Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Open Letter

10 views
Skip to first unread message

David McDuff

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 4:36:38 PM9/24/08
to
TALLINN, Sep 24, BNS - A group of Estonian and Finnish cultural
figures, scientists, journalists and politicians has sent the leaders
of the University of Helsinki a public letter comparing Johan Backman,
the author of a controversial book on Estonia that has triggered
heated debates, to deniers of Holocaust and questioning his competence
as a university teacher.
The authors of the letter addressed to the rector, chancellor and dean
of the law faculty recall that Backman on Monday presented in Tallinn
his book "The Bronze Soldier: The Backdrop and Content of the Estonian
Monument Debates," which among other things denies the Soviet
occupation of Estonia and calls the corresponding viewpoint a Nazi
myth.
They added that Backman predicts a speedy end to Estonian
independence, speaks in favor of Estonia's unification with Russia and
calls Estonia an apartheid state in both his book and his blog as well
as in public appearances. He contrasts different ethnic groups such as
Estonians, Russians, Jews and Russian Estonians, and distorts the
Estonian history.
The authors note that at the presentation of the book Backman,
diminishing the historical experience of Estonians, said it is time
for Estonians to understand that there was no Soviet occupation. He
supports his claim among other things by the Nazis' anti-Jewish
propaganda spread by Nazi Germany in occupied countries during World
War II, which he represents as the ideology of Estonians and the
Estonian state, thereby labeling people who speak about the Estonian
history and experience as disseminators of Nazi propaganda.
The letter notes that Backman lectures on sociology of law and the
specific features of the Russian and Estonian legal policies at the
University of Helsinki this academic year.
The signatories add that Backman's public statements are not a mere
expression of opinion. In their words, questioning the existence of
the Estonian state and declaring Estonia to be a part of Russia can be
considered hostile propaganda against the state and the nation.
Backman as a lecturer on Estonian and Russian legal policies can be
compared to a denier of the Holocaust teaching Jewish history at a
university, they added.
"Would that, too, be possible at the University of Helsinki?" they
asked.
The authors of the letter asked the leaders of the university how is
it possible that the University of Helsinki considers it acceptable
for subjects linked with Estonian and Russian law and policies to be
taught by a person who disseminates hostile propaganda about Estonian
history and present-day reality.
They also asked whether the university expects its teachers to be
familiar with facts and whether it intends to take a position on the
lecturer's statements.
Among the signatories were University of Helsinki researcher and noted
columnist Iivi Anna Masso, journalist, writer and film director Imbi
Paju, Finnish author Sofi Oksanen, journalist Stefan Brunow, Jewish
Estonian historian and writer Elhonen Saks, and Jevgeni
Krishtafovitsh, leader of Estonia's Russian-speaking youth association
Avatud Vabariik (Open Republic).
Suvi Salmenniemi from the University of Helsinki, researcher Anna
Rotkirch, leader of the free-thinkers' association Jussi K. Niemela,
members of the European Parliament Lasse Lehtinen and Henrik Lax,
writer Mikael Enckell, and Katri Vallaste from the Alexander Institute
also signed the letter.

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 4:59:07 PM9/24/08
to

"David McDuff" <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c49ld4djmuiietksa...@4ax.com...

> In their words, questioning the existence of
> the Estonian state and declaring Estonia to be a part of Russia can be
> considered hostile propaganda against the state and the nation.

It is also a sign of mental illness. Insane persons should not teach at
universities.

I find Johan B�ckman absolutely revolting. Luckily he is living in St.
Petersburg, and the likelihood that I would bump into him in Helsinki is
rather small. (I dislike having to puke in public places.)

John


lorad

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:34:42 AM9/25/08
to

Just great... another Swedish Stalinist.. (are they too inbred - or
what?)
Just like that perambulatory crap marxist Summerstrom (sic) that used
to post his stalinism here.

Somehow, it doesn't surprise me that he now lives in Petrograd.

The Estonians need to clean house.. and school.

tadas....@lycos.es

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:14:55 AM9/25/08
to
On Sep 24, 11:59 pm, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> "David McDuff" <dmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:c49ld4djmuiietksa...@4ax.com...
>
> > In their words, questioning the existence of
> > the Estonian state and declaring Estonia to be a part of Russia can be
> > considered hostile propaganda against the state and the nation.
>
> It is also a sign of mental illness. Insane persons should not teach at
> universities.
>
> I find Johan Bäckman absolutely revolting. Luckily he is living in St.

> Petersburg, and the likelihood that I would bump into him in Helsinki is
> rather small. (I dislike having to puke in public places.)
>
> John

In this guy's case, it is certainly no exaggeration to say he is a
stooge of Moskau and in the pay of the Kremlin. One wonders what went
wrong with the upbringing or socialisation of people like that. Some
of the asshole fanatics I have met in the past (e.g. lefty-trendy pro-
USSR university lecturers) seemed to have a case of stunted
development. They were general immature (e.g. smoking dope, wearing
stupid clothes, trying to party with the students) and seemed to be
stuck in a permanent undergraduate mentality; hence the desire to be
outrageous and espouse a minority opinion, no matter how obnoxious,
ludicrous and morally indefensible it was. For example, at the time
(late 60s, early 70s) some of these these misfits were also defending
the "right" of pedophiles to pursue their hobby, something which they
now cover up and deny.

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 4:37:26 AM9/25/08
to

"lorad" <lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:393b4f91-18e4-4854...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> Just great... another Swedish Stalinist..

I could of course shut up and let him pass as a Swede, but let's be honest:
the guy is from Finland. Although he is universally despised here, and
that's probably why he has moved to Russia. He also claims that there has
been threats to his life in Finland. I can understand why.


Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 5:50:20 AM9/25/08
to
In article <Y4ICk.71085$_03.3...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:

Freedom of speech and opinion requires that we allow unpopular opinions to
be voiced and examined.

Although I would never deny that Estonia was occupied like Backman does,
that version of the historical narrative is one of many possible
alternatives and not the only one. Was Finland occupied by Russia? By
Sweden? By people calling no calling themselves "Finns" but who really
reveal themselves to be the decendants of invaders who colonized Saami
lands from Estonia, Ingermanland, and Roslagen? What about the American
state of Hawaii, 120 years ago the independent Kingdom of Hawaii?

Although I would never characterize Estonia as an apartheid state, as he
also does, I know from my experience there that being a member of the
Russian-speaking minority does put a person, even if an Estonian citizen
who speaks perfect Estonian, at a certain disadvantage see e.g.
http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Ven%C3%A4l%C3%A4iset+heikoilla+Viron+ty%C3%B6markkinoilla/1135239616985),
which I will traslate and post here within the hour.

History, politics, and sociology are largely interpretations of complex
realities, and Backman is certainly entitiled to his version of the
narrative constructed from the evidence, all the more so if he can succeed
in justifying them. If nothing else, people who proffer versions of the
historical narrative profoundly different from the one we have become used
to accepting, make us think about things we normally take for granted,
never a bad thing.

On Saturday a controversial dissertation, *Salaiset aseveljet* ['Secret
Comrades-in-Arms'], by Oula Silvennoinen, will be defended at the
University of Helsinki (https://oa.doria.fi/handle/10024/41922). It
challenges the standard view held in Finland that Finland's relationship
with Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1944 was that of a cobelligerent, a
democracy immune to Nazi ideology that was marginally involved in the
Holocaust, arguing instead that Finland was a German ally, did little to
prevent Jews in Finland from being handed over to the Germans and executd,
sometimes on Finnish territory, and even had a hitherto unknown
*Einsatzkommando Finnland* under the command of Gustav vom Felde to rid
northern Finland and Finnish-occupied Soviet Karelia of ideological and
racial enemies, particularly active communists and Soviet POWs who also
happened to be of Jewish ethnicity.

This flies in the face of views Finns have cherished about their wartime
history for two generations, but it is based on honest archival research
and the inclusion of evidence previously unavailable to historians. Not
everyone is happy about this work or Silvennoinen's conclusions, but come
this Saturday we will see if his claims are sustainable. This is what
freedom of speech is all about.

Let's be reasonable. Backman's theses, however intuitively repulsive we
might find them, will be accepted or rejected on their own merits. To
argue otherwise is to make ourselves guilty of the same mindset that we
worked so hard to overcome during the Cold War.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

Erkki Aalto

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 5:56:52 AM9/25/08
to
David McDuff <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-snip-

Bäckman is going to sue the authors.

--
Erkki 'Örkki' Aalto "Life is divided up into
Internet: Erkki...@Helsinki.FI the horrible and the miserable"
Snail: Tietotekniikkaosasto, P.O. Box 64
FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland

kge...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:24:50 AM9/25/08
to
On 24 Sep., 22:36, David McDuff <dmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Backman on Monday presented in Tallinn his book...

So it's true that this fella was allowed in. Does anyone know - why,
and if attempts were made to keep him out?

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:26:28 AM9/25/08
to

<kge...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24148e38-1847-4404...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Allowed "in" where? Estonia? His a Finnish citizen (unfortunately).


Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:31:17 AM9/25/08
to
In article <Y4ICk.71085$_03.3...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:

> "lorad" <lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:393b4f91-18e4-4854...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Just great... another Swedish Stalinist..
>
> I could of course shut up and let him pass as a Swede, but let's be honest:
> the guy is from Finland. Although he is universally despised here, and
> that's probably why he has moved to Russia. He also claims that there has
> been threats to his life in Finland. I can understand why.

Freedom of speech and opinion requires that we allow unpopular opinions to
be voiced and examined.

Although I would never deny that Estonia was occupied like Backman does,
that version of the historical narrative is one of many possible
alternatives and not the only one. Was Finland occupied by Russia? By

Sweden? By people calling themselves "Finns" but who really reveal


themselves to be the decendants of invaders who colonized Saami lands
from Estonia, Ingermanland, and Roslagen? What about the American state of
Hawaii, 120 years ago the independent Kingdom of Hawaii?

Although I would never characterize Estonia as an apartheid state, as he
also does, I know from my experience there that being a member of the
Russian-speaking minority does put a person, even if an Estonian citizen
who speaks perfect Estonian, at a certain disadvantage see e.g.
http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Ven%C3%A4l%C3%A4iset+heikoilla+Viron+ty%C3%B6markkinoilla/1135239616985),
which I will traslate and post here within the hour.

History, politics, and sociology are largely interpretations of complex
realities, and Backman is certainly entitiled to his version of the
narrative constructed from the evidence, all the more so if he can succeed

in justifying it against criticism. If nothing else, people who proffer


versions of the historical narrative profoundly different from the one we

have become used to accepting unquestioningly, make us think about things


we normally take for granted, never a bad thing.

On Saturday a controversial dissertation, *Salaiset aseveljet* ['Secret
Comrades-in-Arms'], by Oula Silvennoinen, will be defended at the
University of Helsinki (https://oa.doria.fi/handle/10024/41922). It
challenges the standard view held in Finland that Finland's relationship
with Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1944 was that of a cobelligerent, a
democracy immune to Nazi ideology that was marginally involved in the
Holocaust, arguing instead that Finland was a German ally, did little to

prevent Jews in Finland as refugees or POWs, as opposed to its own Jewish
citizens, which it protected but who also knew that German intelligence
services and their collaborators in Finnish police structures were keeping
an eye on them, from being handed over to the Germans, and executed,

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:33:47 AM9/25/08
to
In article
<24148e38-1847-4404...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
kge...@gmail.com wrote:

Should a persn be banned from entering a country because he holds views
that many people there find offensive? Isn't that what we used to cticize
the USSR and the DDR for doing?

Regards,
Eugene Holman

kge...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:35:07 AM9/25/08
to
On 25 Sep., 12:26, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> <kgeo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I know, but citizenship of EU member state has not in the past stopped
Estonians from turning back agitators coming from Latvia (pctvl.lv,
www.rodina.lv, Latvian "Anti-fascist" Commitee and the likes).

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:52:02 AM9/25/08
to

"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2509...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...

You are a marvel at making the weirdest juxtapositions. Usually it's about
some recent Russian misdeed balanced against something you dig up in US 19th
century history. This time you compare the results of impeccable scientific
research with the rants of a notorious academic troublemaker. As if these
were in any manner on a par with each other!

Bäckman denies that the Baltic countries were Soviet-occupied. Such a claim
is purely propagandistic and cannot even be dealt with in academia. It's on
the same level as denying the holocaust. Or gravity.

Regards,
John


J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:55:01 AM9/25/08
to

"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2509...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...

Haven't you noticed that Russia is still upholding these traditional USSR
practices?


Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:59:55 AM9/25/08
to
In article <y6KCk.71143$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:

No. They produce their own, and then...

Regards,
Eugene Holman

Anton

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:00:32 AM9/25/08
to
J. Anderson kirjoitti:

Last time I visited Estonia, it was in 2002 I think, the customs officer
(female) took my passport, looked at it, kept staring at me for half a
minute, asked me where I was born, when I was born etc, then kept
looking at me for half a minute again, looked at the passport again,
looked at me for a few seconds and gave me my passport back. I had the
feeling that either she suspected it (passport) was counterfeit, or
somebody resembling me was on some unwanted persons list. I really
expected them to say "follow us". A rather unpleasant experience
nonetheless.

--
Anton

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:04:13 AM9/25/08
to

"Anton" <anton....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gbfr0g$ip7$3...@registered.motzarella.org...

Why this negative interpretation? Maybe she was fascinated by your good
looks?


Erkki Aalto

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:07:01 AM9/25/08
to
Erkki Aalto <aa...@punk.it.helsinki.fi> wrote:

: David McDuff <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: -snip-

: Bäckman is going to sue the authors.

It is getting better and better. Now Bäckman is accusing Estonia of
persecuting Neo-Nazis:

http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/international-press-release.html

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:10:42 AM9/25/08
to

"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2509...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> In article <y6KCk.71143$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
> Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-2509...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
>> > In article
>> > <24148e38-1847-4404...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > kge...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 24 Sep., 22:36, David McDuff <dmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Backman on Monday presented in Tallinn his book...
>> >>
>> >> So it's true that this fella was allowed in. Does anyone know - why,
>> >> and if attempts were made to keep him out?
>> >
>> > Should a persn be banned from entering a country because he holds views
>> > that many people there find offensive? Isn't that what we used to
>> > cticize
>> > the USSR and the DDR for doing?
>>
>> Haven't you noticed that Russia is still upholding these traditional USSR
>> practices?
>
> No. They produce their own, and then...

And we help them. Or rather our consul in Piter, who didn't want to invite
Sofi Oksanen to that poesy soirée (or whatever) because he was afraid of
annoying the Russians. (Sofi Oksanen is a young Finnish-Estonian author who
has written about her family's sufferings in Soviet times. She is one of the
signatories of the anti-Bäckman appeal.)


J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:22:59 AM9/25/08
to

"Erkki Aalto" <aa...@punk.it.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:gbfrcl$450$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...

> Erkki Aalto <aa...@punk.it.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> : David McDuff <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : -snip-
>
> : Bäckman is going to sue the authors.
>
> It is getting better and better. Now Bäckman is accusing Estonia of
> persecuting Neo-Nazis:
>
> http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/international-press-release.html

On Bäckman's webpage you can 'vote' for or against his interpretation of
what happened in 1940. Asking 'Did Soviet Union occupy Estonia in 1940' he
has so far received 233 (85%) YES-replies and 39 (14%) NO-replies (including
mine). I'm sure the bastard is fabricating results in the traditional
Soviet/Russian manner.


J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:25:51 AM9/25/08
to

"J. Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:9wKCk.71154$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...

Mine was a test of course...


kge...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 7:40:07 AM9/25/08
to
On 25 Sep., 12:33, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <24148e38-1847-4404-8dcc-cbfd892d4...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

>
> kgeo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 24 Sep., 22:36, David McDuff <dmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Backman on Monday presented in Tallinn his book...
>
> > So it's true that this fella was allowed in. Does anyone know - why,
> > and if attempts were made to keep him out?
>
> Should a persn be banned from entering a country because he holds views
> that many people there find offensive? Isn't that what we used to cticize
> the USSR and the DDR for doing?
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman

Are you scared you'll be next? :)

There is no obligation I know of to grant entry to wierdos with
academic credentials and nutty, hostile views about country they
intend to visit. Israel and Norman Finkelstein is a good example. Just
get hold of the guy, cite security grounds and escort him out.

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:23:39 AM9/25/08
to
In article <83KCk.71140$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:

> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-2509...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...

<deletions>


>
> You are a marvel at making the weirdest juxtapositions. Usually it's about
> some recent Russian misdeed balanced against something you dig up in US 19th
> century history.

Russia has gotten about as far in its development as a mature state as the
US was back then, so the time depth is irrelevant. It's the "what", not
the "when".

> This time you compare the results of impeccable scientific
> research with the rants of a notorious academic troublemaker. As if these
> were in any manner on a par with each other!

Both express opinions that many people would rather not hear. That suffices.

> Bäckman denies that the Baltic countries were Soviet-occupied.

As do certain people, some of them quite rational, in all three Baltic
countries. We are obviously dealing here with issues of semantics and
interpretation. Give the guy the opportunity to defend his viewpoint, for
cryin' out loud.

> Such a claim
> is purely propagandistic and cannot even be dealt with in academia. It's on
> the same level as denying the holocaust. Or gravity.

I have to disagree with you here. Occupations are abnormal situations,
incorporations and annextaion generally end occupations, at least in the
narrow sense.

I am not going to defend Backman, but I am going to assume the role of
devil's advocate as a means of trying to understand his thinking.

Nobody denies that the USSR ousted the legitimate governments of the
Baltic countries, or to use the modern term "effected regime change", in
June 1940, replacing the legitimate regimes with governments, now
generally regarded as bogus, that were, initially at least, accepted to
some degree by the three Baltic nations. The Latvian President appealed to
his wary nation to accept the new government, and in Estonia what seemed
to be a resolution of a threat to nationaal existence was intially greeted
with relief, even if President Päts was arrested and sent into Soviet
exile.

These new harmless-looking governments arranged sham elections and quickly
negotiated to have their respective countries "apply" to join the USSR.
The application and its acceptance resulted in the incorporation of the
three countries into the USSR, a move that was not welcomed by the
majority of their populations, but one that they had few instruments to
change. I honestly do not know if occupation is the proper legal term to
use for a situation like this. Going to the inexhaustable resource of 19th
century US history, something quite similar was done in the Kingdom of
Hawaii: the government was weakened and ousted, and political intrigues
between American businessmen and certain members of the Hawaiian elite
resulted in the islands being incorportaed into the United States as a
territory, much to the distress of a considerable portion of its citizenry
which, like the Balts, were victims of the imperialist ambitions of a far
larger country and had no instruments to resist. If you are going to say
that Baltics were occupied by the Soviets in 1940, you have to say that
the Kingdom of Hawaii was first subverted by the Americans with their
creation of the Republic of Hawaii on July 4(!), 1893, the arrest and
trial of ousted Queen Lili'uokalani for treason, and the eventual
annexation of this Republic of Hawaii at the request of its government by
the United States in 1898.

In any case, if the use of the term occupation with respect to the regime
change and subsequent Soviet annexation of the Baltic countries can be
questioned, then we have a case for disputing whether applying the term
"occupation" to the entire period between 1940 and 1991 is appropriate.
The Russian position, as we all know, was that the annexation, even if
deviously done, was the work of the government that was in charge. Thus,
the German invasion, occupation, and annextion as Ostland, was a genuine
occupation, because it was a military operation with no statesmanship
being involved, but the retaking of what Moscow regarded as Soviet
territory in 1944 was *not* an occupation, but rather a re-establishement
of the *status quo ante*, no matter how deviously that had come about in
the first place.

Between the fall of 1944 and Stalin's death in 1953 the Baltics were
administered as occupied territory, and nobody other than countries in the
communist bloc regarded the Soviet presence there as legal. After 1953,
though, things changed. With the opening up of the Baltic states in 1965,
the development of tourism, and the general acceptance of the status quo
by new generations of inhabitants, both natives and migrants, the case for
speaking of an *occupation* weakened. Sweden, the UK, and even Finland,
whose president urho Kekkonen sent mixed signals to the world when he, the
only Western statesman to visit the Baltics during the Soviet period,
visited Tartu in 1965, about how the situation in the Baltics sould be
regarded in the future. By the early 1980s even the Americans were getting
used to the idea of the Baltic countries being a legitimate art of the
USSR, an issue that came up in conunction with the trial and deportation
to the USSR of Karl Linnas, an Estonian who had been commandant of a
German concentration camp during the German occupation of Estonia.

By 1988, when the people of the Baltics united in their incredible
demonstration of peaceful protest against the continued presence of their
countries in the Soviet Union, there was little talk of occupation. Rather
there was more talk of a political system that theoretically allowed a
republic to secede from the union, but practically did not provide the
political instruments for even testing whether the population would be
interested in self-determination. Gorbachev was unhappy that the Baltics
were seriously considering this option, and he tried t squelch it by
visiting Lithuania and discussing the options for "divorce" with leading
political and other leaders. It was only later, in Vilnius in January 1991
and then a few weeks later, in Riga, that blood was spilt. Even then,
these instantiations of violence demonstrated themselves to be isolated
incidents rather than standard policy, nor did they involve soldiers of a
colonial occpupying army crushing native populations. The situation bore
more similarities to civil war. There was nothing in the Baltics in 1991
comparable to the struggle against French occupation in Algeria during the
1960s or the struggle against the French and then the American occupations
in Vietnam between the 1950s and 1970s.

So, not wanting to use the word occupation does not amount to a denial of
the historical facts. According to a reasonable interpretation of the
facts, the three Baltic republics were the victims of Soviet imperialism,
a German occupation, and a Soviet reconquest of territory it had
originally stolen "fair and square". Given that life was a normal as
possible under commnist rule, that Balts were involved in the
administration and defense of their own republics as well as of the USSR
as a whole, and that the general feeling was not that they wre living
under foreign occupation, but rather that their homelands had been sucked
into state structure that allowed them to participate in its
administration and day-to-day decision making, but did not allow them the
possibility of self-determination, I can see why some people prefer ot to
use the word "occupation" to characterize such a situation. Subverted and
co-opted might be a better term. Consideration of the case for an
alternative explanation of the historical facts might teach us something.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

kge...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:53:36 AM9/25/08
to
On 25 Sep., 14:23, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article <83KCk.71140$_03.64...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
>

> Consideration of the case for an alternative explanation of the historical facts might teach us something.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman

Say, dear academician from Helsinki, do you subscribe to Backman's
alternative explanations of historical facts like deportations being
"necessary measures in stabilizing the country" and, for many people,
a lifesaving measure, as well? Because that might just teach "us"
something more about you.

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 9:39:30 AM9/25/08
to
In article
<fa87e5bf-789e-4f4f...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
kge...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 25 Sep., 14:23, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > In article <83KCk.71140$_03.64...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
> >
>
> > Consideration of the case for an alternative explanation of the
historical facts might teach us something.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eugene Holman
>
> Say, dear academician from Helsinki, do you subscribe to Backman's

> alternative explanations of historical facts...

I think that I made it clear that I was assuming the role of devil's
advocate and do not subscribe to Backman's views.

> like deportations being
> "necessary measures in stabilizing the country" and, for many people,
> a lifesaving measure, as well? Because that might just teach "us"
> something more about you.

I took major flack in thus group a few years ago when I made a claim of
that type. Interestingly, it was suggested by an article I had read in an
Estonian newspaper a few days before.

I had visited Estonia on June 15 of whatever year it was and was deeply
moved by the commemoration of the victims of the massive deportations that
had taken place on that day in 1941, precisely a week before the Nazis
attacked the USSR. The article had noted that the reality was more
complex. Despite the fact that people were forcibly removed from their
homes and sent off to locations unknown traveling in and winding up in
unspeakable conditions, for certain groups among them the tragedy was a
blesing in disguise. The Jews, political radicals, and any healthy males
between the ages of 14 and 30, the article argued, stood a far higher
chance of surviving until 1945 in Siberian exile than they would have in
an Estonia occupied by hostile foreign forces and a passageway for
advancing and retreating armies.

For presenting this viewpoint for consideration I was excoriated.
Nevertheless, I am certain that the actuarial tables support it. The three
Baltic countries were, after Poland and Germany, the worst places to be
during WW II, particularly if you were a Jew, a person with radical (=
leftist leaning) political beliefs, or a young man of draftable age.
Former Estonian President Lennart Meri expressed the view several times
that his famly had been fortunate, all things considered, to have sat out
the war in Siberian exile where they had a higher chance of surviving the
war than they would have had in Estonia.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 10:10:57 AM9/25/08
to

"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2509...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> In article <83KCk.71140$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
> Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:

> I am not going to defend Backman, but I am going to assume the role of
> devil's advocate as a means of trying to understand his thinking.

You often do that when Russian/Soviet viewpoints 'need' to be defended. I
wonder why?

> Nobody denies that the USSR ousted the legitimate governments of the
> Baltic countries, or to use the modern term "effected regime change", in
> June 1940, replacing the legitimate regimes with governments, now
> generally regarded as bogus, that were, initially at least, accepted to
> some degree by the three Baltic nations. The Latvian President appealed to
> his wary nation to accept the new government, and in Estonia what seemed
> to be a resolution of a threat to nationaal existence was intially greeted
> with relief, even if President Päts was arrested and sent into Soviet
> exile.

It is wrong to limit this discussion to June-July 1940. We must go back to
where all this started, the Molotov-Ribbentrop secret protocol of 23 August
1939, which stated that 'in the case of a territorial-political
reorganization', the Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia -- Lithuania
being added later) would belong to the Soviet sphere of interest.

For us who know the outcome it is quite clear what was meant: invasion and
occupation. How could anybody be in doubt, considering the attacks on Poland
and Finland? Hitler and Stalin divided Poland in accordance with the secret
protocol. Stalin aimed at occupying all of Finland -- there is no doubt
about that either.

In September-October the three Baltic countries were forced to accept
military bases on their territory. With the arrival of numerically superior
Soviet forces, the military occupation of the Baltics had in fact already
taken place. What remained was the political side of it -- the establishment
of Soviet rule in the occupied, still pseudo-independent countries. As the
occupation of Finland had backfired, Stalin wanted no more military
encounters. Instead, a seemingly constitutional show was necessary.

In June 1940, when the Germans were busy defeating France, three Soviet
commissars -- Zhdanov, Vyshinskyi, Dekanosov -- were sent to Tallinn, Riga
and Kaunas respectively. Backed up by Soviet forces they staged the
political take-over of the Baltic governments. With 200 Soviet tanks
positioned in Kaunas for instance, there was not much the legal authorities
could do, unless they were prepared to trigger off a major bloodshed.

Unfortunately it is always possible to find political idiots who are
prepared to step in 'in the interest of the nation'. The list of these
Quislings, and Hus?ks is legion. And so the commissars were able to create
collaboration governments with whom they could carry out the final solution:
the absorption of the occupied countries into the Soviet state.

Continuing the political show process (Vyshinkskiy was an expert, having
been the mastermind of Stalin's purges in the 30's), elections were staged,
but only the extreme left was allowed to put up candidates. The result was
three totally communist-dominated parliaments. These were now ordered to
apply for their country's membership in the USSR. It is well worth
remembering that in Estonia even this communist parliament initially refused
to comply. Only after threats of physical violence did the deputies vote in
favour of the application.

The whole farce was staged only in order to fool the outside world into
believing that the Baltic countries had not been occupied but had joined the
USSR voluntarily. Well, it did fool a few people, mainly those with Soviet
sympathies, and in the USSR itself it was of course the only accepted
version. But ever since glasnost, even the Russians have become aware of its
untruthfulness. It is only now, when power in Russia has been usurped by the
ex-KGB pack, that the non-occupation fable has again surfaced and is being
pushed -- undoubtedly with support from a Russian ministry of truth -- by
useful idiots and mental quislings.

Regards,
John


Maris

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 10:18:45 AM9/25/08
to

The late Malcolm Bradbury's 'The History Man' was a wonderful
evocation of such a person.

kge...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 11:57:48 AM9/25/08
to
On 25 Sep., 15:39, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <fa87e5bf-789e-4f4f-ac72-410505663...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

The idea of someone having been "saved" (a word which that historian
uses more than once) by surviving deportation and confinment in merely
less deadly circumstances is demented, even if it were true that death
rates did differ from those seen during WW II. No wonder you were
excoriated, if you too put it in those terms. Obviously, that number
alone does not prove anything, but off the top of the head: excluding
those executed outright, about 36% of those deported from Latvia in
1941 died while "in exile"; 40% when those executed are included.

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:42:28 PM9/25/08
to
In article
<ca5bc56d-b172-49c2...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
kge...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 25 Sep., 15:39, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > In article

<deletions>


> >
> > For presenting this viewpoint for consideration I was excoriated.

> > Nevertheless, I am certain that the actuarial tables support it. The thre=


> e
> > Baltic countries were, after Poland and Germany, the worst places to be

> > during WW II, particularly if you were a Jew, a person with radical (=3D


> > leftist leaning) political beliefs, or a young man of draftable age.
> > Former Estonian President Lennart Meri expressed the view several times
> > that his famly had been fortunate, all things considered, to have sat out
> > the war in Siberian exile where they had a higher chance of surviving the
> > war than they would have had in Estonia.
> >
>

> The idea of someone having been "saved" (a word which that historian
> uses more than once) by surviving deportation and confinment in merely
> less deadly circumstances is demented, even if it were true that death
> rates did differ from those seen during WW II.

Its not the comfort of the ride, but whether you arrive safely at your
intended destination, that counts.

> No wonder you were
> excoriated, if you too put it in those terms. Obviously, that number
> alone does not prove anything, but off the top of the head: excluding
> those executed outright, about 36% of those deported from Latvia in
> 1941 died while "in exile"; 40% when those executed are included.

The history of small, "distant countries, about which we know little",
tends to ossify and reduce to a tale of how David has prevailed against
Goliath. Goliath, however, who was probably not a rond-the-clock monster
and, after a hard day's work probably also went home to the wife and kids,
and did not kick the dog even if he had had a bad day, also has pespective
on things, as do the spectators, who may or may not have had their
expectations fulfilled. That is why it is important to have alternative
historical narratives.

regards,
Eugene Holman

tadas....@lycos.es

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:53:58 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 1:52 pm, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>
> news:holman-2509...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
>
>
>
> > In article <Y4ICk.71085$_03.38...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
> > Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>>
> You [i.e. Holman] are a marvel at making the weirdest juxtapositions. Usually it's about

> some recent Russian misdeed balanced against something you dig up in US 19th
> century history. This time you compare the results of impeccable scientific
> research with the rants of a notorious academic troublemaker. As if these
> were in any manner on a par with each other!
>
> Bäckman denies that the Baltic countries were Soviet-occupied. Such a claim
> is purely propagandistic and cannot even be dealt with in academia. It's on
> the same level as denying the holocaust. Or gravity.
>
> Regards,
> John

Well John, sad to say, as you have also noticed, that while "Soviet-
occupation-denial" should be viewed with the same scorn that society
views "Holocaust-denial", this is far from being the case and Bäckman
is not alone among Westerners in parading around mouthing this
garbage, with little or no reproach from anyone.

Henry Alminas

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:55:27 PM9/25/08
to

"J. Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:DZMCk.71248$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...

Why bother with Homan?

Just read RIA/Novosti and you will know
"where it is at".

Best - - Henry


tadas....@lycos.es

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:57:48 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 3:23 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article <83KCk.71140$_03.64...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.

Slick, but not slick enough. You can put shit in a chocolate wrapper
but it is still shit and it still stinks and it is still full of
bacteria and if you ingest it you will get sick and maybe die.

tadas....@lycos.es

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:59:24 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 4:39 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <fa87e5bf-789e-4f4f-ac72-410505663...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

More shit in a chocolate wrapper. Fui!

tadas....@lycos.es

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 1:03:28 PM9/25/08
to

I have a radical idea for Holman. Instead of speculating about the
lesser of two evils for Balts, why not invest twenty minutes of your
time in meditating about a theoretical less shitty world in which
there had been no Hitler-Stalin pact and no deportations and no
occupations? When you work through the steps and come to the
inevitable conclusion that the world, especially Eastern Europe, would
be a much better place if it had happened that way, then you might
stop trying to make excuses for the Russian barbarians every chance
you get.

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 1:19:32 PM9/25/08
to
In article <sbGdnSCj7rwcX0bV...@comcast.com>, "Henry Alminas"
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:

<deletions>
>
> Why bother with Ho[l]man?


>
> Just read RIA/Novosti and you will know
> "where it is at".

So tell us, Henry, has Hawaii suffered 110 years of American occupation?
Are the non-Hawaiians living there to be dismissed as occupant scum? If
you read the history of how the Kingdom of Hawaii became, first, the
Republic of Hawaii, subsequently, the puppet government known as the
American Territory of Hawaii, you will see that the Soviets and their
Quislings who designed the subversion of the three Baltic countries read
and learned from their homework in what in 1940 was still recent America
history.

May you never enjoy a serving of Dole pinapple again.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

"Quod licet Jovi, licet bovique."

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 1:21:48 PM9/25/08
to

May you never enjoy a serving of Dole pineapple again.

David McDuff

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 1:39:46 PM9/25/08
to
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:31:17 +0300, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene
Holman) wrote:

>Freedom of speech and opinion requires that we allow unpopular opinions to
>be voiced and examined.

That certainly seems to be the position of the University's rector,
who has apparently said that his institution of learning doesn't
intend to become involved with Dr. Bäckman's "speeches and writings on
Estonian history", and will not take a view of them.

http://www.iltalehti.fi/helsinki/200809258328917_hi.shtml

Others might see it as a washing of hands, and an expression of a
quite considerable fear of Russia that still persists in Finland.

DM

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 1:52:33 PM9/25/08
to
In article <3tind4tr09s3qhm19...@4ax.com>, David McDuff
<dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I don't think so. Dr. Bäckman is a docent, which means that his
relationship with the university is marginal. His interpretations of
Estonian history are off the wall if we assume that the mainstream
interpretation of Estonian history is the only possible narrative that can
be constructed from the evidence. We all know that others construct
different narratives, and they have the right to make them heard and
subjected to scrutiny, rather than be rejected outright. Fear of Russia is
not the issue. Our university has a long history of autonomy, meaning that
the authorities do not and cannot intervene when unpopular views or
intepretaions of facts are expressed. Vivat academia! Vivant docentes!
Vivant opiniones nocentae!

Although I personally subscribe to the Soviet occupation narrative, I can
cetainly understand how rational and intelligent people can interpret the
period between Stalin's death and the collapse of the USSR from a
perspective that does not regard the presence of Soviet troops in the
Estonian SSR or the presence of the Estonian SSR in the USSR as a matter
of occupation any more than most Americans would regard the presence of
Hawaii in the US as an occupation.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 1:56:17 PM9/25/08
to

"Henry Alminas" <halm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sbGdnSCj7rwcX0bV...@comcast.com...

> Why bother with Homan?

I don't. My posts are for those who read his posts.


J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:08:25 PM9/25/08
to

"David McDuff" <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tind4tr09s3qhm19...@4ax.com...

For once I don't believe Finlandization is involved. Rector Thomas
Wilhelmsson is an expert on contract law and tort law (incl. insurance law)
and consumer protection. Probably he is simply careful not to get the
University entangled in Bäckman's lawsuit.


kge...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:09:06 PM9/25/08
to

Very well, then. The rector and University of Helsinki can take pride
in associating with individual who, among other things, openly states
the following about Estonia:

"I think the mass deportations were necessary measures in stabilizing
the country. It also saved many people's lives."

http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-johan-bckmans-interview-with-hero-of.html

This speaks volumes about the university (no offense to anyone there
who does not support rector's position), and no amount of independence-
this, academic-that talk will obscure that.

tadas....@lycos.es

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:27:07 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 9:09 pm, kgeo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 25, 7:39 pm, David McDuff <dmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:31:17 +0300, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene
>
> > Holman) wrote:
> > >Freedom of speech and opinion requires that we allow unpopular opinions to
> > >be voiced and examined.
>
> > That certainly seems to be the position of the University's rector,
> > who has apparently said that his institution of learning doesn't
> > intend to become involved with Dr. Bäckman's "speeches and writings on
> > Estonian history", and will not take a view of them.
>
> >http://www.iltalehti.fi/helsinki/200809258328917_hi.shtml
>
> > Others might see it as a washing of hands, and an expression of a
> > quite considerable fear of Russia that still persists in Finland.
>
> > DM
>
> Very well, then. The rector and University of Helsinki can take pride
> in associating with individual who, among other things, openly states
> the following about Estonia:
>
> "I think the mass deportations were necessary measures in stabilizing
> the country. It also saved many people's lives."
>
> http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-johan-bckmans-interview-...

>
> This speaks volumes about the university (no offense to anyone there
> who does not support rector's position), and no amount of independence-
> this, academic-that talk will obscure that.

Like I said, shit in a chocolate bar wrapper is still shit. Normal
people can still smell the difference, even if some left-wing
academics can't (or don't want to admit that they can).

kge...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:31:03 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 8:09 pm, kgeo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 25, 7:39 pm, David McDuff <dmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:31:17 +0300, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene
>
> > Holman) wrote:
> > >Freedom of speech and opinion requires that we allow unpopular opinions to
> > >be voiced and examined.
>
> > That certainly seems to be the position of the University's rector,
> > who has apparently said that his institution of learning doesn't
> > intend to become involved with Dr. Bäckman's "speeches and writings on
> > Estonian history", and will not take a view of them.
>
> >http://www.iltalehti.fi/helsinki/200809258328917_hi.shtml
>
> > Others might see it as a washing of hands, and an expression of a
> > quite considerable fear of Russia that still persists in Finland.
>
> > DM
>
> Very well, then. The rector and University of Helsinki can take pride
> in associating with individual who, among other things, openly states
> the following about Estonia:
>
> "I think the mass deportations were necessary measures in stabilizing
> the country. It also saved many people's lives."
>
> http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-johan-bckmans-interview-...

>
> This speaks volumes about the university (no offense to anyone there
> who does not support rector's position), and no amount of independence-
> this, academic-that talk will obscure that.

correct link: http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/letter-from-patriot.html

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:36:12 PM9/25/08
to
In article
<f5a91786-a92f-45fa...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
kge...@gmail.com wrote:

<deletions>


>
> Very well, then. The rector and University of Helsinki can take pride
> in associating with individual who, among other things, openly states
> the following about Estonia:
>
> "I think the mass deportations were necessary measures in stabilizing
> the country.

With respect to the June 15, 1941 deportations, this is arguably true.
Either by accident or Soviet prescience, many of those deported were at
the top of the Nazis' *Must kill* list. Baltic societies would have been
traumatized even more than they were if the Nazis would have had to do the
first vetting.

> It also saved many people's lives."

Few would contest that claim, made in more than one context by former
Estonian President Lennart Meri himself.
>
> http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-johan-bckmans-interview-with-h=


> ero-of.html
>
> This speaks volumes about the university (no offense to anyone there
> who does not support rector's position), and no amount of independence-
> this, academic-that talk will obscure that.

Bäckman is being deliberately provocative by forcing people to rethink
accepted truths. Although I do not agree with him, I think that it is
important to re-examine our assuptions from time to time.

Is or was Hawaii American-occupied territory à la Baltique?

Regards,
Eugene Holman, Lecturer at the University of Helsinki

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:44:45 PM9/25/08
to

<deletions>
>
> Very well, then. The rector and University of Helsinki can take pride
> in associating with individual who, among other things, openly states
> the following about Estonia:
>
> "I think the mass deportations were necessary measures in stabilizing
> the country.

With respect to the June 15, 1941 deportations, this is arguably true.

Either by accident or Soviet prescience, many of those deported would have
been at the top of the Nazis' *Must kill* list a week later. Baltic


societies would have been traumatized even more than they were if the

Nazis, more into lethal liquidation than deportation to nowhere, would
have had the opportunity to implement the first vetting.

> It also saved many people's lives."

Few would contest that claim, made in more than one context by former
Estonian President Lennart Meri himself.
>
> http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-johan-bckmans-interview-with-h=
> ero-of.html
>
> This speaks volumes about the university (no offense to anyone there
> who does not support rector's position), and no amount of independence-
> this, academic-that talk will obscure that.

Bäckman is being deliberately provocative by forcing people to rethink

accepted truths. Although I do not agree with him, I understand what he is
driving at and think that it is important to re-examine our almost
intuitively-held assumptions from time to time.

tadas....@lycos.es

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 3:26:31 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 9:44 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <f5a91786-a92f-45fa-90a0-974b6e4c2...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>
> kgeo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <deletions>
>
>
>
> > Very well, then. The rector and University of Helsinki can take pride
> > in associating with individual who, among other things, openly states
> > the following about Estonia:
>
> > "I think the mass deportations were necessary measures in stabilizing
> > the country.
>
> With respect to the June 15, 1941 deportations, this is arguably true.
> Either by accident or Soviet prescience, many of those deported would have
> been at the top of the Nazis' *Must kill* list a week later. Baltic
> societies would have been traumatized even more than they were if the
> Nazis, more into lethal liquidation than deportation to nowhere, would
> have had the opportunity to implement the first vetting.
>
> > It also saved many people's lives."
>
> Few would contest that claim, made in more than one context by former
> Estonian President Lennart Meri himself.
>
>
>
> >http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/dr-johan-bckmans-interview-...

> > ero-of.html
>
> > This speaks volumes about the university (no offense to anyone there
> > who does not support rector's position), and no amount of independence-
> > this, academic-that talk will obscure that.
>
> Bäckman is being deliberately provocative by forcing people to rethink
> accepted truths. Although I do not agree with him, I understand what he is
> driving at and think that it is important to re-examine our almost
> intuitively-held assumptions from time to time.
>
> Is or was Hawaii American-occupied territory à la Baltique?
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman, Lecturer at the University of Helsinki

Have you thought of a brand name yet for your fancy-wrapped shit?

Maybe „нюх дерьма“ or „запах дерьма“ ?

vello

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 5:43:12 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 7:42 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <ca5bc56d-b172-49c2-b680-49aaee3e1...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Eugene, but for locals our countries are not distant and we do know
facts of our history. I don't have % numbers for Estonians surviving
"Siberian exodus" but it is surely much less then 80-85% what is most
common number for all estonians surviving ww2. And that 15-20%
population loss includes not only victims of war but also folks moving
to West in 1944. So it was more healthy to stay in Estonia in compare
with siberia :-)
But anyway, your position seems a bit sick for me. This way we can
justify almost any crime. Appearing as cargo on slave ship may save
one's life what he would lost in tribal wars in Africa back then - but
is it excuse of slavery?

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 6:16:41 PM9/25/08
to

"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:1d226630-8e68-4fb8...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> I don't have % numbers for Estonians surviving
> "Siberian exodus" but it is surely much less then
> 80-85% what is most common number for all
> estonians surviving ww2.

> So it was more healthy to stay in Estonia in compare
> with siberia :-)

I'm sure you're right. But IIRC, this was not the first time that Eugene has
tried to explain that the mass deportations we're actually a way to save
lives.


Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 12:01:32 AM9/26/08
to
In article <%4UCk.71642$_03.1...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:

Yes, but I have always qualified the claim by saying *if* you belonged to
certain groups: Jews, leftist political activists, and young men of or
soon to be of draftable age.

We all know that the Nazis made Estonia "judenfrei" during the fall of
1941, so there is no argument there with respect to the hundreds of
Estonian Jews who were deported and survived. Lennart Meri was born in
March, 1929, so by 1944 he would have been fifteen, eligible to serve as
cannon fodder in a hopeless situation in which he would almost certainly
have been killed if his family had remained in Estonia.

Let there be no doubt about it. The deportations were criminal and morally
wrong in every respect, they cannot be defended, nor have I tried to
defend or even justify them. My only point is that conditions in Estonia
and, by extension, Latvia and Lithuania, during the war that began a week
after the deportations, particularly for members of the three groups that
I have singled out, were so horrible that deportation meant a higher
probability of surviving the war *if* a person was a member of one of the
three groups in question.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

vello

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 3:42:52 AM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 7:01 am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article <%4UCk.71642$_03.13...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
>
> Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> > "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote in message
Well there was 124 members in Estonian communist Party in 1940 -
commie thing was not too popular in Estonia. Also our jewish minority
group was very small - was it 2 or three thousands. For conscript age,
there was no choice - russians take all guys in that age for cannon
fodder who was stupid enough not to go hide when war begins.

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 3:52:26 AM9/26/08
to

"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2609...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...

> Lennart Meri was born in
> March, 1929, so by 1944 he would have been fifteen, eligible to serve as
> cannon fodder in a hopeless situation in which he would almost certainly
> have been killed if his family had remained in Estonia.

I doubt very much that a 15 y.o. Estonian "almost certainly" would have been
killed in 1944. This would of course be very easy to check by taking a look
at the relevant demographical tables. As to the Meri family, their chances,
if we trust Vello's statistics, would have been 85 out of 100, i.e. better
than for those who were deported.

What you say about "beneficial deportations" is certainly true as far as the
Jews are concerned, but they were a very marginal part of Estonia's
population, smaller even than Swedes or Finns.


tadas....@lycos.es

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 4:13:24 AM9/26/08
to
On Sep 26, 7:01 am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:

> > mass deportations actually saved lives.

> Yes, but I have always qualified the claim by saying *if* you belonged to
> certain groups: Jews, leftist political activists, and young men of or
> soon to be of draftable age.

> Let there be no doubt about it. The deportations were criminal and morally


> wrong in every respect, they cannot be defended, nor have I tried to
> defend or even justify them. My only point is that conditions in Estonia
> and, by extension, Latvia and Lithuania, during the war that began a week
> after the deportations, particularly for members of the three groups that
> I have singled out, were so horrible that deportation meant a higher
> probability of surviving the war *if* a person was a member of one of the
> three groups in question.

Here we go again. You seem to be incapable of speaking from a
civilised European point of view and declaring something like the
following:

• the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was a reprehensible act
– therefore the Russian Communists were just as despicable as
the German Nazis, right from the start

• USSR/Russia had no business invading the Baltic countries in
1940. We CONDEMN them for this and it is to their eternal SHAME.

• USSR/Russia had no business deporting tens of thousands of Balts
to Siberia. We CONDEMN them for this and it is to their eternal
SHAME.

• Nazi Germany had no business invading the Baltic countries in
1941. Everything that happened as a result of their invasion (e.g.
murdering of Jews) is entirely their fault. We CONDEMN them for this
and it is to their eternal SHAME.

• USSR/Russia had no business re-invading the Baltic countries in
1944 and OCCUPYING them until 1991, doing incalculable damage, for
which they should pay COMPENSATION. We CONDEMN them for this and it
is to their eternal SHAME.

Now, instead of penning more excuses for Russian barbarity, sit down
and write a letter to the Kremlin ("Kriminal Inn") telling them that
they're not your pin-up boys any more, that you have seen the light
and that you agree with the Balts that the Russians owe them an
apology and hundreds of billions in compensation.

kge...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 5:44:14 AM9/26/08
to
On 26 Sep., 10:13, tadas.bli...@lycos.es wrote:
> On Sep 26, 7:01 am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>

It's quite pointless to engage in discussion with stalinist apologists
like Holman, or, absent evidence, to trust any claim they make (like
the one about Lennart Meri) because they constantly contradict
themselves. Like Holocaust deniers/minimisers they should be shunned
instead.

Let's walk this one thru for illustration purposes. Like Bäckman,
Holman agrees that deportations were necessary:

Bäckman: "I think the mass deportations were necessary measures in
stabilizing the country."
Holman: "With respect to the June 15, 1941 deportations, this is
arguably true."

Discounting the possibility of inane "agreement" -- Holman was saying
it's "arguably true" Bäckman indeed thinks what he writes -- Holman
agrees that deportations were necessary measures. That is, before
Holman goes on to contradict himself, in the very same post:

"Although I do not agree with him, I understand what he is driving at
and think that it is important to re-examine our almost
intuitively-held assumptions from time to time."

And that is, before Holman goes on to contradict himself again:

"Let there be no doubt about it. The deportations were criminal and
morally wrong in every respect, they cannot be defended, nor have I
tried to defend or even justify them."

Eugene "The Holman Denier" Holman - in other words. Mind you - he even
claims intimate knowledge of Bäckman's mind:

"Bäckman is being deliberately provocative by forcing people to
rethink accepted truths."

One cannot but conclude: either Holman has discussed it with Bäckman
his intentions and "methods", or he makes factual claims about them
based on thin air.

It's pointless to engage in discussions with individuals who agree
with demented ideas that deporting children (about 17% of deported
from Latvia in 1941 were children under 10 years, according to this
preliminary analysis http://vip.latnet.lv/lpra/strukturanalize.html )
is somehow necessary for "stabilizing" something. It's pointless to
discuss something with people who know "that many people died because
of the deportations" (Bäckman), yet claim that those who managed to
survive were "saved". Just shun them and institutions, which continue
provide for their living and semblance of credibility in a way of
academic credentials.

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 1:59:03 AM9/27/08
to
In article
<c13b8673-ac7b-4a86...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
tadas....@lycos.es wrote:

> On Sep 26, 7:01=A0am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> > > mass deportations actually saved lives.
>
> > Yes, but I have always qualified the claim by saying *if* you belonged to
> > certain groups: Jews, leftist political activists, and young men of or
> > soon to be of draftable age.
>

> > Let there be no doubt about it. The deportations were criminal and morall=


> y
> > wrong in every respect, they cannot be defended, nor have I tried to
> > defend or even justify them. My only point is that conditions in Estonia
> > and, by extension, Latvia and Lithuania, during the war that began a week
> > after the deportations, particularly for members of the three groups that
> > I have singled out, were so horrible that deportation meant a higher
> > probability of surviving the war *if* a person was a member of one of the
> > three groups in question.
>
> Here we go again. You seem to be incapable of speaking from a
> civilised European point of view and declaring something like the
> following:

Unfortunately, European history is full of annexations, back-stabbings,
and situations that are occupations from the standpoint of one party
involved, but not the other. The Basque country, Northern Ireland, and
Corsica come to mind. Going further, the fate of the Kingdom of Hawaii
makes for sad reading, nor is the fact that nglish is spoken in Australia,
New Zealand, Canada, the United States, India, and much of Africa the
result of civilized European behavior.

> =95 the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was a reprehensible act
> =96 therefore the Russian Communists were just as despicable as


> the German Nazis, right from the start

Agreed. However, it was not unprecedented. European history is full of
such cynical deals.

> =95 USSR/Russia had no business invading the Baltic countries in


> 1940. We CONDEMN them for this and it is to their eternal SHAME.

Agreed. The US and its Baltic and other allies had no business invading
Iraq in 2003. All countries that get into gthe nasty business of invadi g
other countries should be condemned, particularly countries engaging in
such behavior that were themselves recently the victims of foreign
invasion.

> =95 USSR/Russia had no business deporting tens of thousands of Balts


> to Siberia. We CONDEMN them for this and it is to their eternal
> SHAME.

Agreed. But by a strange twist of irony, the 1941 deportations, as illegal
and repulsive as they were, removed tens of thousands of people from what
was to become a war zone a mere week later. There is no arguing the fact
that the deportations were morally wrong. There is, howver, reason to
discuss whether the people concerned faced a greater chance of survival in
boxcars going to the frozen wastes of Siberia or back home with marauding
armies marching through their homelands, bombing cities, drafting young
men and boys into their militaries at gunpoint, and carrying out ethnic
cleansings.

> =95 Nazi Germany had no business invading the Baltic countries in


> 1941. Everything that happened as a result of their invasion (e.g.
> murdering of Jews) is entirely their fault. We CONDEMN them for this
> and it is to their eternal SHAME.

Agreed, with no caveats or conditions whatsoever.

> =95 USSR/Russia had no business re-invading the Baltic countries in


> 1944 and OCCUPYING them until 1991, doing incalculable damage, for
> which they should pay COMPENSATION. We CONDEMN them for this and it
> is to their eternal SHAME.

This is more complex. From the standoint of the USSR, the baltic countries
ceased to exist in 1940 when they "requested" admission to the USSR. Thus,
the Nazis were invaders and occupiers, but the Soviets were liberators who
retook Soviet territory. From the Estonian, Latvin, and Lithuanian point
of view, the entire exercise that resulted in their countries becoming a
part of the USSR was a Moscow orchestrated farce that had nothing to do
with their own national aspirations. The Nazis were thus first greeted as
liberators from Soviet tyranny, but they quickly demonstrated themselves
to be just as bad or vene worse occupiers, even if they targeted different
groups for extermination. The job that the Soviets did in 1944 had two
aspects. On the one hand, it rid the Baltics of the Nazi occupiers and
scotched their plans to Germanize the Baltics as ethnically cleansed
Lebensraum for eventual German colonization, but it meant the reimpositon
of the Soviet occupation, allowing the Soviets to begin their own plans of
ethnic cleansing and demographic engineering designed to create a race of
Russian-speaking homines sovietici. What was occupation and ethnic
cleasnng to the three Baltic nations was recovery of Nazi-occupied
territory and nation building to the Soviets. I see nothing wromng with
acknowledging that the same historical facts can produce two highly
divergent historical narratives. My sympathies are with the Baltic
peoples, but I understand why the Soviet alternative and seemingly so
perverse Soviet narrative exists.

> Now, instead of penning more excuses for Russian barbarity, sit down
> and write a letter to the Kremlin ("Kriminal Inn") telling them that
> they're not your pin-up boys any more, that you have seen the light
> and that you agree with the Balts that the Russians owe them an
> apology and hundreds of billions in compensation.

The Balts are indeed owed an apology as well as understanding. I would
argue that the fact that the three countries have been able to develop and
prosper without having to be too concerned about Russia is already worth
billions.

Large countries taking advantage of small countries should always be
condemned, but I do not think that condemnation will change the course of
human history. When elephants fight, the grass takes a beating. When
elephants make love, the grass takes a beating.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 2:16:25 AM9/28/08
to

> On Sep 26, 7:01=A0am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> > > mass deportations actually saved lives.
>
> > Yes, but I have always qualified the claim by saying *if* you belonged to
> > certain groups: Jews, leftist political activists, and young men of or
> > soon to be of draftable age.
>
> > Let there be no doubt about it. The deportations were criminal and morall=
> y
> > wrong in every respect, they cannot be defended, nor have I tried to
> > defend or even justify them. My only point is that conditions in Estonia
> > and, by extension, Latvia and Lithuania, during the war that began a week
> > after the deportations, particularly for members of the three groups that
> > I have singled out, were so horrible that deportation meant a higher
> > probability of surviving the war *if* a person was a member of one of the
> > three groups in question.
>
> Here we go again. You seem to be incapable of speaking from a
> civilised European point of view and declaring something like the
> following:

Unfortunately, European history is full of annexations, back-stabbings,
and situations that are occupations from the standpoint of one party

involved, but not of the other. The Basque country, Northern Ireland, and
Corsica come to mind. Going further afield, the fate of the Kingdom of Hawaii
makes for sad reading, nor is the fact that English is presently spoken in
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, India, Pakistan,
Guyana, Jamaica, and much of Africa the result of "civilized European"
behavior.

> =95 the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was a reprehensible act
> =96 therefore the Russian Communists were just as despicable as
> the German Nazis, right from the start

Agreed. However, it was not unprecedented. European history is replete with

such cynical deals.

> =95 USSR/Russia had no business invading the Baltic countries in
> 1940. We CONDEMN them for this and it is to their eternal SHAME.

Agreed. The US and its Baltic and other allies had no business invading

Iraq in 2003. All countries that get into the nasty business of invading


other countries should be condemned, particularly countries engaging in
such behavior that were themselves recently the victims of foreign
invasion.

> =95 USSR/Russia had no business deporting tens of thousands of Balts
> to Siberia. We CONDEMN them for this and it is to their eternal
> SHAME.

Agreed. But by a strange twist of irony, the 1941 deportations, as illegal
and repulsive as they were, removed tens of thousands of people from what
was to become a war zone a mere week later. There is no arguing the fact

that the deportations were morally wrong. There is, however, reason to
consider whether the people concerned faced a greater chance of survival
in cattle cars going to the frozen wastes of Siberia or back home with


marauding armies marching through their homelands, bombing cities,
drafting young men and boys into their militaries at gunpoint, and
carrying out ethnic cleansings.

> =95 Nazi Germany had no business invading the Baltic countries in
> 1941. Everything that happened as a result of their invasion (e.g.
> murdering of Jews) is entirely their fault. We CONDEMN them for this
> and it is to their eternal SHAME.

Agreed, with no caveats or conditions whatsoever.

> =95 USSR/Russia had no business re-invading the Baltic countries in
> 1944 and OCCUPYING them until 1991, doing incalculable damage, for
> which they should pay COMPENSATION. We CONDEMN them for this and it
> is to their eternal SHAME.

This is more complex.

From the standoint of the USSR, the Baltic countries ceased to exist in


1940 when they "requested" admission to the USSR. Thus, the Nazis were
invaders and occupiers, but the Soviets were liberators who retook Soviet
territory.

From the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian point of view, the entire


exercise that resulted in their countries becoming a part of the USSR was

a Moscow-orchestrated farce that ran counter to their own national


aspirations. The Nazis were thus first greeted as
liberators from Soviet tyranny, but they quickly demonstrated themselves

to be just as bad or even worse occupiers, although they targeted different


groups for extermination. The job that the Soviets did in 1944 had two
aspects. On the one hand, it rid the Baltics of the Nazi occupiers and
scotched their plans to Germanize the Baltics as ethnically cleansed

*Lebensraum* for eventual German colonization, but it meant the reimposition


of the Soviet occupation, allowing the Soviets to begin their own plans of
ethnic cleansing and demographic engineering designed to create a race of
Russian-speaking homines sovietici. What was occupation and ethnic
cleasnng to the three Baltic nations was recovery of Nazi-occupied
territory and nation building to the Soviets. I see nothing wromng with
acknowledging that the same historical facts can produce two highly
divergent historical narratives. My sympathies are with the Baltic
peoples, but I understand why the Soviet alternative and seemingly so
perverse Soviet narrative exists.

> Now, instead of penning more excuses for Russian barbarity, sit down
> and write a letter to the Kremlin ("Kriminal Inn") telling them that
> they're not your pin-up boys any more, that you have seen the light
> and that you agree with the Balts that the Russians owe them an
> apology and hundreds of billions in compensation.

The Balts are indeed owed an apology as well as understanding. I would
argue that the fact that the three countries have been able to develop and

prosper without having to be too concerned about Russia up until now is

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 5:22:18 AM9/28/08
to

"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2809...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...

> Large countries taking advantage of small countries should always be
> condemned, but I do not think that condemnation will change the course of
> human history. When elephants fight, the grass takes a beating. When
> elephants make love, the grass takes a beating.

That summarizes your way of thinking very well. "Forget all about justice,
fairness and rules. Size and power are all that matters." I can imagine
little Eugene in his Brooklyn schoolyard trying to figure out which bully it
would be best to side with.


Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 7:02:19 AM9/28/08
to
In article <%0IDk.72608$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:

Isnt that what Finland wound up doing?

Regards,
Eugene Holman

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 7:24:10 AM9/28/08
to

Another revealing misinterpretation! No, like small countries in
general, Finland only wanted to be left in peace. None of the small
European countries of the 1930's wanted to side with any of the bullies.
WWII taught us a lesson, and that's why we're now united in the EU,
which is not a bully.

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 10:29:35 AM9/28/08
to
In article <48DF695A...@inbox.lv>, "J. Anderson"
<ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:

> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > In article <%0IDk.72608$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
> > Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> >
> >> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> >> news:holman-2809...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> >>
> >>> Large countries taking advantage of small countries should always be
> >>> condemned, but I do not think that condemnation will change the course of
> >>> human history. When elephants fight, the grass takes a beating. When
> >>> elephants make love, the grass takes a beating.
> >> That summarizes your way of thinking very well. "Forget all about justice,
> >> fairness and rules. Size and power are all that matters." I can imagine
> >> little Eugene in his Brooklyn schoolyard trying to figure out which
bully it
> >> would be best to side with.
> >
> > Isnt that what Finland wound up doing?
>
> Another revealing misinterpretation! No, like small countries in
> general, Finland only wanted to be left in peace.

As do we all.

> None of the small
> European countries of the 1930's wanted to side with any of the bullies.

But the bullies called the shots.



> WWII taught us a lesson, and that's why we're now united in the EU,
> which is not a bully.

Reality check. It tries not to be, but somehow, among equals, Germany and
France seem to be more equal within the EU than Malta or Latvia.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 11:21:25 AM9/28/08
to
Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <48DF695A...@inbox.lv>, "J. Anderson"
> <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>> Eugene Holman wrote:
>>> In article <%0IDk.72608$_03.6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, "J.
>>> Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>>>> news:holman-2809...@ke-hupnet79-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
>>>>
>>>>> Large countries taking advantage of small countries should always be
>>>>> condemned, but I do not think that condemnation will change the course of
>>>>> human history. When elephants fight, the grass takes a beating. When
>>>>> elephants make love, the grass takes a beating.
>>>> That summarizes your way of thinking very well. "Forget all about justice,
>>>> fairness and rules. Size and power are all that matters." I can imagine
>>>> little Eugene in his Brooklyn schoolyard trying to figure out which
> bully it
>>>> would be best to side with.
>>> Isnt that what Finland wound up doing?
>> Another revealing misinterpretation! No, like small countries in
>> general, Finland only wanted to be left in peace.
>
> As do we all.

Hardly. Some of us prefer to disturb the peace of others. I thought
you'd noticed.

>> None of the small
>> European countries of the 1930's wanted to side with any of the bullies.
>
> But the bullies called the shots.

And that's the kind of system we want to leave behind. Some of the
bullies learned the lesson (after some persuasion). Japan and Germany
stopped being bullies and instead became the world's second and third
biggest economies, a position that Russia will never reach. Russia's
number one ambition is to reattain its previous bully status.

>> WWII taught us a lesson, and that's why we're now united in the EU,
>> which is not a bully.
>
> Reality check. It tries not to be, but somehow, among equals, Germany and
> France seem to be more equal within the EU than Malta or Latvia.

Does that make the EU a bully? I don't mind bigger p(l)ayers getting
listened to more attentively than smaller ones. Inside the EU we're not
dealing with aggression but with policy matters, and in fundamental
questions consensus is needed.

But luckily there are less cynical people than you even in bully
positions. I suggest you walk around your block and have some borshch in
that pelmeny place in Kustaankatu. I was there on Friday, and the soup
was OK. Don't try the pelmenies however, they were horrible.

Regards,
John

jens....@freenet.de

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:21:03 AM9/29/08
to

> It is wrong to limit this discussion to June-July 1940. We must go back to
> where all this started, the Molotov-Ribbentrop secret protocol of 23 August
> 1939, which stated that 'in the case of a territorial-political
> reorganization', the Baltic states (Finland, Estonia, Latvia -- Lithuania
> being added later) would belong to the Soviet sphere of interest.
>
> For us who know the outcome it is quite clear what was meant: invasion and
> occupation.

My grandfather and his superior Laidoner saw it coming autumn 1939. He
advised him to leave immediatly together with the Germans already in
October 1939 though my grandfather was working on C-defence for the
Estonian Ministry of Defence. He took his family and left, surviving
the war without conscription to any country. But his remaining
collegues of higher ranks where murdered in their majority after 1939.
It leaves a bad feeling. His brother also staying in Estonia didn't
survive the arriving Soviet front in 1944 though he was not in the
miltitary. As Eugene said: better he would be send to Siberia.

The argumentation is ..., Eugene. Think about it.

jens....@freenet.de

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:37:41 AM9/29/08
to
No, There is not enough imagination. I give the answer: this kind of
argumentation is like telling the victims of Hiroshima it would vae
been better to be sent to a conecentration camp.

Eugene Holman

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 5:03:27 AM9/29/08
to
In article
<8aab3433-421e-4b87...@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
jens....@freenet.de wrote:

Many people would, if they could, choose be in a concentration camp, where
they stood a chance of survival, than be in a city that was about to be
nuked, where they probably would not stand a chance. In any case, I was
not trying to justify the Soviet deportations. I simply mentioned that due
to the ironies of history certain groups stood a better chance of
surviving the war if deported than if not, and at least one reader has
agreed with me that this was certainly true for Jews in the Baltic
countries.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

jens....@freenet.de

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 10:34:32 AM9/29/08
to
On 29 Sep., 11:03, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> In article
> <8aab3433-421e-4b87-9011-8acc37d9c...@a19g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,

Eugene,

I understand but it make not sense, only after the show was over.
Nobody did know what happened in the GULAG it was well protected from
the outer world.
You can put it in another direction what if the Estonians and Latvians
had took the weapons like the Finns? Hypthetical.

J. Anderson

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 12:20:56 PM9/29/08
to

<jens....@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:7e7ee428-f5b5-4590...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> You can put it in another direction what if the Estonians and Latvians
> had took the weapons like the Finns? Hypthetical.

Hypthetical but still interesting. Had Estonia and Latvia in
September-October 1939 said no to Soviet bases (like Finland did in
November), Stalin would have attacked them (like he later attacked Finland).
The war would have been fierce and bloody -- both nations having an
excellent fighting spirit. But it would have been short because of the
fairly open terrain and the Balts' handicap in material and manpower. It
would probably have been over in 4 to 6 weeks, depending on how cleverly the
Balts' defense was planned and carried out.

Having defeated Estonia and Latvia, Stalin would have installed Quisling
governments, which would have applied for membership in the Soviet Union.
Baltic officers would have been taken to places like Litene (the Latvian
Katyn) to be murdered en masse. Deportations, persecution etc. would have
been the same. The only difference would have been (1) a clean conscience
for those who wanted to sacrifice young Balts in symbolic resistance, and
(2) that it would have been more difficult for Stalin to claim that Estonia
and Latvia joined the SU voluntarily.

And now comes the interesting bit: With Estonia and Latvia conquered through
a Soviet Blitzkrieg, what would Finland have done? Would it have calculated
that it was better to accept the Soviet terms than to fight a war that it
would obviously lose? In that case it only needed to hand over Hanko as a
military base, a few islands in the Gulf of Finland and part of the Karelian
Isthmus. As compensation it would have received forest areas in Eastern
Karelia. All this sounds fine, doesn't it?

But remember: the Molotov-Ribbentrop secret protocol was still valid.
Finland 'belonged' to Stalin, and sooner or later he would have tried to
take it all.

Regards,
John


Dmitry

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:29:25 PM9/29/08
to
On 29 Sep, 17:20, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> <jens.wal...@freenet.de> wrote in message

>
> news:7e7ee428-f5b5-4590...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You can put it in another direction what if the Estonians and Latvians
> > had took the weapons like the Finns? Hypthetical.
>
> Hypthetical but still interesting. Had Estonia and Latvia in
> September-October 1939 said no to Soviet bases (like Finland did in
> November), Stalin would have attacked them (like he later attacked Finland).
> The war would have been fierce and bloody -- both nations having an
> excellent fighting spirit. But it would have been short because of the
> fairly open terrain and the Balts' handicap in material and manpower. It
> would probably have been over in 4 to 6 weeks, depending on how cleverly the
> Balts' defense was planned and carried out.
>
> Having defeated Estonia and Latvia, Stalin would have installed Quisling
> governments, which would have applied for membership in the Soviet Union.
> Baltic officers would have been taken to places like Litene (the Latvian
> Katyn) to be murdered en masse. Deportations, persecution etc. would have
> been the same. The only difference would have been (1) a clean conscience
> for those who wanted to sacrifice young Balts in symbolic resistance, and
> (2) that it would have been more difficult for Stalin to claim that Estonia
> and Latvia joined the SU voluntarily.

After what he has done to his own Soviet population I don't think that
he would have found any difficulty to claim anything. It would be
something like "Latvian proletariat asked Soviet Union to liberate
them from Ulmanis' Facsist regime". They have never ran out of
slogans for any occasion.

The only difference I can see would have been - more Latvians and
Estonians (and in turn Soviets) killed during the process. Then, at
the end of WWII he would still claim that Baltics belong to USSR in
form of SSR's.

>
> And now comes the interesting bit: With Estonia and Latvia conquered through
> a Soviet Blitzkrieg, what would Finland have done? Would it have calculated
> that it was better to accept the Soviet terms than to fight a war that it
> would obviously lose? In that case it only needed to hand over Hanko as a
> military base, a few islands in the Gulf of Finland and part of the Karelian
> Isthmus. As compensation it would have received forest areas in Eastern
> Karelia. All this sounds fine, doesn't it?
>
> But remember: the Molotov-Ribbentrop secret protocol was still valid.
> Finland 'belonged' to Stalin, and sooner or later he would have tried to
> take it all.

Eventually, you would have had an experience of being Soviet citizen -
( You are very lucky that the historical events took this course.
Those in Eastern part of Karelia were unlucky.


>
> Regards,
> John

0 new messages