USSR Like it or not?

[amadeus]

What's wrong? Estonia was not "for the enemy", it was a part of USSR in 1941.

Yes, after the USSR launched an unprovoked and planned attack on Estonia and annexed it in 1940.

 

[civiijkw]

I'm reminded of street gangs that tell a person "do what we say or we'll kill you" and then feel betrayed if the conscripted person escapes at first chance.

 

[xarthaz]

The big problem with the USSR is that people who havent seen it (both when it existed and now) have somekind of a romantic feeling associated with it, of equal wealth, no unemployment, good social security and education. But it was still a land of poverty

 

[lovett]

Lovett, correct your link, it's broken.
For "alliance" with Nazis, see my answer above.
There are no much sense to sign non-agression pact between allies, don't you think so?

You didn't start by discussing formal alliance though, you started by talking about people 'helping' the Nazi regime. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a straight up collusion to forcible divide Eastern Europe between Russia and Germany. In Poland this turned into active military collaboration. The USSR allowed Germany use of Minks radio stations to guide Luftwaffe bombing raids. When the USSR was a bit tardy in invading Poland, Nazi Germany demanded that they bloody well live up to their end of the bargain. Oh yeah, and there was the already mentioned joint victory parade.

Hell, in October 1940 Molotov was sent to Berlin to negotiate the USSR joing the Axis alliance. If all this doesn't count as pretty chummy, perhaps even 'helping' then I really don't know what does.

Yes, after the USSR launched an unprovoked and planned attack on Estonia and annexed it in 1940.

Nah, Estonia was 'incorporated' remember. There was 'no resistance' to Soviet rule. Just like the Sudetenland in '38!

 

[Yeekim]

Oh yeah, and there was the already mentioned joint victory parade.

Corrected the link

 

[red_elk]

You didn't start by discussing formal alliance though

I didn't. You and Yeekim started discussing it. There was no formal or factual alliance. USSR and Germany were hostile from the very start of WW2.

you started by talking about people 'helping' the Nazi regime. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a straight up collusion to forcible divide Eastern Europe between Russia and Germany. In Poland this turned into active military collaboration. The USSR allowed Germany use of Minks radio stations to guide Luftwaffe bombing raids. When the USSR was a bit tardy in invading Poland, Nazi Germany demanded that they bloody well live up to their end of the bargain. Oh yeah, and there was the already mentioned joint victory parade.

Hell, in October 1940 Molotov was sent to Berlin to negotiate the USSR joing the Axis alliance. If all this doesn't count as pretty chummy, perhaps even 'helping' then I really don't know what does.

I already answered to this above.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7702405&postcount=300
Poland was partitioned just like Czechoslovakia 1 year before. Were Poland and Germany allies?

Nah, Estonia was 'incorporated' remember. There was 'no resistance' to Soviet rule. Just like the Sudetenland in '38!

Occupation suppose state of war and military actions. Did you see the pictures I gave above?

 

[Yeekim]

For German POWs in USSR, 15% died (tens of thousands of Stalingrad POWs died because of hunger and diseases, captured being in awful condition), and 85% of them were released later after war.

I highly doubt these figures, would you provide a source?

Interesting points:
1. Author considers actions of 1940 as "sovetization", incorporation - not occupation. Though she doesn't refuse negative aspects of this.

Well, she is essentially juggling with semantics. The point is it was forceful and not voluntary (=occupation). And that it had frankly no positive "aspects" to us besides negative ones.

2. Reaction of people to Soviet forces was ambiquous. Many people met them with flowers.

Oh, I do not doubt that Zdanov and others could get together a few hundred demonstrators. All Baltic countries had their small communist parties. And at this point, people were obviously susceptible to Soviet propaganda, having had no personal experiences. But if there had been more than a tiny fraction of supporters, we would have joined peacefully and long ago - or we would never managed to declare independence in the first place. And we would not have supported Germans later on, would we?!

3. Official position of Baltic states to the subject is highly politically motivated and non-objective.

Where the hell does this political motivation come from? What do you think we could hope to gain from antagonizing Russia by falsely accusing it (and lying to ourselves at the same time)? On the other hand, we obviously have plenty to lose.

Official Russian position pretty much does not exist.

The official position is that we first joined USSR voluntarily and then betrayed it by siding with Germans. Check your foreign ministry's website, there used to be some pretty strong statements. Condemnation of Stalin's forceful "sovietization" or whatever you want to call it and sincere apology would be all it takes to end this friction. Until apologists carry the day, we can't help but feel that Russia would jump at first opportunity to do this all over again. Why things are the way they are, I believe another short article summarizes pretty well:

Spoiler :

Why is Russia romanticising the memory of Stalinism, enquires Memorial's founder Arseny Roginsky, when its defining feature was the use of terror?

The memory of Stalinism in contemporary Russia raises problems which are painful and sensitive. There is a vast amount of pro-Stalinist literature on the bookstalls: fiction, journalism and pseudo-history. In sociological surveys, Stalin invariably features among the first three "most prominent figures of all times". In the new school history textbooks, Stalinist policy is interpreted in a spirit of justification.

There are also hundreds of crucial volumes of documents, scholarly articles and monographs on Stalinism. The achievements of these historians and archivists is unquestionable. But if they do have any influence on the mass consciousness, it is too weak. The means of disseminating the information have not been there, and nor in recent years has the political will. However, the deepest problem lies in the current state of our national historical memory of Stalinism.

I should explain what I mean here by historical memory, and Stalinism. Historical memory is the retrospective aspect of collective consciousness. It informs our collective identity through our selection of the past we find significant. The past, real or imaginary, is the material with which it works: it sorts through the facts and systemizes them, selecting those which it is prepared to present as belonging to the genealogy of its identity.

Stalinism is a system of state rule, the totality of specific political practices of the Stalinist leadership. Throughout the duration of this system, a number of characteristic features were preserved. But its generic feature (which arose from the very beginning of Bolshevist rule and did not disappear with Stalin's death) is terror as a universal instrument for solving any political and social tasks. It was state violence and terror that made possible the centralization of rule, the severing of regional ties, high vertical mobility; the harsh introduction of an ideology which could be easily modified, a large army of subjects of slave labor, and many other things.

Thus, the memory of Stalinism is primarily the memory of state terror as the defining feature of the age. It is also what links it in so many respects with today.

Victims, not crimes

Is that really what the memory of Stalinism means in today's Russia? I'd like to say a few words about the key features of this memory today. Firstly, the memory of Stalinism in Russia is almost always the memory of victims. Victims, not crimes. As the memory of crimes it does not register, as there is no consensus on this.

To a great extent this is because popular consciousness has nothing to hold onto from a legal point of view. The state has produced no legal document which recognizes state terror as a crime. The two lines in the preamble to the 1991 law on the rehabilitation of victims is clearly insufficient. There are no legal decisions that inspire any confidence - and there have not been any trials against participants of the Stalinist terror in the new Russia, not a single one.

There are other reasons too.

We killed our own people

When popular consciousness has to come to terms with historical tragedies, it does so by assigning roles of Good and Evil. People identify themselves with one of the roles. It is easier to identify oneself with Good, i.e. with an innocent victim, or better still with a heroic battle against Evil.

Incidentally, this is why our Eastern European neighbors, from Ukraine to Poland and the Baltic States have no serious problems with coming to terms with the Soviet period of history, while in Russia, people identify themselves with victims or fighters, or with both at the same time. Whether or not this has anything to do with history is quite another matter - we're talking about memory, not knowledge.

It is even possible to identify oneself with Evil, as the Germans did (not without help from the outside), in order to distance oneself from this evil: "Yes, unfortunately we did that, but we're not like than anymore and we'll never be like that again".

But what can we do, living in Russia?

In the Soviet terror, it is very difficult to distinguish the executioners from the victims. For example, secretaries of regional committee in August 1937 all wrote death sentences by the bundle, but by November 1938 half of them had already been shot themselves.

In national, and particularly regional memory, the "executioners" - for example, the regional committee secretaries of 1937 - are not unambiguously evil: yes, they signed execution warrants, but they also organized the construction of kindergartens and hospitals, and went to workers' cafeterias personally to test the food, while their subsequent fate is worthy of sympathy.

And one more thing: unlike the Nazis, who mainly killed "foreigners": Poles, Russians, and German Jews (who were not quite their "own" people), we mainly killed our own people, and our consciousness refuses to accept this fact.

In remembering the terror, we are incapable of assigning the main roles, incapable of putting the pronouns "we" and "they" in their places. This inability to assign evil is the main thing that prevents us from being able to embrace the memory of the terror properly. This makes it far more traumatic. It is one of the main reasons why we push it to the edge of our historical memory.

 

[lovett]

I didn't. You and Yeekim started discussing it. There was no formal or factual alliance. USSR and Germany were hostile from the very start of WW2.

Actually, you decided to criticise Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia et al on the ground that they accepted and even helped the Nazi regime when they felt they were being liberated from the Soviet regime. Remember, apparently it 'tells you something about them'?

Now quite clearly the USSR had an official and much better informed policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany, so are you going to similarly criticise them? Somehow, I doubt it.

And no, the USSR and Germany were not hostile at the start of WWII. Not unless you have a very odd definition of the word 'hostile'. What kind of hostile states plan military invasions in concert and let each other use their military assets?! I mean for chrissake the Second World War broke out just a week after the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was signed, the ink was barely dry! The Soviet Union allowed Germany to route resources through the Russian ports. The Gestapo and NKVD had regular meeting as to how best to deal with Polish resistance together ! They signed a treaty called The Boundary and Friendship Treaty! You don't need to be solid allies to collaborate or collude, and the division of Eastern Europe was an impressive example of both those things. The Soviet Top Brass definitely thought so, it's why they didn't acknowledge the existence of the secret protocols till '89!

Either you didn't know any of those things or your simply a nationalist historical revisionist. In both cases, I'd suggest a bit of reading might help.

 

[red_elk]

I highly doubt these figures, would you provide a source?

This book:
http://www.qpig.ru/showtov.asp?Cat_id=556992
Page 146.
For the period 1941-1949, in USSR died for different reasons 580.000 POW - 15% from total number. For comparison, casualties of Soviet POW were 57%.
So, you were right about 57%, I was mistaken.

Well, she is essentially juggling with semantics. The point is it was forceful and not voluntary (=occupation). And that it had frankly no positive "aspects" to us besides negative ones.

Oh, I do not doubt that Zdanov and others could get together a few hundred demonstrators. All Baltic countries had their small communist parties. And at this point, people were obviously susceptible to Soviet propaganda, having had no personal experiences. But if there had been more than a tiny fraction of supporters, we would have joined peacefully and long ago - or we would never managed to declare independence in the first place. And we would not have supported Germans later on, would we?!

For example, they didn't manage to organize the same in 1968 in Czechoslovakia. Is this a nice Baltic tradition - meeting occupants with flowers? Or it is famous Estonian quickness - so that it took you a year to realize that you were occupied?

Where the hell does this political motivation come from? What do you think we could hope to gain from antagonizing Russia by falsely accusing it (and lying to ourselves at the same time)? On the other hand, we obviously have plenty to lose.
The official position is that we first joined USSR voluntarily and then betrayed it by siding with Germans. Check your foreign ministry's website, there used to be some pretty strong statements. Condemnation of Stalin's forceful "sovietization" or whatever you want to call it and sincere apology would be all it takes to end this friction. Until apologists carry the day, we can't help but feel that Russia would jump at first opportunity to do this all over again. Why things are the way they are, I believe another short article summarizes pretty well

Well, it was your link. Now you are not agree with what is written in the article you gave link to?
I think it is possible to develop official position which will satisfy both Baltic states and Russia in this question. With appropriate treatment of all events 1938-1945 years, including joining Baltic states to USSR. I'd say it must include condemnation of all Nazi collaborators, including those who are glorified in Baltic states today.

 

[red_elk]

Actually, you decided to criticise Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia et al on the ground that they accepted and even helped the Nazi regime when they felt they were being liberated from the Soviet regime. Remember, apparently it 'tells you something about them'?

Now quite clearly the USSR had an official and much better informed policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany, so are you going to similarly criticise them? Somehow, I doubt it.

And no, the USSR and Germany were not hostile at the start of WWII. Not unless you have a very odd definition of the word 'hostile'. What kind of hostile states plan military invasions in concert and let each other use their military assets?! I mean for chrissake the Second World War broke out just a week after the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was signed, the ink was barely dry! The Soviet Union allowed Germany to route resources through the Russian ports. The Gestapo and NKVD had regular meeting as to how best to deal with Polish resistance together ! They signed a treaty called The Boundary and Friendship Treaty! You don't need to be solid allies to collaborate or collude, and the division of Eastern Europe was an impressive example of both those things. The Soviet Top Brass definitely thought so, it's why they didn't acknowledge the existence of the secret protocols till '89!

1. I did not criticize Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania for their collaboration with Nazis - I criticize specific people, "forest brothers" and treat them in absolutely the same way as Russian collaborators. If you don't know, there were a lot of people from Baltic states who joined Red Army.
2. I do not refuse some facts of cooperation between USSR and Germany. In the same time, I know they were not allies, moreover, both countries were preparing for war against each other during several years before 1941.

Either you didn't know any of those things or your simply a nationalist historical revisionist. In both cases, I'd suggest a bit of reading might help.

About reading which might help.
Here we can see the mindset evolution of our friend:
First message:

First and foremost, the purges completely crippled the Red Army. Every general had been 'removed' and almost 40,000 officers executed.

Second one:

Ah, mea culpa. That's admirals that got executed to the last man.

Next:

Most were executed. Stalin wasn't the kind of guy who liked to leave high-profile enemies around.

And finally

What's you point? Stalin didn't execute all his senior commanders and just tortured and imprisoned a few?

Spoiler :

Quote from wikipedia:

The purge of the army removed ... eight of nine admirals.

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

Isn't it a good example of clear and unbiased description of facts you learnt?

 

[Sharwood]

In the words of Ringo Starr: "Please forgive the lateness of my reply."

It was one of the Soviet achievements - bringing quality of life from medieval standards, close to civilized world. Significant part of job was done in 1930-1940.

Not arguing against that at all. My point is that, even with infrastructure superior to the USSR, Imperial Russia could never have achieved a matching life expectancy, as the bloody technology to prolong life that long regularly didn't exist yet. It's like claiming the Soviet Union was better than Imperial Russia because they had satellites.

Criticizing in private and sending letters with offence directed to leader of a country is not the same. He knew that.

You're being an obstinate fool. He wrote a private letter. It's not like he mailed the damn thing to Stalin, or a newspaper. It's the equivalent of having a private telephone conversation. Should you be tried as a traitor for telling someone over the phone that Putin's policies are hurting Russia?

Care to check the information before writing? Or you like to blindly repeat everything what fits to your image? "All admirals were executed" - is this true?

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

eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts),

I was off by one. And that's a great new argument you have there.

More. You know, all admirals were executed

Great new argument, how can I possibly beat such an insightful argument. You sir, have totally trounced me.

The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts[15]), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.[16].

[...]

Of all the victims, not more than one-third were actually army officials.

I was right.

Oh, I see. It was Nazi Germany who liberated them. That's why they gained thousands of volunteers.

In the opinion of lots of Poles, Balts, Ukrainians, and even many Russians... Yes. Until they realised what Germany had in store for them, which in some cases, was about the same as what Russia did.

Thousands of killed children, raped women, enslaved men. Burned villages. Evil Soviets did it to Baltic states in 1940 - everybody knows that.

Please point out where I said that? You are aware of this famous incident, are you not?

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0CIXLdxhQMAC&pg=PA482&lpg=PA482&dq=Baltic+states,+we+were+raped&source=bl&ots=oAf149NjKe&sig=Lvi1m8LxVVBashTWrMLN8wklDWQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

On 11 January 1990, Gorbachev arrived in Vilnius to find a crowd of three hundred thousand, holding placards to demand that the Soviets leave. When he refused to end the fifty-year marriage between Lithuania and the rest of the Soviet Union, a Lithuanian quipped that "We were never married, we were raped."

They seemed to think they were raped because of this:

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

Ultimatums to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

ORP Orzeł monument in Tallinn.On September 24, 1939, warships of the Soviet Navy appeared off Estonian ports and Soviet bombers began a threatening patrol over Tallinn and the nearby countryside.[13] The USSR then entered the airspace of all three Baltic states, flying massive intelligence gathering operations on September 25. Moscow requested that the Baltic countries allow the USSR to establish military bases and to station troops on their soil.[14]

The government of Estonia accepted the ultimatum, signing the corresponding agreement on September 28, 1939. Latvia followed on October 5, 1939 and Lithuania shortly thereafter, on October 10, 1939. The agreements permitted the Soviet Union to establish military bases on the Baltic states' territory for the duration of the European war[15] and station 25,000 Soviet soldiers in Estonia, 30,000 in Latvia and 20,000 in Lithuania from October, 1939.

In early 1939, the Leningrad Military District had already allocated 17 divisions, about 10% of the Soviet Army, to the Baltic states. Mobilizations followed shortly. The 8th Army was dispatched to Pskov on September 14, 1939, and the mobilized 7th Army placed under the Leningrad Military District. Invasion preparations were by now nearing completion. On September 26, the Leningrad Military District was ordered to "start concentrating troops on the Estonian-Latvian border and to finish that operation on September 29th." The order noted, "for the time of starting the attack a separate directive will be issued."[16] Altogether, by the beginning of October, 1939, the Soviets had amassed along the Estonia-Latvia border:

437,325 troops;
3,635 artillery pieces;
3,052 tanks;
421 armored vehicles;
21,919 cars.[17]


Soviet invasion and occupation, 1940–1941

Soviet invasion

The Soviet troops allocated for possible military actions against the Baltic states numbered 435,000 troops, around 8,000 guns and mortars, over 3,000 tanks, over 500 armoured cars[20].

On June 3, 1940 all Soviet military forces based in Baltic states were concentrated under the command of Aleksandr Loktionov.[21]

On June 9 the directive 02622ss/ov was given to the Red Army's Leningrad Military District by Semyon Timoshenko to be ready by the June 12 to a) Capture the vessels of the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Navy in their bases and/or at sea; b) Capture the Estonian and Latvian commercial fleet and all other vessels; c) Prepare for an invasion and landing in Tallinn and Paldiski; d) Close the Gulf of Riga and blockade the coasts of Estonia and Latvia in Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea; e) Prevent an evacuation of the Estonian and Latvian governments, military forces and assets; f) Provide naval support for an invasion towards Rakvere; g) Prevent the Estonian and Latvian airplanes flying either to Finland or Sweden.[22]

On June 12, 1940 the order for a total military blockade of Estonia to the Soviet Baltic Fleet was given: according to the director of the Russian State Archive of the Naval Department Pavel Petrov (C.Phil.) referring to the records in the archive.[23][24]

On June 13 at 10.40 AM the Soviet forces started to move to their positions and were ready by June 14 at 10 PM. a) 4 submarines and a number of light navy units were positioned in the Baltic Sea, to the gulfs of Riga and Finland to isolate the Baltic states by the sea. b) A navy squadron including 3 destroyer divisions were positioned to the west of Naissaar in order to support the invasion. c) The 1st marine brigade's 4 battalions on transportation ships "Sibir", "2nd Pjatiletka" and "Elton" were positioned for landing and invasion of Naissaare and Aegna; d) Transportation ship "Dnester" and destroyers Storozevoi and Silnoi were positioned with troops for the invasion of the capital Tallinn; e) the 50th battalion was positioned on ships for an invasion near Kunda. In the naval blockade participated in total 120 Soviet vessels including 1 cruiser, 7 destroyers, and 17 submarines; 219 airplanes including the 8th air-brigade with 84 bombers: DB-3 and Tupolev SB and 10th brigade with 62 airplanes. [25]

On June 14, 1940, the Soviet military blockade of Estonia went into effect while world attention was focused on the fall of Paris to Nazi Germany. Two Soviet bombers downed the Finnish passenger airplane "Kaleva" flying from Tallinn to Helsinki carrying three diplomatic pouches from the U.S. legations in Tallinn, Riga and Helsinki. The US Foreign Service employee Henry W. Antheil, Jr. was killed in the crash.[26]

On June 15, the USSR invaded Lithuania[27] and Soviet troops attacked the Latvian border guards at Masļenki.[28]

On June 16, 1940, the USSR invaded Estonia and Latvia.[27] According to a Time magazine article published at the time of the invasions, in a matter of days around 500,000 Soviet Red Army troops occupied the three Baltic nations—just one week before the Fall of France to Nazi Germany.[29]

Molotov accused the Baltic states of conspiracy against the Soviet Union and delivered an ultimatum to all Baltic countries for the establishment of Soviet-approved governments. Threatening invasion and accusing the three states of violating the original pacts as well as forming a conspiracy against the Soviet Union, Moscow presented ultimatums, demanding new concessions, which included the replacement of governments and allowing an unlimited number of troops to enter the three countries.[30][31][32][2] Hundreds of thousands Soviet troops entered Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania across the borders.[33] These additional Soviet military forces far outnumbered the armies of each country.[34]

The Baltic governments had decided that, in conditions of international isolation and given the overwhelming Soviet force both on the borders and inside the countries, it was in their interests not to actively resist and to avoid bloodshed in an unwinnable war.[35] The occupation of the Baltic states was complete with a communist coup d'état in each country, supported by the Soviet troops.[36]

Most of the Estonian Defence Forces and the Estonian Defence League surrendered according to the orders of the Estonian Government believing that resistance was useless and were disarmed by the Red Army. [37] [38] Only the Estonian Single Signal Battalion stationed in Tallinn at Raua Street showed resistance to Red Army and Communist Militia called "People's Self-Defence"[39] on 21 June 1940.[40] As the Red Army brought in additional reinforcements supported by six armoured fighting vehicles, the battle lasted several hours until sundown. Finally the military resistance was ended with negotiations and the Single Signal Battalion surrendered and was disarmed.[41] There was 2 dead Estonian servicemen, Aleksei Männikus and Johannes Mandre, and several wounded on the Estonian side and about 10 killed and more wounded on the Soviet side.[42][43] The Soviet militia that participated in the battle was led by Nikolai Stepulov.[44]

Soviet terror

The repressions followed with the mass deportations carried out by the Soviets. Order № 001223, "On the Procedure for carrying out the Deportation of Anti-Soviet Elements from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia", contained detailed instructions for procedures and protocols to observe in the deportation of Baltic nationals.

Led by Stalin’s close associates,[45] the local communist supporters and those brought in from Russia, forced the presidents and governments of all three countries to resign, replacing them with provisional "people's governments" made up entirely of Communists.

In the following month, rigged parliamentary elections were conducted by local Communists loyal to the Soviet Union. Only the Communists and their allies were allowed to run[46] The election results were completely fabricated: the Soviet press service released them early, with the result that they had already appeared in print in a London newspaper a full 24 hours before the polls closed.[47][48] The result was that all three Baltic states had communist majorities in their parliaments, and in August, despite claims prior to the elections that no such action would be taken,[46] they were all presented with motions to ask for admission to the Soviet Union. In each case, the motions passed. In due course, the Soviet Union "accepted" all three petitions and formally annexed the three countries.

Those who failed to have their passports stamped for so voting were shot in the back of the head.[49] Public tribunals were also set up to punish "traitors to the people": those who had fallen short of the "political duty" of voting their countries into the USSR.

Immediately after the elections, NKVD units under the leadership of Ivan Serov arrested more than 15,000 "hostile elements" and members of their families[34]. In the first year of Soviet occupation, from June 1940 to June 1941, the number confirmed executed, conscripted, or deported is estimated at a minimum of 124,467: 59,732 in Estonia, 34,250 in Latvia, and 30,485 in Lithuania.[50] This included 8 former heads of state and 38 ministers from Estonia, 3 former heads of state and 15 ministers from Latvia, and the then president, 5 prime ministers and 24 other ministers from Lithuania.[51] The last large-scale operation was planned for the night of 27-28 June 1941. It was postponed until after the war when the Germans invaded the USSR on 22 June 1941 - Operation Barbarossa[34]. According to historian Robert Conquest, the selective deportations from the Baltic States represented the policy of "decapitation" of the nation by removing its political and social elite, "as was later evidently to be the motive for the Katyn massacre."[52]

Between July and August 1940, Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian envoys to the United States and the United Kingdom made official protests against Soviet occupation and annexation of their countries. The United States,[53] in accordance with the principles of the Stimson Doctrine (Sumner Welles' Declaration of July 23, 1940[54][48]), as well as most other Western countries[55][56] never formally recognized the annexation, but did not directly interfere with Soviet control. The Baltic States continued their de jure existence in accordance with international law.[57][58] Diplomatic and consular representations of the Baltic States continued to function between 1940 - 1991 in some Western countries (USA, Australia, Switzerland).[59] Members of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian diplomatic services in Western countries continued to formulate and express the official opinion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and protected the interests of these countries and their citizens abroad between 1940–1991, i.e., until the restoration of independence of the Baltic States.

They also tried to pull this crap in Finland, which is a large reason why the Finns mobilised and humiliated the colossus in a courageous but futile war.

I see. "All admirals were executed" - words of great military expert

Once again I am dazzled by your clever new arguments. You sir, are far more clever than me. I made one slight error, Stalin spared one of his nine admirals. The fact that you are focusing on that one tiny mistake proves that you have absolutely no logical argument to make on the issue, as you are nothing but a blind apologist. For the love of god son, wake up to yourself. Life's too short to worship the Soviet bloody Union of all things.

 

[Eskel]

Further discussion is a pure nonsense. Just look - one stalinist lover justifies all USSR actions, while all members of those "liberated" and "defended" by USSR's nations tell, that they didn't want Soviet help and - in fact - at very first occassion left this so called "union".
Deeds should be justified by victims, not oppressor. This whole discussion looks like rapist was talking to raped women "Well, you all have wanted IT really" while they say "no, we didn't! It WAS rape!".
Whom would you belive?
Moreover, if it were Nazi regime, or Hitler actions discussed, this thread would be immediately closed and some users at least warned for glorifing planned genocide. Why moderators do not treat all communist regime followers similarily? It is very sad, that even in Civ game you can play Stalin (note well, that Hitler is forbidden in the same time).
Just my two cents, I do not plan to continue this discussion and feed whatever political trolls here.

 

[lovett]

1. I did not criticize Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania for their collaboration with Nazis - I criticize specific people, "forest brothers" and treat them in absolutely the same way as Russian collaborators. If you don't know, there were a lot of people from Baltic states who joined Red Army.
2. I do not refuse some facts of cooperation between USSR and Germany. In the same time, I know they were not allies, moreover, both countries were preparing for war against each other during several years before 1941.

That's nothing more than collaboration.

A lot of people there collaborated with Nazis, when they attacked USSR. Now such people are glorified in Estonia.

That's got to show many things.

Right, so your criticising the Forest Brothers because you think they collaborated with the Nazis.

So come on, didn't Stalin collaborate with Nazi Germany?

Now quite clearly the USSR had an official and much better informed policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany, so are you going to similarly criticise them? Somehow, I doubt it.

And no, the USSR and Germany were not hostile at the start of WWII. Not unless you have a very odd definition of the word 'hostile'. What kind of hostile states plan military invasions in concert and let each other use their military assets?! I mean for chrissake the Second World War broke out just a week after the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was signed, the ink was barely dry! The Soviet Union allowed Germany to route resources through the Russian ports. The Gestapo and NKVD had regular meeting as to how best to deal with Polish resistance together ! They signed a treaty called The Boundary and Friendship Treaty! You don't need to be solid allies to collaborate or collude, and the division of Eastern Europe was an impressive example of both those things. The Soviet Top Brass definitely thought so, it's why they didn't acknowledge the existence of the secret protocols till '89!

Go ahead and explain why all those point don't add up to collaboration. And if you can't you should put Stalin on exactly the same footing you put the Forest Brothers.

About reading which might help.
Here we can see the mindset evolution of our friend:
First message:

Second one:

Next:

And finally

Yeah, this, pretty much:

Once again I am dazzled by your clever new arguments. You sir, are far more clever than me. I made one slight error, Stalin spared one of his nine admirals. The fact that you are focusing on that one tiny mistake proves that you have absolutely no logical argument to make on the issue, as you are nothing but a blind apologist. For the love of god son, wake up to yourself. Life's too short to worship the Soviet bloody Union of all things.

You quoted some parts of the discussion regarding the Red Army and purges. Your picking on completely marginal details (seriously, how big is the difference between eight and nine?) whilst completely ignoring the main thrust of argument. You completely failed to prove that Stalin's purges didn't cripple the Red Army and have chosen to focus on other issue. You should not count this as any sort of success.

 

[red_elk]

Not arguing against that at all. My point is that, even with infrastructure superior to the USSR, Imperial Russia could never have achieved a matching life expectancy, as the bloody technology to prolong life that long regularly didn't exist yet. It's like claiming the Soviet Union was better than Imperial Russia because they had satellites.

Infrastructure, such as hospital availability for everyone was necessary for the breakthrough. And it was built mostly in USSR, especially for remote Asian regions.

You're being an obstinate fool. He wrote a private letter. It's not like he mailed the damn thing to Stalin, or a newspaper. It's the equivalent of having a private telephone conversation. Should you be tried as a traitor for telling someone over the phone that Putin's policies are hurting Russia?

Please tell me where I call him traitor? You are quickly overcoming Luiz in putting your words into my mouth competition. He was stupid because there could not be private letters at those time. And he knew that.

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

I was off by one. And that's a great new argument you have there.

Great new argument, how can I possibly beat such an insightful argument. You sir, have totally trounced me.

Once again I am dazzled by your clever new arguments. You sir, are far more clever than me. I made one slight error, Stalin spared one of his nine admirals. The fact that you are focusing on that one tiny mistake proves that you have absolutely no logical argument to make on the issue, as you are nothing but a blind apologist.

You know, there is a difference between "all executed" and "8 of 9 removed". A tiny difference. Especially for those people.
But it's not a big deal, because Stalin was evil, right? Who cares, you and lovett just a little bit emphasized the truth. Not intentionally, of course.

In the opinion of lots of Poles, Balts, Ukrainians, and even many Russians... Yes. Until they realised what Germany had in store for them, which in some cases, was about the same as what Russia did.

And lots of other people in Western Belorussia, Western Ukraine and Baltic states treated Red Army as liberators. Surprise? They thought Nazi were liberators, it's understandable, but Russians also? It's impossible. How could they?

I called it liberation just because those territories were occupied by Poland in 1920, and USSR returned them. BTW, do you think these are Polish territories today, and must be returned to Poland?

Please point out where I said that? You are aware of this famous incident, are you not?

They seemed to think they were raped because of this:

They also tried to pull this crap in Finland, which is a large reason why the Finns mobilised and humiliated the colossus in a courageous but futile war.

You want me to get to know Baltic official version of history? Thank you, I already know it. Yeekim recommended me much more interesting (and BTW, balanced) source. Too bad you don't know Russian.

For the love of god son, wake up to yourself. Life's too short to worship the Soviet bloody Union of all things.

Never!!!
[singing an anthem]

 

[red_elk]

Right, so your criticising the Forest Brothers because you think they collaborated with the Nazis.

So come on, didn't Stalin collaborate with Nazi Germany?

Go ahead and explain why all those point don't add up to collaboration. And if you can't you should put Stalin on exactly the same footing you put the Forest Brothers.

Do you understand the difference between state politics and actions of certain people? No I'm not condemning USSR, USA, Poland, Finland and other countries for their pre-war "collaboration" with Nazi Germany. Should I treat American companies which traded with Hitler before war the same way as collaborators? I don't think so.

If Stalin personally joined SS, took a gun and went to kill his compatriots, yes he would be treated as collaborator and traitor.

You quoted some parts of the discussion regarding the Red Army and purges. Your picking on completely marginal details (seriously, how big is the difference between eight and nine?) whilst completely ignoring the main thrust of argument. You completely failed to prove that Stalin's purges didn't cripple the Red Army and have chosen to focus on other issue. You should not count this as any sort of success.

Executed and displaced - is this the same?
But it's not a big deal, because Stalin was evil, right? Who cares, you and Sharwood just a little bit emphasized the truth. Not intentionally, of course.

Again, for all too sensitive, inattentive people and idiots.
Stalin was a cruel dictator and tyrant. He repressed a lot of people, and repressions affected the ability of country to defend. I'm not going to justify all Soviet actions against Baltic states, Finland or Poland, and Stalin's repressions. I don't think that every action of USSR or Stalin was rightful. I don't think USSR was the best country in the world. If you thought I do, re-read my messages in this thread.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Well let's think about it. It was a Socialistic Communist government. It had socialist responsibilities. It went Bankrupt. Hmmmm......

I'll stick with the Gipper, thank you.

 

[Sharwood]

Infrastructure, such as hospital availability for everyone was necessary for the breakthrough. And it was built mostly in USSR, especially for remote Asian regions.

And what exactly is your point? I'm not disputing that the USSR built the infrastructure, I'm disputing that said infrastructure is more important than the improved technology. It clearly isn't, because even with that infrastructure, life spans wouldn't increase that dramatically without the accompanying technology increase.

Please tell me where I call him traitor? You are quickly overcoming Luiz in putting your words into my mouth competition. He was stupid because there could not be private letters at those time. And he knew that.

You're missing the point. You implied that he deserved what he got. He clearly didn't.

You know, there is a difference between "all executed" and "8 of 9 removed". A tiny difference. Especially for those people.
But it's not a big deal, because Stalin was evil, right? Who cares, you and lovett just a little bit emphasized the truth. Not intentionally, of course.

You said it yourself. "A tiny difference." As in completely negligible, and not worth focusing on. And you are not actually arguing that sparing one guy makes Stalin a good man? And no, it was not intentional. Unlike you, I don't lie about easily verifiable facts.

And lots of other people in Western Belorussia, Western Ukraine and Baltic states treated Red Army as liberators. Surprise? They thought Nazi were liberators, it's understandable, but Russians also? It's impossible. How could they?

Just because they call it a liberation doesn't make it so. I don't think anyone would say that Nazi Germany "liberated" Poland, yet many Volksdeutsche felt that way. That's the point I was making, and over your head it went. As for the Russians, you are aware that pretty much an entire army defected?

I called it liberation just because those territories were occupied by Poland in 1920, and USSR returned them. BTW, do you think these are Polish territories today, and must be returned to Poland?

Considering that Russia took them from Poland centuries earlier, that's not really a credible argument. If the present inhabitants want to be reincorporated into Poland, let them. If not, leave them as part of Belarus and Ukraine.

You want me to get to know Baltic official version of history? Thank you, I already know it. Yeekim recommended me much more interesting (and BTW, balanced) source. Too bad you don't know Russian.

Well, you already know so much about the official Russian version. Every heard of the phrase; "two sides to every story?"

Sources:

13. ^ Moscow's Week at Time Magazine on Monday, Oct. 09, 1939

14. ^ The Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by David J. Smith, Page 24, ISBN 0415285801

15. ^ The Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by David J. Smith, Page 24, ISBN-10: 0415285801

16. ^ Tannberg. Tarvel. Documents on the Soviet Military Occupation of Estonia, Trames, 2006.

17. ^ Maltjukhov, Mikhail. The missed opportunity of Stalin. The Soviet Union and the fight for Europe: 1939-1941 (documents, facts, judgements). 2002, Moscow.

18. ^ Baltic states :: Soviet occupation - Britannica Online Encyclopedia

19. ^ Minus a Member at Time magazine on Monday, Dec. 25, 1939

20. ^ Mikhail Meltyukhov Stalin's Missed Chance p. 198, available at [2]

21. ^ Pavel Petrov, p. 153

22. ^ Pavel Petrov, p. 154

23. ^ (Finnish) Pavel Petrov at Finnish Defence Forces home page

24. ^ (Russian) documents published from the State Archive of the Russian Navy

25. ^ Pavel Petrov, p. 164

26. ^ The Last Flight from Tallinn at American Foreign Service Association

27. ^ a b Five Years of Dates at Time magazine on Monday, Jun. 24, 1940

28. ^ a b The Occupation of Latvia at Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia

29. ^ Germany Over All, TIME Magazine, June 24, 1940

30. ^ For Lithuania see, for instance, Thomas Remeikis (1975). "The decision of the Lithuanian government to accept the Soviet ultimatum of June 14, 1940". LITUANUS, Lithuanian Quarterly journal of Arts and Sciences 21 (No.4 - Winter 1975). http://www.lituanus.org/1975/75_4_02.htm. Retrieved on 3 March 2007.

31. ^ see report of Latvian Chargé d'affaires, Fricis Kociņš, regarding the talks with Soviet Foreign Commissar Molotov in I.Grava-Kreituse, I.Feldmanis, J.Goldmanis, A.Stranga. (1995) (in latvian). Latvijas okupācija un aneksija 1939-1940: Dokumenti un materiāli. (The Occupation and Annexation of Latvia: 1939-1940. Documents and Materials.). pp. 348–350. http://www.historia.lv/alfabets/L/la/okupac/dokumenti/kocins/1940.21.06..htm.

32. ^ for Estonia see, for instance, Tanel Kerikmäe, Hannes Vallikivi (2000). "State Continuity in the Light of Estonian Treaties Concluded before World War II". Juridica International (I 2000): 30–39. http://www.juridica.ee/international_en.php?document=en/international/2000/1/22575.ART.0.pub.php. Retrieved on 3 March 2007.

33. ^ nearly 650,000 according to Kenneth Christie, Robert Cribb (2002). Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe: Ghosts at the Table of Democracy. RoutledgeCurzon. pp. 83. ISBN 0700715991. http://books.google.com/books?visbn...PA83&sig=EEeRpxGm9rGcZCT3B5dxPHpQiPQ#PPA79,M1.

34. ^ a b c d e Stephane Courtois; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-07608-7.

35. ^ The Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania p.19 ISBN-10: 0415285801

36. ^ Estonia: Identity and Independence by Jean-Jacques Subrenat, David Cousins, Alexander Harding, Richard C. Waterhouse ISBN-10: 9042008903

37. ^ June 14 the Estonian government surrendered without offering any military resistance; The occupation authorities began...by disarming the Estonian Army and removing the higher military comman from power Ertl, Alan (2008). Toward an Understanding of Europe. Universal-Publishers. p. 394. ISBN 1599429837. http://books.google.com/books?id=X9PGRaZt-zcC&pg=PA394&dq.

38. ^ the Estonian armed forces were disarmed by the Soviet occupation in June 1940 Miljan, Toivo (2004). Historical Dictionary of Estonia. Scarecrow Press. p. 111. ISBN 0810849046. http://books.google.com/books?id=XKWRct15XfkC&pg=PA111&vq.

39. ^ Baltic States: A Study of Their Origin and National Development, Their Seizure and Incorporation Into the U.S.S.R. W. S. Hein. p. 280. http://books.google.com/books?id=_L...=dKhdSbqmFIvuMoea6OcM&client=firefox-a&pgis=1.


40. ^ "The President of the Republic acquainted himself with the Estonian Defence Forces". Press Service of the Office of the President (December 19, 2001). Retrieved on 2 January 2009.

41. ^ (Estonian)51 years from the Raua Street Battle at Estonian Defence Forces Home Page

42. ^ 784 AE. "Riigikogu avaldus kommunistliku režiimi kuritegudest Eestis" (in Estonian). Riigikogu. Retrieved on 2 January 2009.

43. ^ Lohmus, Alo (10 November 2007). "Kaitseväelastest said kurja saatuse sunnil korpusepoisid" (in Estonian). Retrieved on 2 January 2009.

44. ^ "Põlva maakonna 2005.a. lahtised meistrivõistlused mälumängus" (in Estonian). kilb.ee (22 February 2005). Retrieved on 2 January 2009.

45. ^ in addition to the envoys accredited in Baltic countries, Soviet government sent the following special emissaries: to Lithuania: Deputy Commissar of Foreign Affairs Dekanozov; to Latvia: Vishinski, the representative of the Council of Ministers; to Estonia: Regional Party Leader of Leningrad Zhdanov. "Analytical list of documents, V. Friction in the Baltic States and Balkans, June 4, 1940 – September 21, 1940" (html). Telegram of German Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Schulenburg) to the German Foreign Office. Retrieved on 2007-03-03.

46. ^ a b Attitudes of the Major Soviet Nationalities, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973

47. ^ Mangulis, Visvaldis (1983). "VIII. September 1939 to June 1941". Latvia in the Wars of the 20th century. Princeton Junction: Cognition Books. ISBN 0912881003. http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/08.nod.htm.

48. ^ a b Švābe, Arvīds. The Story of Latvia. Latvian National Foundation. Stockholm. 1949.

49. ^ Justice in The Balticat Time magazine on Monday, Aug. 19, 1940

50. ^ Dunsdorfs, Edgars. The Baltic Dilemma. Speller & Sons, New York. 1975

51. ^ Küng, Andres. Communism and Crimes against Humanity in the Baltic States. 1999 [3]

52. ^ The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (1986)

53. ^ see, for instance, "Concurrent Resolution of the House and Senate: H. CON. RES. 128" (PDF) (July 25, 2005). Retrieved on 2006-12-09. "[e]xpressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement of admission and condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania."

54. ^ Then acting U.S. Secretary of State, Sumner Wells described Soviet activities in the Baltic states as: "the devious process whereunder the political independence and territorial integrity of the three small Baltic republics - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - were to be deliberately annihilated by one of their more powerful neighbors."

55. ^ Dehousse, Renaud (1993). "The International Practice of the European Communities: Current Survey" ([dead link] – Scholar search). European Journal of International Law 4 (1): 141. http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol4/No1/sr1.html. Retrieved on 9 December 2006.

56. ^ European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities C 42/78. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Europarliament13011983.jpg. "whereas the Soviet annexations of the three Baltic States still has not been formally recognized by most European States and the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of the Baltic States".

57. ^ Van Elsuwege, P. (2003). "State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States". Leiden Journal of International Law 16: 377–388. doi:10.1017/S0922156503001195.

58. ^ Malksoo, Lauri (2005). "Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR". The American Journal of International Law 99 (3): 734–736. doi:10.2307/1602324.

59. ^ Juda, Lawrence (1975). "United States' nonrecognition of the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic States: Politics and law". Journal of Baltic Studies 6 (4): 272–290.

How many of those are official Baltic sources? many are Russian. Do you thikn Friedman is in the pay of the Baltic governments?

 

[Yeekim]

This book:
http://www.qpig.ru/showtov.asp?Cat_id=556992
Page 146.
For the period 1941-1949, in USSR died for different reasons 580.000 POW - 15% from total number. For comparison, casualties of Soviet POW were 57%.
So, you were right about 57%, I was mistaken..

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.

For example, they didn't manage to organize the same in 1968 in Czechoslovakia. Is this a nice Baltic tradition - meeting occupants with flowers? Or it is famous Estonian quickness - so that it took you a year to realize that you were occupied?

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...

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

Well, it was your link. Now you are not agree with what is written in the article you gave link to?

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

I think it is possible to develop official position which will satisfy both Baltic states and Russia in this question. With appropriate treatment of all events 1938-1945 years, including joining Baltic states to USSR. I'd say it must include condemnation of all Nazi collaborators, including those who are glorified in Baltic states today.

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.

 

[red_elk]

And what exactly is your point? I'm not disputing that the USSR built the infrastructure, I'm disputing that said infrastructure is more important than the improved technology. It clearly isn't, because even with that infrastructure, life spans wouldn't increase that dramatically without the accompanying technology increase.

I said in the beginning. To double life expectancy, particular measures must be taken by government. In Russian history, these measures were taken by Soviet government. It was one of the Soviet achievements.

You're missing the point. You implied that he deserved what he got. He clearly didn't.

Don't tell me what I implied unless you can quote it.

You said it yourself. "A tiny difference." As in completely negligible, and not worth focusing on. And you are not actually arguing that sparing one guy makes Stalin a good man? And no, it was not intentional.

You're really don't understand? Compare two news messages:
1. Putin removed 8 of 9 Russian admirals, for a few last years (because of age maybe?)
2. Putin executed all Russian admirals.
Tiny difference?

Why not just confess that you repeated lovett's strong statement without checking? And that those statement was simply wrong and was giving wrong impression about real situation?

Unlike you, I don't lie about easily verifiable facts.

Oh, that's nice - blaming opponent in what you was just caught red handed.
Quote me, where I lied about easily verifiable facts.
I just gave an example, where you lied (probably unintentionally, indeed)

Just because they call it a liberation doesn't make it so. I don't think anyone would say that Nazi Germany "liberated" Poland, yet many Volksdeutsche felt that way. That's the point I was making, and over your head it went. As for the Russians, you are aware that pretty much an entire army defected?

Considering that Russia took them from Poland centuries earlier, that's not really a credible argument. If the present inhabitants want to be reincorporated into Poland, let them. If not, leave them as part of Belarus and Ukraine.

USSR did to Poland the same what Poland did to USSR 20 years before. Agression and annexation of territories. The same territories. For some reason everybody are talking about the second part of story only.

How many of those are official Baltic sources? many are Russian. Do you thikn Friedman is in the pay of the Baltic governments?

Checked sources. Wast majority are Baltic and British, some are nationalistic.
A few credible Russian sources:
[20] Mikhail Meltyukhov Stalin's Missed Chance p. 198, available at [2]
Describes amount of Soviet forces in region.

[79] Д. Муриев, Описание подготовки и проведения балтийской операции 1944 года, Военно-исторический журнал, сентябрь 1984. Translation available, D. Muriyev, Preparations, Conduct of 1944 Baltic Operation Described, Military History Journal (USSR Report, Military affairs), 1984-9, pp. 22-28

Referenced in frase, which has exactly opposite meaning than source

The Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states as part of the, a twofold military-political operation to rout German forces and the "liberation of the Soviet Baltic peoples"[79] beginning in summer-autumn 1944, lasting until the capitulation of German and Latvian forces in Courland pocket in May 1945, and they were gradually absorbed into Soviet Union.

Neutrality is assured

 

[Sharwood]

I said in the beginning. To double life expectancy, particular measures must be taken by government. In Russian history, these measures were taken by Soviet government. It was one of the Soviet achievements.

And I'm not arguing against that.

Don't tell me what I implied unless you can quote it.

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.

You're really don't understand? Compare two news messages:
1. Putin removed 8 of 9 Russian admirals, for a few last years (because of age maybe?)
2. Putin executed all Russian admirals.
Tiny difference?

Tiny is right. They were still part of the Purge, which took out a significantly more substantial percentage of experienced officers than you are claiming.

Why not just confess that you repeated lovett's strong statement without checking? And that those statement was simply wrong and was giving wrong impression about real situation?

I never said otherwise. I outright admitted my mistake.

Oh, that's nice - blaming opponent in what you was just caught red handed.
Quote me, where I lied about easily verifiable facts.
I just gave an example, where you lied (probably unintentionally, indeed)

Caught red-handed? How do you know what I'm looking at on my other open page? If it is unintentional it is not a lie. 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.

USSR did to Poland the same what Poland did to USSR 20 years before. Agression and annexation of territories. The same territories. For some reason everybody are talking about the second part of story only.

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.

Checked sources. Wast majority are Baltic and British, some are nationalistic.

The majority are non-Baltic, particularly British. And many base their findings on Russian documents.

A few credible Russian sources:
[20] Mikhail Meltyukhov Stalin's Missed Chance p. 198, available at [2]
Describes amount of Soviet forces in region.

[79] Д. Муриев, Описание подготовки и проведения балтийской операции 1944 года, Военно-исторический журнал, сентябрь 1984. Translation available, D. Muriyev, Preparations, Conduct of 1944 Baltic Operation Described, Military History Journal (USSR Report, Military affairs), 1984-9, pp. 22-28

Referenced in frase, which has exactly opposite meaning than source

I don't believe I posted that one. I think I only went as far as 59. And I certainly can't read it.

Neutrality is assured

I don't get you?