USSR Like it or not?

[red_elk]

Now, I believe that only among the men who fought in Ukraine in 1943, may be those guilty of war crimes against civilians (I believe there is evidence of incidents concerning sack of four villages and partaking in rounding up a Jewish ghetto in one town). However, you will observe that the overall number of them is just about 800, of whom 500 were volunteers. Vast majority of volunteers (it is estimated about half of this 38,000 may have been willing to join rather than forced to join; I think this estimation is reasonable), joined while front had being pushed back to Estonia. Consequently they can't be guilty of crimes against Belorussian or Ukrainian civilians. And I can't hold fighting USSR together with Germans against them, as they responded to call from their legal government. Mind you, we did not really resist the first time in 1940, but we did the second time in 1944 - because by then we knew what we could expect.

Those who committed crimes against civilians are even out of discussion.
All SS volunteers are criminals according to Nuremberg trial.

Well, I get that you at least agree that for there to be recognizable state of war, official declaration of war is not necessary. Also it is said that the convention applies even when there is no resistance (previously bolded by me). And you do not have to conquer a country to occupy it, you can also occupy country that has surrendered. It is clear, that our government tried to to everything to AVOID war. They adopted the policy of "finlandization" before the Finns did, and it did not work out for them, since this was (correctly?) perceived as weakness, and each time they gave in, they met harsher demands. First, in the treaty of mutual assistance http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19390928-3.pdf it was agreed that we will remain sovereign country, then this promise was broken. As we were in no position to resist by then, we surrendered completely - and after that we were occupied. As for asking for help - from who? Germany? Had signed MRP, which we knew of. Britain? They were not able to help Poland nor prevent the fall of Paris. Their hands were full as it was, not to mention Germany held both Denmark and Norway, so any help to Estonia would have been technically impossible at this point. Finland? Latvia?
And what happened after surrender? Take a look at this picture:
http://www.okupatsioon.ee/nimekirjad/raamat/kgbdok/valitsus.html
This is Estonian government formed in 1938. Only one of these men survived past 1944 - the foreign minister who was in Geneva. Of others, 6 died in prison camps, 5 were executed, 1 fell in battle against Soviet paratroopers. Families of 3 were deported. Similar fate befell 8 former heads of state and 38 ministers. Or take Gen. Johan Laidoner, commander-in-chief or army.

I said it myself, state of war must exist de-jure or de-facto.
Everything else in your message directed to condemn Soviet actions, which, as I already admitted several times, were not justified. Nothing more to discuss.

Now you get down to the real reason. Russian government is reluctant to take responsibility, as it fears demands of compensation. Simple. True. I may add that I would not support any such demands - besides doomed to be futile, the bartering that would follow would beat most divorce procedures. I'd like an apology though. And some token of good will, like return of scientific collections of Tartu University, andPresident's Chain of Office, for example.

What is the reason for us to admit the term which you can't prove and trying to throw to our faces at every convenient moment?

For apology, it is discussable. Though we have own pretensions to you, so this must not be one-sided.

That is core of the debate, whether "claim" is an "action". Anyway most signatory states continued to recognize Estonia and did not recognize SSR's, so their interpretation was different from yours and Soviet one.

Agree.

Every account I've read of these demonstrations mentions, that they were accompanied by Red Army armored vehicles. I also gave numbers how many members of Communist Party there was in Estonia. Multiply these numbers with reasonable constant and you'll get how many could have supported annexation (although even many local communists were hoping for status kind of like Mongolia). What, do you want to say Zhdanov was morally above such actions?

The only thing I want to say, is that it's strange "occupation", when you get such support demonstrations instead of protests. Tanks didn't prevent Danish army from resisting and Czech civilian people from expressing their opinion.

I agree with this comparison. Than again, I do not think this should be some kind of criminal offense. People should have right to question things.

If you think that my opinion is extremist, you are mistaken. It is shared by most of Russians, including historians, and pretty close to official position. You don't think most of Russians are equivalent of holocaust deniars, do you?

That's what I'm trying to do here, to get opinion of Russians over to whomever want to understand it.

 

[Grishnash]

@Yeekim: I'm not going to get into this, it'll take it off of the debate between you and Red.

@Sharwood: The USA is also Known for doing that...


@Grishnash:.... Don't ... type... anymore....

 

[Sharwood]

I do think that the actions of Stalin in his later years of life were anti-Semitic in nature, althrough I wouldn't use the word "porgom". And a few of these doctors were indeed Russian.

Some of the doctors were Russian, but Stalin was focusing on the Jewish ethnicity of the others in order to begin an anti-Semitic crackdown. I'm not sure why he chose the Jews, probably because he thought they were a target that even the anti-Russian members of the USSR would rally behind him against. I probably shouldn't have called what he was doing at the time of his death a pogrom, but it was certainly headed in that direction, and probably would have reached it if Stalin hadn't carked it. Though of course we can't be sure.

 

[Sharwood]

@Sharwood: The USA is also Known for doing that...

No faeces, Sherlock. Change what I said at all?

 

[Yeekim]

Those who committed crimes against civilians are even out of discussion.
All SS volunteers are criminals according to Nuremberg trial.

But what forbids us to reassess this position based on our knowledge of the situation - for our own conviction? I somehow doubt that "special" circumstances pertaining to Estonians were at the focus of Nuremberg verdicts. Also, being "volunteer" in 1944 would rather mean "did not hide into forest from conscription". A matter of inner conscience rather than legal distinction.

I said it myself, state of war must exist de-jure or de-facto.
Everything else in your message directed to condemn Soviet actions, which, as I already admitted several times, were not justified. Nothing more to discuss.

Well, it was de-facto state of war, albeit quite brief, followed by de-facto surrender.

What is the reason to admit the term which you can't prove and trying to throw to our faces at every convenient moment?

Well, I would say that virtual majority of non-Russian historians agrees with this term.

If we took the position that the "occupation" did not take place, then the only other possible position would be, that Estonian SSR was formed legally and entered into USSR legally. Meaning we'd have to accept the Soviet actions, which, as you said, are not justified, as justified. Including expropriations and nationalizations of property, deportations, arrests, arrival of hundreds of thousands of Soviet civilians (Geneva Convention forbids "colonization" of occupied territories). It would mean all these colonists/civilian occupants are indeed automatically entitled to become Estonian citizens, never mind whether they can speak Estonian, read the constitution or actually tolerate our restored independence. It would mean cementing every bit of the injustice ever happened. And it would mean that, theoretically, we could this time really get demonstrations, where hundreds of thousands of Estonian citizens democratically support, say, Tallinn, to join Russian Federation. Although in reality these people have, so far, shown remarkably little interest in becoming part of Russia.

The only thing I want to say, is that it's strange "occupation", when you get such support demonstrations instead of protests. Tanks didn't prevent Danish army from resisting and Czech civilian people from expressing their opinion.

Why do you think there were not protests? Who were the guys who were arrested and deported? Avid supporters? Check the charges and verdicts: "counterrevolutionary activity; agitation against USSR; reading counterrevolutionary literature etc etc); Again, you say that Solzhenitsyn was a fool for criticizing Stalin in a private letter and now you wonder why people did not come to the street en-masse in a peaceful manner, holding hands and shouting anti-communist slogans? Civil Guard did not put up armed resistance, as our government fulfilled the agreement between Laidoner and Meretskov from 17.June and disarmed them (did I write "surrender" already?). The armed resistance started as soon as there was a first glimpse of hope for success. As for Denmark, well, Hitler straightforwardly invaded them, instead of messing around with ultimatums and empty promises previously. They also surrendered in 2 hours. At least according to the wiki. I claim no expertise in this part of history.

If you think that my opinion is extremist, you are mistaken. It is shared by most of Russians, including historians, and pretty close to official position.

Oh, I know that all right.

You don't think most of Russians are equivalent of holocaust deniars, do you?

Well, Germans have been thoroughly force-fed accounts of their atrocities. Russians, on the other hand, usually only know very one-sided account of actual events, as I said to Sharwood above. EDIT: But, being generally no less reasonable than any other people, usually have no problem accepting different point of view, when they actually learn about it. But I guess folks are more obstinate on teh internets...

That's what I'm trying to do here, to get opinion of Russians over to whomever want to understand it.

And I am trying to prove - to you and to others - that this opinion consists of ignorance and unwillingness to accept responsibility in about equal parts.
EDIT2: Or perhaps I should say that it mostly unwillingness in official position and mostly ignorance in popular opinion.

Spoiler :

An example I like - history teacher of local Russian school asked his students what do they think - whether Estonia stepped into USSR willingly or unwillingly. Most of them thought we did so willingly. He then proceeded to bring the same example of the fate of our contemporary government I brought to you and repeated the question. The children changed their opinion.

 

[red_elk]

I do think that the actions of Stalin in his later years of life were anti-Semitic in nature, althrough I wouldn't use the word "porgom". And a few of these doctors were indeed Russian.

Anti-Semitic actions - undoubtedly. Were they genocide, as claimed here?

 

[Sharwood]

Anti-Semitic actions - undoubtedly. Were they genocide, as claimed here?

Who claimed genocide? No-one but you. Besides, if they had continued they certainly would have qualified.

 

[Grishnash]

Is it not swaying off the topic a bit and going on to "Russia is evil because Estonia joined the Union!/Russia is not evil because Estonia joined the Union"
<,<
>,>

... Dose anyone here play Civilization? Because if you do, there's a great mod being made for Civ4! Look at my sig!

Moderator Action: Warning given. Pls do not advertise outside of signatures. Thanks. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[red_elk]

But what forbids us to reassess this position based on our knowledge of the situation - for our own conviction? I somehow doubt that "special" circumstances pertaining to Estonians were at the focus of Nuremberg verdicts. Also, being "volunteer" in 1944 would rather mean "did not hide into forest from conscription". A matter of inner conscience rather than legal distinction.

The fact that they were volunteered members of organization which committed numerous crimes against humanity. And internationally recognized as criminal organization. Thus, they share its liability and nobody yet reassessed that. Those who "did not hide into forest from conscription", and were conscripted - are not volunteers.

If we took the position that the "occupation" did not take place, then the only other possible position would be, that Estonian SSR was formed legally and entered into USSR legally. Meaning we'd have to accept the Soviet actions, which, as you said, are not justified, as justified. Including expropriations and nationalizations of property, deportations, arrests, arrival of hundreds of thousands of Soviet civilians (Geneva Convention forbids "colonization" of occupied territories). It would mean all these colonists/civilian occupants are indeed automatically entitled to become Estonian citizens, never mind whether they can speak Estonian, read the constitution or actually tolerate our restored independence. It would mean cementing every bit of the injustice ever happened. And it would mean that, theoretically, we could this time really get demonstrations, where hundreds of thousands of Estonian citizens democratically support, say, Tallinn, to join Russian Federation. Although in reality these people have, so far, shown remarkably little interest in becoming part of Russia.

My position is that occupation did not take place, there was forceful incorporation which is not justified morally. In the same time, Baltic states became legal part of USSR as a result of Yalta and Helsinki agreements.

Civilian occupants - that's new term to me. Sounds like good excuse for discrimination of those people.

People living in Estonia, no matter what is their native or spoken language, must be granted the same rights. Including citizenship.

Why do you think there were not protests? Who were the guys who were arrested and deported? Avid supporters? Check the charges and verdicts: "counterrevolutionary activity; agitation against USSR; reading counterrevolutionary literature etc etc); Again, you say that Solzhenitsyn was a fool for criticizing Stalin in a private letter and now you wonder why people did not come to the street en-masse in a peaceful manner, holding hands and shouting anti-communist slogans? Civil Guard did not put up armed resistance, as our government fulfilled the agreement between Laidoner and Meretskov from 17.June and disarmed them (did I write "surrender" already?). The armed resistance started as soon as there was a first glimpse of hope for success. As for Denmark, well, Hitler straightforwardly invaded them, instead of messing around with ultimatums and empty promises previously. They also surrendered in 2 hours. At least according to the wiki. I claim no expertise in this part of history.

There were some protesters and supporters, but it's unclear if absolute majority of people was really against joining USSR in 1940. Repressions - yes, there were, as everywhere in USSR. I never denied them.

Well, Germans have been thoroughly force-fed accounts of their atrocities. Russians, on the other hand, usually only know very one-sided account of actual events, as I said to Sharwood above. EDIT: But, being generally no less reasonable than any other people, usually have no problem accepting different point of view, when they actually learn about it. But I guess folks are more obstinate on teh internets...

Russians are the same people as all the others, in these terms. Everybody are being educated according to official position of their country. Many people educate themselves by reading books - and I always thought that Russians are not the worst in that.

 

[red_elk]

They genocided the kulaks and burned chechen villages

Read definition of genocide

Any idea what Stalin was planning just before his death?

I guess, to invade the world and force everybody to drink vodka and play balalaika?

To murder a bunch of Jews. For being Jews.

Unfortunately for you, not all of them were Jews.

Who claimed genocide? No-one but you. Besides, if they had continued they certainly would have qualified.

Nobody claimed. Some people just are making ambiguous allusions and hiding back to bushes
If you want to say Stalin was going to kill a few Russians for being Jews - just say it openly. I'll understand.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Stalin was planning to kill Jews because they were, well.. Jewish.

Happy?

 

[red_elk]

What about Jews in Soviet government? He also wanted to kill them all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_Kaganovich

 

[Yeekim]

The fact that they were volunteered members of organization which committed numerous crimes against humanity. And internationally recognized as criminal organization. Thus, they share its liability and nobody yet reassessed that. Those who "did not hide into forest from conscription", and were conscripted - are not volunteers.

I guess that's about as close as we can come to an agreement

My position is that occupation did not take place, there was forceful incorporation which is not justified morally.

I am not sure what do you consider principal difference between occupation and forceful incorporation. If you mean that Baltic States were subjected to basically same conditions as the rest of USSR, I do not deny it. Nor does Estonia's official position, I think. But are there any international laws or conventions that actually make such a distinction?

In the same time, Baltic states became legal part of USSR as a result of Yalta and Helsinki agreements.

If we adhere to the principle that peoples have right of self-determination, then the only ones who could have decided that, were the Balts. Present in neither of those conferences.

Civilian occupants - that's new term to me. Sounds like good excuse for discrimination of those people. People living in Estonia, no matter what is their native or spoken language, must be granted the same rights. Including citizenship.

Citizenship can be obtained by anyone who passes a test of language and constitution. Not unreasonable imho, and not impossible, as evidenced by about 140 000 people who've received it so far. But that is a whole new can of worms, let us not open it here.

There were some protesters and supporters, but it's unclear if absolute majority of people was really against joining USSR in 1940.

I'd be really surprised if the number of supporters was as much as 10%. That would be ~120 000 people. About 1000 times the number of active communists in Estonia before 1940. But I think neither of us has any new evidence here. Anyone who reads this can decide for himself.

Russians are the same people as all the others, in these terms. Everybody are being educated according to official position of their country. Many people educate themselves by reading books - and I always thought that Russians are not the worst in that.

Reminds me a joke from Soviet times:
Scientists have discovered, that Estonians, more than any other people in the world, read newspapers.
They have also discovered, that Estonians, more than any other people in the world, drink vodka.
They are still unsure, whether we read newspapers only when drunk... or do we start drinking because we read what stands in the papers...?

 

[Yeekim]

What about Jews in Soviet government? He also wanted to kill them all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_Kaganovich

Google search "Jews + Soviet leadership" brought up this page:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/communist.html
Has a LOT longer list than this. Blatant hate site as it is, that list at least would probably survive scrutiny.
Should be noted, however, that enmity between orthodox and atheist jews would, to some degree, be expected.

 

[REDY]

Were Czechoslovaks who cooperated with Russians againist Germans also traitors? Have you Russians realy lost reason and feeling?

 

[Dachs]

Have you Russians realy lost reason and feeling?

Not according to Sting.

 

[red_elk]

Were Czechoslovaks who cooperated with Russians againist Germans also traitors? Have you Russians realy lost reason and feeling?

No - on both questions.

 

[red_elk]

I am not sure what do you consider principal difference between occupation and forceful incorporation. If you mean that Baltic States were subjected to basically same conditions as the rest of USSR, I do not deny it. Nor does Estonia's official position, I think. But are there any international laws or conventions that actually make such a distinction?

We've already spoken about formal differences. You just mentioned one of important factual things: People in Baltic states were granted the same rights as all Soviet people. Claim that there was an occupation means putting it into the same classification as for example, Nazi occupation of Belorussia. If I remember correctly, there left only 75% of population after a few years of occupation - the difference is principal.

If we adhere to the principle that peoples have right of self-determination, then the only ones who could have decided that, were the Balts. Present in neither of those conferences.

International laws and agreements are sometimes contradictory. The same principle was used to justify secession of Kosovo, Abkhazia and S.Ossetia.

Citizenship can be obtained by anyone who passes a test of language and constitution. Not unreasonable imho, and not impossible, as evidenced by about 140 000 people who've received it so far. But that is a whole new can of worms, let us not open it here.

It is not impossible, moreover, I understand the reasons why it was implemented. You don't want to be assimilated and want to preserve Estonian culture. What I don't understand is why in totalitarian USSR, children of all nationalities in Estonian SSR learnt Estonian language (yes, this was part of evil Soviet plan to destroy Estonian culture), but in democratic Estonia, children with Russian mother language are forced to use Estonian in schools?

"Civilian occupants" - if this man committed crimes, ok, punish him. If he moved to Estonia in, say, 1970 to build new workshop or to teach your children - is he occupant?

Good example for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland
Official languages - Finnish, Swedish
Swedish is the mother tongue of 5.5% of the population.
How many Russians in Estonia?

Reminds me a joke from Soviet times:
Scientists have discovered, that Estonians, more than any other people in the world, read newspapers.
They have also discovered, that Estonians, more than any other people in the world, drink vodka.
They are still unsure, whether we read newspapers only when drunk... or do we start drinking because we read what stands in the papers...?

I meant, Russians are not a flock of sheeps, we have educated people in enough quantity to affect public opinion.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

What about Jews in Soviet government? He also wanted to kill them all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_Kaganovich

Most of them yes, very likely.

Good example for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland
Official languages - Finnish, Swedish
Swedish is the mother tongue of 5.5% of the population.
How many Russians in Estonia?

Total waste of resources & time, hated by lots and lots of Finns (obligatory Swedish in school). Probably 99.9% of those who have Swedish as mother tongue speak Finnish anyway. It would *gasp* actually make more sense to study Russian in many places (especially eastern Finland).

 

[red_elk]

Most of them yes, very likely.

The question: Did Stalin hate the Jews and want to genocide them?

Total waste of resources & time, hated by lots and lots of Finns (obligatory Swedish in school). Probably 99.9% of those who have Swedish as mother tongue speak Finnish anyway. It would *gasp* actually make more sense to study Russian in many places (especially eastern Finland).

I'm not asking to make Russian language obligatory in all (Baltic) schools. Just allow people who want to be educated in Russian, to do this.