Hand of Friendship?
David McDuff
Volume 15 No 8 February 21-27, 2005
Russia extends hand of friendship to Baltics -- Putin
Feb 25 - Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged the Baltic
countries' right to their own view regarding the results of World War
II and added that despite that he awaits the Estonian, Latvian and
Lithuanian leaders to in Moscow on May 9.
Putin said that events and results of World War II could be assessed
differently. "We respect the opinion of the people in the Baltics who
believe that the end of World War II entailed the tragedy of their
national independence being lost," Putin told reporters in Slovakia.
He added that the decision regarding the 9 May event was up to the
Baltic leaders to make. "Whatever the decision, we will be building up
our relations with those countries. We hope that common sense will
take the upper hand and political pretences will be the domain of
historians and propagandists," he said.
henry alminas
"David McDuff" <dmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:klkb21h9dcddd7pon...@4ax.com...
****************
> historians and propagandists," he said.
This is rather redundant - considering the Russian
art of history and rapid changes in interpretation -
as the need arises. And, yes, I did say art. It sure
as hell ain't a "discipline" over there. Poorly done
art - yet art nevertheless.
Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
<dmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> from: Estonian Review EESTI RINGVAADE
> Volume 15 No 8 February 21-27, 2005
>
>
> Russia extends hand of friendship to Baltics -- Putin
>
> Feb 25 - Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged the Baltic
> countries' right to their own view regarding the results of World War
> II and added that despite that he awaits the Estonian, Latvian and
> Lithuanian leaders to in Moscow on May 9.
That's a good start. It shows that he is not so dogmatic that he would
preclude a dialogue.
> Putin said that events and results of World War II could be assessed
> differently. "We respect the opinion of the people in the Baltics who
> believe that the end of World War II entailed the tragedy of their
> national independence being lost," Putin told reporters in Slovakia.
That's the least that he could have said. He probably understands the
Baltic tragedy, but finds it hard to relate to it given that Russia/the
USSR has never had a greater influence on world events than it did between
the Yalta Conference and the explosion of the first American A-bomb. May 9
represents the apogee of the Soviet Union's short (Feb 1945 - August 1945)
period as a superpower approximately equal to the USA. For the Baltic
countries in means the exchange of one mode of impotence for another,
already force-fed and detested one.
> He added that the decision regarding the 9 May event was up to the
> Baltic leaders to make. "Whatever the decision, we will be building up
> our relations with those countries. We hope that common sense will
> take the upper hand and political pretences will be the domain of
> historians and propagandists," he said.
Baltic leaders should not spit on the opportunity to open a new page in
Baltic Russian relatuions. They should go, acknowledge that May 9 was an
important date in Baltic history, but also remind the world, and Russia,
that it was not the day of victory and liberty that it was or the peoples
of Western Europe and, to a certain extent, of the non-Baltic republics of
the USSR.
The issue of Baltic soldiers, tens of thousands of them, fighting in the
Soviet Army has hardly been touched upon in our discussion. Although many
Baltic men were dragooned into the Red Army, many also volunteered. Some
for purely pragmatic reasons they did not want to be tried for
draft-dodging or treason by the Soviets after the war others because
they regarded a Soviet victory as the lesser of two evils, a few because
they, eyewitnesses to Nazi atrocities as few Europeans were, understood
the exterminationist nature of Nazism and were willing to do anything
possible, including allying themselves with a dictator such as Stalin, to
wipe it out. Surely it would be breach of etiquette for Baltic leaders to
ignore the difficult decisions made by these men by not accepting the
invitation to celebrate the victory over Nazism.
regards,
Eugene Holman
Martin
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-0203...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
None of the Baltic leaders have any difficulty in commemorating the human
sacrifice made by millions of Russians in defeating the Nazis and would
attend without any hesitation if this was the case.
The difficulty comes from Moscow politicising the event and turning it into
a celebration of the "liberation" of Europe by the Red Army, when clearly
most of Eastern Europe was never really liberated or recovered their pre-war
sovereignty or independence, but merely had the occupying forces of one
totalitarian regime replaced by another totalitarian regime.
If Putin was more sensitive to this and promoted the human aspect of the
sacrifice while distancing Russia from the more odious aspects of post war
Stalinist conquest rather than celebrate them, then the Baltic leaders would
not hesitate.
Regards,
Martin
Eugene Holman
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
><deletions>
> ****************
> > historians and propagandists," he said.
>
> This is rather redundant - considering the Russian
> art of history and rapid changes in interpretation -
> as the need arises. And, yes, I did say art. It sure
> as hell ain't a "discipline" over there. Poorly done
> art - yet art nevertheless.
History is a discipline, but hardly a science, even if good history makes
use of the scientific method and logical modes of argumentation.
Had you have ever studied the bases of historiography, you would know that
there are two basic and antithetical approches to the enterprise:
- *factographic* ['fact' + 'recording']: accounting for the facts
surrounding historical events with the highest degree of accuracy possible
and then making selective choices from among these many facts of the ones
that have the most lasting significance according to whatever criterion
you are using as the necessarily subjective guideline for your
historiography;
- *nomothetic* ['law' + 'constructing']: relating the facts surrounding
historical events to analogous facts in other contexts for the purposes of
demonstrating that specific and well-defined sets of circumstances
necessarily result in equally well-defined sets of consequences.
With respect to the first, it is obvious that historiography from the
winners' side is going to result in a markedly different selection of
facts than history written from the losers' side. Consider a history of
Plymouth Colony written from the standpoint of the English colonists who
landed and were saved from disaster by the sympathetic local Amerindians,
only to be dispossessed and annihilated by them once they got their act
together, as opposed to a history written from the standpoint of the
Amerindians. Both could be objectively true, but they would differ
substantially due to different subjective biases with respect to the
selection and analysis of the historical facts.
As concerns the second, you like so much to fulminate about the
impossibility of comparing apples to oranges, but the experience of
history shows that such events as the collapse of colonial empires and
wars necessarily generate well-defined consequences that are typically
dealt with using one of a limited number of options. A good historian is
able to distinguish between the idiosyncratic attributes of a specific
historical event and the more general historical phenomenon of which it is
an instantiation. The Pelopponesian War and the Vietnam War were both
instantiations of the abstract historical phenomenon "war": thus, they had
causes, combatants, strategies, supply lines, battlefields,
camp-followers, starting, turning, and end points, war heroes, deserters,
turncoats, spies, infiltrators, and veterans. A nomothetic historian would
focus on the similarities and ignore the specifics to the extent feasible,
while factographic one would focus on the specifics as unique cases.
Summa summarum. You can't fault Putin, Russia, or many citizens of the
former USSR, particularly if they served in the Red Army or were in the
battle zone along the Eastern Front, for having a radically different
perspective on the events of May 8 and 9, 1945 than the Balts have.
Neither perspective is the objective truth, both are colored by
subjectivism with respect to the selection for emphasis and detailed
interpretation of the same facts. True *understanding* of these events can
only come from an open exchange of ideas between people who, while holding
a specific viewpoint, are open to other interpretations of the same fact.
President Putin has taken a first step to demonstrate that he understands
this. I think that the Baltic leaders should respond in kind.
Best,
Eugene Holman
henry alminas
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-0203...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> <halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>><deletions>
>> > historians and propagandists," he said.
>>
>> This is rather redundant - considering the Russian
>> art of history and rapid changes in interpretation -
>> as the need arises. And, yes, I did say art. It sure
>> as hell ain't a "discipline" over there. Poorly done
>> art - yet art nevertheless.
>
> use of the scientific method and logical modes of argumentation.
>
> Had you have ever studied the bases of historiography, you would know that
> there are two basic and antithetical approches to the enterprise:
> - *factographic* ['fact' + 'recording']: accounting for the facts
> surrounding historical events with the highest degree of accuracy possible
> and then making selective choices from among these many facts of the ones
> that have the most lasting significance according to whatever criterion
> you are using as the necessarily subjective guideline for your
> historiography;
> - *nomothetic* ['law' + 'constructing']: relating the facts surrounding
> historical events to analogous facts in other contexts for the purposes of
> demonstrating that specific and well-defined sets of circumstances
>
> With respect to the first, it is obvious that historiography from the
> winners' side is going to result in a markedly different selection of
> facts than history written from the losers' side. Consider a history of
> landed and were disaster by the sympathetic local Amerindians, only to
> dispossess and annihilate them once they got their act together, as
> opposed to a history written from the standpoint of the Amerindians. Both
> could be objectively true, but they would differ substantially due to
> different subjective biases with respect to the selection and analysis of
> the historical facts.
>
> As concerns the second, you like so much to fulminate about the
> impossibility of comparing apples to oranges, but the experience of
> history shows that such events as the collapse of colonial empires
> with using one of a limited number of options. A good historian is able to
> distinguish between the idiosyncratic attributes of a specific historical
> Pelopponesian War and the Vietnam War were both exemplifications of the
> abstract historical phenomenon "war": thus, they had causes, combatants,
> would focus on the similarities and ignore the differences to the extent
> feasible.
>
> Summa summarum. You can't fault Putin, Russia, or many citizens of the
> former USSR, particularly if they served in the Red Army or were in the
> battle zone along the Eastern Front, for having a radically different
> perspective on the events of May 8 and 9, 1945 than the Balts have.
> subjectivism with respect to the selection for emphasis and detailed
> only come from an open exchange of ideas between people who, while holding
> a specific viewpoint, are open to other interpretations of the same fact.
> President Putin has taken a first step to demonstrate that he understands
> this. I think that the Baltic leaders should respond in kind.
>
> Best,
> Eugene Holman
Oh shit - yet another load.
Best - - Henry
MirTopolskiRexPrez
> The difficulty comes from Moscow politicising the event and turning it into
> a celebration of the "liberation" of Europe by the Red Army, when clearly
> most of Eastern Europe was never really liberated or recovered their pre-war
> sovereignty or independence, but merely had the occupying forces of one
> totalitarian regime replaced by another totalitarian regime.
>
> If Putin was more sensitive to this and promoted the human aspect of the
> sacrifice while distancing Russia from the more odious aspects of post war
> Stalinist conquest rather than celebrate them, then the Baltic leaders would
> not hesitate.
Right. But. Not the Baltic dwarfs, but their US masters are the point.
I'm sure Putin would not order such big show without recent US+UK D-Day
precedence. The yanks celebrated at length their "liberation", so he
thought the Russians must celebrate theirs, too. However, some bright
fellows pointed out that Soviet liberation of Auschwitz (followed by the
"Dresden holocaust") would have suited better for a sovereign 2005 show
of Russian (still better - Slavic) moral superiority over US+UK. Alas,
Putin lost that unique chance ...
Eugene Holman
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Oh shit - yet another load.
Why not just admit that you have never given any serious thought to the
interplay between the objective and the subjective in recording, a
process, the facts from which history is constructed, or of its complex
relation to historiography, the finished product?
Best,
Eugene Holman
mart...@joymail.com
A synopsis of the above: An oblique defence of contemporary Russia's
inability to come to terms with the role of the Soviet Union in
facilitating the start of WW2, by allying with Nazi Germany via the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a two year alliance that secretly divided
eastern europe between two totalitarian regimes and saw Soviet and Nazi
soldiers parading together in celebration of the defeat of Poland.
You can see an image of Soviet Genenral Semyon Moiseyevich Krivoshein
saluting Nazi Geneneral Heinz Guderian, at the military parade crowning
the Nazi-Soviet slaughter of Poland in Brzesc nad Bugiem on Sep. 22,
1939, here:
http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/soviet_deportations/deportations_album_1.html
Will Putin also commemorate the 8000 casualities sustained by the Red
Army in the invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939?
Regards,
Martin
mart...@joymail.com
You can read all about Slavic moral superiority over the US/UK here:
http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/srebrenica.html
Regards,
Martin
lora...@cs.com
It doesn't read very well..
Must be too typically Slavic.
How is old Ratko these days?
Uno Hu
MirTopolskiRexPrez
> MirTopolskiRexPrez wrote:
>>I'm sure Putin would not order such big show without recent US+UK
>>D-Day precedence. The yanks celebrated at length their "liberation",
>>so he thought the Russians must celebrate theirs, too. However,
>>some bright fellows pointed out that Soviet liberation of Auschwitz
>>(followed by the "Dresden holocaust") would have suited better for
>>a sovereign 2005 show of Russian (still better - Slavic) moral
>>superiority over US+UK. Alas, Putin lost that unique chance ...
> You can read all about Slavic moral superiority over the US/UK here:
> http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/srebrenica.html
=-o How was it related to WW2 a/o US-Russian propaganda war in question?
MirTopolskiRexPrez
P.S. Back to the point: 'Slavic' was to mean that, beside Russia,
Belorussia and Ukraine were the main Soviet participants in WW2, ergo
Putin had not the right to disinherit his Slavic brothers ...
mart...@joymail.com
Ofcourse you are correct, it doesn't relate to WW2 at all, my mistake.
However you can read all about Russian moral superiority over US/UK,
related to WW2, here:
www.ipn.gov.pl/eng/eng_vt_soviet17.html
Regards,
Martin
Pēteris Cedriņš
steps and "understanding," I would like to point out that Vovochka spoke in
a context -- the remarks were immediately followed by his "understanding"
of the ravages perpetrated by the Latvian Riflemen, just as his remarks in
Bratislava sought to dilute any condemnation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
with references to Munich. The idea that a new page is being opened for us
to spit upon is ridiculous -- if Putin had any real understanding of the
issues, his Foreign Ministry would not be issuing wads of spittle on a
near-daily basis (frequently with the absurd notation that Europe will
never understand our supposed "revisionism," when many European leaders
have already expressed support for VVF's position, and even appending a
surreal note to the effect that VVF's stance is not shared by most
Latvians), and his Ambassador would not be comparing the EU to the USSR and
calling references to the occupation unacceptable. The new page being
offered is blank -- and as our Foreign Minister pointed out, we cannot base
our relations on a blank page. As Henry put it, Holman -- yet another load.
/P
Eugene Holman
"Pēteris Cedriņš" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I was slightly amused by Holman's lengthy praise for Putin's baby
> steps and "understanding," I would like to point out that Vovochka spoke in
> a context -- the remarks were immediately followed by his "understanding"
> of the ravages perpetrated by the Latvian Riflemen, just as his remarks in
> Bratislava sought to dilute any condemnation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
> with references to Munich.
Putin is first and foremost a *politician*, no matter how flawed, and his
primary constituency is the electorate back home in Russia. He is not
going to publicly denounce Soviet behavior a few weeks before the
celebration of the most glorious day in the history of the Soviet Union.
Stating that he understands that the Baltics have markedly different
feelings about this glorious day already represents an unprecedented
compromise and shows his ability to take the concerns of others into
account in public statements. Would George Bush do such a thing? Vaira
Vike-Freiberga has shown that she has this capability. I was heartened to
see that Putin does also.
> The idea that a new page is being opened for us
> to spit upon is ridiculous -- if Putin had any real understanding of the
> issues, his Foreign Ministry would not be issuing wads of spittle on a
> near-daily basis (frequently with the absurd notation that Europe will
> never understand our supposed "revisionism," when many European leaders
> have already expressed support for VVF's position, and even appending a
> surreal note to the effect that VVF's stance is not shared by most
> Latvians), and his Ambassador would not be comparing the EU to the USSR and
> calling references to the occupation unacceptable.
We are not dealing with a foreign ministry position statement or
historical revisionism. We are dealing with Putin's tacit admission that
the Russian interpretation of the sigificance of the events of May 9, 1945
is not the onyl valid one.
> The new page being
> offered is blank -- and as our Foreign Minister pointed out, we cannot base
> our relations on a blank page. As Henry put it, Holman -- yet another load.
The page already has some content: the Russian president has admitted that
Russia and the Baltics have valid reasons for deriving different
historical conclusions, each colored by local subjectivisms, from the same
objective historical facts. That was the point I was trying to make in
brief essay on the nature of history: historical facts exist objectively,
the manner in which an historian picks and chooses from among these facts
is necessarily subjective. There can be no objective history, but there
can be dialogue and understanding between people who interpret the same
historical events in different ways. VVF started the dialogue, many
European leaders have supported her, and Putin has responded in a
civilized manner.
And what I wrote was not a "load". It was a review of the fundamental
principles of historiography, recently in the headlines in relation to the
trial of revisionist historian David Irving. Henry has little
understanding for the principles underlying humanistic disciplines and
needed a reminder that all history is biased.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Randy McDonald
>
> [deletia]
>
> > The idea that a new page is being opened for us
> > to spit upon is ridiculous -- if Putin had any real understanding of the
> > issues, his Foreign Ministry would not be issuing wads of spittle on a
> > near-daily basis (frequently with the absurd notation that Europe will
> > never understand our supposed "revisionism," when many European leaders
> > have already expressed support for VVF's position, and even appending a
> > surreal note to the effect that VVF's stance is not shared by most
> > Latvians), and his Ambassador would not be comparing the EU to the USSR and
> > calling references to the occupation unacceptable.
>
> We are not dealing with a foreign ministry position statement or
> historical revisionism. We are dealing with Putin's tacit admission that
> the Russian interpretation of the sigificance of the events of May 9, 1945
> is not the onyl valid one.
We are dealing with Putin's continued acceptance of an ahistorical
Soviet mythology. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact--the Soviet Union becoming
a _co-belligerent_ of Nazi Germany in Poland!--was of secondary
importance, was it?
> [deletia]
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
--
R.F. McDonald
r_f_mc...@yahoo.ca
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rfmcdpei/
"What! call a Turk, a Jew, and a Siamese, my brother? Yes, of course;
for are we all not children of the same father, and the creatures of
the same God?"
- Voltaire, from _Treatise on Tolerance,_ 1763
Kovas
"Randy McDonald" <rfmcd...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4227BC...@sympatico.ca...
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>>
>> [deletia]
Hmm... as derived from the Medieval French: de tailler; to cut into
small parts?
(;-)
snip
>>
>> Regards,
>> Eugene Holman
>
> --
> R.F. McDonald
> r_f_mc...@yahoo.ca
SNIP