An expression of gratitude.
Henry Alminas
By now we must surely all know that so much
that has been published and bantered about
relative to the russkie occupation of the Baltics
were lies. Alex says so, Dim says so, Vlad says
so and, of course, Holman has been saying so
for ages (how old is that sucker anyways?).
Indeed, we have learned that the Balts had
been exploiting the russkies for a long, long
time. The russkies were but liberating the
ungrateful suckers and dispensing their
cultural and material, not even mentioning
the most valuable genetic, blessings upon the
Baltic clods yet they show no gratitude
whatever.
There is some hope however. I note that
the Balts are saying enough! You have
sacrificed enough russkies! Go home to
matuschka for she needs your contribution
in all of these spheres at this time. Why
waste your valuable resources and culture
not to mention your DNA on such an
ungrateful lot? Overcome your unceasing
and selfless drive for the salvation of the
barbarians to the west. Overcome your
endless striving to save them from themselves.
There comes a time when you must think
of yourselves first! That time has come.
From an overwhelmingly convinced Balt.
Best - - Henry
Alexei
"Henry Alminas" <halm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4JtXa.62806$Ho3.8894@sccrnsc03...
>
>
> By now we must surely all know that so much
> that has been published and bantered about
> relative to the russkie occupation of the Baltics
> were lies. Alex says so, Dim says so, Vlad says
> so and, of course, Holman has been saying so
> for ages (how old is that sucker anyways?).
I don't think anyone of us said that the "russkie occupation of the Baltics
were lies". I'm certain that with "so much that has been published and
bantered" you will be able to provide a substatial proof of your claims.
> Indeed, we have learned that the Balts had
> been exploiting the russkies for a long, long
> time.
T
he Balts have been the victims of many other countries apart from Russia.
Every history novice will tell you how many years (out of 800), the City of
Riga, for example, has been an independent city without any foreign
intervention.
The russkies were but liberating the
> ungrateful suckers and dispensing their
> cultural and material, not even mentioning
> the most valuable genetic, blessings upon the
> Baltic clods yet they show no gratitude
> whatever.
I, personally, never said that. Can you prove that I did? Or are you basing
this claim of your mere assumption of the baloon of hot air?
>
> There is some hope however. I note that
> the Balts are saying enough! You have
> sacrificed enough russkies! Go home to
> matuschka for she needs your contribution
> in all of these spheres at this time.
I've no intentioins of moving to Russia, the country I visited twice in my
entire life. Why should I go back to Russia, if I possess Latvian
citizenship, my family is in Latvia, my apartment is in Latvia and my bank
account is in Latvia? Although some may not have citizenship, but they have
their life is Latvia. Why should they move? And who are you to tell them to
move?
>
>
>
>
Henry Alminas
"Alexei" <al...@allaboutlatvia.com> wrote in message
news:bgm5bq$1gu6$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Boy, Alex, it takes a lot to make you happy - here I concede
all the points that you and your cohorts have been making
and yet you quibble. And, certainly, you have a valid point.
If one had an intruder in one's house in the past then one
damn well should have one now. That seems perfectly
reasonable to me - the past should be served - no?
History certainly does teach us that the Balts should
be ruled by those who are inestimably better than they
- such as yourself. Just as your greatX gran pappies were
ruled by their betters - the Mongols.
But whereas your argument is convincing it doesn't go
far enough. You see I was looking beyond the immediate
Baltic gratification of having said, much beloved, intruders
around. I was thinking of the welfare of said intruders
and their place of origin. Certainly there is no denying
that they and their place of origin have sacrificed a great
deal for Baltic welfare but there comes a time when
one must say: "Basta" - enough is enough. Do it on
your own suckers.
Best - - Henry
Alexei
> >
>
> Boy, Alex, it takes a lot to make you happy - here I concede
> all the points that you and your cohorts have been making
> and yet you quibble.
We "quibble" because those *weren't* the points we were making. You still
have yet to prove the proof that my "cohorts" ever said "The Russians
suffered from the Balts". As Americans say, the proof is in the pudding.
And, certainly, you have a valid point.
> If one had an intruder in one's house in the past then one
> damn well should have one now. That seems perfectly
> reasonable to me - the past should be served - no?
> History certainly does teach us that the Balts should
> be ruled by those who are inestimably better than they
> - such as yourself. Just as your greatX gran pappies were
> ruled by their betters - the Mongols.
I don't understand what Mongol-Tatar have anything to do with the Baltics or
Russia in the present. Or do we really have to *that* far in history.
Also, I don't think the past should be served. Every psychologist will tell
you that in order to improve your relationship with a fellow human being,
one must focus on the future and the current situation. In economics, it is
called, if I'm not mistaken, "unrecovered costs" that prevent one from
making sound decisions. How would you like to live in a house with someone
who often brings up the past he or she doesn't want to forget?
>
> But whereas your argument is convincing it doesn't go
> far enough. You see I was looking beyond the immediate
> Baltic gratification of having said, much beloved, intruders
> around. I was thinking of the welfare of said intruders
> and their place of origin.
I'm puzzled! What of the discendents of those "intruders"? Are they
responsible for the actions of their parents or grandparents? Because
mostly, the Russian-speaking Latvian population have been born there, their
home is there and their income is there. Should they bear the guilt of the
parents? Is there an office where I can claim a monetary conpensation for
the raping and the killing that aforementioned Mongols conducted on Russian
territory? How far does it go?
Certainly there is no denying
> that they and their place of origin have sacrificed a great
> deal for Baltic welfare but there comes a time when
> one must say: "Basta" - enough is enough. Do it on
> your own suckers.
What are you on? Should a Baltic government not care about 300,000
non-citizens on its territory? But even if they do become citizens and fight
for their rights, some claim their citizenship should be taken away. As it
is in the case of recently-naturalized Russian-speakin Latvian citizen who
is very outspoken against the educational reform in Latvia. So, you can't
win. You don't naturalize, you lose; you finally naturalize and you want to
legally fight for your rights and you lose again. Can't please you guys.
Aleks
>
> Best - - Henry
>
>
Jonhillr
>By now we must surely all know that so much
>that has been published and bantered about
>relative to the russkie occupation of the Baltics
>were lies.
>Holman has been saying so
>for ages (how old is that sucker anyways?).
Judging from the amount of adult diaper overflow that I have been seeing
recently, I would say almost as old as 'Father Stalin'.
jonhill
Jonhillr
>Why should I go back to Russia, if I possess Latvian
>citizenship, my family is in Latvia, my apartment is in Latvia and my bank
>account is in Latvia?
Indeed..
Why should you go *anywhere*, since you live and post from the US of A?
tootles,
jonhill
Jonhillr
Quit posting crap HTML Makaron!
You begin to remind me of another HTML nutter.
tootles,
jonhill
Eugene Holman
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> By now we must surely all know that so much
> that has been published and bantered about
> relative to the russkie occupation of the Baltics
> were lies. Alex says so, Dim says so, Vlad says
> so and, of course, Holman has been saying so
> for ages (how old is that sucker anyways?).
This sucker recently turned 58. And I have not said that the "russkie
occupation of the Baltics" was "lies", but rather that the formulation of
the situation in those terms is factually incorrect. The occupier was the
Soviet Union, not Russia, and some of the key figures in implementing and
maintaining it were themselves Balts. Some of these Balts, like Johannes
Lauristin and Arvids Pelshe, were committed and true believers in
communism as the wave of the future, others, like Antanas Snieckus, were
Quislings, others, like Neeme Ruus, were opportunists, others, like Kārlis
Ulmanis and Major-General Tõnis Rothberg, were true patriots who thought
that by cooperating with the Soviets that they could save their homelands
from the fate of Finland or Poland.
> Indeed, we have learned that the Balts had
> been exploiting the russkies for a long, long
> time. The russkies were but liberating the
> ungrateful suckers and dispensing their
> cultural and material, not even mentioning
> the most valuable genetic, blessings upon the
> Baltic clods yet they show no gratitude
> whatever.
The Soviets were spreading what they considered to be a more progressive
way of life and social organization, even though they were also
implementing the geopolitical objectives of traditional Russian
imperialism that they had inherited from Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the
Terrible, and Peter the Great.
> There is some hope however. I note that
> the Balts are saying enough! You have
> sacrificed enough russkies! Go home to
> matuschka for she needs your contribution
> in all of these spheres at this time. Why
> waste your valuable resources and culture
> not to mention your DNA on such an
> ungrateful lot? Overcome your unceasing
> and selfless drive for the salvation of the
> barbarians to the west. Overcome your
> endless striving to save them from themselves.
> There comes a time when you must think
> of yourselves first! That time has come.
What a bucketful of Alminasian barf! The Russians and Russian speakers
presently resident in the Baltics because those countries are their
homelands and, given the choice, they decided that they had nothing
against the idea of living as a member of a linguistic minority in a
country goverened by Estonians, Latvians, or Lithuanians.
> From an overwhelmingly convinced Balt.
Overwhelmingly convinced of what? And a Balt in what sense other than the
accident of birth? All the Balts that I know look to the present with
tolerance, understanding, and reconciliation, and to the future with
optimism rather than, like you, to the past with hate, gross
oversimplifications, and resentment.
Best,
Eugene Holman
Alexei
"Jonhillr" <jonh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030805002350...@mb-m01.aol.com...
I don't *live* in the United States -- I'm visiting. What does it matter,
anyway? I have all my life in Latvia -- my family, property, bank accounts,
unlike you, who had never been in Latvia and, yet refers to the people of
the Baltic as "we Balts". I've got more right to say "We Balts" than you do.
And incidentally, where are *you* posting from, Mr. Compuserve, AOL,
Time-Warner?
>
> tootles,
> jonhill
Henry Alminas
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-0508...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
<<snip, snip, snip - assorted barfing>>
Och, it is hard. It is so hard to please russkies or
russkie-philiacs. You repost russkie articles (just
some of the .01% that get translated into English)
and you get attacked. You post a summary of the
information garnered from russkie articles (while
indicating agreement) and you get attacked even
more. What is a poor Balt (oops, sorry, them
critters is now russkies) to do?
I give up - perhaps Holman, and crew, can point
the way....
Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
Alminas" <halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm not the captain or even the Obergruppenführer, but I think that all of
us in SCB would gain from having the proper distance maintained between
the concepts 'Russian' and 'Soviet'. Even though from the Baltic
standpoint the difference between 'Russian' and 'Soviet' might seem
minimal, one should not forget that in the wider context of things, the
Soviets, originally an internationalist anti-Russian bunch of
revolutionary, urban intellectual dissidents and thugs, had to kill,
deport, and imprison more than 10,000,000 Russians before they could fully
usurp the power and resources of the Russian state. No matter what
historical bones Balts may have to pick with Russians, they cannot deny
that the Russians put up one hell of a fight resisting the Soviets and
sovietization, nor can they deny that a Baltic grouping, specifically
Lenin's Latvian Rifles bodyguards, played an important role in the
struggle of the Soviets to usurp the Russian empire as an instrument for
implementing their own, often virulently anti-Russian, objectives.
No serious person could regard a state whose first leaders were
bodyguarded by Latvians and run and policed by two neurotic Georgians
given to killing Russians by the trainload and who spoke Russian with
atrocious accents that nobody dared comment on as anything but the
coarsest parody of a Russian state.
Best,
Eugene Holman
Martin
All very true between 1917 and 1931, but what about from 1931 onwards
Eugene? To claim that post 1931 Soviet society was not russo-centric under
Stalin because an earlier regime under Lenin killed a lots of Russians is
nonsense. International Bolshevik Trotsky directed the civil war against
Russians with the resultant millions of deaths so presumably national
bolshevik Stalin got even with him in 1940 with an assassin's ice pick.
Under Stalin Soviet identity became Russian identity.
Regards,
Martin
Dmitry
> that has been published and bantered about
> relative to the russkie occupation of the Baltics
> were lies. Alex says so, Dim says so,
I've never said that, Henri. What is the point of making it up?
Martin
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-0508...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> <halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > By now we must surely all know that so much
> > that has been published and bantered about
> > relative to the russkie occupation of the Baltics
> > were lies. Alex says so, Dim says so, Vlad says
> > so and, of course, Holman has been saying so
> > for ages (how old is that sucker anyways?).
>
> This sucker recently turned 58. And I have not said that the "russkie
> occupation of the Baltics" was "lies", but rather that the formulation of
> the situation in those terms is factually incorrect. The occupier was the
> Soviet Union, not Russia,
A Soviet Union where Russia was acknowledged as the leading nation, a Soviet
Union that used historical figures from Russian national history and appeals
to defend the Russian motherland and church to inspire Soviet troops, who
were largely Russian, to defeat the Germans and re-take the Baltics in 1945.
Do you really think the majority of Red Army troops willingly scarificed
their lives for the ideal of the "new Soviet man"? Ofcourse not, they
sacrificed their lives to defend their Russian motherland, as Russians had
done against Napoleon.
After having made that sacrifice, do you really think that surviving Russian
compatriots would really just switch of this Russian nationalism that was
reawakened by the heat and blood of battle and return to the "new Soviet
man" as Lenin would have it. I don't think so.
And having been acknowledged by Stalin in 1945 as the leading force of the
Soviet Union, do you really think the majority Russians that form the Soviet
government and bureacracy would not begin to assert russian national
interests and merge it with that of the Soviet Union? I reckon they would.
Regards,
Martin
Dmitry
> russkie-philiacs. You repost russkie articles (just
> some of the .01% that get translated into English)
> and you get attacked. You post a summary of the
> information garnered from russkie articles (while
> indicating agreement) and you get attacked even
> more. What is a poor Balt (oops, sorry, them
> critters is now russkies) to do?
>
> I give up - perhaps Holman, and crew, can point
> the way....
>
> Best - - Henry
I'm not sure who do you wan't to please by re-posting "Pravda"? It
must be very dull in Colorado. Tell me if it isn't.
Lstrad33
>Och, it is hard. It is so hard to please russkies or
>russkie-philiacs. You repost russkie articles (just
>some of the .01% that get translated into English)
>and you get attacked. You post a summary of the
>information garnered from russkie articles (while
>indicating agreement) and you get attacked even
>more. What is a poor Balt (oops, sorry, them
>critters is now russkies) to do?
>
>I give up - perhaps Holman, and crew, can point
>the way....
>
>Best - - Henry
I hope you don't mean that in a permanent way, Henry..
I mean - you better than everyone else knows that Hole Man, along with all of
the others here, are *foreign agents*, don't you?
Trying to reason with a *foreign agent* is 'a priori' hopeless, isn't it?
They get *paid* for pushing their foreign agendas. They cannot be persuaded -
even if they wanted to.
It is a hilarious situation here, where we have foreigners - numerically at the
rate of 4 to 1 over native Balts- posting their opinions as to what our
futures should be.
I came to my conclusion some years ago and have responded accordingly. Such
enemies do not merit much consideration. And certainly should be any cause for
your consternation or dismay.
We Balts do what we can posting relevant Baltic news and 'correcting'
misrepresentations posted by the foreign agents.
It is all we can do - And it is enough.
Readers understand and eventually tune out the foreigners. They know how to
sift out the dross.
That's all.
Later dude,
LS/
Eugene Holman
lstr...@cs.com (Lstrad33) wrote:
> >From: "Henry Alminas"
<deletions>
> >I give up - perhaps Holman, and crew, can point
> >the way....
> >
> >Best - - Henry
>
> I hope you don't mean that in a permanent way, Henry..
>
> I mean - you better than everyone else knows that Hole Man, along with all of
> the others here, are *foreign agents*, don't you?
And what are you, posting under multiple identities from Indiana. It takes
one to know one, in your case several to know one.
> Trying to reason with a *foreign agent* is 'a priori' hopeless, isn't it?
I am posting from a room situated less than one kilometer from the shore
of the Baltic Sea.
> They get *paid* for pushing their foreign agendas. They cannot be persuaded -
> even if they wanted to.
Nobody pays me. I post here only to show what a fool, klauns, and nejęga
you, unable to understand that the lats-per-dollar rate is 0.57 or that
*zellis* is a perfectly good contemporary Latvian word, are.
> It is a hilarious situation here, where we have foreigners - numerically
at the
> rate of 4 to 1 over native Balts- posting their opinions as to what our
> futures should be.
How do you, a virtual gaggle of delusional fools posting from Indiana,
qualify as a native Balt?
> I came to my conclusion some years ago and have responded accordingly. Such
> enemies do not merit much consideration. And certainly should be any cause for
> your consternation or dismay.
Henry, nasty and rude as he sometimes can be, usually posts factual and
accurate information that is worth discussing. You, obsessed with adult
diapers and their overflow, usually post counter-to-factual information
that is just plain disgusting.
> We Balts do what we can posting relevant Baltic news and 'correcting'
> misrepresentations posted by the foreign agents.
> It is all we can do - And it is enough.
Misrepresentations my ass!
Who is the nejęga un klauns that recently posted:
In article <20030806020859...@mb-m10.news.cs.com>,
lstr...@cs.com (Lstrad33) wrote:
> Also from another public Latvian forum for educational purposes...
>
> The polling in both Estonia and Latvia have tighten up very recently.
> The EU vote is in more doubt than ever. Things are roughly 50-50 in both
> countries.
As far as Estonia is concerned, at least:
Source: http://www.epl.ee/artikkel_242110.html
<quote>
Küsitlus: ELi rahvahääletusel annab poolthääle 62 protsenti hääletunuist
deletions>
</quote>
<translation>
Survey: 62 per cent of the votes in the EU referendum will be in favor
</translation>
It is because you continue to post falsehoods and misrepresentations about
the Baltics here that honest and more objective people are needed here in
SCB. Whether we are "native Balts", live on the shoress of the Baltic Sea,
or speak Russian at home is irrelevant, just as long as we are *honest*
and *sane*, qualities that you in your multiple identities sorely and
demonstrably *lack*.
QED.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Lstrad33
"This sucker recently turned 58. And I have not said that the "russkie
occupation of the Baltics" was "lies", but rather that the formulation of the
situation in those terms is factually incorrect."
The occupier was the
Soviet Union, not Russia,.."
It is the same thing. Russia is both the cultural and lagal inheritor of the
soviet union. Communists still control the Duma. A KGB chekist is the
'president' of russia.
You admitted as much previously.
Don't backslide, your adult diapers are too full of it to slide very far.
".. and some of the key figures in implementing and
maintaining it were themselves Balts."
No. The only key figuresinvolved were russians.
About 130,000 invading russians on June, 1940.
The finally vacated only in 1994.
We have resolved this previously. Why do you attempt to lie again? Fool.
" Some of these Balts, like Johannes
Lauristin and Arvids Pelshe, were committed and true believers in communism as
the wave of the future, others, like Antanas Snieckus, were Quislings, others,
like Neeme Ruus, were opportunists, others, like Kârlis
Ulmanis and Major-General Tõnis Rothberg, were true patriots who thought
that by cooperating with the Soviets that they could save their homelands
from the fate of Finland or Poland."
Do not include restectable Balts such as Ulmanis (who was murdered by russians)
with Moskow resident trained agents. Such as you are.
"The Soviets were spreading what they considered to be a more progressive
way of life and social organization,.."
No. The russians were spreading russia - as they have been since 1100 AD.
"..even though they were also
implementing the geopolitical objectives of traditional Russian imperialism
that they had inherited from Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the
Terrible, and Peter the Great."
Right. The russians were spreading russia.
> There is some hope however. I note that
> the Balts are saying enough! You have
> sacrificed enough russkies! Go home to
> matuschka for she needs your contribution
> in all of these spheres at this time. Why
> waste your valuable resources and culture
> not to mention your DNA on such an
> ungrateful lot? Overcome your unceasing
> and selfless drive for the salvation of the
> barbarians to the west. Overcome your
> endless striving to save them from themselves.
> There comes a time when you must think
> of yourselves first! That time has come.
"What a bucketful of Alminasian barf!"
Do not use words such as "barf" that you have read only the day before.
As I noted previously, this trait of unconscious mimicry is a give-away
habituation that is prevalent among russian propaganda agents. You become too
obvious.
"The Russians and Russian speakers
presently resident in the Baltics because those countries are their
homelands."
Not true. Another lie of yours.
75% of the so-called 'russian speakers' in the Baltics are nothing more than
russian imperial colonists - and were born in russia proper.
"..and, given the choice,.."
They should not have been "given the choice". They should have been repatriated
back to russia - by russia.
Additionally the Baltics citizens should have been given the choice to remove
the russian colonists from their territories - but were hindered from doing so
- primarily by the EU.
"..they decided that they had nothing
against the idea of living as a member of a linguistic minority in a
country goverened by Estonians, Latvians, or Lithuanians."
You lie again. See the russian colonists' resistance against integrating into
their host societies.
See their choice of Putin as their president. See their resistence against
learning the national languages of their host nations.
> From an overwhelmingly convinced Balt.
"Overwhelmingly convinced of what? And a Balt in what sense other than the
accident of birth?"
There is more to birth and citizenship than mere "accident". Invasion by
russian armies and the illegal re-settlements of russian colonists into
occupied coutries do not happen by accident.
You individually, might well be a genetic accident of birth - as you seem only
to be able to lie and impune Baltic citizens at every given opportunity.
" All the Balts that I know look to the present with tolerance, understanding,
and reconciliation, and to the future with
optimism rather than, like you, to the past with hate, gross
oversimplifications, and resentment."
You should not associate only with russian colonists so much, you lying fool.
Regards,
LS/
Eugene Holman
<mart...@joymail.com> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-0508...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
<deletions>
> > No serious person could regard a state whose first leaders were
> > bodyguarded by Latvians and run and policed by two neurotic Georgians
> > given to killing Russians by the trainload and who spoke Russian with
> > atrocious accents that nobody dared comment on as anything but the
> > coarsest parody of a Russian state.
>
> All very true between 1917 and 1931, but what about from 1931 onwards
> Eugene? To claim that post 1931 Soviet society was not russo-centric under
> Stalin because an earlier regime under Lenin killed a lots of Russians is
> nonsense.
It was indeed Russo-centric for purely practical reasons, just as American
society in 1800, when the Americans still regarded the British as mortal
enemies and the British responded in kind (e.g. impressment), was
Anglo-centric due to history and shared culture, values regarded as more
central than a generation of political conflict. I concede that we are
partially dealing here with semantics, but would argue that the Soviet
identity that developed from the 1930s onwards was both something more and
something less than an evolutionary continuation of the classical Russian
identity that was consciously uprooted, desecrated, and largely destroyed
during the first years of Soviet power. This is admittedly more obvious to
someone who know it from the inside than it is to an outside observer who
has not bothered to find out who the Soviets were and what they were
trying to achieve.
> International Bolshevik Trotsky directed the civil war against
> Russians with the resultant millions of deaths so presumably national
> bolshevik Stalin got even with him in 1940 with an assassin's ice pick.
> Under Stalin Soviet identity became Russian identity.
Until the early 1980s Soviet identity had a world-wide, messianic mission
which it inherited from the Bolsheviks. Russia, although the world's
largest country and a major imperialist power, never looked upon itself as
having a world mission, quite the opposite. It picked up bits and pieces
of territory along its neighbors, and was perfetly happy to allow more
competent foreigners, such as Germans in the Baltics, to administer
territory that was nominally under its sovereignty. Neither was its
government ever reluctant to admit that most of the country was hopelessly
backward, at least compared to Western Europe. When Finland became a Grand
Duchy within the Russian Empire in 1809, Czar Alexander I traveled to
Borgå/Porvoo and stated that he was allowing the Finns a high degree of
autonomy, permitting them to retain their laws and traditional way of life
because they were clearly superior to anything that Russia could offer as
an alternative. The Soviets never showed such pragmatism, but rather
proudly pushed their internationalist way of life on anybody and everybody
that came under their control, using every means from bugus governments to
tanks and walls to convince the unconvinced.
In short, Russian identity was based on a nationalism that, like other
nationalisms, had grown out of an earlier tribalism and sense of
semi-mythical common ancestry, history, and fate. Soviet identity, in
turn, was an ideological construct specifically aimed at the establishment
of a universal, class-free utopia some time in the future as the eventual
consequence of what were believed to be the unalterable laws of history.
Supra-national, aimed towards the future rather than the past, and based
on ideology rather than perceived shared ancestry and history, it was far
more *abstract* than traditional nationalisms and thus not easily accepted
by the rank-and-file of the USSR. Thus it is hardly surprising that those
who were pushing and constructing it usurped elements of Russian
nationalism, including many of its cultural symbols, in order to make it
more palatable. Nevertheless, despite the fact that Russia underwent
periods in which Russification was official policy, Russian identity was
never imposed on people with the violence, purges, and all-encompassing
politicization of everyday life that Soviet identity was. With the
collapse of the Soviet Union we have seen the resurrection of soemthing
approximating traditional Russian identity and sense of national
objectives. This is, sad to say, best exemplified in Chechnya. The
authorities in Moscow are not interested in Russifying the Chechens or,
unlike the Soviets, who went into Chechnya as Kulturträger [literacy,
electricity, equality of the sexes, urban construction consisting largely
of blocks of prefab apartment buildings], imposing a more European
lifestyle on that Islamic and culturally western Asian nation; they are
only interested in ensuring that Chechnya, situated in an area of
strategic importance to the Russian oil industry, remains under the
political control of the Russian state and out of the hands of so-called
Islamic extremists.
Regards,
Eugne Holman
Alexei
'a priori' hopeless, isn't it?
>
> They get *paid* for
> misrepresentations posted by the foreign agents.
LMAO
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Alexei
"Lstrad33" <lstr...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030806050000...@mb-m24.news.cs.com...
> Hole Man sed:
>
> "This sucker recently turned 58. And I have not said that the "russkie
> occupation of the Baltics" was "lies", but rather that the formulation of
the
> situation in those terms is factually incorrect."
>
> The occupier was the
> Soviet Union, not Russia,.."
>
> It is the same thing. Russia is both the cultural and lagal inheritor of
the
> soviet union.
Merely inheritor of the Soviet Union does not mean it's the same thing,
though.
Communists still control the Duma. A KGB chekist is the
> 'president' of russia.
Whether you put President is quotation marks or not, he was democratically
elected head of state. And so far, he hasn't voilated constitution. Merely
because one served in the KGB doesn't qualify him as a spy forever. Or do
you subscribe to the philosophy, "once a commie, always a commie"?
>
> You admitted as much previously.
> Don't backslide, your adult diapers are too full of it to slide very far.
>
> ".. and some of the key figures in implementing and
> maintaining it were themselves Balts."
>
> No. The only key figuresinvolved were russians.
> About 130,000 invading russians on June, 1940.
> The finally vacated only in 1994.
> We have resolved this previously. Why do you attempt to lie again? Fool.
Actually, in 1993. That's when the Soviet army left the Baltic states. You
have to admit that there were some Baltic figures that implemented the walk
to the bright future of the communism on the territory of Latvia. See: "Name
you Balt Commie".
>
> " Some of these Balts, like Johannes
> Lauristin and Arvids Pelshe, were committed and true believers in
communism as
> the wave of the future, others, like Antanas Snieckus, were Quislings,
others,
> like Neeme Ruus, were opportunists, others, like Kârlis
> Ulmanis and Major-General Tõnis Rothberg, were true patriots who thought
> that by cooperating with the Soviets that they could save their homelands
> from the fate of Finland or Poland."
>
> Do not include restectable Balts such as Ulmanis (who was murdered by
russians)
> with Moskow resident trained agents. Such as you are.
Respectable? The only reason he is repectable is *because* he was murdered
by the Russians. The same respect Jessica Lynch is getting only *because*
she was caught and saved from the Iraqis. Karlis Ulmanis was a dictator,
pure and simple. He disbanded the parliament and took control of the power
of the state "temporarily". I wonder what you would have said if Putin
disdanded the Duma. You would cry "Foul", "KGB" etc. You don't seem to mind
though that Ulmanis himself was a head of totalitarian regime in Latvia.
>
> "The Soviets were spreading what they considered to be a more progressive
> way of life and social organization,.."
>
> No. The russians were spreading russia - as they have been since 1100 AD.
Not true....
Where's my paycheck from the Kremlin? Extra money wouldn't hurt!
>
> "The Russians and Russian speakers
> presently resident in the Baltics because those countries are their
> homelands."
>
> Not true.
True indeed. If the Soviet army and others who didn't want to stay in Latvia
left in 1993. Who's left?
Another lie of yours.
> 75% of the so-called 'russian speakers' in the Baltics are nothing more
than
> russian imperial colonists - and were born in russia proper.
The imperialists have left.
>
> "..and, given the choice,.."
>
> They should not have been "given the choice". They should have been
repatriated
> back to russia - by russia.
This is very much Hitler-Stalin talk. Forceful repatriation would make the
Balts no better than the Russians or the Germans themsevles. Suddenly, the
victims of the communist terror will become the souce of the terror
themselves.
>
> Additionally the Baltics citizens should have been given the choice to
remove
> the russian colonists from their territories - but were hindered from
doing so
> - primarily by the EU.
First of all, there are no "colonists" left in Latvia. Most of the ruling
people in the government and the state are Latvians themsevles. How can one
be a colonist, if one cannot even cast a vote in any of the elections?
And thank God for EU!
>
> "..they decided that they had nothing
> against the idea of living as a member of a linguistic minority in a
> country goverened by Estonians, Latvians, or Lithuanians."
>
> You lie again. See the russian colonists' resistance against integrating
into
> their host societies.
> See their choice of Putin as their president. See their resistence against
> learning the national languages of their host nations.
Excactly, it was *their choice*. They chose their president. He wasn't
elected by the Poliburo.
Where do you get the idea that Russians don't want to learn the language?
Gimme numbers, stats anything you base this claim on.
>
> > From an overwhelmingly convinced Balt.
>
> "Overwhelmingly convinced of what? And a Balt in what sense other than the
> accident of birth?"
>
> There is more to birth and citizenship than mere "accident". Invasion by
> russian armies and the illegal re-settlements of russian colonists into
> occupied coutries do not happen by accident.
Get over the invasion. The army left back in 1993. It's time to look
forward. Mr. American.
Eugene Holman
lstr...@cs.com (Lstrad33) wrote:
<deletions>
>
> You individually, might well be a genetic accident of birth - as you seem only
> to be able to lie and impune Baltic citizens at every given opportunity.
Unlike you, I do not post nonsense such as insane and rabid denial of the
easily demonstrable facts that the lats-per-dollar rate is 0.57, that
*zellis* is a perfectly current word in contemporary Latvian, or that
Latvian, Lithuanian, and Old Prussian all evolved from a common language,
Proto-Baltic. I have the highest respect for the Baltic populations, both
citizens and legal residents, and governments that have worked hard during
the years of re-established independence to make their countries
prosperous, desirable, and tolerant places to live after half a century of
Soviet occupation, colonization, and hare-brained economic
experimentation. The only 'Balts' that I impune is/are a virtual gaggle of
Indiana-resident Balt-wannabes mendaciously posting under multiple
identities, often writing responses cheering himself on for his own
garbageous outpourings, and obsessed with adult diaper overspill, the
presence of 'paid foreign agents' in SCB, maligning the EU, and risibly
Baltocentric stabs at doing etymology. I have to confess that I often save
reading your postings for the end of the day, knowing that your swill will
cause me to laugh myself to sleep, waking up the next morning awaiting
your response to my rectifications of your patent nonsense with all of the
unflagging enthusiasm of a Nebraska Sunday school superintendent visiting
the Reeperbahn fleshpots for the first time.
> " All the Balts that I know look to the present with tolerance, understanding,
> and reconciliation, and to the future with
> optimism rather than, like you, to the past with hate, gross
> oversimplifications, and resentment."
>
> You should not associate only with russian colonists so much, you lying fool.
I daresay that, having spent a considerable amount of quality time in all
three Baltic countries, I have associated with a far wider and more
representative diapason of Balts than you have, nejęga.
Worst,
Eugene Holman
Lstrad33
>LMAO
>
>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
See? Even you are prone to the unconscious russkie trait of mimicry, agent
Alexei. It really is notable, dummy. Trust me.
LS/
Martin Georgin
> In short, Russian identity was based on a nationalism that, like other
> nationalisms, had grown out of an earlier tribalism and sense of
> semi-mythical common ancestry, history, and fate. Soviet identity, in
> turn, was an ideological construct specifically aimed at the establishment
> of a universal, class-free utopia some time in the future as the eventual
> consequence of what were believed to be the unalterable laws of history.
> Supra-national, aimed towards the future rather than the past, and based
> on ideology rather than perceived shared ancestry and history, it was far
> more *abstract* than traditional nationalisms and thus not easily accepted
> by the rank-and-file of the USSR. Thus it is hardly surprising that those
> who were pushing and constructing it usurped elements of Russian
> nationalism, including many of its cultural symbols, in order to make it
> more palatable.
If that were true Eugene, why were the cultural symbols usurped for
use by the Soviets exclusively drawn from russian national history,
when russians comprised only 60% of the peoples of the Soviet Union?
Regards
Eugene Holman
mart...@joymail.com (Martin Georgin) wrote:
Were they usurped *only* from Russian national history? The coat of arms
of the USSR had "Workers of the world, unite!" in all of the republic
languages of the USSR, and Soviet banknotes also had the denomination
written out in letters inb all of these languages. The works of
non-Russian artists such as Aram Khachaturian and Chingiz Aimatov were
known all over the USSR and abroad as Soviet, not Russian, art.
As one might expect, the ideologically acceptable elements of Russian
culture were integrated into the Soviet identity construct, while those
that were incompatible with communism were suppressed. Ideologically
acceptable elements from other cultures, as well as the work of cultural
figures whose entire career had unfolded within the Soviet context, were
also integrated into this Soviet identity.
In short, Soviet identity had many things in common with the ahistorical
identities of post-national multicultural states such as America, Canada,
Australia, or South Africa. People of many different backgrounds found
themselves within a political entity aimed more towards the future than
the past, and the core of the identity that developed grew out of, but was
not identical with, the culture of the majority of the so-called founding
population, integrating components of other constituent cultures for
various reasons and purposes. The Soviets failed in their efforts to
construct a viable post-national identity. One of the reasons for this
failure, good as it was for the Balts, was that the Soviets were not as
physically genocidal or racist about forcing their identity on subject
peoples as the Americans, Australians, or European colonists in South
Africa were: they preferred to use propaganda and politicization rather
than methodologies such as reservationism, apartheid, and outright
extermination [which is not, of course, to deny that they sometimes
resorted to these more heavy-handed methodologies].
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote in message
news:<holman-0608...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi>...
> > In short, Russian identity was based on a nationalism that, like other
> > nationalisms, had grown out of an earlier tribalism and sense of
> > semi-mythical common ancestry, history, and fate. Soviet identity, in
> > turn, was an ideological construct specifically aimed at the establishment
> > of a universal, class-free utopia some time in the future as the eventual
> > consequence of what were believed to be the unalterable laws of history.
> > Supra-national, aimed towards the future rather than the past, and based
> > on ideology rather than perceived shared ancestry and history, it was far
> > more *abstract* than traditional nationalisms and thus not easily accepted
> > by the rank-and-file of the USSR. Thus it is hardly surprising that those
> > who were pushing and constructing it usurped elements of Russian
> > nationalism, including many of its cultural symbols, in order to make it
> > more palatable.
>
> If that were true Eugene, why were the cultural symbols usurped for
> use by the Soviets exclusively drawn from russian national history,
> when russians comprised only 60% of the peoples of the Soviet Union?
(Actually, it was hovering around 50% when the USSR collapsed in 1991.)
Were they usurped *only* from Russian national history? The coat of arms
of the USSR had "Workers of the world, unite!", sentence from the writings
of the German political economist Karl Marx, in all of the republic
languages of the USSR, and Soviet banknotes also had the denomination
written out in letters in all of these languages. The official ideology
was an import: the writings of two Germans: Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels. The works of non-Russian artists such as Aram Khachaturian and
Chingiz Aimatov were known all over the USSR and abroad as Soviet, not
Russian, art. The only lasting Soviet contribution to international
culinary art, chicken Kiev, was invented by Soviet, not Russian, chefs,
and bears the name of a Ukrainian, not a Russian, city.
As one might expect, the ideologically acceptable elements of Russian
culture were integrated into the Soviet identity construct, while those
that were incompatible with internationalist communism, such as any
reference to the Russian Orthodox Church, were suppressed and excluded.
Ideologically acceptable elements from other cultures, as well as the work
of cultural figures whose entire career had unfolded within the Soviet
context, were also integrated into this Soviet identity.
In short, Soviet identity had many things in common with the ahistorical
identities of post-national multicultural states such as America, Canada,
Australia, or South Africa. People of many different backgrounds found
themselves within a political entity aimed more towards the future than
the past, and the core of the identity that developed grew out of, but was
not identical with, the culture of the majority of the so-called founding
population, integrating components of other constituent cultures for
various reasons and purposes. Ublkike the Americans, Australians, etc.,
the Soviets failed in their efforts to construct a viable post-national
identity. One of the reasons for this failure, fortunate as it was for the
Balts, was that the Soviets were not as physically genocidal or racist
about forcing their identity on subject peoples as the North Americans,
Australians, or European colonists in South Africa were: they preferred to
use propaganda, politicization, and their monopoly of information, rather
than more heavy-handed methodologies such as reservationism, apartheid,
Alexei
So -- how long do they let you use the Internet in your psychiatric
facility?
>
> LS/
>
>
Eryk
> Until the early 1980s Soviet identity had a world-wide, messianic mission
> which it inherited from the Bolsheviks. Russia, although the world's
> largest country and a major imperialist power, never looked upon itself as
> having a world mission, quite the opposite.
You are simply playing with semantics here. Are you trying to quote the
rubbish the Soviets spouted or evaluate the real agenda behind it? Certainly
Soviet dogma claimed some sort of 'messianic mission' but even the most
casual examination of the actual policies and actions illustrates that this
just a smokescreen for a good old imperialism.
You can see exactly the same thing going on in the case of the British
empire. People start talking about 'Empire' and 'Commonwealth' and there are
even some superficial gestures towards inclusiveness and (apparent)
empowerment of the occupied countries however this doesn't alter the central
fact that the British Empire was founded in British Imperialism and the
Soviet Empire was founded in Russian Imperialism. Check the history of
Uzbekistan and all the other central asian republics ....they were annexed
in the 19th century when Russian imperialism was directed by the Czarist
government. The Soviets simply took over the reins of power and proceeded
with the same old *Russian* imperialistic agenda that had been there for
well over 100 years and they were still actively pursuing it up to the
Andropov era.
The agenda didn't disappear with the Soviets either. As I'm sure you know,
when the USSR imploded there was only one republic pushing the 'CIS' issue
hard (I mean as original envisioned, not what exists today) and that was
'Russia'. The Russian position was split between those who wanted to
preserve the USSR 'as is' and those who wanted some sort of reformed
confederation of states .....either way, they had a vision of an
organisation that preserved de facto Russian influence over the other
ex-SSRs. Same old imperialist agenda, just being pursued by other means. The
Soviets, on the other hand, were far more pragmatic than that and were not
concerned with idealistic concepts like 'democracy'. They realised that
imposition of Russian military force with liberal use of mass deportations
and murder was the only way that such a federation could be maintained.
> semi-mythical common ancestry, history, and fate. Soviet identity, in
> turn, was an ideological construct specifically aimed at the establishment
> of a universal, class-free utopia some time in the future as the eventual
> consequence of what were believed to be the unalterable laws of history.
'Identity' is not the same thing as 'propaganda'. For all their faults, you
can't seriously be suggesting that the Soviets were *that* stupid. I mean,
it is inconcievable that Uncle Joe really thought he was pursuing an agenda
of that nature ....he was a paranoid psychopath, not a delusional
schizophrenic. The Soviet agenda was Russian imperialism and Stalin's agenda
was his own personal 'imperialism' over all aspects of the Soviet empire. To
suggest that the organisation of the Soviet empire was in any way designed
to lead towards a 'class free utopia' is just plain silly (simply having the
concept of 'party member' is to invent a 'class structure'). The Soviet
empire had a very simple purpose and that was to secure the (Russian) core
of the empire by creating buffer zones and, in an idealised future, bring
the entire planet under a Kremlin based government. The British Empire was
exactly the same and the Roman Empire before that.
> Supra-national, aimed towards the future rather than the past, and based
All imperialism is 'supra-national' and looks to the future.
Eryk
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 08/07/2003
Martin
You didn't really answer my question. You said that the rank and file of the
USSR could not easily understand or accept this new soviet identity, so the
leadership usurped elements of russian nationalism to make the new soviet
identity more palatable. My question was why were elements of russian
nationalism *only* used when Russians only make up 50-60% of the peoples of
the USSR. Stalin drew on historical russian figures such as Ivan the
Terrible and Alexandr Nevski to inspire the people to fight against the
invading Germans, how would this inspire the 40-50% non-russians within the
USSR? Where are the elements of Ukrainian nationalism to make the new soviet
identity more palatable to rank and file of Ukrainian ethnicity? Naming a
chicken dish after a Ukrainian city is hardly drawing on Ukrainian
nationalism.
This huge level of russo-centricity within the USSR is probably one of the
main reasons for it's collapse. Russia declared itself to be the legal
successor of the USSR with good reason. Try this test, if the EU collapsed
tomorrow, which former member state of the EU would claim legal succession
of the EU?
Regards,
Martin
williamsa...@gmail.com
http://www.hellobee.com/2013/03/15/honest-diaper-review/