they provided their prisons to CIA, for secret imprisonment and torture of "terrorism suspects". A government that cries oppression when it's beneficial for them, yet immediately does this shit when it sees an opportunity to serve a new master, is probably the greatest example of hypocrsiy that was ever developed by mankind.
Then how can anyone claim that something was "occupied" for three centuries? Do Americans "occupy" US? Ukraine joined Russia quite peacefuly, especially compared to the history of North America since Columbus.
US propaganda ALWAYS accuses "enemy" in genocide, no matter what. This is their standard MO, and it works great with US population because most of Americans themselves are disgustingly racist, and can relate.
Famines were pretty common then, and situation was worsened by shitty conditions in the economy after Civil War.
As for seizing crops and redistributing them, what would YOU do when suddenly people are dying right and left because there is nothing to eat? Who do you think, ate all that "confiscated" food in the end, Stalin himself?
1. I deny that Holodomor was anything but a major natural disaster combined with a poor condition of the economy and bad leadership. It was not some kind of genocide campaign that US propaganda is presenting it as, and there is absolutely no reason to see it as such (except for Americans' manufactured hatred for Communists, Russians and Ukrainians alike).
2. Apparently there is a lot of controversy around the content of Wikipedia articles related to Holodomor. I would not quote them, as anything authoritative.
3. Grain had to be rationed at the time of famine. As I have explained before, nothing that Communists would do then would change the situation significantly either way.
4. Some Baltic states' leaders are extreme Nationalists, and they openly supported former Nazis, something that does not happen anywhere else in Europe.
Contrary to the popular in US belief, the drought and famine in 30's were natural disasters. At most Communists were incompetent in handling the resources, however the fact remains, agricultural production at the time of the drought was not sufficient to feed all that population, and there was nothing that would change it either way, given the natural conditions and level of technology available at the time.
US propaganda loves to wave some irrelevant documents about negative actions that would affect at most few hundreds of people, and misrepresent them as Communists somehow trying to kill millions of people, however this is dishonest and opportunistic rewriting of history.
Slashdot Mirror
The form didn't convert cyrillic properly, so here are the same words manually converted into a readable form: ...words "" and ""
Current Ukrainian orthography is exactly the same as it was before -- it was always different from Russian because it is -- surprise -- a different language. Again, stupid Westerners see that people (especially politicians) use Ukrainian language more often (some extremely poorly, too, so Ukrainians have to ask them to speak Russian instead of broken Ukrainian), and believe that this is some kind of language reform.
Nevertheless words "" and "" happen to be written exactly like that in both languages.
GE -- soft in Ukrainian and Belarusian,hard in Russian: 0413. Please note that this is in the main part of Cyrillic alphabet that is common among all languages that use cyrillic of any kind.
HA -- soft in all languages: 0425. The same.
Hard GE, specific to Ukrainian language: 0490. Note that this letter is placed in Unicode separately from the common sequence of cyrillic alphabet, and is among other accented cyrillic characters that are specific to particular languages.
It is important that in Belarusian language "hard GE" can't be pronounced at all, yet "HA" still exists as a separate letter and sound -- it is much softer than even "soft GE", in both Belarusian and Ukrainian.
The only kind of "logic" that I see in this is that since Russian language has no "soft GE", more widespread use of Ukrainian language may sound for a foreigner as softening "GE" to what he perceives as "latin H" in all names that he hears in Ukrainian instead of Russian. For a local, be he Russian,Ukrainian or Belarusian, there is a huge difference between all three sounds/pronunciations and letters, so it's absolutely inappropriate to mix them, or try to teach people who speak those languages, how they are supposed to write those words.
"Latin H" corresponds to cyrillic U+0425. How could you find anything about latin letters in a dictionary written in Ukrainian, and entirely in cyrillic alphabet, I have no idea.
Belarus has the highest density of industry and the most healthy economy in the whole region (ex-USSR + Eastern Europe).
Ukrainian and Belarusian languages have "soft GE" and "HA" that are completely different letters. "HA" is an equivalent of "H", "soft G" has no direct equivalent in a Roman alphabet, and is closest to "G". Ukrainian language has separate "hard GE", and Russian has "GE" that is pronounced hard (exactly like "G") and looks exactly like "GE" in Ukrainian and Belarusian that is pronounced soft in those languages.
Some idiots in US at some point decided that it's proper to use "H" to represent both "soft GE" and "HA", just because neither of the characters are the same as "hard GE", nevermind that it created huge amount of ambiguity because "soft GE" still sounds nothing like "HA", and there are many words that differ by those very letters, such as "golod" and "holod". On the other hand, "hard" and "soft" GE are related, and there is no ambiguity in using "G" to represent both. Same words may have "hard GE" in Russian, and "soft GE" in Ukrainian and Belarusian (all three represented as the same character in cyrillic alphabet). Nobody but ignorant Westerners would ever think of stuffing either "HA" or "H" into the place of "soft GE", and if someone tried to do so, he would be accused in mocking Belarusian and Ukrainian pronunciation of common Slavic words.
This mutilation of languages demonstrates that people who write this crap know nothing about Russian and Ukrainian language, have absolutely no respect for those countries culture, and gather all their information and opinion from their fellow "researchers" who don't have a basic knowledge necessary to read the original documents about things that they are talking about.
They can just as well claim that Count Dracula ruled Ukraine for the whole time when it was a part of Russia or USSR -- they would have just as much evidence for that as they have for supposed genocide at the hands of Russians, and most of American population wouldn't know any better, anyway.
Kaganovich was an asshole, and many Communists fought against his policies, yet he wasn't responsible for "millions dead" or any other ridiculously inflated stuff.
Yeah right, very peacefully
Do you even know when Ukraine joined Russia?
Doesn't the fact that many Ukrainians decided to join the Nazi's to fight against the Soviets tell you anything?
It says that there were traitors and morons there, just like in pretty much every place that Nazi occupied in WWII, including Belarus and Russia.
To clarify things -- Government had to export grain to keep the economy from halting (or people would die for other reasons), and in theory they could reduce the amount of their export earlier, and that could save some people. But to completely compensate for massive drought that happened across the whole grain-producing region, hardly limited to Ukraine, they would still have no resources, and whatever they would do, people still wouldn't have enough to survive, this way or another. As I have said, Communists mishandled the situation, but it was nowhere close to intentionally killing people, or doing anything specifically against Ukrainians and not, say, Russians. There are many examples of shitty leadership, famines, and both combined through the history of the world, and no one claims that those were "genocide".
It's "Golodomor" in Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian. "Holod" is a completely different word there, so no one who speak those languages can use shitty "Holodomor" transcription invented by Westerners who don't even know the languages in which all original documents about those events were written.
Do you claim that Russians and Ukrainians shouldn't talk about this, and only Americans can have an enlightened opinion about things that happened almost a century ago in a country that was their greatest enemy at the time?
Check any research that used original documents as the source -- your numbers "elsewhere", of deaths that may in any way be attributed to Stalin/NKVD's actions are inflated at least 10 times by your friendly american "historians" aka propaganda workers.
Twenty years ago Russians were too busy changing their political system to debunk every monstrously exaggerrated, opportunistic accusation thrown around by all kinds of "historians".
So this is your problem -- how can a government dare to build a prison?
Any evidence with those accusations, other than your strong convictions and propaganda works?
Not that it would be logistically possible.
Appealing to supposed authority, aren't you?
Why would it be in any way more autoritative?
For a company to function, many employees of the company have to have access to the company's data. All of them, if they are inclined to do so, can copy it. Heck, many of them can sabotage it, and destroy the company.
Guess what the company can do about it? It can stop treating the employees as shit. Especially stop pretending that the company is some amorphous entity that makes its owners/shareholders entitled to profit, and can impose idiotic demands and shitty conditions and pitiful pay on everyone else in it. Employees do their work, this is why they have access to company's things. Nothing, ever, happened in a company without some employees making it happen, so if any of you wonder, why people can destroy your precious company, keep it in minds -- THIS IS BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE COMPANY.
There is nothing wrong with avoiding overbroad access where it isn't necessary for things to work, however there is no way to make any company "secure" from the very people whose only responsibility is to keep things running. Don't piss them off, and remember that you didn't become Presidents, CEOs and VPs by understanding how to operate anything that makes your company what it is. Every time you eat your lunch, think how many people you have abused today, and what will happen if any of them will press a few buttons.
1. US has military bases all over the world, including Cuba, of all places. Does it mean, US occupied the whole world?
2. Poland and Romania seem to be so concerned about freedom that they provided their prisons to CIA, for secret imprisonment and torture of "terrorism suspects". A government that cries oppression when it's beneficial for them, yet immediately does this shit when it sees an opportunity to serve a new master, is probably the greatest example of hypocrsiy that was ever developed by mankind.
Then how can anyone claim that something was "occupied" for three centuries? Do Americans "occupy" US? Ukraine joined Russia quite peacefuly, especially compared to the history of North America since Columbus.
US propaganda ALWAYS accuses "enemy" in genocide, no matter what. This is their standard MO, and it works great with US population because most of Americans themselves are disgustingly racist, and can relate.
And yes, I live in US.
Famines were pretty common then, and situation was worsened by shitty conditions in the economy after Civil War.
As for seizing crops and redistributing them, what would YOU do when suddenly people are dying right and left because there is nothing to eat? Who do you think, ate all that "confiscated" food in the end, Stalin himself?
You are one of those people whose knowledge of history is taken entirely from recent propaganda speeches.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor. This is probably the MOST controversial and un-authoritative page in the whole Wikipedia.
1. I deny that Holodomor was anything but a major natural disaster combined with a poor condition of the economy and bad leadership. It was not some kind of genocide campaign that US propaganda is presenting it as, and there is absolutely no reason to see it as such (except for Americans' manufactured hatred for Communists, Russians and Ukrainians alike).
2. Apparently there is a lot of controversy around the content of Wikipedia articles related to Holodomor. I would not quote them, as anything authoritative.
3. Grain had to be rationed at the time of famine. As I have explained before, nothing that Communists would do then would change the situation significantly either way.
4. Some Baltic states' leaders are extreme Nationalists, and they openly supported former Nazis, something that does not happen anywhere else in Europe.
Contrary to the popular in US belief, the drought and famine in 30's were natural disasters. At most Communists were incompetent in handling the resources, however the fact remains, agricultural production at the time of the drought was not sufficient to feed all that population, and there was nothing that would change it either way, given the natural conditions and level of technology available at the time.
US propaganda loves to wave some irrelevant documents about negative actions that would affect at most few hundreds of people, and misrepresent them as Communists somehow trying to kill millions of people, however this is dishonest and opportunistic rewriting of history.
Your whole country, and its whole "culture" didn't exist 300 years ago. STFU, N00B before accusing countries that actually have some history!