A question to Martin
vkar...@yahoo.com
Is there anything that you don't blame Russians for?
For example, I know you blame Rusisans for Stalin's crimes against
Latvians at the end of WWII. How about German vicitms? Do you blame
the Russians for the Red Army's crimes against German civilians, say,
in February, March, April and the first week of May of 1945? Did the
Red Army do anything wrong then?
martin
Is this some stupid opening gambit for some more Baltophobic
demogoguery from you, or have you been drinking too much?
Regards,
Martin
Henry Alminas
"martin" <mart...@joymail.com> wrote in message
news:1147994335.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin -
I suspect that in his case it was too little.
Best - - Henry
vkar...@yahoo.com
No, Martin, this has absolutely nothing to do with Latvia, Lithuania or
Estonia. I swear. Not relation whatsoever. This is primarily about
Germany and WWII. Please answer.
///////////////////////////////
And, BTW, for the record: I have absoluterly no particular dislike for
the Baltic states. I was among activists who worked hard for Baltic
independence from the USSR in the 1980s and am as proud of that as
ever.
It's just that soc.culture.baltics is the only Usenet group devoted
exclusively to "hate Russia" posts and posters. If soc.culture.swiss or
soc.culture.malta were like that, I would post similar sarcastic posts
about Switzerland and Malta....
vkar...@yahoo.com
No, Martin, this has absolutely nothing to do with Latvia, Lithuania or
MTRP™
> And, BTW, for the record: I have absoluterly no particular dislike for
> the Baltic states. I was among activists who worked hard for Baltic
> independence from the USSR in the 1980s
Well, Petya reminded us of Georg Buchner's: "The Revolution is like
Saturn - it devours its own children."
martin
vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> martin wrote:
> > vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Martin,
> > >
> > > Is there anything that you don't blame Russians for?
> > >
> > > For example, I know you blame Rusisans for Stalin's crimes against
> > > Latvians at the end of WWII. How about German vicitms? Do you blame
> > > the Russians for the Red Army's crimes against German civilians, say,
> > > in February, March, April and the first week of May of 1945? Did the
> > > Red Army do anything wrong then?
> >
> > Is this some stupid opening gambit for some more Baltophobic
> > demogoguery from you, or have you been drinking too much?
> >
>
> No, Martin, this has absolutely nothing to do with Latvia, Lithuania or
> Estonia. I swear. Not relation whatsoever. This is primarily about
> Germany and WWII. Please answer.
I'm not familiar with German post-war history, so I can't comment.
>
> ///////////////////////////////
> And, BTW, for the record: I have absoluterly no particular dislike for
> the Baltic states. I was among activists who worked hard for Baltic
> independence from the USSR in the 1980s and am as proud of that as
> ever.
>
> It's just that soc.culture.baltics is the only Usenet group devoted
> exclusively to "hate Russia" posts and posters. If soc.culture.swiss or
> soc.culture.malta were like that, I would post similar sarcastic posts
> about Switzerland and Malta....
There you go, the Baltophobic demogoguery begins already with your lie
that soc.culture.baltics is the only Usenet group devoted exclusively
to "hate Russia" posts and posters.
Regards,
Martin
vkar...@yahoo.com
martin wrote:
> vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > martin wrote:
> > > vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Martin,
> > > >
> > > > Is there anything that you don't blame Russians for?
> > > >
> > > > For example, I know you blame Rusisans for Stalin's crimes against
> > > > Latvians at the end of WWII. How about German vicitms? Do you blame
> > > > the Russians for the Red Army's crimes against German civilians, say,
> > > > in February, March, April and the first week of May of 1945? Did the
> > > > Red Army do anything wrong then?
> > >
> > > Is this some stupid opening gambit for some more Baltophobic
> > > demogoguery from you, or have you been drinking too much?
> > >
> >
> > No, Martin, this has absolutely nothing to do with Latvia, Lithuania or
> > Estonia. I swear. Not relation whatsoever. This is primarily about
> > Germany and WWII. Please answer.
>
> I'm not familiar with German post-war history, so I can't comment.
>
I am asking about during-war history.
But obviouisly you are not going to give your opinion nayway.
> >
> > ///////////////////////////////
> > And, BTW, for the record: I have absoluterly no particular dislike for
> > the Baltic states. I was among activists who worked hard for Baltic
> > independence from the USSR in the 1980s and am as proud of that as
> > ever.
> >
> > It's just that soc.culture.baltics is the only Usenet group devoted
> > exclusively to "hate Russia" posts and posters. If soc.culture.swiss or
> > soc.culture.malta were like that, I would post similar sarcastic posts
> > about Switzerland and Malta....
>
> There you go, the Baltophobic demogoguery begins already with your lie
> that soc.culture.baltics is the only Usenet group devoted exclusively
> to "hate Russia" posts and posters.
>
Really? Name another one.
Eugene Holman
"martin" <mart...@joymail.com> wrote:
<deletions>
> >
> > No, Martin, this has absolutely nothing to do with Latvia, Lithuania or
> > Estonia. I swear. Not relation whatsoever. This is primarily about
> > Germany and WWII. Please answer.
>
> I'm not familiar with German post-war history, so I can't comment.
He's not asking about German post-war history. He's asking about the Red
Army's crimes against German civilians during the last three months of the
war. As you probably know this was of Holocaust-like proportions. Millions
of Germans were trying to escape to the western part of the country from
East Prussia, Silesia, the Sudetenland, and Berlin itself as the Red Army
was advancing. The vengeance-seeking Red Army, in turn, was not above
raping, slaughtering, and torturing any German civilians that they managed
to get their hands on, although it would be unfair to claim that they
always behaved this unprofessionally. As I am sure you know, the last days
of the war in Berlin were a human catastrophe of epic proportions
compounded by the German effort to fight to the last breath and man, and
the Red Army's effort to spare nothing in its drive for a complete German
capitulation.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
vkar...@yahoo.com
vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> martin wrote:
> > vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > martin wrote:
> > > > vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > Martin,
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there anything that you don't blame Russians for?
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, I know you blame Rusisans for Stalin's crimes against
> > > > > Latvians at the end of WWII. How about German vicitms? Do you blame
> > > > > the Russians for the Red Army's crimes against German civilians, say,
> > > > > in February, March, April and the first week of May of 1945? Did the
> > > > > Red Army do anything wrong then?
> > > >
> > > > Is this some stupid opening gambit for some more Baltophobic
> > > > demogoguery from you, or have you been drinking too much?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, Martin, this has absolutely nothing to do with Latvia, Lithuania or
> > > Estonia. I swear. Not relation whatsoever. This is primarily about
> > > Germany and WWII. Please answer.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with German post-war history, so I can't comment.
> >
>
> I am asking about during-war history.
>
> But obviouisly you are not going to give your opinion nayway.
>
"nayway" is what the members of DAM write when they mean "anyway".
vkar...@yahoo.com
No, the Russian pro-Baltics activists devouring each other's children
doesn't worry me. What worries me is a certain Uncle S., who likes to
devour other people's children as well as to cheerfully sacrifice
thousands of his own children for the benefit of a certain company that
has "...XX..." (two X's) in the middle of its name, a certain other
company that has "...LL...." (two L's) in the middle of its name, and
a certain third company that has a "...CKH..." in the middle of its
name...
The latter is famous for the fact that its management is so incompetent
that even the official company slogan is written in a really pathetic
Pidgin English:
'We never forget who we're working for."
All I can say is that whenever I see my tax bill and how much of it
goes to the military-industrial complex, I sure know, whose benefit I
am working for. And whose benefit our children are dyng for in Iraq.
Hard to forget.
MTRP™
> "martin" <mart...@joymail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not familiar with German post-war history, so I can't comment.
> He's not asking about German post-war history. He's asking about the Red
> Army's crimes against German civilians during the last three months of the
> war. As you probably know this was of Holocaust-like proportions.
Crap. First off, you better call it "anti-Holocaust-like proportions".
So sez logic. For it all has begun as German Vernichtungskrieg against
SU. Second, Soviet "antisymmetric" revenge for German genocide on
Soviet soil was much, much softer than most Germans rightfully
expected. After all, unlike UK and USA the Soviets did not bomb all
crap out of German cities far away from all frontlines and unlike UK
and USA they killed less German civilians than German soldiers. One can
hardly blame Brits for this, since they were treated analogously by
Germans. But US civilians weren't harmed by German military.
> Millions
> of Germans were trying to escape to the western part of the country from
> East Prussia, Silesia, the Sudetenland, and Berlin itself as the Red Army
> was advancing.
Yep. Quite logically, they thought that the Soviets will behave like
Germans in SU, so they had thousands of reasons to flee West ... to
Dresden, where they got exterminated by UK + US bombers. Anyway it's
old hat now and Russian never-ending WW2 obsession is odd, unless it's
directed against US post Cold War brainwashing (see above).
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
be blamed for heinous crimes against German civilians. Mass rape,
murder, the ethnic cleansing of extensive territories, etc. Most
revealingly, compare what happened on both sides of the German divide
-- West Germany became a prosperous democracy; East Germany transformed
Nazi totalitarianism into Russian-dominated communist totalitarianism.
On what is now Kaliningrad, George F. Kennan put it best: "It is one
thing for a great country to develop a territory for its own uses. It
is another thing for it first to devastate and then to appropriate to
itself, or to its sphere of influence, an area which it is incapable of
restoring, or is disinclined to restore, even to the levels of
production that prevailed at the outset of this century. It is another
thing, in other words, to take fertile territory merely in order to
turn it, because this suits one's military convenience, into a
wilderness." (George F. Kennan, _Memoirs 1925-1950_. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company/Atlantic Monthly Press, 1967.)
Are you suggesting, Karlamov, that German brutality against Russian
civilians justifies Russian brutality against German civilians?
Vsego khoroshego,
/P
captain.
>
> There you go, the Baltophobic demogoguery begins already with your lie
> that soc.culture.baltics is the only Usenet group devoted exclusively
> to "hate Russia" posts and posters.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
technically speaking, this could avoid being labeled anti-baltic because
karla was making a point of only attacking the baltic newsgroup, and not the
baltic states themselves.
as to some of his other posts, well, i'll leave that up to you.
Henry Alminas
"MTRPT" <Mir.To...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1148029858....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Vlad lectures:
" After all, unlike UK and USA the Soviets did not bomb all
> crap out of German cities far away from all frontlines and unlike UK
> and USA they killed less German civilians than German soldiers."
Well, Vlad, ya see it is this way - the russkies simply did not have
the capability to do so.
Best - - Henry
ladzius
vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> And, BTW, for the record: I have absoluterly no particular dislike for
> the Baltic states. I was among activists who worked hard for Baltic
> independence from the USSR in the 1980s and am as proud of that as
> ever.
Did you play truant and get away saying you've been to the rally ?
L.
MTRP™
Forget Vlad, weirdo. It was MTRP™.
> Well, Vlad [disclaimer - MTRP™], ya see it is this way - the russkies simply did
> not have the capability to do so.
Irrelevant crap. Irrelevant cuz I'm talking about facts, not dreams.
Crap cuz Uncle Joe was very smart fellow who realized much earlier than
his US counterparts that friendly post-war Germany might be very useful
ally in the next war. Funny thing that - once again - it was only "it's
economy, stupid!" that eventually determined the winner, USA, in the
post-war battle for Germany. Still, SU was better in moralizing and
soul-searching. But of course Germans always used to be more
pro-american ... Hitler's anti-americanism was never shared by German
majority. The Japanese weren't antiamerican either ... the Axis' whole
war strategy was extremely ill-managed (to say the least).
Vladimir Makarenko
Well, first I do not lecture, second it's not written by me.
Concerning the topic - the US went reluctantly along British idea of
massive bombings and eventually gave up to Brits under pressure from the
very top. Some bombings were committed by British alone.
Happy now Henry?
VM.
Estland
course, they did not a-bomb Japan! How merciful of SU! It almost makes
me cry.
ladzius
MTRP™ wrote:
>
> Yep. Quite logically, they thought that the Soviets will behave like
> Germans in SU, so they had thousands of reasons to flee West ... to
> Dresden, where they got exterminated by UK + US bombers.
following your "logic" the survivors should've turned eastwards.
Ok, maybe not immediately after the Dresden bombing, but sure
after they'd got to appreciate Stalin's endeavors to be "friendly", no
?
But how come they kept fleeing West, not stopping for the next 50
years ?
L.
MTRP™
> MTRP™ wrote:
> > Yep. Quite logically, they thought that the Soviets will behave like
> > Germans in SU, so they had thousands of reasons to flee West ... to
> > Dresden, where they got exterminated by UK + US bombers.
> following your "logic" the survivors should've turned eastwards.
??? It's your masochistic logic, weirdo. It has nothing to do with my
perfect & tuly sci logic.
> Ok, maybe not immediately after the Dresden bombing, but sure
> after they'd got to appreciate Stalin's endeavors to be "friendly", no
> ?
Sure. Soon after capitulation many moved to East Germany - even those
who moved from Germany to USA during Hitler's reign. Not those who got
killed in Dresden though (guess why, genius?)
> But how come they kept fleeing West, not stopping for the next 50
> years ?
It's economy, stupid! I mentioned it already. Try to read postings
before sending your idiotic rebuttals. And hey, they are still fleeing
... the rest of them, that is.
ladzius
numbers, please . Brecht and Merkel's dad ain't "many" .
vkar...@yahoo.com
Among other things, we organized all kinds of political actions here in
USA. We also traveled to Riga, held coordination meetings with
independence activists in Latvia, and brought charity money to them.
Especially my wife was quite a significant player.
IMBIERAS
actions here in
USA. We also traveled to Riga, held coordination meetings with
independence activists in Latvia, and brought charity money to them.
Especially my wife was quite a significant player."
I find that rather hard to believe. Care to give some more details?
(Names, times, places.)
vkar...@yahoo.com
No. But Martin certainly does:
martin wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > lora...@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > > vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Maybe not soldiers but certainly American pilots did just that to
> > > > hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in Hiroshima,
> > > > Nagasaki and Dresden, just to name a few.
> > > >
> > > > Has any of them been sentenced to jail? How about the American
> > > > politicians and generals who gave them the orders to commit these mass
> > > > atrocities?
> > > >
> > > > I know the usual excuse: "all these German and Japanese women and
> > > > children were America's enemies in WWII and thus were fair game for
> > > > extermination." Just like innocent Panamanian, Yugoslav and Iraqi
> > > > civilians 50 years later...
> > > >
> > > > Hypocrites...
>
> > Kononov ... His fate
> > is thus far less fortunate than those people lucky enough to have
> > committed war crimes but live in countries that did not collapse, with the
> > tables being reversed, such as the "good guys" who bombed Hiroshima,
> > Nagasaki
>
> Given that 200,000 people dying every month throughout Asia, the
> Japanese order to execute more than 100,000 prisoners of war, the
> estimated 1,000,000 American casualties expected in the taking of the
> Japanese mainland, and the project death toll by stavation of over
> 10,000,000 Japanese civilians, not bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki would
> be criminal.
>
> > and, particularly, Dresden. Dresden is the least defensible of
> > the three,
>
> Nazi Germany only has itself to blame for Dresden, having set the
> precedant with the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War in
> 1937.
>
Do you hypocritically agree with Martin, Peteris? Did Germany and Japan
do enough damage to the American civilians to justify the three
holocausts (two of them nuclear) that USA committed in Dresden, Hirosim
and Nagasaki?
Are the genicidal exterminations of some 5 million of Russian and
Polish Jews and of more than 20 million of other Bealrusan, Russian and
Ukrianian civilians; the destruction of Soviet cities; and the
desolation of virtually all of Belarusan, West and South Russian, and
Ukrianian lands not justifications enough for the Soviet anger at
Germans?
Tweny five million civilian victims!!! That's 10 times more than the
population of Latvia.
Could you please remind us how many American civilians were brutally
exterminated by Germans and Japanese? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?
Historically genocidal countries of Germany, USA, Turkey and their NATO
buddies perpetrate a culture of hypocricy and double standard.
>
> Vsego khoroshego,
> /P
I Vam togo zhe.
Vladimir Makarenko
and of course numbers,- such as SSN, checking account, credit cards,
etc.
VM.
Henry Alminas
<vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148064990.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Vsego khoroshego,
> /P
I Vam togo zhe.
Hell - Stalin's boys killed more russkies than the krauts ever did.
That is not to mention all the other nationalities that they killed.
Perhaps that is why the russkies are so popular in the Baltics -
do you think? I repeat - do you ever think?
Best - - Henry
Henry Alminas
<vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148064028.4...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Was that the "wife" with the $300,000,000 million or one of
the subsequent ones?
Best - - Henry
Vladimir Makarenko
Oops, Henry are you looking for something? Make sure a prenup will be
Rooski proof.
VM.
IMBIERAS
Yeah, Togo is a great place , Karla. You should go there and stay
there.
Vladimir Makarenko
Wow, I knew they kicked you out from Australia, but not that the story
repeated itself in Togo.
Aren't they all French there?
VM.
vkar...@yahoo.com
Do you really care? I didn't think so.
vkar...@yahoo.com
Well, the mad Georgians Stalin and Beria did kill millions of Russians,
including several of my close relatives. But Russians don't feel any
resentments towards Gerogia for that. We are not like certain hateful
dwarf nations that live to revenge 60-year-old wrongs.
Although the fact that Georigia still continues ot produce one mad
leader after another - Gamsakhurdia, Shevardnadze, Saakashvili - is
bothersome. But it's Gerogia's problem now.
Идет 1955 год. Один грузин приехал в
гости к своему генацвали в Москву. Тот
повел его в Мавзолей Сталина-Ленина.
Показывает:
- Видишь, каким уважением наш Сосо
пользуется?
- Вижу. А кто это рядом с ним лежит?
- А это его орден Ленина.
>
> That is not to mention all the other nationalities that they killed.
>
Then send the bill to Saakashvili. He has no money, but he will pay you
in fecal wines. Or maybe he'll assassinate or poison somebody for free
for you. He is very good at that. Poisoned even his own Prime Minister
to death.
>
> Perhaps that is why the russkies are so popular in the Baltics -
> do you think? I repeat - do you ever think?
>
Yes, Comrade Stalin has committed lots of crimes in the Baltics 60
years ago. But you should finally forget and move on, as much as the
rest of the World forgot and moved on with respect to Germany and its
Nazi crimes. You are best friends and allies with Germany, aren't you?
vkar...@yahoo.com
I can do even better than that. I can mail them to you. What's your
address?
vkar...@yahoo.com
You mean, not "bombing all crap out of German cities" and not
"a-bombing Japanese cities" isn't much of an accomlishment? Maybe only
truly deranged and genocidal nations would do that? You are probably
right.
Then do you know any such deranged and genocidal nation that did
actually "bomb all the crap out of German civilain cities" and nuked
Japanese cities? Name it.
Can you name any other one? Or is that one uniquely genocidal and
deranged? Does htis country happen to be hte one that's now running
your government and your military?
vkar...@yahoo.com
IMBIERAS wrote:
> vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
>
> > > Vsego khoroshego,
> > > /P
> >
> > I Vam togo zhe.
>
> Yeah, Togo is a great place , Karla. You should go there and stay
> there.
>
I guess your Russian is just as laughable as your German.
The phrase: Vsego khoroshego" means "All the best to you",
while "I Vam togo zhe" means "The same to you too".
Henry Alminas
<vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148072016.9...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
???? 1955 ???. ???? ?????? ??????? ?
????? ? ?????? ????????? ? ??????. ???
????? ??? ? ???????? ???????-??????.
??????????:
- ??????, ????? ????????? ??? ????
???????????
- ????. ? ??? ??? ????? ? ??? ??????
- ? ??? ??? ????? ??????.
>
> That is not to mention all the other nationalities that they killed.
>
Then send the bill to Saakashvili. He has no money, but he will pay you
in fecal wines. Or maybe he'll assassinate or poison somebody for free
for you. He is very good at that. Poisoned even his own Prime Minister
to death.
>
> Perhaps that is why the russkies are so popular in the Baltics -
> do you think? I repeat - do you ever think?
>
Yes, Comrade Stalin has committed lots of crimes in the Baltics 60
years ago. But you should finally forget and move on, as much as the
rest of the World forgot and moved on with respect to Germany and its
Nazi crimes.
****************
You are best friends and allies with Germany, aren't you?
******************
The last I heard the russkies and krautodis are playing kissy-poo
again - just as back in the Molotov Ribbentrop days and before
when the russkies were providing Germany with all kinds
of goodies - remember your history lessons? Och - what am
I thinking - I am certain that these details were sorta left
out of your "history of matushka" books - no?
Best - - Henry
vkar...@yahoo.com
He means the American sandwich shop named 'Togo's" (from the phrase "to
go"). This is the main place where the American business beefs up the
American public for the ritual ... at Christmas. Gintas must have
visited it on his trip to Kalamazoo and still cannot forget the
pleasure. "A great place" indeed.
Vladimir Makarenko
OK, it's already exhausting - face it once and forever: no pipe on
Baltics territory, no transit fees, nothing. Try to talk Adamkus into
black ops of bootlegging Georgian "wine" and "mineral water" (since then
toxic metals are called minerals?) to Saudi Arabia instead of running
black ops on Belorussia.
VM.
vkar...@yahoo.com
vkarla...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
> > IMBIERAS wrote:
> > >
> > > vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vsego khoroshego,
> > > > > /P
> > > >
> > > > I Vam togo zhe.
> > >
> > > Yeah, Togo is a great place , Karla. You should go there and stay
> > > there.
> >
> > Wow, I knew they kicked you out from Australia, but not that the story
> > repeated itself in Togo.
> > Aren't they all French there?
> >
>
And BTW, the people of Togo aren't French. You are probably thinking
about Tahiti in the French Polynesia.
Vladimir Makarenko
vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> vkarla...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
> > > IMBIERAS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vsego khoroshego,
> > > > > > /P
> > > > >
> > > > > I Vam togo zhe.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, Togo is a great place , Karla. You should go there and stay
> > > > there.
> > >
> > > Wow, I knew they kicked you out from Australia, but not that the story
> > > repeated itself in Togo.
> > > Aren't they all French there?
> > >
> >
>
> And BTW, the people of Togo aren't French. You are probably thinking
> about Tahiti in the French Polynesia.
Every ex French colony for him is an Euro Frenchisee.
VM.
«Pas de deux»
news:1148072427.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Ho ho ho ... do I want to buy Brooklyn Bridge? No, just post the info
on SCB.
«Pas de deux»
news:1148073047.6...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
No kidding?
Just as well you don't know who you're dealing with. I could
outmanoeuvre you in seven languages, probably in Russian too. (Written,
not spoken.)
Vladimir Makarenko
He doesn't have an email address. He is posting from public server for
for homeless moonshiners.
VM.
martin
Is that why you became an American citizen, to be a part of this so
called "culture of hypocricy and double standard"?
Regards,
Martin
vkar...@yahoo.com
«Pas de deux» wrote:
> <vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148073047.6...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> IMBIERAS wrote:
> > vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> >
> > > > Vsego khoroshego,
> > > > /P
> > >
> > > I Vam togo zhe.
> >
> > Yeah, Togo is a great place , Karla. You should go there and stay
> > there.
> >
>
> > I guess your Russian is just as laughable as your German.
>
> > The phrase: Vsego khoroshego" means "All the best to you",
>
> > while "I Vam togo zhe" means "The same to you too".
>
> No kidding?
>
> Just as well you don't know who you're dealing with.
>
LOL! You are full of yourself, aren't you?
>
> I could outmanoeuvre you in seven languages, probably in Russian too. (Written,
> not spoken.)
>
Is your written Russian almost as good as your written German? As in:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.magyar/msg/d5ef91110aef3925?dmode=source
«Pas de deux» wrote:
>
> Subject: der Indoeuropäische Urheimat
>
I have had only 1 year of German in college and haven't seen German
for 20 years ever since then. Yet, even I remembered that the most
common word in the German language "Heimat" ("home") is feminine and
not masculine and should be written as "die
Heimat", not "der Heimat". Which means that you know less German than
do average American teenagers after 2 months of German classes in high
school.
As far as trying to fight me in written Russian goes... Well, you sure
are the most pompous idiot on Earth. You are so full of yourself that
it makes your blue eyes brown, to paraphrase a song.
/////////////////
BTW, Gintas, are you now posting both as «Pas de deux»
<kamou...@sympatico.ca> and as IMBIERAS <imbi...@netscape.net> at
the same time? Don't. You will drive Widass (aka "Darsiaubas") to
another epileptic fit and maybe even to an early grave.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Privet, Karlamov!
[I include remarks on Makarenko's and Holman's recent posts.]
It makes little sense for Russians to feel resentment towards Georgians
due to Stalin and Beria (but not a few _do_, contrary to what you
suggest), because both Stalin and Beria served the Russian/Soviet
state. Stalin's ethnic origin, and part of his culture, were Georgian,
but he identified with and led the Soviet/Russian state. He destroyed
independent Georgia "with a cold-blooded cynicism, at a time when the
Bolsheviks were calling loudly for the sovereign independence of all
nations." (Robert Payne, _The Rise and Fall of Stalin_ ...Payne also
describes how "the Red Army entered Tiflis, looting, raping and
murdering on a scale which was unheard of since the time of Tamerlane"
-- I'm quite curious about exactly what Eugene might mean with his
typically insipid "it would be unfair to claim that [the Red Army]
always behaved this unprofessionally" [Where and when did the Red Army
behave with a respectable "professionalism," exactly? In the Baltics?
In those parts of Central Europe where hospitals had to be emptied to
make room for the rape victims, including grandmothers and some of the
women who had welcomed them?])
Your suggestion, Karlamov, is of the same type that you try to make
with the Riflemen -- you focus upon foreigners raping Russia, when
neither the Latvians nor the Georgians were foreigners prior to the
point where our states were able to extend citizenship -- they were
Russian subjects, and those who sided with Bolsheviks retained their
Russian (Soviet Russian, later Soviet) alliegance; the Red Riflemen
that remained in Russia after Latvia was established were not Latvian
citizens. Stalin was not a Georgian citizen. So you are, as so often,
talking about _ethnicity_, not _nationality_. It is utterly ridiculous
to read Makarenko's warmed-over Soviet nationalities policy [in the
Lavrov thread] and simultaneously entertain arguments that the USSR was
not Russia or Russia is not the USSR. Not only is this a matter of
Russia (Great Russians) taking credit for everything the Soviets did
that Russians think "good" -- it also becomes a matter of Russia being
Great Russian whenever convenient -- the "federation" was on most
levels a complete sham, and today's Russia is merely yet another form
of the same empire, minus its periphery. It has to be -- the only real
choices are to decentralize and diminish the domination of the Great
Russians (something that is completely unacceptable to the chauvinistic
and increasingly nationalistic Russians), let the prisoners go (also
unacceptable, despite the ethnic hatred of Russians for many of their
supposed compatriots), or continue to rule with a variation of the same
often dysfunctional and anti-democratic structure.
You, Karlamov, keep accusing others of ethnic bigotry -- but it is you
who emphasize and distort the ethnic elements of these problems (there
are obviously bigots here, yes [and no doubt a little bigot in each of
us], but you are unable to distinguish ethnic bigotry from social
problems (as in John's arguments) and national (and international)
problems. There is doubtless a slight vengeful taint to some Baltic
politics ("dwarves" are human, and even the most "liberal" rape victim
tends to be affected by memory), but it is exceedingly minor compared
to Baltic pragmatism within the horrible circumstances for which the
USSR/Russia and Germany were primarily responsible.
> Although the fact that Georigia still continues ot produce one mad
> leader after another - Gamsakhurdia, Shevardnadze, Saakashvili - is
> bothersome. But it's Gerogia's problem now.
>
> Идет 1955 год. Один грузин приехал в
> гости к своему генацвали в Москву. Тот
> повел его в Мавзолей Сталина-Ленина.
> Показывает:
> - Видишь, каким уважением наш Сосо
> пользуется?
> - Вижу. А кто это рядом с ним лежит?
> - А это его орден Ленина.
>
> >
> > That is not to mention all the other nationalities that they killed.
> >
>
> Then send the bill to Saakashvili. He has no money, but he will pay you
> in fecal wines. Or maybe he'll assassinate or poison somebody for free
> for you. He is very good at that. Poisoned even his own Prime Minister
> to death.
>
> >
> > Perhaps that is why the russkies are so popular in the Baltics -
> > do you think? I repeat - do you ever think?
> >
>
> Yes, Comrade Stalin has committed lots of crimes in the Baltics 60
> years ago. But you should finally forget and move on, as much as the
> rest of the World forgot and moved on with respect to Germany and its
> Nazi crimes. You are best friends and allies with Germany, aren't you?
We've been through this argument many times before -- to return to the
rape analogy, it is not possible (and would be unhealthy and dangerous)
to "forgive and forget" the rape if the rapist is utterly unrepentant,
continues to threaten rape, still rapes others, and runs around
maligning the victim.
The world moved on with regard to Germany because Germany moved on --
it is a democratic society which condemns and regrets Nazi crimes and
no longer resembles either Nazo Germany nor the Prussian-dominated
militaristic state that preceded its earlier defeat. It is one of the
least nationalistic large countries in the world. You do not see German
diplomats denying the invasion of Czechoslovakia in Prague, but you do
see Russian diplomats vociferously denying the occupation of Latvia in
Rīga. Germans do not generally respond to remarks on the Holocaust by
praising the Autobahn as Russians very often respond to comment on
Soviet crimes by praising industrialization.
Nor is it a matter of how we treat the past -- in the present, Russia
continues to defend and support vile régimes and groups from Syria and
Hamas to Myanmar, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Transnistria. Russia engages
in genocide against "its own" people in Ichkeria, and Russia abuses
international bodies to wage an incessant propaganda war based upon
calumny against the Baltics. Gentlemen like Luzhkov compare the
democratically elected government of Latvia to Pol Pot's régime. Major
politicians like Rogozin support subversive movements here and stand in
front of maps of the USSR declaring that the Soviet Union (not Russia)
is their _rodina_. Putin, the "proud chekist," calls the collapse of
the USSR "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th C" -- when
was the last time you heard a German calling the fall of the Third
Reich tragic, Karlamov?
It is in our interests to support Moldova, Georgia, the Belarusian
opposition, etc. There's nothing "Russophobic" about it -- Latvian
democrats have also had a close relationship with Yabloko, for example,
and as you no doubt realize (though I don't think anybody here believes
your claim to that you were a pro-Baltic activist) Russian democrats
and Baltic democrats were once closely entwined -- that is no longer
true to such a degree only because there are few true democrats in
Russia, and many of the Russian democrats retain the age-old
Russo-Soviet chauvinism that we know as poison. There is a constant
acrobatics in which parts of that legacy are denied while other parts
are rehabilitated. There is also a mind-boggling lack of information
(and a plethora of disinformation) on what Baltic policies actually
are; many people in Russia think that citizenship in Estonia and Latvia
was extended along ethnic lines, for instance, and even diplomats and
members of the Duma tend to be unutterably misinformed (as witnessed by
Lavrov's numbers just this week).
The focus of my reading of late has been on Latvian history
ca.1850-1920, and that means reading literally hundreds of accounts of
just how horrible Tsarist rule was in that period -- not just in its
policies but in its very culture. Any such reading would allow you to
see its echoes in Soviet rule and in contemporary Russian political
ideologies -- much of the Russian debate I overhear is practically a
rehash of 19th C debate, sorry.
I'm not going to waste time on arguing with you about German and/or
Soviet culpability, Karlamov -- yes, Hiroshima, Dresden, etc., were
horrible things. Every nation has its sins, and larger nations tend to
have larger sins -- empires have the largest ones of all, but I (and
most anybody in Eastern Europe) would take the American empire over the
Russian empire any day, sorry. So would most individuals interested in
individual freedom -- certain persons can twist and turn and invoke the
Native Americans or manifest destiny all they like -- this is Europe,
and it's the 21st C, not the 19th. Europe and Europe's former reaches
(the US, New Zealand, etc.) are the most prosperous and most advanced
societies we have, and it has taken a lot of time and a lot of effort
to build them; diluting their structure to pander to Putinism or .
Those in Western Europe who forget that the United States saved them in
two world wars and protected them from the Soviets are, excuse me,
simply fucked up -- curiously enough, many of the most fervent
apologists for the USSR/Russia (which they lace with vehement claims
about the supposedly vast difference between the two) are Russians (and
pro-Russian ex-Soviets) in enjoying the good life in California,
Brighton Beach, or Oz, like you. See a shrink, Karlamov!
"The fact is that Stalin's Russia was never a fit partner for the West
in the cause of resistance to fascism. Russia herself was, throughout
these years, the scene of the most nightmarish, Orwellian orgies of
modern totalitarianism." -- Kennan, _Russia and the West under Lenin
and Stalin_.
>From an interesting paper entitled "The Institutional Design of the
Russian State," by Clive Tempest:
"The thesis so far advanced is that the Imperial Russian State and the
Soviet State exhibited a distinct continuity. They cannot be understood
unless we realise that a set of often inefficient institutions were
salvaged by interacting with a set of social groups and interests that
were allowed to pursue their own interest, provided they carried out
state functions. Often this was done sloppily and inefficiently. The
interaction of this state and society is probably the central leitmotif
of Russian literature from Gogol to Solzhenitsyn. Both the state forms
of the earlier periods see a coexistence with social formations both
traditional and sui generis (the nomenklatura) that allow it to make
policy, albeit in an inefficient manner. The Russian State has more
affinity with those of underdeveloped, third world states than those of
the 'west'. The well known gibe 'Upper Volta with Rockets' encapsulates
this view."
We don't want to live in Upper Volta with Rockets, sorry, but we do
have to live next to it. Nothing against individuals of Burkinabè
ethnicity or descent -- no denial of Russian cultural heights or the
warmth and generosity of the Russian people is necessary. The brief
period during which Albright used the phrase is over, and we can look
forward to an increase in the number and quality of rockets and Kremlin
power -- Russians can look forward to what the Marquis de Custine said,
cited in Tempest. Most Balts are very sympathetic to those Russians who
can face their history and want to see change -- gentlemen like Holman
love to harp upon the lovely advantages we have in knowing Russia so
well, trying to paint the rape as something less than a rape, but will
pay no heed to the fruits of that knowledge, piping up to make excuses
for Putin at every opportunity, while those who were deeply involved
with what they hoped would be Russian democracy sound dire warnings
about rapid backsliding. Russia's geopolitical ambitions have hardly
changed at all under Tsar or Gensek or President, and dressing one's
national/imperial chauvinism up in international costume meant very
little.
Vsego khoroshego,
/P
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
The Marquis de Custine quote is: "In Russia the government dominates
everything and gives life to nothing".
The phrase "diluting their structure to pander to Putinism or" should
end before the "or"; I was going to write more, but have rambled
enough...
/P
ladzius
lie.
In the 1980 you couldn't "just travel" from the USA to Riga with
pockets full of cash to finance the overthrow of soviet regime.
vello
Poor Karlamov, Stalin had as much common with Georgia as
Schickelgruber-Hitler with Austria. And - surprise for you probably -
life and work of one Karol Woityla as Pope is counted as Holy
Seat/Vaticans, not as Polish one. So next year when you will get your
Nobel prize, it will be counted as US not Russian celebration - sad,
but true.
>
> >
> > Perhaps that is why the russkies are so popular in the Baltics -
> > do you think? I repeat - do you ever think?
> >
>
> Yes, Comrade Stalin has committed lots of crimes in the Baltics 60
> years ago. But you should finally forget and move on, as much as the
> rest of the World forgot and moved on with respect to Germany and its
> Nazi crimes. You are best friends and allies with Germany, aren't you?
Weird, but you talk the thing. Sure we all must forgot past to have
better future. Germans had made their homework, you hardly find some of
them supporting Hitler's activities. Let's hope Russia will reach that
level also one happy day. Day both Russians and Germans will think that
fall of their totalitarian Empires was a great day in history, not
catastrophe as Putin and imaginable Fritz Nazidorff are declaring.
vello
Discussion is running into stupidity. ww2 was real war when both sides
used EVERYTHING to put enemy down. Lack of nukes or long-range planes
don't make russians or romanians less/more "genocidal" - as germans and
americans they used anything they had in hands.
vkar...@yahoo.com
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
Nashe Vam!
>
> [I include remarks on Makarenko's and Holman's recent posts.]
>
> It makes little sense for Russians to feel resentment towards Georgians
> due to Stalin and Beria (but not a few _do_, contrary to what you
> suggest), because both Stalin and Beria served the Russian/Soviet
> state.
>
No, they didn't. The Russian/Soviet state served them. Sure, when
Lenin, Jews and Latvians were in charge of the USSR and NKVD in the
early 20s, they committed a lot of acts of intimidation shootings of
civilians and intimidation of population in general. But those were
violent pos-Civil War times. The times were getting better, more
benign. Lenin and Co. installed the New Economic Policy, which took the
country back to capitalism. Repressions were subsiding. And then Lenin
died. And instead of Lenin's heir, a sane Civil War hero Trotsky,
Stalin managed to intrigue his way to the top. And Stalin was diagnosed
by the great doctor Bekhterev as "a severe paranoid schizophrenic". The
unfortunate thing about Communism, is that it is totally centralized.
So, when a madman comes to power through intrigues, he has an unlimited
right to do whatever he wants, using the police, KGB and army as
enforcers. And that's what happened: the madman Stalin terrorized
Russia, Soviet Union and the rest of the World for some 25 years.
You think Russians didn't have to obey Stalin? Ask your Latvian
neighbors if ***they*** could disobey him. Some tired. Their bones can
be found on that very spot or in some GULAG in Magadan.
So, if any act of defiance against Stalin in Riga was futile, then so
were such acts in Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev. Central Communist power
gave Stalin full dictatorial controls over the country.
USSR under Stalin was NOT a Russian state. It had nothing to do with
Russian mentality. But what happened as soon as Stalin dies? Soviet
Union almost immediately became a much more typical Russian country.
Executions stopped. Political prisoners freed. Stalin denounced.
Political GULAG disappeared. Russia became fairly non-violent and
corrupt. Like Russia has always been and will always be.
Sure, like the Czarist Empire and the USA, USSR was an empire and did
resort to violence to further its imperialist goals. But there was no
more violence in that than in the actions of the USA or of Britain,
France or Spain during their colonial and imperialist periods.
>
> Stalin's ethnic origin, and part of his culture, were Georgian,
>
What "origin", what "part of culture". The man was born in Georgia,
grew up in Georigia, got his education in Gerogia, and came to Russia
only as an adult. He is as an authentic 100% pure Georgian as they get.
>
> but he identified with and led the Soviet/Russian state.
>
Of course he did. Georgia was part of Rusisa. Had Georgia been part of
Germany, he would ahve tried to become the head of the German state. He
was a megalomaniac and din't care which empire he led. The bigger
empire - the better. He actually dreamed of ruling over all of Europe.
And under Stalin, it was not a "Russian" state. It was a state,
whose population consisted of 50% Russians and 50% non-Russians, and
all citizens were equally responsible for their state. Moreover, among
Bolshevik leaders, the percentage of Russians was much-much lower than
50%. It was negligible. And the support for the Bolshevik Revolution
among average Russians was much lower than that among non-Russians.
Russians are very conservative people who dislike changes and
revolutions.
Nor is it important what an insane man identified himself as - a
Georgian, a Russian. In fact, in Russia, the most common thing among
crazy people is that they think they are Napoleons Bonapartes. That
is, they identify themselves as a Frenchman. But are they? And is
France responsible for their actions?
Look at the Georgian political tradition. It is a never-ending
procession of leaders suffering from disabling mental illnesses:
Stalin, Beria, Gamsakhurdia, Shevardnadze, Saakashvili.
>
> He destroyed
> independent Georgia
>
What independent Georgia? Except for a few weeks during the Civil War,
Georgia has been part of the Russian Empire since 1830 or so. And a
willing part, BTW, because the Christian countries of Georgia and
Armenia were ecstatic to see their Christian brothers from Russia come
and protect them from their genocidal Muslim neighbors from Turkey,
Iran, Chechnya, Cherkessia, etc. The only regret is that Russia
couldn't liberate the Southern Armenia, which remained in the Turkish
hands and which in 1915 suffered from the terrible genocide at the
hands of Turks to the tune of some 2 million innocent civilian victims.
If not for Russia, Georgia would have suffered the exact same fate.
>
> "with a cold-blooded cynicism, at a time when the
> Bolsheviks were calling loudly for the sovereign independence of all
> nations."
>
Bolsheviks did no such thing. Bolsheviks were calling loudly for A
World-wide Revolution, which would turn the whole World into one big
Worker's Paradise. There would be no countries left. There will be
just one happy Worker's Paradise from the Arctic to the Antarctic.
Just read Trotsky and the rest of Jews and Latvians.
>
> (Robert Payne, _The Rise and Fall of Stalin_ ...Payne also
> describes how "the Red Army entered Tiflis, looting, raping and
> murdering on a scale which was unheard of since the time of Tamerlane"
>
I am sorry but Stalin wasn't in charge of Russia at that time. Lenin
and Trotsky were. Stalin was a nothing at that time.
So, how does that prove that Stalin wasn't proud of his Georgian
origin and upbringing?
<snip>
>
> Your suggestion, Karlamov, is of the same type that you try to make
> with the Riflemen -- you focus upon foreigners raping Russia, when
> neither the Latvians nor the Georgians were foreigners prior to the
> point where our states were able to extend citizenship -- they were
> Russian subjects, and those who sided with Bolsheviks retained their
> Russian (Soviet Russian, later Soviet) alliegance; the Red Riflemen
> that remained in Russia after Latvia was established were not Latvian
> citizens. Stalin was not a Georgian citizen. So you are, as so often,
> talking about _ethnicity_, not _nationality_.
>
Yes, and as Russian citizens, they bear the same responsibility for
what's happening in the Russian Empire as all other Russian citizens.
So, since the ethnic Russians made up 50% of the population, they bear
50% of the responsibility. But has any other peoples admitted their
share of the responsibility for the Bolshevik Revolution? Have
Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Finns, Poles?
<snip>
>
> You, Karlamov, keep accusing others of ethnic bigotry
>
I wouldn't call it "ethnic". If an ethnic Russian or Jew said
that Russia should be nuked, he would be applauded by SCB and called a
"deep thinker". And if a Lithuanian said that he loved Russia, he
would be crucified here.
Speaking of that. Do you know who has been Team Russia's hear and
spirit in hockey for the last 15 years? A Lithuanian guy named Darius
Kasparatis. A little player with a huge heart and no fear. I have never
met a bigger Russian patriot than this man, born and raised in
Lithuania. Do you think the people at SCB wouldn't curse Darius deep
inside their hearts and wished he were dead? They may not admit it, but
that's exactly how they feel.
So, it's not ethnic. It's cultural. If it's Dostoyevsky, Gogol,
Tolstoy, Pushkin, Turgenev, Pasternak, Chekhov, Zinoviev, Stanislavsky,
Eisenstein, Tarkovsky, Mendeleev, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Rakhmaninov,
Kasparaitis - it's all "Asiatic Russian retarded sub-human
genocidal culture". If its mass singing of primitive songs - it's
the superior classical European culture at its best. I am not talking
about you, Vello, Estland or other people living in Latvia, Lithuania
or Estonia. I am talking about the psychos form USA, Canada and
Australia who have taken this group hostage.
How do you feel about people like Mama Hui, Widass, Martin, and 6 or 7
others here?
>
>-- but it is you
> who emphasize and distort the ethnic elements of these problems (there
> are obviously bigots here, yes [and no doubt a little bigot in each of
> us], but you are unable to distinguish ethnic bigotry from social
> problems (as in John's arguments)
>
His are not arguments. His are calling Germans worse than animals and
spreading lies about Russians. Are these acts of ethnic hatred?
Probably not. This is hatred towards Germany and Russia as countries
and as cultures. I bet he has the same opinions of ethnic Finns who
have always lived in Russia. As you know, Russians are ethnically a
mixture of Slavs and Finns.
So, it's not an ethnic but political and cultural bigotry. So what?
And it is lying. Which is inexcusable.
Plus it's incredible hypocricy, when he used to paint me like a
primitive neanderthal for making jokes about Albanian heroin dealers
and terrorists, and then he himself made even worse jokes about all
German men.
>
> and national (and international)
> problems. There is doubtless a slight vengeful taint to some Baltic
> politics ("dwarves" are human, and even the most "liberal" rape victim
> tends to be affected by memory), but it is exceedingly minor compared
> to Baltic pragmatism within the horrible circumstances for which the
> USSR/Russia and Germany were primarily responsible.
>
>
> > Although the fact that Georigia still continues ot produce one mad
> > leader after another - Gamsakhurdia, Shevardnadze, Saakashvili - is
> > bothersome. But it's Gerogia's problem now.
> >
> >
> > Yes, Comrade Stalin has committed lots of crimes in the Baltics 60
> > years ago. But you should finally forget and move on, as much as the
> > rest of the World forgot and moved on with respect to Germany and its
> > Nazi crimes. You are best friends and allies with Germany, aren't you?
>
> We've been through this argument many times before -- to return to the
> rape analogy, it is not possible (and would be unhealthy and dangerous)
> to "forgive and forget" the rape if the rapist is utterly unrepentant,
>
But the Supreme Soviet did officially apologize to the Baltics in the
late 1980s.
Tell me, has USA apologized to Japan and Germany for the holocausts it
committed in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How about apologizing to
Viet Nam, Panama, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc?
Yet, Japan and Germany seem to have "forgiven and forgotten" these
American rapes. Not that they had any choice....
>
> The world moved on with regard to Germany because Germany moved on --
> it is a democratic society which condemns and regrets Nazi crimes and
> no longer resembles either Nazo Germany nor the Prussian-dominated
> militaristic state that preceded its earlier defeat. It is one of the
> least nationalistic large countries in the world. You do not see German
> diplomats denying the invasion of Czechoslovakia in Prague, but you do
> see Russian diplomats vociferously denying the occupation of Latvia in
> Riga. Germans do not generally respond to remarks on the Holocaust by
> praising the Autobahn as Russians very often respond to comment on
> Soviet crimes by praising industrialization.
>
As far as Nazi Germany is concerned, it was supposed to be a
Thousand-Year-Long Third Reich, and the German voters cheerfully voted
for it. Jews were supposed to be exterminated. A third of Slavs were
supposed to be exterminated, another third driven out to Mongolia, and
the remaining third were supposed to serve as slaves to the Aryan
masters. And it all come to existence. And it all would have lasted for
a 1000 years, except that the Germans lost militarily: after 5 years
or so, those Slavs (Russians in particular) kicked the sore Nazi asses,
liberated concentration camps, and took Berlin. After that, Germany had
no choice but to apologize. Had they refused to apologize, they would
have been either shot or starved to death by the Soviets, Americans and
the Brits. Admission of guilt at gunpoint doesn't count as sincere
in my book.
But the Soviets were never defeated. Instead, a great decent Russian
man named Gorbachev came to power and peacefully and voluntarily gave
freedom to Eastern Europe, to the Baltics and to all other Soviet
republics. Plus the Supreme Soviet apologized.
So, what else do you expect" For Russia to apologize for its 50%
share of the Bolshevik crimes? Does Latvia intend to apologize for its
share? It may not be as big, but it's still a share.
And, given how USA is treated nicely, despite the fact that it never
apologized for most of its heinous crimes, why should the World treat
Russia any worse?
And how far do we have to go in terms of apologies? Why go back 60
years and not, say, 160 years? Has USA apologized for the extermination
of Native Americans? Slavery? Various aggressions against Spain,
Mexico, Colombia?
>
> continues to threaten rape,
>
No, it threatens no rape against other countries. You are again
confusing Russia with USA. You know, having raped Panama, Haiti, Serbia
and Macedonia, it's now raping Iraq. And threatening to rape Iran,
Syria and North Korea. BTW, are Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba and Belarus on
that list yet?
>
> still rapes others, and runs around
> maligning the victim.
>
You are talking about the Russian citizens from Chechnya? The situation
is there is very peaceful now. Just as peaceful as it is in Turkey,
which has raped and slaughtered Kurds and Armenians forever; Britain,
which has been raping Ireland for many-many centuries; as well as
Basque country in Spain and Corsica in France. These are all noble
democratic freedom-loving NATO angels, aren't they?
If you want to clean houses, start with your own: NATO countires. You
are part of NATO. Only once all NATO countires aplogize for all their
past "rapes" and start acting as perfect gentlemen, can you tell Russia
to do the same.
BTW, given that "Iran" and "Iraq" sound so similar, when the aggression
against Iran starts, will the US officals be able to tell whom they are
raping where? So many rapes to do, so little time....
>
> Nor is it a matter of how we treat the past -- in the present, Russia
> continues to defend and support vile régimes and groups from Syria and
> Hamas to Myanmar, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Transnistria.
>
And USA supports vile regimes in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and
myriads of other ruthless dictatorships that are 10000000 times worse
than Belarus and TransDnistria. What major crimes has TransDniestria
committed? Is it asking for anything more than what Albanians asked and
received in Kosovo?
How about Belarus? Has it done anything wrong to any other country? Is
its treatment of its own dissidents worse than Saudi Arabia's or
Pakistan's or Turkey's? Do you recall the genocide against 20,000
innocent Kurds that Turkey committed while in NATO? Not only was it not
asked to leave NATO, but it didn't receive a single harsh word from
its "democratic" allies.
Now, about Kazakhstan" I am glad you mentioned it. You claim that
Kazakhstan is a "vile régime"? How true... probably 100000000
times more vile than even Putin's Russia. Right?
Now let's see:
////////////////////////////
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/08a8cf7bb9b5e02f?dmode=source
<abbreviated>
From: "IMBIERAS" <imbie...@netscape.net>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.baltics
Subject: Gwynne Dyer on Cheney and Russia
8 May 2006
Useful Hypocrisy?
By Gwynne Dyer
Had US Vice-President Dick Cheney declared during his visit to
Kazakhstan last weekend that "in many areas of civil society -- from
religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties --
the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the
people," human rights groups would have cheered. But he said that in
Russia, a few days earlier.
What he told Kazakhstan's dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, was that "all
Americans are tremendously impressed with the progress that you've made
in Kazakhstan in the last 15 years. Kazakhstan
has become a good friend and strategic partner of the United States."
The man, whom the Financial Times recently and memorably described as
"the Bush administration's Lord Voldemort", was merely engaging in a
little useful hypocrisy, or so he imagined...
Kazakhstan is expected to become one of the world's top ten oil
producers in the next decade. It is a close ally of the United States,
even sending a small contingent of Kazakh troops to Iraq...
So why did Dick Cheney castigate Russia's imperfect democracy while
saying not a word about Kazakhstan's shameless travesty of the
democratic system? Oil, obviously...
What Cheney wants out of Nazarbayev is commitment to pipelines That
will move Kazakh oil and gas to Europe by routes that do not cross
Russia -- which means pipelines under the Caspian Sea.
////////////////////////////
Do I need say any more?
Now explain that!
On this note, I will interrupt responding to you very long message.
I hope to hear from you an explanation as to the hypocricy and double
standards that the West (even you, an intelligent, respectable and
self-respecting man) applies to treating American and NATO crimes
differently from Russian crimes.
And when will the West stop trying to cheat Russia out of oil and gas
and trying to blockade Russian trade? When will uSA stop balckmailing
Latin American and Asian countires into not buying Russian technologies
and planes? Is it any wonder that Russia has to turn to "reengade"
third world countries like Iran for selling its exports? The rest of
the World is blockaded by USA from receiving Russian exports other than
gas and raw materials.
You paint a bear into a corner aiming shotguns at him, and then you are
surprised and angered that it tries to defend itself?
If Cheney, when drunk, can shoot a man and a friend in the face,
mistaking him for a tiny bird, he surely won't hesitate to shoot the
Rusisan bear to pieces.
vkar...@yahoo.com
No, when I came in 1970s, there was relatively little hypocricy. Much
less than in the USSR at that time.
Now, there is more hypocricy here in USA than not only in Russia but in
all of the remaining Wolrd combined. Just as there is more military
spending in USA than in the rest of the Wolrd combined.
I came to USA before hypocricy did. So, I am not leaving. Hypocricy
should. And we at the Libertarian Party will do our best to throw it
out of USA.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Privet, Karlamov!
I think we could both soon become candidates for "longest post ever at
s.c.b." if this keeps up, but here goes...
Georgia declared independence in May 1918. It held democratic elections
in February 1919 and adopted a liberal constitution that gave Abkhazia
a degree of autonomy. The Republic obtained international recognition
in January 1921, _de jure_. In February 1921 it was invaded by the Red
Army (primarily because Lenin was desperate for Batumi and its oil). As
to Stalin's "Georgianness": "Stalin showed such ruthlessness in the
Caucasus [...] that Lenin remarked that there was nobody worse than a
'Russified aborigine' at imposing Russification with insensitivity."
(Rayfield, p. 89) Payne describes Stalin's July 1921 visit "to the city
he had conquered from his sickbed," Tbilisi. "The theatre was crowded
with workers, who shouted: 'Murderer! Traitor! Renegade! Curses on
you!' [...] The veteran revolutionary Isidor Ramishvili [...] delivered
a speech in which he castigated Stalin for the rape of Georgia and the
imposition of a bloody dictatorship of the proletariat, which was
merely his own personal dictatorship exercised from the Kremlin."
(Payne, p.275)
So you see, Karlamov, that your supposedly "willing part" of Russia was
independent for rather more than "a few weeks." Georgia could not
achieve stability, of course, because it was constantly being
destabilized by "local Bolshevik activists [...] largely supported from
Russia, and becoming more troublesome when carried out by ethnic
minorities such as Abkhazians and Ossetians."* It was sovereign long
enough to develop the rudiments of a truly democratic system, however,
rejecting Lenin and Bolshevism and electing a government led by
Mensheviks.
As to its having been a "willing part" of Russia, in the late 19th C
"Georgia differed from Russia in that all educated men, regardless of
their social origins and political alignments, were united in their
resentment of Russian domination." (Rayfield, p. 10) Since your
suggestion that Georgia was only independent for a few weeks indicates
that your ideas of Georgia are formed (like so many of your ideas) by
your readings in Russo-Soviet apologetics, forgive me if I suppose that
you would also claim that Latvia was a "willing part" of the Russian
Empire (out of gratitude for being saved from the Persians in Georgia's
case, because many looked to the Slavophiles, due to Baltic German
oppression, in Latvia's case). You would be wrong -- people do not want
to escape one oppressor in order to be oppressed by another.
Christianity unites the Georgians and Armenians, but many Georgians
were also chafing under Armenian economic domination.
The main thing that continually escapes you, Karlamov, is that Latvia
became a sovereign state -- there are not a few parallels between
Latvia and Georgia in the period 1918-21, and the most important one is
that both countries succeeded in laying the groundwork for democracy.
In both cases, the _democratic_ left had broad support (as in Latvia,
the Georgian Social Democrats initiated a land reform, for instance).
Georgia's democracy was crushed by the Bolsheviks, supported by Moscow
(as in Latvia, the Georgians were also given some support by the
British). You _cannot_ argue that the Latvia has any responsibility for
Bolshevism in Russia, because the Bolsheviks lost Latvia. The August
1920 treaty signed and ratified by Russia and Latvia, Article IV,
_explicit_: "Concerning the present designations in the Russian army of
certain army units that are part of the 'Latvian Riflemen Division',
both Parties acknowledge that such designations shall have a historical
meaning only. These units do not have and shall not have in the future
a mainly Latvian contingent and, regardless of their designation,
***they shall have no relation to the Latvian nation or the Latvian
State.***"
You then refry the formerly popular Western pseudo-leftist codswallop
that attempts to paint Lenin as okay, Stalin as pure evil, and the
death of Stalin and subsequent (really only very partial) denunciation
of Stalinism (by a Stalinist) as a tremendous relaxation of the Soviet
system, leading to the appearence of the Angel Mikhail, who
magnanimiously bestowed freedom upon an Eastern Europe that had been
"liberated" by the Soviets ("Russians in particular").
> > "with a cold-blooded cynicism, at a time when the
> > Bolsheviks were calling loudly for the sovereign independence of all
> > nations."
> >
>
> Bolsheviks did no such thing. Bolsheviks were calling loudly for A
> World-wide Revolution, which would turn the whole World into one big
> Worker's Paradise. There would be no countries left. There will be
> just one happy Worker's Paradise from the Arctic to the Antarctic.
> Just read Trotsky and the rest of Jews and Latvians.
>
> >
> > (Robert Payne, _The Rise and Fall of Stalin_ ...Payne also
> > describes how "the Red Army entered Tiflis, looting, raping and
> > murdering on a scale which was unheard of since the time of Tamerlane"
> >
>
> I am sorry but Stalin wasn't in charge of Russia at that time. Lenin
> and Trotsky were. Stalin was a nothing at that time.
> So, how does that prove that Stalin wasn't proud of his Georgian
> origin and upbringing?
Here you are off on all three counts -- Stalin was not a "nothing" but
headed the Orgburo, and he "planned the destruction of Menshevik
Georgia with an unrelenting use of the weapons of terror. He sent his
agents into the country to stir up disorders [...] [a] detachment of
the Red Army was sent to the Armenian-Georgian border with orders to
cross over at the signal of Stalin. [...] Three months before, Stalin
had hinted at the fate awaiting Georgia. [...] '...Georgia is now
living out the last days of her life' [In an interview with _Pravda_]."
(Payne)
Regarding your claim that there was "no such thing" as a Bolshevik call
for the sovereign independence of all nations -- I must say I am
shocked at your ignorance. For a devoted Soviet apologist, you sure are
unarmed, sorry. Lenin and Stalin signed a major decree shortly after
taking power, promising among many beautiful things the following: "The
right of free self-determination of the peoples of Russia, including
the right to secede and to form independent states." It was, in fact,
the only decree on which Stalin's name appears above Lenin's -- Stalin
was the Commissar of Nationalities (again, not a "nothing"). This
principle was reaffirmed again and again by Soviet rhetoric, from many
a mouth -- all of the leading Bolsheviks spoke of the necessity for
self-determination and castigated the Tsarist empire as a "prison of
nations."
Practice was most often the reverse of theory, of course, because of
what you emphasize -- that the Bolsheviks were dedicated to world
revolution -- because of the fledgling Bolshevik state's enmity with
the West, part and parcel of Leninism. As Herbert J. Muller wrote in
_Freedom in the Modern World_, "their main concern, openly proclaimed,
was not world peace but world revolution. [...] It was to promote this
war to the death that Lenin propagated the myth of a bourgeois West
similarly united by ideology, organized and regimented by a capitalist
high command. His own belief in this foolish idea was not surprising.
It jibed with the delusions about the West nurtured by Russian
tradition".
Muller on the NEP, Lenin, and Stalin: "In view of the acknowledged
tyranny of Stalin, I should first stress that he inherited from Lenin
all the essentials of his totalitarian state. Lenin had already
reversed Marx's dictum that economics determines politics, establishing
the power of the state to determine the economy; his 'new' policy was
merely a policy and involved no concession of the right of the state to
whatever control the leaders decided was necessary -- a right they
still take for granted today. [1966] In 1918 "it was Lenin who insisted
on the necessity of 'individual rule, the recognition of the
dictatorial powers of one man.' If this theory is hardly revolutionary
in view of the long tradition of autocracy in Russia [...] it was for
the same reason more liable to abuse."
It was this long tradition of autocracy in Russia to which Stalin
appealed, Karlamov. It is ludicrous to claim that Stalinism "had
nothing to do with Russian mentality" -- Stalin began to shift to an
emphasis on the Russian rather than the Soviet already in the 1930s,
and with the "Great Patriotic War" the Russian nation was continuously
exalted as "the big brother" of the "brotherly republics." Stalin
turned Ivan the Terrible into a national hero. Muller, writing of the
19th C: "Berdyaev concluded that the entire history of the Russian
intelligentsia was a preparation for communism. 'With us,' Chaadayev
had noted, 'new ideas sweep away the old because they do not spring out
of them' ; but in a deeper sense they did spring out of them. As the
old ideas were absolutist, so the new ones tended to an inverted
absolutism, likewise compounded of dogma and myth. Herzen [...]:
'Communism is the Russian autocracy turned upside down.' Most other
intellectuals, especially the greater ones, were akin in their tendency
to extremism, their contempt of the Western habit of compromise and
contentment with mere reform. [...] Because of the this totalitarian
mentality it was liberal ideas, Berdyaev remarked, that seemed utopian
in Russia. Such ideas were always alive, as evidenced by the continued
popularity of writers such as Turgenev; but like Turgenev the liberal
was apt to feel most ineffectual, harassed by scorn from both Right and
Left." It is not very difficult to find this latter feeling still
reflected in Russian thought today, Karlamov -- Putin juxtaposed
British liberalism with a "Russian form of democracy" when he first
spoke of his "dictatorship of law" (a phrase favored by Mussolini), and
contemorary Russian liberals are marginalized unless they indulge in
"Eurasian" fantasies or other pseudo-philosophies that emphasize
Russia's unique characteristics with an anti-Western "logic" that
recalls the Slavophiles' in the 19th C, often colored by a nihilistic
resignation like yours ("Russia became fairly non-violent and corrupt.
Like Russia has always been and will always be.")
To the third point in the section of your post I clipped above --
Stalin was an ethnic Georgian, yes. Hitler was Austrian, and Napoleon
was Corsican. As Rayfield puts it: "Being a provincial or a member of
an ethnic minority is is also a virtual prerequisite for any tyrant" --
Rayfield also notes that being Georgian was important to Stalin, much
more so than being Jewish or Polish was to Trotsky or Dzerzhinsky. He
also notes that Stalin puzzled a group of Georgian historians who met
with him in 1950, referring to the Russians as "they" and the Georgians
as "you." "Like many non-Russian Bolsheviks -- Jews, Armenians, Poles,
Latvians, Armenians [sic], or Georgians -- Stalin had discarded one
ethnos without acquiring another" (Rayfield, p. 14). You can emphasize
the "internationalism" in this, Karlamov, and you would not be wrong --
the crux of the matter is, though, that the Georgians had, and again
have, a nation-state. These "internationalists" ruled from Moscow, not
Tbilisi, Rīga, Warsaw, Yerevan, Jerusalem (or Birobidzhan!) -- and
_homo sovieticus_ was to be a Russophone.
It is quite difficult to attempt to maintain, as you do, that Georgia
was part of the Russian Empire except for a "few weeks" (actually for
more than two years) and then to go on to accentuate a
"non-Russianness" -- Russia is and has always been multinational and
multicultural, and you are conveniently ignoring my remarks on what
that actually means (that, to develop a decent society, Russia must
either devolve power to its regions [it is doing exactly the opposite]
and relinquish Great Russian dominance or break up -- or it can
continue to be a "prison of nations," the likeliest course prior to an
inevitable catastrophe, in my opinion). Dgebuadze to Stalin after the
Bolshevik invasion, when Stalin, surrounded by Chekists, was actually
driven from the stage by the workers): "You have destroyed Georgia!
What have you to offer by way of atonement?" Georgians interested in
building a Georgian nation-state sided with Georgia (and many with the
Mensheviks, who had been as ambivalent about independence as the
Latvian Social Democrats had been, but rejected the dictatorship of the
proletariat) -- "internationalists" sided with Soviet _Russia_, their
nation (and thus the aspirations of their people) being trivial to
them.
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Your suggestion, Karlamov, is of the same type that you try to make
> > with the Riflemen -- you focus upon foreigners raping Russia, when
> > neither the Latvians nor the Georgians were foreigners prior to the
> > point where our states were able to extend citizenship -- they were
> > Russian subjects, and those who sided with Bolsheviks retained their
> > Russian (Soviet Russian, later Soviet) alliegance; the Red Riflemen
> > that remained in Russia after Latvia was established were not Latvian
> > citizens. Stalin was not a Georgian citizen. So you are, as so often,
> > talking about _ethnicity_, not _nationality_.
> >
>
> Yes, and as Russian citizens, they bear the same responsibility for
> what's happening in the Russian Empire as all other Russian citizens.
> So, since the ethnic Russians made up 50% of the population, they bear
> 50% of the responsibility. But has any other peoples admitted their
> share of the responsibility for the Bolshevik Revolution? Have
> Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Finns, Poles?
No, sorry -- the above is proof positive that you simply cannot
distinguish nationality and ethnicity. The Latvian Bolsheviks who ended
up in Soviet Russia were never Latvian nationals -- see the August 1920
Treaty of Rīga:
--------------------------------
Article VIII
Persons living within the borders of Latvia on the date of ratification
of this Treaty, as well as refugees living in Russia who themselves or
whose parents were registered prior to August 1, 1914 with urban, rural
or estate societies within the territory which now makes up the State
of Latvia, shall be considered Latvian citizens.
Persons of the same category who are living within the borders of
Russia at the time of ratification of this Treaty, other than the
category of refugees mentioned above, shall be considered citizens of
Russia.
However, all persons who have reached the age of 18 years and live
within the territory of Latvia, shall be entitled to forego Latvian
citizenship and opt for Russian citizenship; their children under the
age of eighteen years and wives, unless the spouses have agreed
otherwise, shall follow their citizenship.
Similarly, persons who are to be considered citizens of Russia
according to the provisions of the second part of this Article, may by
the same date and on the same conditions opt for Latvian citizenship.
--------------------------------------
Get it now, Karlamov? The treaty was ratified in October -- after that
date, Latvia is absolved of all responsibility for those Latvians who
desired to be Russians. The treaty also contains this very explicit
sentence at the very beginning:
"The Latvian nation and land shall have no obligations arising from
their previous possession by Russia."
You can focus upon ethnicity as much as you like (in an odd manner, in
my view) -- the text is quite clear, though, and Article V states:
"Both Parties shall mutually forego any claims by the other Party in
respect of compensation for their war expenditures, namely the
expenditure by the State to wage war, or in respect of compensation for
war losses, namely, such losses caused to them or their citizens by war
activities, including any kind of requisitions which the other Party
has imposed on their respective territories."
I'll boil it down for you one last time -- we divorced. Latvians who
rejected this divorce became Russians (not ethnically, but for all
legal and practical purposes). Not a few were subjected to extreme
propaganda by the Bolsheviks, urging them to remain in Russia, and the
Cheka made it very difficult for many to return.
Those Latvians who did choose Latvia held free elections and built a
fine, tolerant, fairly prosperous country whilst Russia sank into
orgies of totalitarianism.
You can argue that Latvians prior to the conclusion of this treaty were
responsible for the revolution beyond their numbers, and that would be
true -- no apologies from me, sorry, since the Tsarist oppression of
Latvia was longstanding and I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Tsar.
Neither do I have much sympathy for Kerensky & Co. -- the Whites were
at times more inimical to Latvian rights than the Bolsheviks, who made
those lovely promises regarding self-determination (rejecting even
proposals to reunite the part of the country I live in with the Baltic
Provinces). Do not forget that the Riflemen had served the Tsar with a
loyalty and skill that was remarkable in a rotten empire -- in return,
they were sent into impossible battles to bleed to death. The "Free
Latvia in a Free Russia" that they fought for did not materialize --
the Bolsheviks screwed them at Brest-Litovsk, blithely handing their
homeland to the Germans because the Russians were weary of the war.
You can argue that the Soviet government obtained power illegally, that
it had no right to conclude a peace treaty with Latvia, etc., etc. --
these are tired arguments that collapse under scrutiny. In
international relations, concern for the legality of your rulers is
quite limited. Russia was taken over by the Bolsheviks, and the
integrity of your tyrranical empire was not the Latvians' primary
concern, sorry -- eventually, everybody recognized the Soviet
government and the USSR was admitted to the League of Nations.
I'm not suggesting that a majority of Russians chose Bolshevism, or
that Stalin was elected -- I am asking that you get it through your
anti-American but Californian skull that we had our own country and
didn't engage in any totalitarian orgies. This country was raped by
Stalin and Hitler, who played kissy-kissy at our expense. The language
the invading army spoke was Russian, Karlamov. The orders were given
from the Kremlin. I have no intention of blaming "the Russian people"
for being taken over by the Bolsheviks, and nobody is asking for an
ethnic apology regarding Bolshevism -- what is being demanded is quite
simple, and that is the recognition of the occupation of Latvia by the
USSR by the successor state of the USSR, the Russian Federation.
> <snip>
>
> >
> > You, Karlamov, keep accusing others of ethnic bigotry
> >
>
> I wouldn't call it "ethnic". If an ethnic Russian or Jew said
> that Russia should be nuked, he would be applauded by SCB and called a
> "deep thinker". And if a Lithuanian said that he loved Russia, he
> would be crucified here.
When did you last see a crucifixion "here"?
> Speaking of that. Do you know who has been Team Russia's hear and
> spirit in hockey for the last 15 years? A Lithuanian guy named Darius
> Kasparatis. A little player with a huge heart and no fear. I have never
> met a bigger Russian patriot than this man, born and raised in
> Lithuania. Do you think the people at SCB wouldn't curse Darius deep
> inside their hearts and wished he were dead? They may not admit it, but
> that's exactly how they feel.
Some would, some wouldn't. There are many Latvians who play for Russia
and/or Russian teams. Most people understand that an athlete pursues
athletics. Many Russians play for Latvian teams, and many are fervent
patriots of Latvia. Do you think Latvians detest Latvians who go dance
for a Russian ballet troupe? Sports tend to be more "national" than the
arts, and people are obviously pleased when Latvian NHL stars return to
play for the Latvian team -- the main point of a free society, however,
is that individuals can pursue their individual desires and dreams. To
paraphrase the Prophet -- there is no compulsion in nationality, eh?
> So, it's not ethnic. It's cultural. If it's Dostoyevsky, Gogol,
> Tolstoy, Pushkin, Turgenev, Pasternak, Chekhov, Zinoviev, Stanislavsky,
> Eisenstein, Tarkovsky, Mendeleev, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Rakhmaninov,
> Kasparaitis - it's all "Asiatic Russian retarded sub-human
> genocidal culture". If its mass singing of primitive songs - it's
> the superior classical European culture at its best. I am not talking
> about you, Vello, Estland or other people living in Latvia, Lithuania
> or Estonia. I am talking about the psychos form USA, Canada and
> Australia who have taken this group hostage.
>
> How do you feel about people like Mama Hui, Widass, Martin, and 6 or 7
> others here?
They are all very different people/posters (and in my experience,
virtual personae and the actual persons can be quite different, too).
Hui, Martin, and Vidas are not similar in the least (hey, there is only
_one_ Hui, no matter how many beings he thinks he is at any given
moment). You have been bashing Balts ever since you first appeared in
our forum, and your fellow Balt-bashers are also individuals who often
disagree. You very obviously _enjoy_ provoking Balts, so why complain?
> >
> >-- but it is you
> > who emphasize and distort the ethnic elements of these problems (there
> > are obviously bigots here, yes [and no doubt a little bigot in each of
> > us], but you are unable to distinguish ethnic bigotry from social
> > problems (as in John's arguments)
> >
>
> His are not arguments. His are calling Germans worse than animals and
> spreading lies about Russians. Are these acts of ethnic hatred?
His remarks about the Germans were very obviously meant in _fun_,
Karlamov. John lived in Germany. I have met John in the flesh, and I
have noticed no ethnic hatred from him. You've been in America too
long, and lack a European (and Russian) sense of humor, apparently.
Generalizing about ethnicities is only feared by those who are so
politically correct they're no longer human.
> Probably not. This is hatred towards Germany and Russia as countries
> and as cultures. I bet he has the same opinions of ethnic Finns who
> have always lived in Russia. As you know, Russians are ethnically a
> mixture of Slavs and Finns.
Stereotypes and irony about nationalities are not necessarily
indications of bigotry -- they can be quite the opposite. They also
offer a realease. When I was last in the US, I had to search for
someone with glasses, wearing a certain type of tie, etc., for quite
some time before somebody finally whispered that he was "the only
African-American gentleman in the room." Sorry, but I don't think
Chukchi jokes should be banned (as the Soviets attempted), and Latvians
tell Latvian jokes all the time. America has developed a climate in
which police officers can be fired for daring to mention that certain
types of crime are associated with certain ethnic groups, as they
obviously are. John very explicitly said that there are social, not
cultural reasons for the high crime rate among Russians in Finland.
You'll have to take him at his word, which you won't. I'm afraid I'd go
even further than John -- I don't think society and culture can be
separated so easily. I could stereotype Russians for you all day -- not
a few of the stereotypes are based on personal experience. The
notorious "vodka, vobla, and chastiushka" comment our President made,
so resented by so many Russians, happens to be exactly how many of my
neighbors _do_ celebrate their "liberation" of Latvia. She was merely
trying to illustrate an attitude -- the same Russians who despise her
comment very often delight in impolitic lines by Lt. Col. Putin, who is
not known for avoiding gutter language (something Dr. Vīķe-Freiberga
would never stoop to). You can look upon a comment like hers as an
ethnic slur, but I would rather live in a world where people don't
throw fits every time a public figure causes offense. Under the
Soviets, the word "Russian" was sometimes replaced with "a person of
Russian ethnicity." That's unnecessary, and I would hope that adults
would realize that words have different weights and facets -- the
superficial sanitization of language to avoid offending people who feel
that one cannot speak of a group unless one is at least as prejudiced
as a Klansman is quite silly, and counter-productive.
> So, it's not an ethnic but political and cultural bigotry. So what?
Ah, there's the rub. "Political bigotry"? What would that include? I
don't want Al-Qaeda sympathizers in my neighborhood? Excuse me, but I
am probably politically bigoted -- I am not an Islamophobe, for
instance, but I am disturbed by certain types of Islamism and certain
types of social patterns, e.g., hyper-patriarchal behavior, that are
not specifically Islamic but tend to appear in the communities of
Muslims with certain cultural backgrounds when those backgrounds are
resistant to integration and/or the society is resistant to integrating
them. The fact that you are an ex-Soviet Jew does not mean that I
expect you to hold a certain view, Karlamov, and ex-Soviet Jews hold
lots of different views, many of which are my views. Your ethnicity
(your blood) does not bind you to a particular view, or even to a
tendency to a certain view. We still talk about "the Jewish community,"
though. We talk about "the Jews of Hungary assimilating," etc. Anybody
who is not Hui ought to know that no community is monolithic, and a
person is not simply a part of a community. There _are_ communities,
however. Sometimes we can choose to leave them. A nation is a
community, and it is composed of communities and individuals and is
found within a community of nations. A disgusting bigot is one who
assumes that you hold certain views because of your blood and/or
background and refuses to let go of the picture he has regardless of
what you say or do -- or someone who demands that you do something
impossible (e.g., I know of a Latvian ultra-nationalist who thinks
Russians should prove their loyalty to Latvia by attending memorial
events for the Waffen-SS!). Such a bigot will always stare at your
group identity, of which he has a fairly fixed opinion, rather than at
what you say and do. If you leave your group, for instance by partial
or total assimilation, you are probably also suspect -- then you're a
traitor to your group, and this person thinks in terms of groups. There
are different degrees of this, Karlamov, and I can think of only two
people at s.c.b. who are extremely bigoted. John isn't one of them.
> And it is lying. Which is inexcusable.
About Russian crime in Finland? No, he is not lying. Foreigners,
"underprivileged" minorities, migrants, and colonists tend to commit
more crime, per capita. Russians commit more crime in Latvia. Crime in
the USSR developed in a particular way, and its effects will be long
felt -- it is not a matter of blood. Some cultures drink more. If I
give you a bunch of stereotypes about Russians, not a few are positive,
too -- I know plenty of Russophobes who are quite willing to admit that
Russians are warm and friendly and helpful (their friendliness being of
a type that Latvians often find as invasive, uncultured, etc.) I'm not
saying that _all_ Russians are warm and uncultured or anything like
that, and everybody (except Hui, Henry, et al.) knows that Russians
also have an amazing high culture. You're in some weird state of denial
if you never notice that many of these things have a history that can
easily be grasped -- education, upbringing, etc. are formative and
deep, and they echo. That Latvians in Canada were reportedly second to
the Jews in education and income is not exactly surprising, since the
refugees who ended up there tended to be highly educated and
determined. That unemployed and sometimes alcoholic Soviet factory
workers whose moto was "if I don't steal something, even a nail, it's a
bad day" are more likely to raise delinquent offspring is not exactly
miraculous, is it? Part of the character of Soviet crime was a
reflection of the character of the Soviet system -- since the state was
a terrible beast and everything belonged to the state, stealing was
_good_. If you do not feel any attachment to Latvian state (or feel
wronged by it), why pay taxes? I could relate hundreds of personal
experiences to illustrate this -- the Belarusians in the Soviet flats
in the middle of nowhere steal a lot, and they have little sense of
property. They took the pears on what is now again our land every year,
and when we asked them not to, they simply said that it is everybody's
tree. Pointing out that my wife's grandfather planted the tree didn't
inspire them to plant one. A lot of Russophones here are _homines
sovietici_ -- a lot of Latvians have memories of "bourgeois"
prosperity. It makes a difference, Karlamov, and if you find these
observations culturally bigoted -- so be it.
> Plus it's incredible hypocricy, when he used to paint me like a
> primitive neanderthal for making jokes about Albanian heroin dealers
> and terrorists, and then he himself made even worse jokes about all
> German men.
No hypocrisy in your works, ever, Karlamov -- the Russians all read the
classics and defend the world from AmeriKKKan aggression despite the
the Nazi-loving Baltic bigots' cultural prejudices. Poor Serbia! Poor
North Korea!
> > and national (and international)
> > problems. There is doubtless a slight vengeful taint to some Baltic
> > politics ("dwarves" are human, and even the most "liberal" rape victim
> > tends to be affected by memory), but it is exceedingly minor compared
> > to Baltic pragmatism within the horrible circumstances for which the
> > USSR/Russia and Germany were primarily responsible.
> >
> >
> > > Although the fact that Georigia still continues ot produce one mad
> > > leader after another - Gamsakhurdia, Shevardnadze, Saakashvili - is
> > > bothersome. But it's Gerogia's problem now.
Would that it were -- perhaps the problems of the former Soviet Union
could better be solved if Russia would stop mucking about in them.
Regnum treats even Transnistria as a sovereign state.
> > > Yes, Comrade Stalin has committed lots of crimes in the Baltics 60
> > > years ago. But you should finally forget and move on, as much as the
> > > rest of the World forgot and moved on with respect to Germany and its
> > > Nazi crimes. You are best friends and allies with Germany, aren't you?
> >
> > We've been through this argument many times before -- to return to the
> > rape analogy, it is not possible (and would be unhealthy and dangerous)
> > to "forgive and forget" the rape if the rapist is utterly unrepentant,
> >
>
> But the Supreme Soviet did officially apologize to the Baltics in the
> late 1980s.
Some want an apology -- I don't care about the apology, really. I want
Russia to face its history, for its own good. Seeing how it seems to be
incapable of doing that, I expect -- nay, insist -- that Russia abides
by its commitmnents and concludes the border agreement, to which Latvia
and Estonia append declarations in which we refer to the 1920 treaties.
There is no point in concluding any agreements with Russia if Russia
flagrantly violates its past agreements. You can buy into the Kremlin
line if you like, Karlamov -- that Latvia's obsessions are merely a
matter for historians -- but Latvia, experts in international law, and
Latvians who know about the subject are fully cognizant of the
implications. Russia wants Latvia to be an ex-Soviet republic that it
keeps within its sphere of influence. This is not a country that was
created in 1991, sorry -- this country was created in 1918/20 and raped
by the USSR/Russia in 1940. This continuity is important from a _legal_
standpoint, and international law is about legality. Russia has always
been cavalier about legality. Latvia has always been very careful,
because Latvia depends upon the international system -- Russia depends
upon brute force.
> Tell me, has USA apologized to Japan and Germany for the holocausts it
> committed in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How about apologizing to
> Viet Nam, Panama, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc?
I think I've written enough for the day (much too much) -- I will not
discuss great power politics at this time, except to say that one of
your greatest failings when you address these issues is that (a) you
don't seem to give a hoot about democracy or freedom, and (b) you seem
to have no inkling at all about the differences between small countries
and great powers, not to mention empires.
A few more minor notes interspersed below...
Excuse me, but Gorbachev had to be removed in a coup before we regained
our freedom. Didn't you notice that? Did Gorbachev give the Baltics
freedom when the Baltics very obviously demanded their freedom? Who was
the "great decent Russian man" in charge of the USSR when OMON troops
and Soviet murdered civilians and took over strategic locations in
Vilnius and Rīga?
> So, what else do you expect" For Russia to apologize for its 50%
> share of the Bolshevik crimes? Does Latvia intend to apologize for its
> share? It may not be as big, but it's still a share.
>
> And, given how USA is treated nicely, despite the fact that it never
> apologized for most of its heinous crimes, why should the World treat
> Russia any worse?
>
> And how far do we have to go in terms of apologies? Why go back 60
> years and not, say, 160 years? Has USA apologized for the extermination
> of Native Americans? Slavery? Various aggressions against Spain,
> Mexico, Colombia?
Please stop bringing up the USA in every breath. You're not the USA --
you're Upper Volta with Rockets. Anyway, since you obviously despise
America so much (despite being an American citizen) -- why do you want
to compare the glorious Transnistria-defending Russian nation to such a
shabby empire?
> >
> > continues to threaten rape,
> >
>
> No, it threatens no rape against other countries. You are again
> confusing Russia with USA. You know, having raped Panama, Haiti, Serbia
> and Macedonia, it's now raping Iraq. And threatening to rape Iran,
> Syria and North Korea. BTW, are Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba and Belarus on
> that list yet?
The poor Dear Leader! I am so glad that Great Russia intends to rush to
the defense of such a splendid workers' paradise. You forgot a whole
bunch of rapes, Karlamov -- I mean, where's Afghanistan in your little
list? The loveable Taliban was raped.
> >
> > still rapes others, and runs around
> > maligning the victim.
> >
>
> You are talking about the Russian citizens from Chechnya?
Actually, the entire rape metaphor was referring to Latvia -- I try to
keep my global perspective narrow within a post, and my main point is
that Russia still refuses to accept that fact that Latvia was forcibly
occupied by the USSR. It is still devoted to creating a sphere of
influence in this region (the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, the
Caucasus), and yet it belongs to organizations like the Council of
Europe, which it is currently presiding over, and these organizations
operate on the principle that devious machinations and force are
completely unacceptable. I am really not interested in hearing about
the US sphere of influence in Latin America, etc. -- Holman can drag it
out for the umpteenth time and add his tired comparisons between
Russian imperialism and the genocide against Native Americans. This is
Europe, Karlamov. The Basque Country is not being bombed, Catalonia has
increasing autonomy, Scotland has a parliament, "raped" Yugoslavia is
almost peaceful, and part of Cyprus is in the EU. It's called
civilization -- it was profoundly influenced by the Enlightenment, and
torn apart by Russia and Germany. Germany is fine. Russia is better,
but I would not repeat your
> The situation
> is there is very peaceful now.
...in Grozny. Perhaps those who suggest that you move to Minsk were a
litle off -- peaceful Grozny is the place for you!
Just as peaceful as it is in Turkey,
> which has raped and slaughtered Kurds and Armenians forever; Britain,
> which has been raping Ireland for many-many centuries; as well as
> Basque country in Spain and Corsica in France. These are all noble
> democratic freedom-loving NATO angels, aren't they?
See above. Sorry, but Spain joined the EU when Franco died, and the
situation of the Basques is improving; ETA laid down its arms. Britain
is raping Ireland at the moment? No, sorry -- Britain helped to
negotiate an agreement by talking to people it considers terrorists.
Ajaccio is being bombed to the ground? None of these situations is
perfect, of course -- but none has caused as much insane bloodshed as
Russian and Chechen actions in the Caucasus have in recent years.
Czechoslovakia had a velvet divorce, something some might learn
something from. There has been carnage in the former Yugoslavia (caused
primarily by your Serbian friends), and looking a little further back
there were similar events like the French withdrawal from Algeria (a
much better comparison to Russia's situation in the Caucasus than any
of yours) -- in the end, the French withdrew from Algeria. Another
major difference you consistently overlook is that Britain, Spain, and
France _are_ democracies. Turkey is, too -- its democracy leaves much
to be desired and its treatment of the Kurds has been hideous, but it
has also accomplished things that are quite wondrous when you look at
its particular problems and history.
Russia has also accomplished much in view of its particular problems
and history -- unfortunately, it is still very sick and it is
backsliding.
> If you want to clean houses, start with your own: NATO countires. You
> are part of NATO. Only once all NATO countires aplogize for all their
> past "rapes" and start acting as perfect gentlemen, can you tell Russia
> to do the same.
We do start with our own house -- Latvia. NATO is a military alliance.
The CoE and the OSCE (and for us the EU) have much more to do with
cleaning house in terms of democratic reforms than NATO does. I don't
call Turkey an angel, but there was this little thing we call the Cold
War -- in that situation, it was not particularly easy to choose one's
allies and win. The CoE, however, is a different story -- it is about
democracy and rule of law. It cannot make exceptions for some weird
"Russian version of democracy," because there is no such thing. It is
based upon agreements like the Framework Convention. The riles are
spelled out, Karlamov. Belarus isn't welcome, because Belarus is a
dictatorship. Russia is welcome because of its size, its resources, and
its rockets. I find that sad, because it weakens the organization --
just as Italy, Germany, and Russia weakened the League of Nations, the
basis for many of the structures we rely upon to better this world, and
indeed this very fine part of the world. I am sorry, but I find it
pathetic that nine out of ten Russians arguing in fora like this one
really don't give a fuck about Russia's freedoms or what your "great
decent Russian man" Gorbachev called "our common European home." It's
really quite obvious that many Russians do not see this as our home
(well, of course, many of the most vociferous defenders of Russia's
dark side live in the West, spitting on the floor like you do). If
Russia does not want to abide by the principles to which it voluntarily
committed itself when it was on the path to democracy, it should get
out of these structures, or renegotiate its place in them so that it
really sits in a sort of anteroom -- so sorry, Karlamov, but daily
leactures on the ostensibly suffering minorities in Latvia are obscene
when they come from the Kremlin.
> BTW, given that "Iran" and "Iraq" sound so similar, when the aggression
> against Iran starts, will the US officals be able to tell whom they are
> raping where? So many rapes to do, so little time....
Tell me, Karlamov -- what would be your brilliant approach to the
problem Iran poses? To the problem Iraq posed?
> >
> > Nor is it a matter of how we treat the past -- in the present, Russia
> > continues to defend and support vile régimes and groups from Syria and
> > Hamas to Myanmar, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Transnistria.
> >
>
> And USA supports vile regimes in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and
> myriads of other ruthless dictatorships that are 10000000 times worse
> than Belarus and TransDnistria. What major crimes has TransDniestria
> committed? Is it asking for anything more than what Albanians asked and
> received in Kosovo?
Transnistria, Moldova, and Romania are essentially Romanian. They have
minorities, like almost every country does, and Moldova was the
subject of Russian/Soviet imperialism (and Russification to the point
of absurdity, like the imposition of Cyrillic and the claim that
Moldovans were not Romanians). Transnistria is not a state, sorry -- it
is a bizarre construction, the residue of Russian imperialism supported
by oligarchs, criminals, and the sorts of people who poison democrats'
soup. There are no doubt many nice, innocent people in Transnistria,
and they would no doubt be protected in a Moldova that has committed
itself to designing a system in which the Russophone minority is not
threatened and can participate in government.
> How about Belarus? Has it done anything wrong to any other country? Is
> its treatment of its own dissidents worse than Saudi Arabia's or
> Pakistan's or Turkey's? Do you recall the genocide against 20,000
> innocent Kurds that Turkey committed while in NATO? Not only was it not
> asked to leave NATO, but it didn't receive a single harsh word from
> its "democratic" allies.
See above. I do not expect an invasion of Belarus, do you? Belarus does
not abide by the principles of the CoE and must be isolated and engaged
simultaneously. We are helping it as much as we can, Karlamov, and
Latvia and Lithuania are both major contributors to this process.
Russia, as usual, stands on the other side, supporting the dictator.
Nobody would have a problem with Belarus if the Belarusians were able
to make free choices. They are not able to. Russia, as usual, doesn't
care -- I do not doubt that Lukashenko is quite popular, and I do not
doubt that many Belarusians look to Russia and fear the introduction of
reforms that would rob them of their safety net. The trouble is that
Belarus is ruled by anti-democratic means. My sympathy is with the
opposition, of course -- but the opposition is democratic. Russia
prefers rigged elections -- note that Ukraine did not become an orange
dictatorship and is tilting back towards Russia; the reason for that is
that most of the people on the orange side are committed to democracy,
not poison soups.
Well, this was way too long! So I will take a pass on Dick -- maybe
next time. I can say that I am often very critical of the West, of the
US, of the Baltic States, of Latvia, of NATO (for instance regarding
Macedonia), etc. Anybody who has read my posts here for any length of
time knows that. You will find my name on petitions against the
invasion of Iraq, and Henry (among others) frequently accuses me of
various forms of Russophilia (okay, so in his case "Russophilia" means
"[1] the condition of not wanting to see all Russians disappear from
the face of the earth in every waking moment, also in sleep [2] the
condition of not seeing everything in the Baltics as the Russians'
fault," etc...).
The thing is that this is a Baltic group, and I am much less interested
in US-Russian relations than I am in the relevant area. The vast
majority of Balts, myself included, joined NATO because of Russia --
not Russophobia but the rational need to protect ourselves from a bad
neighbor. In the final analysis, that is what Russia is -- an awful
neighbor. Russia's recent behavior is further confirmation of the fact
that it is likely to stay that way -- now that the Kremlin holds the
CoE presidency, I am certain that we shall see a veritable deluge of
lies and deceit directed at the Baltics on a near-daily basis, like we
did during the anniversary of the Soviet victory in WW2. What is
amazing is not that some Balts hate Russia, but that many more Balts
are not like Henry -- it's just that most people here are simply
accustomed to your fabulous soul.
Vsego khoroshego,
/P
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia -- this
Wiki article, from which I took one quote, appears to be one of the
casualties of "NPOV," trying to "balance" Soviet mythology with
history....
lora...@cs.com
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
No.. Peteris Cedrinš 'tore' Karla mon a new posterior orifice.
I don't know what is to happen next..
With the increasingly diminished space that russkie propagandist Karla
has to dance her russkie dances in, continuing operations seem to be
increasingly problematic.
I suspect we will soon see Karla drinking purple kool-aid and run
screaming into the bocage - never to be seen in the same dress again...
J. Anderson
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1148234807....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Peteris Cedrins 'tore' Karla mon a new posterior orifice.
Actually, the only value Karla has is as a catalyst for interesting posts
from others. Thanks, Peeteri!
> I suspect we will soon see Karla drinking purple kool-aid and run
> screaming into the bocage - never to be seen in the same dress again...
I'm sure Susan will lend her another one. Including a new identity. How
about 'Karlmarxov'?
J. Anderson
"Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148231917.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > His are not arguments. His are calling Germans worse than animals and
> > spreading lies about Russians. Are these acts of ethnic hatred?
> His remarks about the Germans were very obviously meant in _fun_,
Of course they were. That's the problem with K. He thinks that humour is
something that only appears in jokes. Well, anybody can tell jokes. Humour
is a state of mind, a twinkle in the eye. It's always there if you have it.
If you don't, you'll never recognize it.
My great grandfather was German, one of my best languages is German, and I
lived in Germany for such a long time because I liked it there. That's why I
feel that I have the right to say provocative things about Germans. I used
to do that in Germany too, and nobody ever bothered about that -- they
realized that it wasn't seriously meant. But K is offended on their behalf!
Was muß man noch hören!
As to the rest of his endless screeds: I'm not used to having everything I
write called in question, and I definitely have no time to provide sources
for each little simple piece of information that I may include in my posts.
I also don't have your patience, Peeteri, with this kind of pesterers.
Terveisin,
John
MTRP™
> "Pçteris Cedriòð (Peteris Cedrins)" wrote:
> > His remarks about the Germans were very obviously meant in _fun_,
> lived in Germany for such a long time because I liked it there. That's why I
> feel that I have the right to say provocative things about Germans. I used
> to do that in Germany too, and nobody ever bothered about that -- they
> realized that it wasn't seriously meant.
To say it in plain words the Germans (just like Russians) simply can't
take Finns seriously. General mood here is that Finns can maunder what
they want (just like Vanya does) - after all they are harmless. And not
very bright (Markku S. is a monumental exception). Reportedly for the
same reason US most famous commie boss Gus Hall, aka Finnish Arvo
Gustav Halberg, was tolerated by the former FBI director J. E. Hoover
(himself half-Swiss) ...
darsi...@comcast.net
vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> BTW, Gintas, are you now posting both as «Pas de deux»
> <kamou...@sympatico.ca> and as IMBIERAS <imbi...@netscape.net> at
> the same time? Don't. You will drive Widass (aka "Darsiaubas") to
> another epileptic fit and maybe even to an early grave.
The only thing that may generate an epileptic fit Karla is more of your
lyrics and singing.
Not only does he likely sound better but I bet you make William Hung
look good too.
Vidas
J. Anderson
"MTRPT" <Mir.To...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1148254555.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> To say it in plain words the Germans (just like Russians) simply can't
take Finns seriously.
That was probably meant to be provocative, but since we don't take ourselves
seriously either (cf. our Eurovision entry), you're wasting your breath.