Anti-fascists not welcome in Estonia

[Winner]

Gelion, it would actually help if you knew something about the Nazi "plans" for the East before saying nonsense like that they "(...) planned to kill 100% of (...)".

1st, there was no coherent strategy for a long-term administration of the East. There were several competing "plans", none of which had officially been adopted when the Germans still had time to implement them. Eventually the policy in occupied territories was driven by a weird mixture of pragmatism (how to obtain food for the Wehrmacht) and the usual racist idiocy. I am not talking about the Jews now, we all know that in their case there was a plan.

2nd, even the worst variants of the plan considered didn't include wholesale extermination of any of the Slavic, Baltic or other nations in the East. Enslavement, exploitation, humiliation, ethnic cleansing, forced expulsions, resettlement - all these things were present in some of the proposed variants, but a 100% extermination? Nope.

3rd, none of this is even relevant in this discussion. Since even the Nazis didn't know what to do in the East, how the hell can you say the Estonians or Ukrainians or whoever else could have had the slightest idea? Again, from the Baltic point of view, Germans were no worse than the Soviets - and they promised liberation (and they lied, but again, the Balts couldn't have known it), so it seemed a good idea to be on their winning side. In their view, they were fighting for their eventual independence.


What you're doing here is your typical "let's ignore the facts and focus on throwing dirt at some small nation that dares to disagree with my Russian* point of view."

Spoiler :

* Russian, therefore right.

Funny how you or anybody else didn't react to my question whether Russia would allow a group of anti-communist provocateurs to disrupt a gathering of the Russian veterans of the Great Patriot War. Something tells me the answer would be a resounding "Nyet!" For this reason alone you have exactly 0% right to criticize Estonia.

 

[Communisto]

Good for them. I suspect they might even had a place in the world dominated by racial theories after all of the three above were eliminated. 2nd class citizens of a 2nd class race. Oh joy!

And this has anything to do with reality how? We know the nazi political ideology was effed in the head, no one is disputing this. These people just found themselves thrust into the middle of it, trying to survive. What did you expect them to do? Rise up in solidarity with the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto? What a wonderful fairy world you must live in.

Quite possibly the case, but, as I said previously, one cannot assume that those who collaborated during the initial invasions realised the extent of Soviet atrocities during the invasion, nor are they likely to have believed that the repression of the regime was anything other than a temporary state of affairs.

Initial invasions? The Nazis didn't touch Estonia until Barbarossa, the only thing the Estonians would be choosing between at that point would be their own country and the soviet invader. I think all semblance of "progressive democracy" as you said, falls away when that democracy invades a newly formed state in order to repatriate it into the Russian Empire 2.0, which is exactly what happened.

You keep forgetting that prior to this the Estonians had lived for years under Russian rule and knew how crappy it was. They weren't going to suddenly accept it just because all the Ruskies were wearing red this time.

Let's remember Hanlon's Razor, after all; don't assume that these people were evil when gullibility is also a sufficient explanation.
Also, the deportations do not constitute genocide, as they were not, in themselves, murders (even if many murders resulted). Nor can they properly be considered a form of ethnic cleansing, because the program did was neither aimed at ethnic Estonians as such, nor was it intended to cleanse Estonia of them. This sort of terminology is very powerful, so it's best to get it right, lest we devalue it.

You can call a pig a cow but its still a pig. Find a time machine and go back to tell the Estonian villagers that they should just chill out because forced deportations arent really that bad.

Well, as I said, there are certainly ambiguities. What I really meant was that the Soviets, for all their sins, at least had something which could legitimately be considered a noble cause, while the Nazis were open racial supremacists. Even if their penchant for genocide hadn't yet been revealed to the general population, their advocacy of ethnic cleansing was well known, having been an integral part of the party platform since the publication of Mein Kampf.

The Nazis also believed in combating Bolshevism wherever it reared it's head. That's pretty noble to a people who had spent years getting kicked around by Soviets.

I don't care what you all think, if siding with Nazis would save my family's lives I'd be goose stepping all the way to the bank. Same goes for the soviet side. Anyone who tries to act better than these poor people is just showing the extent of their sheltered, rich boy, call of duty playing, societal bubble.

 

[Traitorfish]

Initial invasions? The Nazis didn't touch Estonia until Barbarossa, the only thing the Estonians would be choosing between at that point would be their own country and the soviet invader. I think all semblance of "progressive democracy" as you said, falls away when that democracy invades a newly formed state in order to repatriate it into the Russian Empire 2.0, which is exactly what happened.

That's obviously not how the pro-Soviets saw. You speak with the benefit of seventy years of hindsight, which those who lived at the times of the invasions did not have. They believed that the Soviet Union was, as advertised, a union of all peoples, rather than a specifically Russian entity- after all, it was headed up by a Georgian, and various other ethnic minorities such as Poles and Jews held high rank- and that the invasion was necessary to topple the Western-backed capitalist regime, particularly in light of the increasing threat of fascist expansionism.

You keep forgetting that prior to this the Estonians had lived for years under Russian rule and knew how crappy it was. They weren't going to suddenly accept it just because all the Ruskies were wearing red this time.

That's rather simplistic. Besides, weren't the native aristocracy largely Baltic German, rather than Russian?

You can call a pig a cow but its still a pig. Find a time machine and go back to tell the Estonian villagers that they should just chill out because forced deportations arent really that bad.

I was merely observing that things which aren't genocide should not be referred to as such, because it devalues the term. Why is that contentious? I think that you are pursuing conflict where none need exist.

The Nazis also believed in combating Bolshevism wherever it reared it's head. That's pretty noble to a people who had spent years getting kicked around by Soviets.

I think you conflate opposition to the Soviet Union with anti-socialism, which is rather over-simplistic. The former was obviously rather pressing, but the latter was somewhat abstract at that point.

I don't care what you all think, if siding with Nazis would save my family's lives I'd be goose stepping all the way to the bank. Same goes for the soviet side. Anyone who tries to act better than these poor people is just showing the extent of their sheltered, rich boy, call of duty playing, societal bubble.

You're being very hostile. I don't know why. Have I said or done something to offend you?

 

[Communisto]

That's obviously not how the pro-Soviets saw. You speak with the benefit of seventy years of hindsight, which those who lived at the times of the invasions did not have.

But this is my point, the ideologically pro-soviet were as minuscule as the ideologically pro-nazis. They were their own sphere of radicals. What the majority of the population was then forced to do was to chose which side most directly ensured their survival. You cant blame either side for doing what they did. Also, what would the average Estonian think if;

1: Your country had been occupied for centuries by Russians
2: You are finally allowed an independent status after a brutal war
3: Russians begin to slowly regain the territories they once held under imperial rule, despite the fact that none of those former states wish to repatriate.
4: Russians are now bombing your house.

That's rather simplistic. Besides, weren't the native aristocracy largely Baltic German, rather than Russian?

It was administered by the Tsars, the people hated the Russians long before even the First War

I was merely observing that things which aren't genocide should not be referred to as such, because it devalues the term. Why is that contentious? I think that you are pursuing conflict where none need exist.

It just seemed to me like you were attempting an apologist stance by comparing deportations with the holocaust, which I find rediculous. People actually caught in the torrent of invasion, ethnic cleansing and deportation are not as able to keep as clear a head as those of us on internet forums (for the most part ) and it just bugs me that people try and demonize folks who were stuck in a situation that we cannot even fathom at this point.

I think you conflate opposition to the Soviet Union with anti-socialism, which is rather over-simplistic. The former was obviously rather pressing, but the latter was somewhat abstract at that point.

Again, you are just getting into semantics. For the average Estonian living in a Russian occupied nation nazis = anti-communism. anti-communism = a relief from occupation. You are forgetting just how desperate these people must have been.

You're being very hostile. I don't know why. Have I said or done something to offend you?

I do apologize if I am coming off this way, really . As i said before I just find it offensive the way some of those ITT are so quick to judge these poor Estonians who actually had to live through one of the scariest times in human history.

 

[Dachs]

There's something called Drag [sic] nach Osten that you need to now [sic] about.

Retroactively applying the Drang nach Osten concept past pan-Germanist propagandizing is historiographical nonsense, FYI.

 

[Traitorfish]

But this is my point, the ideologically pro-soviet were as minuscule as the ideologically pro-nazis. They were their own sphere of radicals. What the majority of the population was then forced to do was to chose which side most directly ensured their survival. You cant blame either side for doing what they did.

I don't intend to point the finger, merely to observe that not all collaborations can be considered equally. The two must be considered separately, and simply declaring that all collaborators were as bad (or innocent) as each other is simplistic and insufficiently critical to allow an informed evaluation.

It was administered by the Tsars, the people hated the Russians long before even the First War

Well, yes, but I'm given to understand that the Governate of Estonia, like most peripheral provinces, was largely administered by the local aristocracy, in this case Baltic Germans. This in mind, I'm not sure that all Estonians would've considered the Soviet Union innately threatening because it had a Russian majority, or found Germany to be a natural ally.

It just seemed to me like you were attempting an apologist stance by comparing deportations with the holocaust, which I find rediculous. People actually caught in the torrent of invasion, ethnic cleansing and deportation are not as able to keep as clear a head as those of us on internet forums (for the most part) and it just bugs me that people try and demonize folks who were stuck in a situation that we cannot even fathom at this point.

I made no such comparison, I was merely observing that the term "genocide" is not appropriate in reference to the Soviet Occupation of Estonia.

Although, a quick bit of poking around reveals that Baltic Germans comprised the majority of the deportations conducted by the Soviet Union, which explains why the such a large portion of the population was effected. Apparently, this was part of a request made by Germany as part of the Nazi-Soviet pact, in part to move them out of the firing line, and in part to provide a conveniently mobile population for the Germanisation of Poland. This seems to complicate things somewhat; on the one hand, it can be framed of ethnic cleansing by the Soviets, but on the other it appears to have been largely bloodless and conducted with a considerable degree of cooperation on the part of the Baltic Germans.

Again, you are just getting into semantics. For the average Estonian living in a Russian occupied nation nazis = anti-communism. anti-communism = a relief from occupation. You are forgetting just how desperate these people must have been.

I think it's more than simple semantics; the anti-socialism of the Third Reich was essentially irrelevant as an ideological position for most collaborators at the time of their invasion, while the (nominal) socialism of the Soviet Union was not.

I do apologize if I am coming off this way, really . As i said before I just find it offensive the way some of those ITT are so quick to judge these poor Estonians who actually had to live through one of the scariest times in human history.

Well, I should probably clarify that I don't mean to judge or condemn these Estonians, I was just observing that, while ambiguities certainly abound, not all collaborations can be considered equally. Those who collaborated with the Soviets can be forgiven for pursuing what they genuinely considered to a righteous path, while those who collaborated with the Nazis were, often by their own admission, siding what what appeared to be the lesser of two evils.

 

[red_elk]

Funny how you or anybody else didn't react to my question whether Russia would allow a group of anti-communist provocateurs to disrupt a gathering of the Russian veterans of the Great Patriot War. Something tells me the answer would be a resounding "Nyet!" For this reason alone you have exactly 0% right to criticize Estonia.

They are very welcome. But nobody wants to try

 

[Camikaze]

Quite possibly the case, but, as I said previously, one cannot assume that those who collaborated during the initial invasions realised the extent of Soviet atrocities during the invasion, nor are they likely to have believed that the repression of the regime was anything other than a temporary state of affairs. Let's remember Hanlon's Razor, after all; don't assume that these people were evil when gullibility is also a sufficient explanation.

And the exact same excuse can be used for those that joined with the Nazis, assuming they weren't forced to. There is no way everyone in Estonia at the time of the Nazi invasion could possibly have had balanced and accurate information about the ideology and policy of either power.

Also, the deportations do not constitute genocide, as they were not, in themselves, murders (even if many murders resulted). Nor can they properly be considered a form of ethnic cleansing, because the program did was neither aimed at ethnic Estonians as such, nor was it intended to cleanse Estonia of them. This sort of terminology is very powerful, so it's best to get it right, lest we devalue it.

I specified 'mass deportations' for a reason. They do constitute genocide, at least according to Latvia and Lithuania (although I only came across the deportations of Estonians being referenced as 'genocide' in Latvia and Lithuania also), and according to international law.

To quote wikipedia:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

Okay, you can quite validly argue that that form of genocide is not as bad as actual extermination, but I'm not mincing my terms when I call the mass deportations genocide. Particularly when their aim was largely for the Russification of the Baltic states.

Well, as I said, there are certainly ambiguities. What I really meant was that the Soviets, for all their sins, at least had something which could legitimately be considered a noble cause, while the Nazis were open racial supremacists. Even if their penchant for genocide hadn't yet been revealed to the general population, their advocacy of ethnic cleansing was well known, having been an integral part of the party platform since the publication of Mein Kampf.

And I'm sure all Estonians had read that.

Look, I'm not trying to make this into a "Soviets were just as bad as Nazis", because firstly, I don't think they were, and secondly, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that I would suspect that a large number of those who signed up to fight with the Nazis did so with more honourable intentions than would otherwise appear the case. It's not black and white "Soviets were Allies, so good, and Nazis were the enemy, so evil". Both were evil, and people had very good reasons for resisting both.

 

[Traitorfish]

And the exact same excuse can be used for those that joined with the Nazis, assuming they weren't forced to. There is no way everyone in Estonia at the time of the Nazi invasion could possibly have had balanced and accurate information about the ideology and policy of either power.

Granted, but most of this stuff is pretty basic. People knew what the Soviet Union was about, and people knew what Nazi Germany was about. This was general knowledge. The Nazis never exactly masked their intentions in regards to ethnic minorities, after all, they just went a few steps further than anyone expected.

I specified 'mass deportations' for a reason. They do constitute genocide, at least according to Latvia and Lithuania (although I only came across the deportations of Estonians being referenced as 'genocide' in Latvia and Lithuania also), and according to international law.

To quote wikipedia:


Okay, you can quite validly argue that that form of genocide is not as bad as actual extermination, but I'm not mincing my terms when I call the mass deportations genocide. Particularly when their aim was largely for the Russification of the Baltic states.

I don't think that this is true at all. The "genocide" in question was the transportation of the Baltic Germany population at the request of the German government, largely with the cooperation of the Baltic Germans themselves (albeit largely because they had little choice). No attempt was made to the destroy the Baltic Germans, and so it cannot be properly considered genocide. Ethnic cleansing, quite possibly, but that's not the same thing.
As I said, I merely wish to avoid devaluing the term "genocide", not to lessen the suffering incurred by the Baltic German people. That's not to say that I refuse to extend the term to anything less than violent extermination- as your list says, it can refer to non-physical genocide which aims at destroying the group as an abstract, rather than a physical collective- but it's important to make a distinction between seeking to destroy a group and actively which is hostile to a group.

And I'm sure all Estonians had read that.

Look, I'm not trying to make this into a "Soviets were just as bad as Nazis", because firstly, I don't think they were, and secondly, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that I would suspect that a large number of those who signed up to fight with the Nazis did so with more honourable intentions than would otherwise appear the case. It's not black and white "Soviets were Allies, so good, and Nazis were the enemy, so evil". Both were evil, and people had very good reasons for resisting both.

Oh, I fully recognise that- as I have observed previously, both sides are mired in ambiguity. I'm merely observing that collaborating with the Nazi Germany, a state which actively proclaimed a goal of racial supremacism and ethnic cleansing, cannot be considered equal to collaborating with the USSR, a state which preached equality and egalitarianism. Granted, the vast majority of those who collaborated with the Nazis were doing so as, in their eyes, a lesser of two evils, but those who collaborated with the Soviets at least believed that they were genuinely pursuing a righteous path. There seems to me to be a difference there, even if it is from fully damning for one and redeeming for the other.

Although, apparently, the Estonian Jews knew what was coming, which is why most of them managed to escape to the USSR. Those that did not, around a quarter of the population numbering between nine hundred and one thousand, were butchered. The Estonian collaborators were well aware of this, they just didn't much care. Many, including the Estonian police force, actively participated in hunting Jewish fugitives, labelling it "anti-communist activity". Less than a dozen Estonian Jews survived the war in Estonia. Let's not forget who were referring to when we use the word "Nazi".

 

[fizikis]

I don't think that this is true at all. The "genocide" in question was the transportation of the Baltic Germany population at the request of the German government, largely with the cooperation of the Baltic Germans themselves (albeit largely because they had little choice). No attempt was made to the destroy the Baltic Germans, and so it cannot be properly considered genocide. Ethnic cleansing, quite possibly, but that's not the same thing.

I would kindly request that you provide the source for this information. Otherwise I call these blatant lies.

 

[Camikaze]

Granted, but most of this stuff is pretty basic. People knew what the Soviet Union was about, and people knew what Nazi Germany was about. This was general knowledge. The Nazis never exactly masked their intentions in regards to ethnic minorities, after all, they just went a few steps further than anyone expected.

I contend that not everyone was fully aware what each side was about, or was able to differentiate accurate information from propaganda and rumour.

I don't think that this is true at all. The "genocide" in question was the transportation of the Baltic Germany population at the request of the German government, largely with the cooperation of the Baltic Germans themselves (albeit largely because they had little choice). No attempt was made to the destroy the Baltic Germans, and so it cannot be properly considered genocide. Ethnic cleansing, quite possibly, but that's not the same thing.
As I said, I merely wish to avoid devaluing the term "genocide", not to lessen the suffering incurred by the Baltic German people. That's not to say that I refuse to extend the term to anything less than violent extermination- as your list says, it can refer to non-physical genocide which aims at destroying the group as an abstract, rather than a physical collective- but it's important to make a distinction between seeking to destroy a group and actively which is hostile to a group.

I wasn't thinking about those deportations, actually, but the ones of Estonian (and Latvian and Lithuanian in those countries) farmers to new communities in Russia, particularly in Siberia and the, IIRC, Omsk region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deportations_from_Estonia

The aims were largely to get rid of enemies, but along with that, Russification and the destruction of Estonian culture to speed up collectivisation were aims, both of which warrant the term 'genocide' which is already applied to it by the nations in question (being Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).

Oh, I fully recognise that- as I have observed previously, both sides are mired in ambiguity. I'm merely observing that collaborating with the Nazi Germany, a state which actively proclaimed a goal of racial supremacism and ethnic cleansing, cannot be considered equal to collaborating with the USSR, a state which preached equality and egalitarianism. Granted, the vast majority of those who collaborated with the Nazis were doing so as, in their eyes, a lesser of two evils, but those who collaborated with the Soviets at least believed that they were genuinely pursuing a righteous path. There seems to me to be a difference there, even if it is from fully damning for one and redeeming for the other.

Although, apparently, the Estonian Jews knew what was coming, which is why most of them managed to escape to the USSR. Those that did not, around a quarter of the population numbering between nine hundred and one thousand, were butchered. The Estonian collaborators were well aware of this, they just didn't much care. Many, including the Estonian police force, actively participated in hunting Jewish fugitives, labelling it "anti-communist activity". Less than a dozen Estonian Jews survived the war in Estonia. Let's not forget who were referring to when we use the word "Nazi".

Of course a large number of people actively assisted the Nazis in the pursuit of their aims, but my point is that those that joined or were forced to joined most likely did so for reasons that are not as sinister as they would otherwise appear.

 

[Patroklos]

I said that they had a chance to flee didn't I? Why do you think they did not? Because their families were help hostage by the NKVD? I guess they believed in something.

As for the regime of mas murderers, as an American, the nation that bombed Dresden, Horoshima and Nagasaki as well as exterminated most of the native population I do not see how you could hold USSR of 1940's in negative light...

I can't decide if the equivalency of the dozens of millions of innocents killed by the Soviets to two mild and one major but still not unprecidented bombing raids is funny or pathetic.

Dresden was a primarily British afair BTW. Russian history might be different though...

 

[nonconformist]

Dresden was a primarily British afair BTW. Russian history might be different though...

Oh really? No mention of the USAAF strafing the kids at carnival?

 

[Yeekim]

So, there are not a single Jew amongst your "veterans"? Strange, there were quite a lot of them, living in Estonia before WW2...

About 4000 altogether, of whom a bit less then 1000 were still around when Germans arrived. (I might mention, that some 500 were previously deported into Siberia, where most perished. So for each two Estonian Jews killed by Nazis, Soviets killed one as well). Sadly, almost all who remained here were killed. Terrible as that was, I am sure that most people would see why the murder of these Jews in 1941 was not the decisive factor in deciding whether to take up arms against Soviets in 1944 for the veterans in question.

I understand that Jews could not be accepted in German army, but may be there are some of them who support Estonian brave anti-Soviet struggle for independence?Or may be ethnic Russians, Belorussians?

If you ask whether there are Jewish/ Russian/Belorussian anti-communists, the answer is obviously "yes". Also, relations between Estonia and Israel have always been cordial.

Largely because it is a commemoration of an army that was considered to be criminal by the Nurnberg tribunals.

Maybe I should make a video. I can even think of suitable opening sentences: "Stalinism. One of the most feared movements the world has ever encountered. And yet there are people today, who seek to glorify it... etc". And then I should show this year's 9th May parade in Moscow, with attending foreign troops and visitors...but I believe we both agree this would be ridiculous, for the world today does not celebrate the fact that these veterans fought for Stalin (or in alliance with him) - this is, for most, rather inconvenient truth. They celebrate the fact that they fought against Hitler. There is a subtle, but important difference. And calling the attending British or US troops "Stalinist-sympathizers" would be just deliberately stupid.

If you can understand this, then you should also be able to understand that the veterans who fought in Blue Hills are much respected in Estonia not because they fought for Nazis, but because they fought against Soviets. Again, subtle but important difference. To wholly understand this sentiment, you also need to remember previous surrender of our government - most of those who do not call it treason, call it a grave mistake today - and the atrocities, killings and deportations which followed. Our friend red_elk saw it fit to opine recently that "Estonia does not really deserve its independence, for we have not fought for it, like Finland did". These veterans are one thing which proves him (and others like him) wrong, so it is of course convenient to discount them as "Nazis", however wrong that might be. And as for our current government, they obviously can not condemn these veterans, for it was because of the surrender of their predecessors, that these men were robbed of opportunity to defend their homes in Estonian uniform.

In summary, these people do not glorify Nazism. They glorify the battles which were fought in an attempt to keep Soviets from returning to Estonia. You could rightly call them anti-Soviet and many - sadly - anti-Russian. But not "Fashist sympathizers".

So he pretends that he is pro-Soviet/Russian? Good to know

Nah, just an IRL troll of the worst sort. No idea whether he himself believes what he speaks.

If you feel that you are being insulted by my thread....(just like I am insulted by this gathering of yours) go ahead. If you think you'd be posting something that people don't know or are proud of ... go ahead. I would not be proud of neo-Nazis in my country.

I am not insulted, for I still hope that you are only misinformed and not willfully malevolent. (After all, if glorification of Nazism was taking place, there would be a good reason to be upset.) I was hinting at the fact, that this gathering is more like a speck compared to the beam that is the Neo-Nazi groups in Russia. And, of course, I am quite ashamed of the Neo-Nazis in my country as well - unfortunately there are few. But not the people this thread is about.

I believe you. If you can transcribe what the guy says and translate it that would be great, but quite often journalists film parts of the speech and give its resume instead of what is being said. My Asian friends confirm.

* * *
Here's little more of commemorative address delivered by "activist Jüri Liim":

The symbols of your ideals were the colors of the Estonian flag and the War of Independece Cross Freedom Medal's sworded hand. The deed you performed with the price of your blood and lives on behalf of the people and republic was truly the second War of Independence. I am totally convinced that many here would have been with you in those years [RT snatch opens here «] and poured fire on the attacking enemy. All this is true -- the Russians and especially the Bolshevik Russians have slaughtered us throughout history and given an opportunity do it again. [»]

There was no word on the year 1914, 1939 or about any future World War in Liim's speech.

The guy is one of the more extreme "Estonian Nationalists" - I personally think he is a bit off his rocker - but he certainly would never say anything like the "resume" of RT. That was complete hogwash.
EDIT: If someone really had given a speech like the one RT invented, I'd personally find something unpleasant to throw at him - and I don't think I'm an outlier here.

 

[Yeekim]

I would kindly request that you provide the source for this information. Otherwise I call these blatant lies.

The event which Traitorfish describes most certainly took place. However, I believe it is best described as "evacuation", as these people left at the request of German government and were compensated for property they left behind....

 

[Traitorfish]

I would kindly request that you provide the source for this information. Otherwise I call these blatant lies.

Well, I'm not sure why this particularly assertion has rubbed you the wrong way, but alright... http://expelledgermans.org/balticgermans.htm Scroll down to "History of Expulsion", around halfway down the page. It describes the process by which Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, was divided up between the Third Reich and Soviet Union, and the program of deportation/evacuation of ethnic Germans form that region. It also notes that, as much as the Soviets played a major part in the expulsions, the Third Reich itself was largely responsible for the cultural genocide of the Baltic German people, subsuming them, along with other German minorities, into it's monolithic pan-German culture.

I contend that not everyone was fully aware what each side was about, or was able to differentiate accurate information from propaganda and rumour.

Even ignoring that, the stated ideologies of each regime offer two rather blatantly different aims. One, falsely as it may have been, promised equality and working class liberation, while the other promised racial supremacism and ethnic cleansing. The Soviets came declaring "we shall make you free and equal", but the Nazis came declaring "we shall enslave you". As it happens, they both went for the whole "enslavement" thing in the end, but the pro-Soviets couldn't necessarily see that coming (although I will admit that this represents a certain blinkeredness on their part, given Stalin's behaviour throughout the previous decade).
And, as I said, the Jews certainly saw it coming. They can't've been the only ones in the country with their ears to the ground...

I wasn't thinking about those deportations, actually, but the ones of Estonian (and Latvian and Lithuanian in those countries) farmers to new communities in Russia, particularly in Siberia and the, IIRC, Omsk region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deportations_from_Estonia

The bulk of those deportations took place after the War, though, and so cannot be directly related to the pre-German occupation. The bulk of Estonian who left Estonia during 1941/42 were political dissidents, the Baltic Germans, and Estonians who were drafted into the Red Army, while the rest were part of a broader strategic program devoted to the war effort, rather than a program of ethnic cleansing. Now, that's not to say that such programs were never envisioned after the war, but we're not talking about that period.

The aims were largely to get rid of enemies, but along with that, Russification and the destruction of Estonian culture to speed up collectivisation were aims, both of which warrant the term 'genocide' which is already applied to it by the nations in question (being Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).

Russification was a broader program, and, why it can certainly be argued that it constituted a form of cultural genocide (although there's an argument as to whether it was an attempt to impose Russian culture or create a synthetic pan-Soviet culture, as the Soviet authorities argued, and to what extent that should influence our understanding of the program), but it was not greatly in evidence in the year-long period of Soviet occupation prior to the German invasion. The deportations were largely comprised of Baltic Germans, which, as Yeekim observes, are perhaps better described as "evacuations", rather than "deportations", and of political foes.

Of course a large number of people actively assisted the Nazis in the pursuit of their aims, but my point is that those that joined or were forced to joined most likely did so for reasons that are not as sinister as they would otherwise appear.

Of course, of course. All that I'm saying is that the Estonian collaborators knew full well who they were dealing with, at least to the extent that anyone else did, and that must be kept in mind. Even if they perceived their choice to be the lesser of two evils (and I make no arguments as to whether it was or not), it must be recognised that it was an evil, of sorts.

 

[red_elk]

About 4000 altogether, of whom a bit less then 1000 were still around when Germans arrived. (I might mention, that some 500 were previously deported into Siberia, where most perished. So for each two Estonian Jews killed by Nazis, Soviets killed one as well). Sadly, almost all who remained here were killed. Terrible as that was, I am sure that most people would see why the murder of these Jews in 1941 was not the decisive factor in deciding whether to take up arms against Soviets in 1944 for the veterans in question.

1. Where did you get these data from? (I'm asking about hundreds of Estonian Jews, murdered by the Soviets).
2. Assuming that they were deported, what was the reason for deportation? What crimes they were convicted for, according to the Soviet laws of that time? Were all of them innocent?
3. How many of them perished in Siberia, and did you count for example, people who died 50 years later, being 80 years old, also as murdered by evil Soviet regime?

I have to ask all this, because you already posted here some "facts" about 6 millions of deserters from Red Army in 1941, or about official Soviet propaganda, encouraging Soviet soldiers to rape German women.

Hopefully you didn't lie on purpose, just took information from some special sources (like Rezun's "historical" books) uncritically.

If you ask whether there are Jewish/ Russian/Belorussian anti-communists, the answer is obviously "yes". Also, relations between Estonia and Israel have always been cordial.

No, I asked quite clearly, are there any Jews or Slavs amongst people who participate in these annual commemorations. Not veterans, but their supporters.

 

[Traitorfish]

2. Assuming that they were deported, what was the reason for deportation? What crimes they were sentensed for, according to the Soviet laws of that time? Were all of them innocent?

I'm give to understand that the disproportionate deportation of Jews was primarily because of a higher level of non-tolerated political affiliation and social class among Jews, rather than any particular program of anti-Semitism, largely resulting from the higher proportion of Jews who comprised the Estonian bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. Most Jewish families settled there in the 19th century under programs which encouraged skilled and educated Jews to emigrate from the traditional "Jewish Pale" to the Baltic countries, part of a broader program to encourage economic development along the Baltic coast.

 

[red_elk]

I'm give to understand that the disproportionate deportation of Jews was primarily because of a higher level of non-tolerated political affiliation and social class among Jews, rather than any particular program of anti-Semitism, largely resulting from the higher proportion of Jews who comprised the Estonian bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. Most Jewish families settled there in the 19th century under programs which encouraged skilled and educated Jews to emigrate from the traditional "Jewish Pale" to the Baltic countries, part of a broader program to encourage economic development along the Baltic coast.

Well, obviously they were not deported for being Jews, as Jews, and in general, Estonians in USSR were treated equally to all the other Soviet citizens. I'm asking mostly about the source of information and how many of them were convicted for political reasons, not for being criminals or Nazi collaborants.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, obviously they were not deported for being Jews, as Jews, and in general, Estonians in USSR were treated equally to all the other Soviet citizens. I'm asking mostly about the source of information and how many of them were convicted for political reasons, not for being criminals or Nazi collaborants.

Oh, of course, I was just pre-emptively dismissing any accusations of Soviet anti-Semitism that may rear their head. They're rather too popular among a certain kind of anti-socialist. (Which is not to say that there is not a discussion to be had, just that it's rather more complex than these people are generally willing to acknowledge.)