USSR Like it or not?

[red_elk]

Well, wiki says: "Death rates of German soldiers held prisoner in the Soviet Union was 35.8%." and cites as source Niall Ferguson, "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat" War in History 2004 11 (2) 148–192 pg. 186 (Table 4).
Also, your figure may be somewhat misleading, because as far as I know, last German POWs were released as late as 1956, so that's seven years unaccounted. Guess we must settle somewhere in the middle. And even so, number of deaths of POWs in Allied captivity is still around 3-4%. Bottom line is that while Germans were worse, neither country obviously wasn't anywhere close to international standards in treatment of prisoners.

At least we nearly agree here.
One of the difference is that Allies didn't have Stalingrad battle, where ~100.000 men were captured in awful condition. All of them were starving, many were about to die, because of frost, illness and starvation. Entire region was already looted and destroyed. I read Stalin's orders to save as much POW alive as possible. How do you think, did local authorities follow Stalin's orders?

So, I'm absolutely sure that treating of POWs in USSR was incomparably better than in Germany.

They didn't? Perhaps we should ask Winner. They obviously did a shoddy job then, because the official position sure was they were there because Czech workers asked them to.
Anyway, it is estimated that there was about 120-130 active,underground communists in Estonia prior to June 1940. Apparently in conclusion with planned "sovietization", orders came from Moscow in increase the numbers of Party Members to 1500. 01.01.1941, EK(b)P had 1169 members, 75% Estonians, 23% Russians. By the end of 1948, 16 650 members, but of those only 7289 were Estonians, and of those only 2368 had been Estonian citizens before 1940. The rest were former expatriates. So the numbers of Soviet supporters in Estonia was obviously enough to organize demonstrations, but not nearly enough to speak of any "popular/significant support". As for our famous "quickness": many of those who've never seen USSR STILL think it was literally "workers' paradise". You've got to forgive some lackwits for needing real firsthand experience before they could overcome this propaganda. As a sidenote, premier of Zhdanov-assembled Estonian government committed suicide in 1946. I guess he indeed was a bit slow...

People there clearly shown their attitude, unlike in Baltic states.

EDIT: Hell, youtube has Pro-Hamas demonstrations in USA! That does not mean US public widely supports Hamas, does it?

No, but can you imagine pro-Hamas demonstrations there, when Hamas is invading USA? And absolutely no anti-Hamas demonstrations and actions at all?

EDIT 2: ROFL, I just checked your pictures again and just realized... This slogan: "My trebu'em prisoedineniya k CCCP!" - I wonder, is it in Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian?

This is Russian. You know, the international language equally understandable by Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians

I don't recall her answering my question: How is Estonia supposed to profit from unjustly accusing Russia?

The same way how you explain Russia accusing Estonia - unify country using nationalistic ideas, create image of external enemy, distract people from internal troubles.

I gave the article, because in it she admitted that annexation of Baltics was 1) forced; 2) not a particularly useful or bright idea after all.

1. Yes, because many people, probably majority, were agains it. Though it was not occupation because there were no military actions and resistance.
2. Useful for USSR? Probably not. Don't know, this is in competention of military specialists.

Condemnation of individuals who've been found guilty of individual crimes? Sure. In corpore condemnation of everybody who wore German uniform "just because"? No. For these men got no option to wear Estonian one. They were forced to choose between two evils, and their motivation was clear: to keep Soviets from returning. Nothing worth condemnation here.

The same way, no condemnation or public accusing of people wearing Soviet uniform "just because".
There could be different reasons for wearing German uniform. Drafted people are not guilty. People who volunteered in Nazi army or found guilty in killing Soviet civilians must be punished.

 

[red_elk]

I'm not going back several pages, but you said something close to: "It was his own fault." That implies that he had it coming, that he'd done something that deserved the punishment he received. If that's not what you meant, you should have clarified it posts ago.

I said, it was either his stupidity, or he has done it intentionally, to be arrested. I wouldn't call head of country "pahan" during war time, even in private letters.
No, I don't think that people deserve to be punished for anti-governmental jokes by putting in jail for years.

You have either outright lied or made some sizable gaffes several times in the past when referring to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries - which was as peaceful as a rape - and shown hypocrisy in regards to Estonian partisans, who were most definitely right to defend their country from an invading power. Both of them.

Where I lied about easy verifiable facts? Such as Stalin "executed all admirals"?
For both of your examples - many historians share my point of view.

Several people have mentioned the first part of the story. I've talked about it myself. Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a liberation.

I've never seen anyone mentioning it here, except me. As far as I remember, you only agreed after I pointed that out. Correct me if I'm wrong.
For liberation - I was giving moral definition, on behalf of Belorussians and Ukrainians who shared this attitude. For them, it was indeed liberation, and I think such people were in majority. Formally it wasn't. It was violation of previous agreements with Poland.

The majority are non-Baltic, particularly British. And many base their findings on Russian documents.
I don't believe I posted that one. I think I only went as far as 59. And I certainly can't read it.

I looked for the article, because it seemed strange to me that you posted references starting from 13-th number. Russian references used there as source of information irrelevant to main line of article, or even in sentences with opposite (to information in referenced source) meaning, like in my example above. For British sources - from my experience they can be even more anti-Russian than Baltic ones.
Would you be surprised if I tell you that Russian wiki contains other information?

I don't get you?

I just pointed out pseudo-neutrality of the article. Several Russian references are included, but no real information was taken from there.

 

[Sharwood]

I said, it was either his stupidity, or he has done it intentionally, to be arrested. I wouldn't call head of country "pahan" during war time, even in private letters.
No, I don't think that people deserve to be punished for anti-governmental jokes by putting in jail for years.

Doing it intentionally? WTH? And if he didn't know that all private letters were read - and to be fair, he should have suspected, but he could hardly have known for sure - why wouldn't he make those comments, if he believed them?

Good to hear.

Where I lied about easy verifiable facts? Such as Stalin "executed all admirals"?
For both of your examples - many historians share my point of view.

Many historians are wrong. And you either lied or are naively mistaken about my examples.

I've never seen anyone mentioning it here, except me. As far as I remember, you only agreed after I pointed that out. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it was mentioned once or twice pages ago, before this argument even started, but maybe not. I may be thinking of another thread.

For liberation - I was giving moral definition, on behalf of Belorussians and Ukrainians who shared this attitude. For them, it was indeed liberation, and I think such people were in majority. Formally it wasn't. It was violation of previous agreements with Poland.

And I can point out situations where a minority - people welcoming the Russians were most definitely not the majority - group believed itself to be liberated by an invader as well. But as you said, it was most definitely not a legal liberation. It was an invasion and occupation. As occured in the Baltic states.

I looked for the article, because it seemed strange to me that you posted references starting from 13-th number. Russian references used there as source of information irrelevant to main line of article, or even in sentences with opposite (to information in referenced source) meaning, like in my example above. For British sources - from my experience they can be even more anti-Russian than Baltic ones.
Would you be surprised if I tell you that Russian wiki contains other information?

I started from 13 because that's where my previous quotation started. British sources are very seldom anti-Russian. Actually, many from before the end of the Cold War were shamelessly pro-Soviet.

And no, I wouldn't be surprised that the Russian wiki contains other information. Would you be surprised if I told you that the Turkish wiki denies the Armenian Genocide?

I just pointed out pseudo-neutrality of the article. Several Russian references are included, but no real information was taken from there.

Fair enough, I get you now. There are several Russian sources from whom pertinent information is taken, although they are primarily a source of statistics.

 

[red_elk]

Doing it intentionally? WTH? And if he didn't know that all private letters were read - and to be fair, he should have suspected, but he could hardly have known for sure - why wouldn't he make those comments, if he believed them?

I knew about that since I was a teenager. You think an army officer didn't know? I highly doubt it. And he created serious trouble for his friends - recipients of letters (IIRC there were a few of them). Why?

Many historians are wrong. And you either lied or are naively mistaken about my examples.

Credible historians don't lie about easily identifiable facts, in which you accused me. And they know about the topic more than you and me. What I'm talking about here in general repeats position of many Russian historians, probably most of them. Are they all nationalistic, pro-Soviet stalinists? Because it looks like this is reputation which I already got here.

And I can point out situations where a minority - people welcoming the Russians were most definitely not the majority - group believed itself to be liberated by an invader as well. But as you said, it was most definitely not a legal liberation. It was an invasion and occupation. As occured in the Baltic states.

Part of Poland was occupied, but territories were just taken back. That's why I called it liberation.
Baltic states already had Soviet troops stationed in 1940. There was no declaration of war, no invasion, no fighting, no resistance. Only change of government. Rose revolution, Soviet edition.

And no, I wouldn't be surprised that the Russian wiki contains other information. Would you be surprised if I told you that the Turkish wiki denies the Armenian Genocide?

About Turkish - not sure. Probably it contains different views. Russian wiki about joining Baltic to USSR is quite balanced to my view.

 

[Yeekim]

People there clearly shown their attitude, unlike in Baltic states.

Seeing the situation as hopeless, (and quite rightly so), our government ordered no armed resistance to avoid bloodshed. I say that was a right decision. It was not until the arrests, executions, deportations, expropriations and finally scorched earth tactics started, that people were forced to resist. Also, at this time Germany had invaded USSR, so there was ill-unfounded but understandable hope that Germans might recognize Estonian independence. Finally keep in mind that people did not yet know about Nazi crimes. About 1000 Jews (1/4 of total number) who remained in Estonia in 1941, often did so since they would not believe Germans would harm them.

No, but can you imagine pro-Hamas demonstrations there, when Hamas is invading USA? And absolutely no anti-Hamas demonstrations and actions at all?

If there was similar disparity of forces (Hamas would need population of several planets for this) then yes I could. Demonstrations have a point if there is slightest reason to believe that the relevant authority gives a **** about your opinion. You say that Solzhenitsyn was stupid because he criticized Stalin in a private letter - you really think that under those circumstances public anti-Soviet demonstration would have been a great idea? We Estonians may be slow, but we are not complete morons.

This is Russian. You know, the international language equally understandable by Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians

Still it would be extremely strange to use Russian if one wanted to make a point for his own domestic government. There certainly WERE pro-Soviet demonstrations, but hardly "spontaneous" ones. At least for me, this photo assures these suspicions.

The same way how you explain Russia accusing Estonia - unify country using nationalistic ideas, create image of external enemy, distract people from internal troubles.

That is unavoidably true to an extent. But this wouldn't work if the accusations weren't mostly legitimate.

1. Yes, because many people, probably majority, were against it.

Well, if you take the number of Estonian party members in 1948 and VERY generous assumption, that for each one there were as many as 30 passive supporters/sympathizers, you still get only ~70,000 people - some 6% of population. So, nowhere close to majority.

Though it was not occupation because there were no military actions and resistance.

Rather because "civilian authority" was established. I'd say that presence of over 100,000 Soviet troops was quite important to success of this operation.

2. Useful for USSR? Probably not. Don't know, this is in competention of military specialists.

Germans were nowhere near popular in Baltics for obvious reasons. Had you been content with the treaty of mutual military assistance, local perception of who is the most dangerous invader could have been different.

The same way, no condemnation or public accusing of people wearing Soviet uniform "just because".

Agreed, but I don't know of any. I actually googled "veterans of Estonian Rifle Corps" and the first result I found was order of Tallinn City Government, making a grant for them to commemorate anniversary of Velikije Luki at the battlefield. Also, it appeared that those "SS-parades" at Blue Hills have actually been held jointly, and flowers were placed for fallens on both sides.

There could be different reasons for wearing German uniform. Drafted people are not guilty. People who volunteered in Nazi army or found guilty in killing Soviet civilians must be punished.

For killing civilians - of course. For volunteering - no. By far, the greatest number of volunteers joined Nazis in 1944, heeding the invitation of Estonian government to try and keep Soviet forces from returning until the end of war.

 

[Sharwood]

I knew about that since I was a teenager. You think an army officer didn't know? I highly doubt it. And he created serious trouble for his friends - recipients of letters (IIRC there were a few of them). Why?

Intentionally? if he were suicidal, there are easier ways to go about it, particularly in waritme.

Credible historians don't lie about easily identifiable facts, in which you accused me. And they know about the topic more than you and me. What I'm talking about here in general repeats position of many Russian historians, probably most of them. Are they all nationalistic, pro-Soviet stalinists? Because it looks like this is reputation which I already got here.

Who said anything about them being credible? I know plenty of historians who simply blatantly lie, or jump to conclusions based on tenuous evidence. And the vast majority of them are nationalists or religious fanatics. And exactly how nationalistic is Russia right now? The country that recently voted Stalin the third greatest Russian in history, despite all his crimes? The Russian people have a very selective memory about the USSR, they remember the power, but not the price.

Part of Poland was occupied, but territories were just taken back. That's why I called it liberation.

And you'd be wrong to call it such, but moving on.

Baltic states already had Soviet troops stationed in 1940. There was no declaration of war, no invasion, no fighting, no resistance. Only change of government. Rose revolution, Soviet edition.

Did you even read the stuff I provided. There most definitely was an invasion, albeit relatively bloodless because the governments in the Baltic states had no intention of seeing their people slaughtered. Which happened anyway. And the change of government was hardly peaceful. It was nothing less than a coup.

About Turkish - not sure. Probably it contains different views. Russian wiki about joining Baltic to USSR is quite balanced to my view.

I can't read Russian so I can't judge. Maybe Yeekim can point out whether it's balanced or not. But if it doesn't mention the fact that the Baltic states were blockaded, invaded, and coerced into joining the USSR, and that there most definitely was massive, and perfectly legitimate resistance, including helping the Nazis before it was realised exactly what they were after then it is most definitely not balanced.

 

[red_elk]

Seeing the situation as hopeless, (and quite rightly so), our government ordered no armed resistance to avoid bloodshed. I say that was a right decision. It was not until the arrests, executions, deportations, expropriations and finally scorched earth tactics started, that people were forced to resist. Also, at this time Germany had invaded USSR, so there was ill-unfounded but understandable hope that Germans might recognize Estonian independence. Finally keep in mind that people did not yet know about Nazi crimes. About 1000 Jews (1/4 of total number) who remained in Estonia in 1941, often did so since they would not believe Germans would harm them.

Can I see text of order please? Thank you.
Soviet forces were placed there in previous year. They didn't try to invade, didn't kill anybody during all this time. What to protest against? May be people were not so happy about their government?

If there was similar disparity of forces (Hamas would need population of several planets for this) then yes I could. Demonstrations have a point if there is slightest reason to believe that the relevant authority gives a **** about your opinion. You say that Solzhenitsyn was stupid because he criticized Stalin in a private letter - you really think that under those circumstances public anti-Soviet demonstration would have been a great idea? We Estonians may be slow, but we are not complete morons.

Still it would be extremely strange to use Russian if one wanted to make a point for his own domestic government. There certainly WERE pro-Soviet demonstrations, but hardly "spontaneous" ones. At least for me, this photo assures these suspicions.

They were not spontaneous and they were pro-Soviet obviously. At least thousands (as seen in the picture) people were supporting it.

Agreed, but I don't know of any. I actually googled "veterans of Estonian Rifle Corps" and the first result I found was order of Tallinn City Government, making a grant for them to commemorate anniversary of Velikije Luki at the battlefield. Also, it appeared that those "SS-parades" at Blue Hills have actually been held jointly, and flowers were placed for fallens on both sides.

I can't imagine SS and Soviet veterans doing something like this jointly.

 

[red_elk]

Intentionally? if he were suicidal, there are easier ways to go about it, particularly in waritme.

He lived long life and died just recently. May be he stayed alive because of this letter?

Who said anything about them being credible? I know plenty of historians who simply blatantly lie, or jump to conclusions based on tenuous evidence. And the vast majority of them are nationalists or religious fanatics. And exactly how nationalistic is Russia right now? The country that recently voted Stalin the third greatest Russian in history, despite all his crimes? The Russian people have a very selective memory about the USSR, they remember the power, but not the price.

If you don't like what they are saying, it doesn't mean they are not credible. If you can prove they are lying - that's the other question, but you didn't prove it even in my case.

People who don't think that events of 1940 in Baltic can be considered as occupation, and who dare to say that Stalin did something good for Soviet people - all are nationalists? Nationalists of which nationality, may I ask you?

Did you even read the stuff I provided. There most definitely was an invasion, albeit relatively bloodless because the governments in the Baltic states had no intention of seeing their people slaughtered. Which happened anyway. And the change of government was hardly peaceful. It was nothing less than a coup.

I can't read Russian so I can't judge. Maybe Yeekim can point out whether it's balanced or not. But if it doesn't mention the fact that the Baltic states were blockaded, invaded, and coerced into joining the USSR, and that there most definitely was massive, and perfectly legitimate resistance, including helping the Nazis before it was realised exactly what they were after then it is most definitely not balanced.

Soviet forces were placed there a year before. There was no war, neither de-jure nor de-facto. There were no massive or little resistance. Invasion and occupation are wrong terms.

 

[Sharwood]

He lived long life and died just recently. May be he stayed alive because of this letter?

More likely he stayed alive through sheer luck. Maybe Stalin wanted to see him suffer more than kill him, or just plumb forgot about him. Uncle Joe wasn't exactly consistent.

If you don't like what they are saying, it doesn't mean they are not credible. If you can prove they are lying - that's the other question, but you didn't prove it even in my case.

Their not being credible has nothing to do with whether or not I like what they're saying, and everything to do with them reaching incorrect conclusions from data, almost certainly intentionally. As you are doing. The data clearly shows what happened in the Baltic states during WWII, and the analogy to rape is about as accurate an analogy as you can get.

People who don't think that events of 1940 in Baltic can be considered as occupation, and who dare to say that Stalin did something good for Soviet people - all are nationalists? Nationalists of which nationality, may I ask you?

They're either nationalists, Soviet apologists - plenty of Communists and Socialists in that category -, naive, or just plain lying to themselves. You're in the last category.

Soviet forces were placed there a year before. There was no war, neither de-jure nor de-facto. There were no massive or little resistance. Invasion and occupation are wrong terms.

You really didn't read what I posted here earlier, did you? Russia forced the Baltic states to allow troops into the country, massed more troops on the borders, blockaded their ports, repeatedly violated their airspace, and delivered an ultimatum, after which they instigated a coup and began imprisoning and massacring potential enemies. Their was a strong underground resistance movement in Estonia for decades. Invasion and occupation are absolutely the right terms.

 

[Yeekim]

Can I see text of order please? Thank you.

I see what I can find.

Soviet forces were placed there in previous year. They didn't try to invade, didn't kill anybody during all this time. What to protest against? May be people were not so happy about their government?

Yes, the treaty of mutual military assistance, according to which up to 25,000 Soviet troops was allowed into bases in Estonia was signed in September 1939. Yes, from September till June (hey, that is nearly 8 months!) USSR adhered to this treaty, i.e. they did not "invade or kill anybody". How does that change what happened later I do not understand.

They were not spontaneous and they were pro-Soviet obviously. At least thousands (as seen in the picture) people were supporting it.

I could not count "thousands" on these pictures, sorry

I can't imagine SS and Soviet veterans doing something like this jointly.

They are neither SS nor Soviet. They were Estonians forced to fight in a war they had no business fighting in. Also, "parade" was probably misleading, I only used it because that is what you and RRW have been using. WW2 veterans do not march much any more, neither jointly nor alone.
EDIT:

There was no war, neither de-jure nor de-facto. There were no massive or little resistance. Invasion and occupation are wrong terms.

There was, however, official threat of war - de facto & de jure. There was also naval and aerial blockade - de facto. There was half million troops ready for invasion, in case of resistance, or if our government refused to step down. What would be correct terms according to you then, I wonder?

 

[red_elk]

More likely he stayed alive through sheer luck. Maybe Stalin wanted to see him suffer more than kill him, or just plumb forgot about him. Uncle Joe wasn't exactly consistent.

I'm starting to think that you are incredibly naive, if not to say worse. Now, you want to say that Stalin considered what to do with him personally?
[evil voice] Don't kill him for now. Let him be tortured. He made a jokes about me!

Their not being credible has nothing to do with whether or not I like what they're saying, and everything to do with them reaching incorrect conclusions from data, almost certainly intentionally. As you are doing. The data clearly shows what happened in the Baltic states during WWII, and the analogy to rape is about as accurate an analogy as you can get.

You call them not credible, because you heard that USSR was evil empire, Stalin was a monster, and that USSR occupied Baltic states. And you believe in that. Everybody who say something else is heretic. Other opinions cannot be tolerated.

You really didn't read what I posted here earlier, did you? Russia forced the Baltic states to allow troops into the country, massed more troops on the borders, blockaded their ports, repeatedly violated their airspace, and delivered an ultimatum, after which they instigated a coup and began imprisoning and massacring potential enemies. Their was a strong underground resistance movement in Estonia for decades. Invasion and occupation are absolutely the right terms.

I read this article before.
Your problem is that you cannot critically regard the sources which fit to your world view. You simply believe them.
First example was the story with "admirals". You heard somebody said something which sounds appropriate to you - and started repeating it without checking. The same story here. I already explained why this wikipedia article is not credible to me. It's written by don't-know-who. It contains references to nationalistic sources. The opinion of "other side", who is blamed, is not represented at all. Can you guarantee, there are no "tiny differences" with reality there?

A provocative question: Have you ever read something on topic except this wiki article?

They're either nationalists, Soviet apologists - plenty of Communists and Socialists in that category -, naive, or just plain lying to themselves. You're in the last category.

I'm lying to myself? Then I should know about that. No, I'd rather be Soviet nationalist.

 

[red_elk]

Yes, the treaty of mutual military assistance, according to which up to 25,000 Soviet troops was allowed into bases in Estonia was signed in September 1939. Yes, from September till June (hey, that is nearly 8 months!) USSR adhered to this treaty, i.e. they did not "invade or kill anybody". How does that change what happened later I do not understand.

There was, however, official threat of war - de facto & de jure. There was also naval and aerial blockade - de facto. There was half million troops ready for invasion. What would be correct terms according to you then, I wonder?

Threat of war - is not war.
Occupation supposed state of war, battle actions, invading enemy forces. You just accepted the ultimatum about increasing military contingent of Soviet troops in your territory and dismissed government. Nothing good and justifiable in Soviet actions here, but it should not be called as occupation just because Baltic historians like this term.

I could not count "thousands" on these pictures, sorry

What about this?

http://www.myriga.info/rigacv/artilcles/vibori_1940

They are neither SS nor Soviet. They were Estonians forced to fight in a war they had no business fighting in. Also, "parade" was probably misleading, I only used it because that is what you and RRW have been using. WW2 veterans do not march much any more, neither jointly nor alone.

They are either Estonian (or other nationality) veterans of Soviet army, or Estonian veterans of SS. Is it good or bad, nobody can change it.

 

[Sharwood]

I'm starting to think that you are incredibly naive, if not to say worse. Now, you want to say that Stalin considered what to do with him personally?
[evil voice] Don't kill him for now. Let him be tortured. He made a jokes about me!

I just threw it out there. I don't see how you can believe that the letter which got him tortured possibly saved his life.

You call them not credible, because you heard that USSR was evil empire, Stalin was a monster, and that USSR occupied Baltic states. And you believe in that. Everybody who say something else is heretic. Other opinions cannot be tolerated.

I despise Ronald Reagan, so anything he said immediately makes me suspicious, so that's out. Stalin was a monster, he murdered millions. And the USSR did occupy Baltic states, as both I and Yeekim have been telling you. And I tolerate opinions other than mine, but this isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of verifiable historical fact. If someone's opinion is Rome wasn't the greatest empire in human history, fine. If however, they say that Rome never existed, then that's not an opinion, it's a fallacy.

I read this article before.
Your problem is that you cannot critically regard the sources which fit to your world view. You simply believe them.
First example was the story with "admirals". You heard somebody said something which sounds appropriate to you - and started repeating it without checking. The same story here. I already explained why this wikipedia article is not credible to me. It's written by don't-know-who. It contains references to nationalistic sources. The opinion of "other side", who is blamed, is not represented at all. Can you guarantee, there are no "tiny differences" with reality there?

Dude, I'm a university student, who consistently gets above 85% in subjects, including ones I don't like and make little effort in. The lowest mark I've gotten in 2 and a 1/2 years is 73%. If I was incapable of critically regarding sources, I certainly wouldn't be doing that well. It seems in fact that you are the one with this difficulty, calling anything which contradicts your own view biased and "Baltic official history."

Regarding the admirals, i had heard in the past that all were purged, and when it was said that all were executed I believed it. That was a mistake. A mistake which I corrected, but which you insist on harping on. Probably because you have no factual counter-arguments.

I cannot guarantee that wiki is 100% accurate. But it's quite easy for Russians to edit the thing in turn. I find it difficult to believe that the British, who are certainly not noted for insane Russophobia, which I admit Balts are, are so biased as to be unreliable. I can almost guarantee that the English-language wiki on the subject is more accurate than the Russian one, and I'm sure Yeekim could inform both of us as to how right I am on that score.

A provocative question: Have you ever read something on topic except this wiki article?

As a matter of fact, yes. Those sources simply don't happen to be online. I was genuinely surprised to find Friedman's book, which I have at home, on google.

I'm lying to myself? Then I should know about that. No, I'd rather be Soviet nationalist.

Okay, so you're a Soviet nationalist. Who, since you've been presented with the facts by Yeekim and myself, is still lying to himself, like most Soviet nationalists.

 

[Yeekim]

Threat of war - is not war.
Occupation supposed state of war, battle actions, invading enemy forces. You just accepted the ultimatum about increasing military contingent of Soviet troops in your territory and dismissed government. Nothing good and justifiable in Soviet actions here, but it should not be called as occupation just because Baltic historians like this term.

If you accept there was nothing good or justifiable, why object calling it an "occupation"? Again, what term would you use?

What about this?

"Demonstration at the embassy of USSR?"
Maybe true, maybe not. However as you can certainly notice, nothing on the photo suggests the host there has gathered to support joining USSR.

They are either Estonian (or other nationality) veterans of Soviet army, or Estonian veterans of SS. Is it good or bad, nobody can change it.

Does not mean they can't understand each other.

 

[red_elk]

I just threw it out there. I don't see how you can believe that the letter which got him tortured possibly saved his life.

He could be killed at war. Though it's unlikely that he did it intentionally.

I despise Ronald Reagan, so anything he said immediately makes me suspicious, so that's out. Stalin was a monster, he murdered millions. And the USSR did occupy Baltic states, as both I and Yeekim have been telling you. And I tolerate opinions other than mine, but this isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of verifiable historical fact. If someone's opinion is Rome wasn't the greatest empire in human history, fine. If however, they say that Rome never existed, then that's not an opinion, it's a fallacy.

It seems in fact that you are the one with this difficulty, calling anything which contradicts your own view biased and "Baltic official history."

It's a matter of interpretations. The "occupation" concept is what Baltic official version of history is based on. The Russians refuse to call it so. I didn't call you or Yeekim or all Baltic historians nationalists, but you blame pretty much all Russian historians and me in nationalism and intentional lie. Do you want to continue talking about tolerance and "difficulties"?

I cannot guarantee that wiki is 100% accurate. But it's quite easy for Russians to edit the thing in turn. I find it difficult to believe that the British, who are certainly not noted for insane Russophobia, which I admit Balts are, are so biased as to be unreliable. I can almost guarantee that the English-language wiki on the subject is more accurate than the Russian one, and I'm sure Yeekim could inform both of us as to how right I am on that score.

Why it doesn't contain Russian point of view at all?

Okay, so you're a Soviet nationalist. Who, since you've been presented with the facts by Yeekim and myself, is still lying to himself, like most Soviet nationalists.

Sounds smart. Put it into your signature.

 

[red_elk]

If you accept there was nothing good or justifiable, why object calling it an "occupation"? Again, what term would you use?

Nothing good and justifiable - about particular actions of Soviet government in 1940. It doesn't mean that USSR never created anything good to Estonia.

Russians consider term "occupation" formally incorrect in that case. But the main problem is that term is widely used in anti-Russian propaganda and outrages. For example, calling Soviet veterans "occupants".

Usually we use "incorporation". It's possible to agree to use some term which would be acceptable for both sides, but it's historians' business.

 

[Yeekim]

Nothing good and justifiable - about particular actions of Soviet government in 1940. It doesn't mean that USSR never created anything good to Estonia.

No, it does not mean that. USSR became a lot less repressive after Stalin's death. People still lived and worked there. Yet, compare Eastern Europe with Western Europe to see its net effect. In Estonia's case, compare with Finland. (Well, we have significantly less Somalian refugees, that's one good thing, I guess)

Russians consider term "occupation" formally incorrect in that case. But the main problem is that term is widely used in anti-Russian propaganda, often in outrageous manner. For example, calling Soviet veterans "occupants".

What is so outrageous about that? I can call them "incorporators", if that's what you'd prefer.

http://kultuur.elu.ee/491/ke491_1941.jpg
Tallinn, as left by Soviet incorporators in 1941.

 

[red_elk]

What is so outrageous about that? I can call them "incorporators", if that's what you'd prefer.

If you don't understand why people who destroyed Nazism must be respected, I can't explain it to you.
Will you openly call veteran, wearing for example, this or this, occupant? If yes, I'm wasting my time.

 

[Sharwood]

If you don't understand why people who destroyed Nazism must be respected, I can't explain it to you.
Will you openly call veteran, wearing for example, this or this, occupant? If yes, I'm wasting my time.

Destroying Nazism is good, but not if you merely replace it with another repressive regime. You should read Animal Farm: A fairy story, by the man in my sig, if you haven't already.

 

[Sharwood]

He could be killed at war. Though it's unlikely that he did it intentionally.

At least you admit it's unlikely. Personally, I think I'd take the war over the potential of life in the gulag. At least in a war you can desert.

It's a matter of interpretations. The "occupation" concept is what Baltic official version of history is based on. The Russians refuse to call it so. I didn't call you or Yeekim or all Baltic historians nationalists, but you blame pretty much all Russian historians and me in nationalism and intentional lie. Do you want to continue talking about tolerance and "difficulties"?

It's not a matter of interpretation. Any interpretation other than that it was an occupation is quite simply wrong. You can call it an incorporation, but it was most definitely not peaceful. You might be able to get away without calling it an invasion, but even that's a stretch. An occupation? It most certainly was.

Look at it this way. During one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars, Russia was threatened by Austria, and abandoned Walachia, and I believe Moldavia to them. The Austrians moved in and set up shop. Now, there was no war, but it was most definitely an occupation, and is recognised as such by every historian. Russia's annexation of the Baltic states was far more aggressive and violent.

Why it doesn't contain Russian point of view at all?

It doesn't contain the Baltic or German point of view either. It's a very neutral article, especially for wiki, which is often nationalistic. Look at the discussion page, maybe there's a furore there.

Sounds smart. Put it into your signature.

Nah, I prefer George Orwell to myself, quote-wise.