1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Anti-fascists not welcome in Estonia

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Gelion, Jul 31, 2010.

  1. amadeus

    amadeus As seen on OT

    Aug 30, 2001
    Osaka (大阪)
    I don't blame any Estonian (or Finn, or Latvian, or Lithuanian) for fighting alongside the Germans against Russia. The Russians aggressed against the Baltics, so the Balts were justified in fighting back.
  2. Patroklos

    Patroklos Deity

    Feb 25, 2003
    It sounds more like self righteous busy bodies were not welcome. 99.99% of people are "anti-fascists," these people are just hiding behind that label o avoid the real reason they were denied which seems to be rabble rousing.
  3. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Sep 24, 2004
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    And a lot of Poles fought in the Red Army, because their homeland was occupied by the Nazis, even though very few of the Poles were actually sympathetic to the regime which until recently had colluded with the Nazis in destroying their statehood.

    I guess it makes them all Stalinists, too?

    And sure that Nazis had no intention of giving Estonia full independence after the war, but the Estonians A) didn't know that; B) they reckoned that being a German puppet state was better than being a part of the USSR.

    Uhm, yes...? They surely honour their WW2 veterans. Since Estonia didn't have an independent national army at the time, if they want to do the same they have to honour those who fought and died for their people in the ranks of Waffen-SS. That doesn't mean Estonians glorify the Nazi regime, no matter how much you want to make it appear so.

    Speaking for Czechia, there was a row recently about one of the Red Army memorials here in Brno. The mayor of one of the city districts wanted to remove the hammer and sickle symbol from a memorial, because it is seen as a symbol of Communism. However, there is an agreement with Russia about how war memorials are treated in both countries - we take care of the Russian/Soviet here, while Russia takes care of ours (mostly WW1/Civil War) there - which prevents that. Eventually I think they eventually compromised - hammer and sickle will go and only the red star (as a symbol of the Red Army) will stay, but the memorial will be rejuvenated and expanded.

    But then, we were never annexed by the Soviets, we were just occupied once, in 1968. I understand why people in the Baltic states don't want to glorify the army of the regime which had deprived them of their independence and statehood for 50 years.
  4. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Mar 6, 2006
    Poles who fought in Red Army were definitely communists or pro-communist - at least those who now celebrate Victory day, wearing their uniform and decorations of that time, if any.
    They were subordinates of Soviet commanders, they participated in operations outside of Poland, such as capturing Berlin. In your terms they were "collaborants of evil Soviet regime".

    You know, 99% of people wouldn't go serve in foreign army and risk their lives, executing Hitler's orders, just because Nazis "promised" them independence (did they?), or because they "reckoned" something.
    They went there to get better living conditions, food, housing, money. Or simply to save their lives, if they were drafted. Just now, 70 years later, they suddenly recalled "Oh, we were fighting for independence, not for Nazis!"

    Sounds like "we want to glorify somebody who fought against those Russians, but we don't have anybody except Nazi collaborants"

    That's how things should be done.
  5. Scrapest

    Scrapest Chieftain

    Sep 14, 2011
    I probably meant that and by that I was wrong. I seem to recall this was discussed during the Bronze Solider saga that we managed to remove other monuments before and Bronze Solider was left in that place for too long. Still this was in any case not that important in this discussion (to me at least). I was thinking about Stalin monuments so my mistake. Didn't even know they were officially removed by SU. Was it Lenin's orders on personal hate/glory/something else ?
    Ok what scale are we talking about? If it's far and between events most probably both sides would be punished. Murderer is a murderer. If it was on a civil war scale one party would side with the government and the other side would have their own leaders to take helm. So a good old fashioned civil war.

    If you meant it more of a hypothetical situation (I think you did as I gave too much of a stupidly literal answer) and the politicians sided with only the Estonian side then the country would go down fast. Pressure from Russia, EU and other countries would find what Estonia is doing is on the level of Saddam perhaps and intervene. The difference between your hypothetical situation and Bronze Solider was scale. Simply put such a decision let Estonians politicians get away with it. Well we had the Bronze night events but still, no actual casualties. One guy died but he got knifed so I doubt it was Estonian police. Same way Estonian politicians get away with passing laws like "More subjects to be taught in Estonians language in Russian schools". In a way that decision is also taking something away from Russians and making them the losing side. So it is an issue of scale and like it or not pushing peoples buttons. We all get pushed with taxes to see how we can survive and how fast the state can build itself up. In this case the issue was integrity and a decision was made. Was it the right one? Who knows. We can't got back and see if the statue would of gotten blown up or if not then what events would of taken place years after. Currently 9th may is still celebrated in the military cemetery alongside Aljosha the Bronze Solider and things are peaceful.

    How I imagine? Simply, I think about it and it is there.

    As I know all the events you described most probably did not happen or if they did very rarely. When people talk about freedom fighters, when I talk about Estonian freedom fighters I do it with a notion that they really were those. I am not saying all Estonian German forces did it in the name of freedom. However I am saying that those who actually fought with the notion that Estonia might become free are freedom fighters. Now you might ask how can I differentiate between the Estonian vet that did warcrimes and the one that fought for independence? Simple, I can't.

    When I bring up the notion of an "Estonian freedom fighter in German forces" I only take into account that he did not have actual time to do any warcrimes based on recruitment times, he did it with the promised fact that Estonia would somehow get some form of independence, he knew that the Soviets most probably came to reclaim the land. So in my narrow minded view yes, he joined the force to defend Estonian land from the Russians. Perhaps that Russian army core group would fall apart, only the Center group would advance, take Berlin and Estonia would never be retaken, just like Finland. Think about that scenario. In that case that German army Estonian SS vet would be a true blooded Estonian freedom fighter. Yes he would most probably still go through Nurenberg and if something is found he would be trialed with fair justice but those vets that to the best of our knowledge actually fought only for the Estonian independence (that in my scenario they achieved) how are they not freedom fighters? They fought for a just cause and achieved freedom for their land. Only difference is Russian forces were too strong and we were retaken. Yes I understand you put emphasize that all SS and German forces are evil but Estonians don't see it that way. We look at it and say "well we had no real choice, if we wanted to not get reconquered by Russia men had to enlist in German forces". Alternative would of been to rebel against Germans - stupid as both sides would lose men and Estonia would be even more weakly defended. Or use the German forces left and join them and help Estonia remain Russian free. Another option would of been to rebel when Russia had arrived but we know how that went. All "states of enemy" were dealt with and the spine of a small nation was broken quite fast. Only forest brothers continued active arms fight but they were too far and between and rooted out by deathsquads.

    Then we have been talking on different points. I'll just ask again, what do you mean by "unite their people on a base of anti-Russian sentiments?" . How does this manifest in case of Estonia? What does Estonia do that Finland does not for example?

    1) He would get an Estonian passport so he would have just as many rights as any Estonian. Laws are passed by our parliament. Join the crowd I would say. Just as his non Estonian heritage would make his views different so do Estonians among themselves have different views on laws and whatnot. Still the guys with most votes get into power so from that notion Majority rule.
    (NB! I am not for majority vote. For example who would stop if US or any country voted that Blacks again don't deserve to vote. I am just a realist. If 5 billion people out of 6 tomorrow wanted to adopt sharia law in the world who would oppose them?)

    2)Well again it does not work exactly like that as the people don't make the laws. But let's say 51% are Muslim and the law gets passed. Then Estonians must accept it. Sharia law is a law like any other that get approved every day. Yes it has honor killings and all other nifty laws, Hijabs and whatnot but it would be viewed as a law like any other. By that time if the politicians have adopted such views the people would probably be happy with such a law as they voted them in and are most probably Muslim themselves.

    3)Like I said territory gain is less about laws and more about force. If the rest of the world supports their claim then Estonia is defeated by sheer force to disallow any claims. Same way US or Russia can't simply walk into a country. The rest of the world is watching. Like a big game of Risk, no one wants anyone to get too much power.

    So what you are saying Estonia do not respect the rights of minorities. And the deciding factor is if the country is bilingual or not. Then Russia is not respecting the rights of minorities. It only has 1 official language. Also USA is not respecting it's minorities. Btw Finland might be bilingual but 289 of 336 are strictly Finnish regions where Swedish does not matter so not that bilingual at all. Russia is not bilingual cause that would mean that the whole population of Russia would need to know Russian and some other language. The list might go on and on but pointing out other countries does not answer the question, only dodges it.

    If Estonia was bilingual all state affairs would be carried out in 2 sets of languages, all schools and state governed building would be bilingual. TV broadcasting and media would have to be 2 bilingual. Children would have to study a minimum of 3 languages on a higher level. (btw currently it is 3 languages anyway, Russian, Estonian and either German or English but as there are only that many hours some languages get more attention.) The cost and management to such a degree is stupid and nowhere to be seen in the world. It's an utterly stupid remark.

    Actually it's such a stupid point that you bring out, made even stupider by the examples you gave that I might stop here longer. Are you really that ...ok sorry but this point is making me so angry. Basically you ask why Estonia has 1 official language. Then point out Finland and Russia. For gods sakes. Do you know what a official language is!?! Regional language is not an official language, we have that! Here! In Estonia! different Maakonnad have like I said before their own language (if they have a different language or dialect different enough that is). Even Estonians can't understand them as I said before. Thanks to Russia and all the Russian the SU deported to us our children have to be in school for longer and study 3 languages. How many languages does a kid in Russian school study? We already have extra pressure and baggage on all the children. If Russia went bilingual that would mean that every single person in Russia would have to know Russian and Tatar. Every single shop sign in principle should have both variants of text. Every single news broadcast should have equal bearing on language. I think you are a little crazy if you are pushing this point.

    Estonians are already learning Russian in a sufficient manner. We would have to cut English if we wanted to be a bi-lingual state. Do you understand now that even Finland is basically a majority one language state? Estonia might write a law passing Võro, Seto and Russian as co-official languages but what good would it do? Everyone would need to learn 5 languages?

    I am not discarding them. It would be pretty stupid to write "Oh but the minorities were there, not all people think the same, some supported communism, some supported the ideas of Hilter, some hated Jews" after every single sentence.

    I still think the majority wanted Estonia free and times can't change that quick with 20 years. If Estonia did have a majority of communists we would of not rebelled in the first case.

    Also about Estonia being an artificial nation I can't give you a resounding yes and a no. It was somewhat between as both Estonians and Westerners liked this scenario. For one side you can't simply make people fight for the creation of a country they do not support. From the other allied support at this time was a certainly welcome aspect when most of the companies fighting didn't even have enough guns or ammo. So Estonia might of been a cog in a bigger machine.
    Yes I have heard of it plenty of times. I am just pointing out that notion that Estonia is also for Estonians does not ring wrongly to me as in the same sentence I said that all are welcome who accept our laws and other aspects of the country. Slava Russia and Russia for Russians has taken a whole other meaning in Russia. Estonians have not yet shown any wish to kill foreigners or this has not yet happen. If an Estonian posts a video of cutting of heads of foreigners I would be proven wrong.

    Well I don't know how they treated Poles or Belorussians (where they considered Russian just for the name?). Jews and Russians those who stayed gambled with their lives. Either Estonians who sided with Germany helped or Germans themselves looked at birth records or by face value who to take and who to execute.

    Again this is not an issue for Estonians to decide upon. Why should Estonians be blamed for the executions of Poles, Jews, Russians, Belorussians on Estonians soil if Germany was occupying us? Sure they used what workforce they could make use of and sure some Estonians helped them either by force or voluntary. So to answer what about those people? They most likely died by execution or in a workcamp. Again I note did Estonians found these camps and flock to help with the executions? No. Did Estonia ask Germany to invade? No. Did Estonia have any power in the upper ranks to discuss this matter? No. If it would of been an order to execute all Estonians would you ask "What about Estonians? Why didn't you Jews, Poles, Russian and Belorussians who lived in that country protect them?" Again I am sure some escaped, some were executed and some survived. Estonians got lucky as Hitler had not figured out how to categorize them. Most probably workforce.

    And Stalin did kill all ethnic Estonians or ethnic whatever nationality, actually nationality was not important in this case. Stalin did kill all who opposed him in Estonia. Our upper class got wiped out, our president sent to an asylum. "Enemies of the state" executed, sent to workcamps or Siberia. After a certain number was reached the population became probably frightened and didn't dear to rise up or object to anything. So he did not need to reach the 100%.

    Edit: Wait I think I finally got what you meant by this question. Basically that Estonians had a chance to survive by converting to communism and keeping their mouth shut but other nationalities died anyway. And that we should of fought alongside Russians, screw our nations and let it fall to Russia and save minorities?

    This is the old "If you saw a house was burning who would you save, your dog or the neighbor?" , "If you had one choice to save your Mother or a strange family who would you save?" type question. So basically I have these choices:
    a) Do I save my nation and condemn minorities to death
    b) Do I fight for the minorities and lose the nation and probably some part of the population to repression

    Well as choice b) has the following persons in the category as my mother, grandmother, father, grandfather, dog (would die of starvation after we might get sent to Siberia or chosen as being an enemy of the sate) and the rest of the family I would choose b). Notice just as this stupid question is usually forced upon you it was forced on Estonians and be honest whoever is reading this. You would save your mother (who probably had like a 10% or so to die based on SU conduct in Estonia) every time if you had to choose between her and a minority. Red Elk probably is holier than holy and would choose to probably kill his mother and save the unknown minority person. Of course people fended for themselves. I bet every Scottish person would take another Scott over a Welshman. If you bring up that Estonians were not condemned by nationality we had no better options anyway. Soon enough we wouldn't even have an Estonian nationality. Estonia was soon a citizen of SU and Estonian flag, hymn and other national differences were banned. State took control of everything.

    I ask you now would you choose to a)save all the minorities in Russia or b)allow the country to be assimilated into a Communist state who will kill a part of your population?

    So every German soldier should of been punished? Ok this statement of yours seals it. It was right to fight for the Red Army and kills Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians,Latvians,Germans etc but if you as much as wore a uniform of the German army you were meant to be punished. It's not like Red Army was the aggressor in certain states like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland or Latvia. Finnish persons were allied with the German faction. I guess you feel that the aggressor force of the Red Army that attacked Finland is all right and the defending Finnish soldiers should be punished. Rightfully as you put it. Well I am glad you ended with such a bombshell.

    All German troops were meant to be punished. Rightfully. I'll keep that in mind.
  6. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Mar 6, 2006
    Lenin could give orders only from mausoleum by that time.

    Yes, nothing to add here.
    You pass the laws which violate rights of almost 1/3 of country's population and call this issue of integrity.
    Lots of that people don't even have citizenship rights and cannot vote to change the situation.
    Are you still surprised that your country reported as fascist state?

    You don't know, were these particular people criminals or not, but you call them freedom fighters with a notion that they really were those?

    On the first part, the answer is your own words: "Estonian identity is in the recent history anti-Russian"
    The second part - you answered it yourself too. Estonia pass laws which violate rights of national minorities. Language laws. War monument issues.
    There's no such things in Finland.

    So, if they say to you personally, "Estonia is our country, you are minority here and must assimilate - follow Sharia rules", would you have any objections?

    First, you don't understand, what means bilingual country. It doesn't mean all citizens must know 2 languages - it is requirement for officials only.
    For Russia it is not an option to have 200+ state languages, but all local languages have regional status and have the same rights with Russian in their respective regions.
    The example with Finland was aimed to show contrast in language policies.
    For them, having 6% language minority was enough to make their language second state.
    For you, having 30% language minority made you only to start closing their schools and switch them to use Estonian.
    Not to mention, even making Russian second state language wouldn't create much problems, since almost 100% of Estonian population knew it in 1991.

    Supporting or not supporting Nazis was an issue for Estonians to decide upon. Not executions.
    Those who supported Nazis and helped them also share Nazis guilt.
    You really don't understand?
    They fought under Nazi command, no matter what they had in mind. They helped Hitler to stay longer, willingly or unwillingly, to kill more Allied soldiers, Jews, Poles and Belorussians.

    Again, what you are saying sounds like:
    "Nazis were not so bad to us, they didn't kill Estonians, they killed just a few millions of Jews and Russians. Why not to join them?"
    Can you answer, does it describe your position correctly?
    Because if yes, I'm wasting my time.

    No, those who volunteered in SS should.

    German troops were not collaborants.
    Those who willingly joined Nazis, helped them to kill our people, made Hitler's regime last longer, received money and food for that - such people are criminals. No matter, Estonians or Russians.
  7. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Son of Huehuecoyotl

    May 28, 2007
    Many of the USSR's western citizens, as I recall, were all too supportive of German "liberation" at the start. Of course, once the USSR was kicked out and the velvet gloves were off(and Germany, you know, naturally started oppressing the people where Stalin left off), things changed quick.


    A German-American friend of mine, born in Germany, commented on a topic similar to this. He said it makes him nauseous how people always seem to single out Germany, or remove it from the equation, in World War II topics.

    -Germans aren't remembered as being interred by the USA. Just as 5 million people are often excluded from the Holocaust, Germans and Italians often don't get a mention in internment. Heck, I don't think my history class really touched upon it. I saw plenty of Japanese prisoners, but not many German or Italian.

    -In film, you see plenty of anti-war films from the Japanese perspective(such as Grave of the Fireflies) or ones that humanise the Japanese soldiers, to show war isn't wanted by either side. However, when the Germans are shown, barring exceptions such as Rommel or Von Stauffenberg, they seem to be depicted as mindless automotons who will do whatever atrocity they are asked to do. Be consistent, Hollywood.

    -In line with this thread, I bet if Russian and Japanese veterans get together, it'd be fine, but as soon as German veterans or those allied with Germany's veterans get together, it's endorsing Nazism. What the heck? Did we forget that Japan and the USSR weren't exactly sunshine and cookies?
  8. DinoDoc

    DinoDoc Deity

    Dec 29, 2001
    Without evidence that they participated in the Holocaust, all we have proof of is that they fought against an evil empire attempting to swallow their country.
  9. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Mar 6, 2006
    I havent heard about such problems with German veterans in Russia.
    Of course, they are not being met with flowers here, but nobody will call modern Germany fascist state because of their gatherings.

    They didn't fight against evil empire, the fought for it.
    And also participated in a criminal organization, according to Nuremberg Trial.
  10. Yeekim

    Yeekim Deity

    Sep 13, 2006
    Overwhelming majority of those Estonians who fought in German army joined/were drafted in spring 1944 and fought in Narva and Blue Hills. By that time, it was clear that Germany is not going to win the war.

    The objective was not German victory, but to keep the Red Army out of Estonia until the end of the war, thus retaining hope for restoration of independence. That is made pretty obvious by the fact that these men mostly remained in Estonia after Germans had already withdrawn.
    For some reason, Baltic troops drafted into German army were, without exception, formed into Waffen-SS units.
    Spoiler :

    This distinction is, of course, conveniently overlooked every single time someone decides to decry "SS-parades in Estonia".
    They can first obtain citizenship and then vote. Like ~200 000 of those who did not receive theirs automatically in 1991 have done.
  11. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Mar 6, 2006
    They weren't able to influence the rules of obtaining citizenship.
    These rules were imposed to them by the people of the only correct nationality.
    8% of your population doesn't have citizenship and rights to vote.
    Good job, democratic Estonia.
  12. Scrapest

    Scrapest Chieftain

    Sep 14, 2011
    We feared what laws might get passed as like you said a third of our country was not really our citizens. SU deported these people into Estonia and it was a shared artificial problem. We had 1/3 of our population that was not really willing or wanting to live by Estonian rules. Remember that below 20% of ethnic Russians wanted re-independence. It probably is not that far off if you deported Christians into a Muslim society or the other way. SU made a problem and we had to deal with it.
    Firstly you asked what is the Estonian national identity and I replied honestly that in recent history it has been anti-Russian as you were aggressors for us and we lost our country. I also said in that very same paragraph that that's only our recent history. Then you suddenly used a straw man leap and got that we built our national identity on our recent history and are trying to unite the people with it.

    A Estonian is defined by the following: Size of the population, language, Song festivals and nationally dear songs, our ability to survive as a group of people, our roots and ties with Finland and Hungary, our age as one of the oldest people to live in one spot in Europe. Among the usual aspects that draw us together like sport competitions and political issues. What defines a Russian?
    What issues might those be?

    Yes as an Estonian I would have objections.

    First you state that bilingual country does not mean 2 languages for local populace. Then you say that by 1991 almost 100% Estonians knew Russian. Hmm.....so SU somehow did not force Russian on Estonians but still managed a near 100% Russian knowledge?

    Anyway Finland do it one way, Russia do it another way. Estonia do it in another way. You forget that the population of Russians in Estonia have a very unique situation as SU reason to bring in these people was to destabilize the region among other things. As one mold does not fit all Estonia knowing that such a different population that did not choose to come here would stay in their own corner and Estonians in their own corner. So the route taken was to make everyone speak Estonian or else Estonia would never function. SU was quite smart in doing so as we will struggle with this for a while.

    The answer is *drum-roll* yes. The other choice was to lose our country, our nationality, our identity and face a far more larger death count (as we did). Basically had the SU lasted a couple of more decades I fear there might be no Estonians. Sadly we failed to keep the Red Army from our country.

    Do you understand that Estonia chose this path cause the SU was a even worse thread than the Nazi regime? The Jews lost 8 milllion? SU manage to wipe out 20, 30 million? I have a feeling to this day I would fight the Red Army. If I had time left I would fight the German Army.

    You are obviously going for the point that ooohh Jews had no choice, you helped the nazis to even destroy them. You know what? This is guilt that Estonians will never take upon them. SU was on the doorstep and had they been a respectable country like UK or USA next to us we would of welcomed them. Russia was known for having if not the then at least the second worst regime in the world after nazis. Your communist nature managed to convert people against you and even welcome the Germans, imagine that.

    Both these countries were mass murdering machines and Estonia was caught in between. Don't you dare say we are fachists. You shot our people in the backs of their skulls, raped some, deported others. We had every right to shoot any Russian who crossed our border and wanted to take our state away just as Russians had every right to shoot any Estonians trying to take their country. Delayed the downfall of Hitler? Good god man, what do we care? We were about to lose it all. Should Finland just allowed you to overrun them, rape their women, steal their possessions? I mean Finland delayed Hitler staying in power too. Why even attack Finland for Christ sake? Your Red Army delayed Hitler to stay in power by taking part in stupid wars.

    You are basically saying that Estonians are not important cause Belorussians, Polish and the Jews were dieing in greater number than the 1,5 population of Estonia and we should be ashamed that we chose to fight for our survival instead of submitting to the mass murdering regime of SU. You were just as bad as the Nazis and you should be ashamed. How many Russian civilians did Estonia butcher? Ask yourself that. Now ask yourself how many Estonian civilians Russia butchered.

    Germany was in power and managed to kill 3,5 to 4 thousand Jews on our land. It won't ever come close to the number that we lost to the SU so we chose rightly to try to delay the Red menace. Or are you saying an Estonian life is worth less and we should of tried to save those 3,5-4 thousand Jews but succumb to the Red Army and lose a lot more of our men?

    What difference is there if it is a Jew or a Estonian. A human life is a human life. The first regime managed to butcher below 10 thousand and the next regime well over 100,000. In total we lost too much. If WW3 comes we know what side to fear more.

    And I quote "If I'd agree to wear German uniform, receive food and salary for serving them - I would become collaborant and would be punished for that after war. Rightfully. "

    Now you say and I quote "German troops were not collaborants.
    Those who willingly joined Nazis, helped them to kill our people, made Hitler's regime last longer, received money and food for that - such people are criminals."

    I am sorry what? So how exactly weren't German troops collaborators helping Hitler last longer but the drafted men of other nationalities were?
  13. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Mar 6, 2006
    And decided to restrict their rights, trying to forcefully assimilate them.

    The same with those Russians. They were told that it's not their country anymore.

    Yes, exactly. Did Estonians forget their language during Soviet period? May be they were not allowed to use it or learn it in schools?

    SU didn't try to destabilize situation on its own territory. Generally, its kind of uncommon thing to do, for any country.

    Hope you just don't understand what you are saying.
    So, your position is "Nazis were not so bad to us, they didn't kill Estonians, they killed just a few millions of Jews and Russians. Why not to join them?"
    What if I rephrase it as "NKVD troops were not so bad for us, they didn't kill loyal Soviet citizens, they just deported a few thousands of Estonian anti-communists."
    How does it sound to you? Note that "killed millions" is replaced with "deported thousands".
    Would you like it if all the Russians would think so?

    What you have written here is a mixture of truth, half-truth, stupidity and outright lies. At least I see how modern Estonian education works. And all of that have nothing to do with my statement that morally wrong was to side with Nazis, not to fight against USSR.

    Why not? I'd qualify people who agree with your "drum-roll yes" answer above as fascists.

    Your question about digging grave was addressed to me personally. The answer, as you see from quote, is about me too. I'm not German. I would be collaborant, if I joined them.

    Yes, they were not. Read what the word collaborant mean.

    How did you convert "Those who willingly joined Nazis" to "drafted men of other nationalities"?
  14. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Mar 6, 2006
    I said the following:
    This is the question of what principles you choose to build your national identity upon. Right now, as I see it, the principles are Estonian ethnic nationalism, theory of occupation, and idea about historical guilt of Russia. Your national ideology is to large extent anti-Russian...

    Your answer:
    Firstly yes Estonian identity is in the recent history anti-Russian as we lost our newly formed country twice to you.

    And then I pointed out:
    We had 3 or 4 wars with Finland in XX century, they lost important part of their territory to us. Why Finland doesn't have anti-Russian ideology, why they are not try to unite their people on a base of anti-Russian sentiments?
    We had two huge wars with Germany, both countries lost immense amount of people, and now Germany is our best friend in Europe. We respect their war veterans, invite them to visit old battleplaces. Guess why.
    Two wars with Japan, territorial arguments are not settled yet! The same, no problems on ideological level, from both sides.
    Why you are so special in your "rightful hatred", guys?

    Somehow, you switched all this to song festivals and Russian national identity.
    Neither Finnish, German or Japanese state ideologies are anti-Russian.
    Estonian is.
  15. Peuri

    Peuri Game

    Feb 11, 2005
    Not here
    While I have not read a lot of this thread, I would like to comment on this bit, as it grossly missrepresents the language politics of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the later Republic of Finland. I don't know if it was accidentally poorly worded or if I misunderstood what you meant to say, but it sounds as if Finland, after becoming independant, decided to make swedish as the second language.

    Swedish had been for 650 years, the whole time Finland was a part of Sweden, the official language of the elite, the state and the bureucracy. The peasants talked various dialects of finnish but the minute a person wanted to rise in class or discuss with the bureucracy they had to learn swedish or hire someone to do it for the in the case of the bureucracy. All the school teaching was in swedish (there were some in german and later in russian also) except the ones where the peasantry were taught to read finnish by the priests. Now on this background when the Russin empire conquered Finland from the Swedes swedish was still the official language of the state. The swedish speaking part of the population at this point in time constituted about 20-25% of the whole population. It wasn't until 1858 that finnish was accepted to become an official language gradually during a period of 20 years. During and after that there was the fennoman movement which encouraged the elite to learn finnish and in essence become finnish according to the image of the finn that was propagated to them. Had there not been the desire on parts of the finnish (most of whom had a finnish swede background) elite to promote the language and create an image of the finn we might be discussing about should finnish be made an official language in Finland.

    The fact that swedish was made compulsory in schools for everyone was decided in 1968 to make the language situation in Finland more coherent and to perhaps align Finland more with the rest of Fennoscandia, I haven't read alot on this subject. At this point the swedish speaking population was about 8% of the whole population. There exists a lot of resentment among the young finns against this compulsory swedish teaching today.
  16. Scrapest

    Scrapest Chieftain

    Sep 14, 2011
    Read the words carefully that you asked and what I replied.
    First question: What do Estonians build their national identity upon?
    I answered: Recent history anti-Russian and that's what people remember (logical as most people are still alive that were during these events or their parents were). Also that before we were mostly taught about who controlled the land, our farming habits etc.
    *From that you concluded that yes our national identity is just about being anti Russian discarding the word recent*
    My second reply: We misunderstood each other, Estonian identity is built on other factors too and I was talking about recent history. We aren't just learning anti-Russian sentiments and I went on to describe what makes an Estonian Estonian.
    Your reply: Well you said your recent-history is anti-Russian so that makes your entire identity anti-Russian. Why try to answer the question anymore by bringing up the Song Festival? What makes it rightful to be anti-Russian? (Here we go again, how about losing a large portion of the population to Russia mostly civilians and a lot of soldiers fighting for and against Russia. Raping, pillaging by the Red Army. Taking our country away. Aggression against us. Occupying us for a long period of time. Trying to uproot the Estonian identity by banning our songs, flags, hymn, traditions like Christmas. Animal cart deportation. etc and etc)

    Firstly on peoples level Finland has as much of personal recentment towards Russia as Estonians or Japanese have. Japanese is a little special case as they attacked first and joined the war themselves with Pearl Harbor so Soviet aggression was kind of justified and the annexed land ...well not fair as Japanese communities had their lives taken from them but still Japanese attacked and faced the risks whatever their reasons be. Now on to Estonia and Finland. I would say every Finnish person is anti-Russian. If any Finnish person is not then he is not a true Finn. If you say naah Russians are ok then you are forgetting a part of your nations people that got annexed and had to learn new laws/languages etc and relearn how to live as part of Russian territory. Now I am not saying Finnish people or Estonians just pure hate Russians or any other nation that got attacked. Anti-Russian is soft enough word to describe this. Estonia also lost native people in Petserimaa to Soviet annexation.

    One thing that neither Germany, Finland or Japanese have is the god damn most important fact that makes our recent hate justified. They all kept their country. Well for Germany, Finland and Japanese at least a (large)part of it (besides the fact that 2 of these countries were aggressors themselves and kind of helped the war start or continue). We Estonians lost our country for almost a century. A century or persecution, police state, KGB or NKVD depending on the period, mass deportations, killings. Russification and banning anything that is Estonian. Basically we were forced into a union and that union tried to make us something we were not or killed or deported any bigger naysayer. How can you say we are on the same level as Germany, Finland or Japan. This ability to still survive made is also a part of our identity and from that the recent anti-russian centiments as it is part of our history. Although forced upon us but still. We will always remember who is the latest thread. We are like a kid and a bully has been pushing us around for half of the school year. How can we not be anti-Russian? But we have other parts of history that make an Estonian that is what I am trying to tell you. It is not just "Russia is evil, Russians are bad people, Fear Russia, Russia Russia Russia" that we build our identity upon. Our country might of started in the 20th century but our people have been living longer, some claim the oldest people living in Europe.

    I asked about Russian identity because I wanted to know what kind of answer you were looking for as obviously we were not on the same page with this question.

    Also perhaps you would word what anti-Russian means to you. Maybe we have different understanding of the word. To me it's just a mindset. Like Anti-center party or anti-nazist or anti-internet regulations. It does not make me hold an active belief (meaning I constantly think about it). It just makes me view the world in a certain way based on prior experiences. Anti-Russian stance comes from aggression, bad behavior of the troops, the forced bad regime that came with communism. So I find it perfectly reasonable to take such a stance. Based on experience we have seen that Russians don't consider Estonians to be worth the status of people, they still consider us unjustly nazi so they are still aggressive and by prior events Russia has attacked us once as a independent nation and once occupied us after German occupation. I am also anti-German in that sense but Germany has since changed too much, the regime is different, the distance is too big (they have to go through some nations before they get to us). Russia is still closeby and consider Estonia as their own and judging your replies so do you. So anti-Russian sentiment is kind of a reflex, actually it is a reflex as reflexes developed on repeated actions over a period of time so muscle memory kind of. Same way Estonians have memories previous times and developed a reflex. I hope you got my viewpoint at least partially.

    There is nothing nationally anti Russian. Just we have learned to fear the beast in the east. We fear for all the right reasons. It isn't "Oooh Russians, they are so evil" it's "Russia conquered us before and will do it again as they view Estonia as not a real country". With time this will change however. Even today I find it near 1% that Russia would attack us. Maybe if radical changes take place but currently Russia is having troubles of their own the biggest being the exodus of Muslim people to Russia.

    I can't understand your view or more exactly how you can't see mine. It's like you would say " Oooh Germany attacked us twice in a short period of time and once they managed to occupy our land for 70 years" "Whats that? Anti-German naaaaaah! They were perfectly reasonable attacks, why should I be anti-German I mean they only killed a certain % of the population and did some other crimes against the local population" or even better if you kicked your dog every second day and didn't understand why it became anti-human against you. Or actually if the Jews would ask "Why are we anti-German? naaah we aren't it was that one time we just lost 8 million to them but all is well"
  17. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Mar 6, 2006
    I merely gave Finland as example of proper treatment of language minorities.

    Regardless of compulsory teaching and status of second state language, Swedish-speaking minority is not being discriminated in modern Finland. Am I right?

    For example, not giving Russian-speaking minority citizenship and rights to vote in elections.
    Not allowing their kids to learn on their native language.
    Calling Soviet veterans "occupants" and disrespecting their war memorials.
    All this is anti-Russian policy of state, and anti-Russian attitude of people.

    It's easy, just respect them and they will be your friends.

    (BTW, read my message above the one which you quoted)
  18. christos200

    christos200 Never tell me the odds

    Jan 9, 2011
    EU, Greece, Athens
  19. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Jan 29, 2003
    USA #1
    It is actually just the opposite, and it isn't even close.

    During the war, the Japanese were consistently vilified and a massive propaganda effort was created to portray them as being sub-humans which directly led to all sorts of atrocities against Japanese soldiers, as well as even against Japanese in the US and Japanese-American civilians. Many thought they would actually be safer locked into internment camps due to the largely Hollywood-created public outrage. Films portraying Pearl Harbor as an insidious sneak attack are still being churned out. Japanese soldiers were frequently portrayed as heartless baby killers and rapists who would not even hesitate to surrender then try to kill one more American if they possibly could.

    OTOH most WWII films do not portray German soldiers as being evil in the least. Most of the soldiers are typecast as being quite honorable and were merely fighting for their homeland. It is even insinuated that they were essentially forced to serve the few really evil Nazi leaders. That a handful of SS committed virtually all the atrocities.

    It actually took far longer for the hateful propaganda against the Japanese to finally wear off. It wasn't until this year that they were allowed to show their respect for the war dead at the Arizona memorial.

    Many Americans openly supported the Nazis. at least until the US entered the war.

    Even Henry Ford was fiercely antisemitic who openly supported the Nazis and their causes until England entered the war.

    There is still a lot of far-right fascism in Europe, while there is little left in Japan today. While I think there is no real problem with respecting the war dead in an honorable way as the Japanese and many Europeans now do, many of these ceremonies in Europe are just dog whistles that continue to provide publicity for antisemitism and neo-Nazis.

  20. christos200

    christos200 Never tell me the odds

    Jan 9, 2011
    EU, Greece, Athens
    And so what? If they like nazis let them be. As long as they dont create a wwIII i see no reason why we should criticize them. If they want to be nazi is their choice.

Share This Page