Re: Is all Russia just one...
The Black Monk
> The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
I agree. Blaming Latvia or Russia for the actions of Bolshevik
criminals is somewhat like blaming the USSR for Vlasov. I was simply
pointing out that those who want to engage in that foolish game have to
put Latvia in the same position as Russia (or, per capita, in an even
worse position than Russia). More info:
http://www.centropa.org/reports.asp?rep=HR&ID=6879&TypeID=0
The second All-Russian Congress of Soviets met in St. Petersburg on
November 7, 1917 (October 25 old style), the day of the coup. The
American journalist John Reed, present as an observer, relates a speech
by delegate Karlis Petersons, a representative of the Latvian Riflemen,
who in 1918 became commander of the Red Army's Latvian Division and a
member of the Revolutionary Tribunal of the All-Russian Central
Executive Committee. According to Reed (Ten Days that Shook the World,
New York, The Modem Library, 1960, p. 130), Petersons concluded his
rousing speech with the following words:
I tell you now, the Lettish [Latvian] soldiers have said many times,
"No more resolutions' No more talk! We want deeds -- the Power must be
in our hands! "Let these impostor dele gates [who opposed the Bolshevik
coup] leave the Congress! The Army is not with them!
And John Reed remarks, "The hall rocked with cheering."
Indeed, the Latvian Red Riflemen were in fact the strongest pillar
supporting the Bolsheviks. They were the Bolsheviks' Praetorian guard.
As the Latvian historian Uldis Germanis, who lives in Stockholm, points
out (in Oberst Vacietis und die Lettischen Schuetzen im Weltkrieg und
in der Oktoberrevolution, Stockholm, Amqvist & Wiksell, 1974), Lenin
could rely on neither the disorganized Russian troops in St.
Petersburg, nor the famous sailors at Kronstadt with their growing
anarchistic tendencies, nor the militarily weak Red Guard, composed of
workers. The Bolshevik headquarters in St. Petersburg, the Smolny
Institute building, which contained Lenin's office, were guarded by a
special company of Latvian Riflemen (officially called Svodnoya rota
Latyshskich Strelkov pri VCIK i Sovnarkome). When the Soviet government
moved to Moscow in March of 1918, these faithful bodyguards of the
Bolshevik leadership, now known as the United Latvian Riflemen's
Battalion, were assigned to guard the Kremlin.
Here it would be appropriate to recall the White Russian émigré
saying mentioned in the introduction: "What destroyed Russia? Jewish
brains, Latvian bayonets, and Russian stupidity."
...
In St. Petersburg, Peteris Stucka, Martins Lacis and Jekabs Peterss
were members of the committee that prepared the Bolshevik coup. Ivars
Smilga agitated for the Bolsheviks among Russian army units in Finland.
The seaman E. Bergs led an attack by Russian marines on the Winter
Palace, site of the Provisional Government. In Moscow the Bolshevik
uprising was led by Lieutenant O. Berzins; chief of staff of the Red
Guards was J. Piece.
The Latvian Riflemen's regiments of the Red Army, later united as the
"Latdivision," participated in all the crucial battles of the Russian
civil war, especially in the Ukraine and in storming the fortified zone
at Perekop, which blocked the way to the Crimea. The Red Army's
victories are unthinkable without the Latvian Riflemen. As the Russian
communist poet Demyan Bedny (Pridvorov) wrote at the time, "Any flank
is secure if Latvians are there! (Ljubyje flangi obespetcheni, kogda na
flangachlatyshi.)" It is a proven fact that the Riflemen saved the
Bolshevik regime in July 1918, when the Left SR revolt broke out
and the lives of Lenin, Trotsky, and Dzerzhinsky were hanging by a
thread. As mentioned in the introduction, the protection of important
buildings and persons in Moscow, especially in the Kremlin, was
entrusted to the Latvian Riflemen. The famous Latvian military leader
Jukums Vacietis and his men restored order in Moscow. As J. Porietis
records in his book Strelnieku legendaras gaitas (The Riflemen's
legendary deeds, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1966), units of Latvians smashed
anti-Bolshevik rebellions in other cities as well -- the Third Regiment
in Kaluga, the Fifth Regiment in Bologoye, the Sixth Regiment inSt.
Petersburg (Petrograd), the Seventh Regiment in Staraya Russa and St.
Petersburg, the Eighth Regiment in Vologda and Yaroslav, and so on.
Furthermore, the father of Soviet military aviation was the Latvian
Jekabs Alksnis.
Along with Jews and Poles such as Dzerzhinsky and Menzhinsky, Latvians
played a role in forming that fearsome instrument of Red terror, the
Cheka. George Leggett notes this in his book The Cheka, Lenin's
Political Police 1917-1922 (Oxford 1981). He quotes Trotsky as saying
at a Politburo meeting on April 18,1918, that Latvians and Jews
comprised the largest percentages of the Cheek's employees at the
front, in the rear, and in Soviet institutions in the center. Jekabs
Peterss, who was a close associate of the founder of the Cheka,
Dzerzhinsky, and Martins Lacis-Sudrabs, who was the theoretician of the
Red terror, were the most monstrous of the Latvian Chekists. The
British journalist Reginald 0. G. Urch, who was well-versed in Baltic
and Soviet affairs, mentions Lacis-Sudrabs in his book The Rabbit King
of Russia (London 1939). Urch cites an article by Lacis-Sudrabs in
which he wrote: "The Central Executive Committee has abolished the
Cheka, but it has created and placed on duty a new sentinel -- the GPU.
The Cheka has done its work.... And you, the new sentinel, be alert."
In the twenties and thirties, Latvians continued to be active in the
Soviet Union's political police and intelligence service. The creator
of Soviet spy networks in the West was Berzins, who was also the
supervisor and mentor of the famous spy RichardSorge. Another Berzins
supervised the slave labor camp system at Kolyma, the Dal'stroy, which
was the Soviet predecessor to and equivalent of Auschwitz.
Solzhenitsyn remarks in The Gulag Archipelago: "The Estonians and
Lithuanians are close to my own soul.... They never harmed anyone,
lived quietly, in good conditions, morally more honestly than we. As it
turned out, they were guilty of living next to us and cutting us off
from the sea.... As for Latvians, my attitude is somewhat more
complicated. There is an element of fate. It was they, after all, who
started the whole thing."
Solzhenitsyn is emotionally biased. He cannot forget the Latvian
bayonets.
-------------------------
regards,
BM
> I suggest that those who can't differentiate between a country and a random
> bunch of individuals form a newsgroup of their own and continue their
> nonsensical exchange there. Call it alt.idiots or something along those
> lines.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
The Black Monk wrote:
> J. Anderson wrote:
> > The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> > for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> > Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
>
> I agree. Blaming Latvia or Russia for the actions of Bolshevik
> criminals is somewhat like blaming the USSR for Vlasov. I was simply
> pointing out that those who want to engage in that foolish game have to
> put Latvia in the same position as Russia (or, per capita, in an even
> worse position than Russia). More info:
No, sorry. As has been pointed our more than once, you seem to be
having trouble distinguishing nations, ethnicities, governments, and
individuals. Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
citizens, and they never fought for Latvia. You wanna talk about the
Iskolat Republic or sumfin'? Excuse me, but this is getting mighty
tawdry -- a more comparable world-view would be the one Russian
chauvinists tend to come up with at every murky breakfast: Russians are
great, but evil Jews and muscled Letts and assorted devious Freemasons
subjugate them and stall their glory. Sorry, but that's somewhat
pathetic. Blame every Jew for the invasion of Lebanon, etc.
Frightening, when not boring.
You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
power, victimized Austria, etc. Germany has no problem with apologizing
-- in fact, Germany even pays compensation. Russia not only doesn't
apologize -- it denies historical fact, supports the Stalinist
distortions of history that make it feel good about itself, and limps
along like the proverbial person with bad breath arguing that his
breath smells like violets.
Do you know who Frank(s) Gordon(s) is -- the man you are quoting? I
respect the man, but he is an extreme right-winger in Tel Aviv, someone
who thinks Latvia should be like Likud's Israel. He has expressed
profound sympathy for the far right in Latvia, e.g., "Visu Latvijai!"
Baltic Russians are as Palestinian Arabs to him, in some sense. Do you
know how many people in the "Latvian" units that reached the Crimea
were actually Latvian, ethnically?
But, again -- a state does not bear responsibility for an _ethnos_,
period. The Treaty of Rīga gave everybody a choice -- Russians could
go to Russia, Latvians to Latvia, and citizenship was freely granted.
Prior to that, all Latvians were Russian subjects. The Republic of
Latvia never even influenced the Red Riflemen, much less controlled
them. You, Topolski, and many others would like to pretend that Russia
was hijacked by an internationalist Soviet Union Russians do not bear
any responsibility for -- that's bullshit, sorry, because the seat of
power was in the Kremlin, and the New Soviet Man would speak Russian.
If it was a gang in 1917 (as opposed to the gang of "Whites," which I
see as at least as gangsterish as the Bolshevik gang), it was an
internationally recognized gang in full controlof Russian territory
only a few years later, and Russia inherited its UN seat. The most
moving nostalgia for the Soviet Union is in Russia. You can call Stalin
"Georgian" all you like -- Stalin personally supervised the rape of
Georgia by Soviet Russia.
I agree with John, as usual -- you guys should start a more relevant
group. alt.dinosaurs.russo-soviet? alt.19th.c.slavophilia.updated?
soc.culture.czarist.forget.me.nots?
Regards,
/P
MTRP™
> You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> power
Not "took power" - they got elected to rule over Germany according to
then legal democratic procedure. Nothing like that ever happened in
Russia with regard to Intercommies and their communist successors.
MTRP™
> You, Topolski, and many others would like to pretend that Russia
> was hijacked by an internationalist Soviet Union Russians do not bear
> any responsibility for -- that's bullshit, sorry, because the seat of
> power was in the Kremlin, and the New Soviet Man would speak Russian.
Wrong logic, Petya. Cuz the Intercommies also hijacked the Kremlin and
learned to speak Russian. Russia does not bear any responsibilty for
this (hint: by comparison think about English speaking Liberia, etc.)
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
referred to by the Black Monk? Were they ethnically Chinese, or Estonians,
etc.? Why did they have Latvian in their names?
Your arguments seem to have the same tone and flavour as the arguments
by Russians denying the responsibility of Russia for the Soviet Union.
--
Rostyk
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
[snip]
> Your arguments seem to have the same tone and flavour as the arguments
> by Russians denying the responsibility of Russia for the Soviet Union.
> --
> Rostyk
Dear Rostyk,
They do? That's truly fascinating! Pray tell.
One thing some people can't seem to get through their heads is that
ethnicity and nationality are quite different. Nationalism was retarded
here [sic!].
As to the ethnic composition of those units -- maybe those arguing
could read a (non-Soviet) book instead of Googling and holding forth?
Maybe not.
Regards,
/P
The Black Monk
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> > > for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> > > Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
> >
> > I agree. Blaming Latvia or Russia for the actions of Bolshevik
> > criminals is somewhat like blaming the USSR for Vlasov. I was simply
> > pointing out that those who want to engage in that foolish game have to
> > put Latvia in the same position as Russia (or, per capita, in an even
> > worse position than Russia). More info:
>
> No, sorry. As has been pointed our more than once, you seem to be
> having trouble distinguishing nations, ethnicities, governments, and
> individuals.
Not at all. Rather, you seem to to have trouble differentiating a
government or a nation from a criminal gang. To make a rough analogy,
the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers had passengers and
hijackers. Don't blame the former for the destruction caused by the
latter.
> Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
> You wanna talk about the
> Iskolat Republic or sumfin'? Excuse me, but this is getting mighty
> tawdry -- a more comparable world-view would be the one Russian
> chauvinists tend to come up with at every murky breakfast: Russians are
> great, but evil Jews and muscled Letts and assorted devious Freemasons
> subjugate them and stall their glory. Sorry, but that's somewhat
> pathetic. Blame every Jew for the invasion of Lebanon, etc.
Sorry, I was quite clear in not blaming Latvians in generalm, and by
extension, Latvia, for the crimes of the monstrous Latvian Riflemen. I
was just pointing out yours (and others') double standard in doing the
same for Russia.
> Frightening, when not boring.
>
> You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> power, victimized Austria, etc.
As MTRP pointed out to you, those guys came to power legally in
democratic elections.
> Germany has no problem with apologizing
> -- in fact, Germany even pays compensation. Russia not only doesn't
> apologize --
Does Latvia whose statue in Riga dedicated to Latvian Riflemen is every
bit as offensive as those for Lenin still standing in Russia or eastern
Ukraine? Then why should Russia apologize.
> it denies historical fact, supports the Stalinist
> distortions of history that make it feel good about itself,
Which facts are distorted in this specific thread?
> and limps along like the proverbial person with bad breath arguing that his
> breath smells like violets.
>
> Do you know who Frank(s) Gordon(s) is -- the man you are quoting? I
> respect the man, but he is an extreme right-winger in Tel Aviv, someone
> who thinks Latvia should be like Likud's Israel.
Why not. That is an honorable opinion. More importantly, why do you
avoid what he said and instead shift the focus to the author's
political orientation.
> He has expressed profound sympathy for the far right in Latvia, e.g., "Visu Latvijai!"
> Baltic Russians are as Palestinian Arabs to him, in some sense.
In the case of Lithuanians or Estonians or western Ukrainians that is
fine with me. With Latvians, perhaps - although like Solzhenitzin part
of me thinks that this is a sort of cruel trick of fate.
> Do you know how many people in the "Latvian" units that reached the Crimea
> were actually Latvian, ethnically?
I am more interested in how many in the Latvian units who saved the
Bolshevik regime in 1918 were ethnically Latvians. And I know that
most fo the ones slaughtering Ukrainian peasants were ethnic Latvians
(that's specifically why they were there).
> But, again -- a state does not bear responsibility for an _ethnos_,
I agree. Which is why neither Latvia nor Russia bear responsibility
for the ethnic makeup of the international band of criminals who
hijacked Russia in 1917.
> period. The Treaty of Rîga gave everybody a choice -- Russians could
> go to Russia, Latvians to Latvia, and citizenship was freely granted.
> Prior to that, all Latvians were Russian subjects. The Republic of
> Latvia never even influenced the Red Riflemen, much less controlled
> them.
As if any legitimate Russian governemnt controlled them either?
> You, Topolski, and many others would like to pretend that Russia
> was hijacked by an internationalist Soviet Union Russians do not bear
> any responsibility for
They bear about as much or less responsibility as Latvians, when
considering the number of participants in the hijacking relative to
population.
> -- that's bullshit, sorry, because the seat of
> power was in the Kremlin,
Well, the international gang wasn't going to take over the world based
from Riga, were they?
> and the New Soviet Man would speak Russian.
In many cases, after learning it.
> If it was a gang in 1917 (as opposed to the gang of "Whites," which I
> see as at least as gangsterish as the Bolshevik gang), it was an
> internationally recognized gang in full controlof Russian territory
> only a few years later, and Russia inherited its UN seat.
Let's not get chronologically mixed up here. Soviet rule wasn't
recognized until years after the Revolution. This leads to an
interesting point though. Having secured power, at what point did the
entity that was clearly in the early years a gang ruling a terrified
population through violence become a legitmate government of the
Russian people. I suspect that this was a process that only began with
Lenin's death. Stalin's reversal of national communist movement and
his complete destruction of the other internationalists (virtually all
of the original revolutionaries) was a necessary first step in this
process. On a broad social level, the generations that had grown up in
Russia had to die off and be replaced by those who only understood the
Soviet reality. The Great Patriotic War may have been the event that
finally ushered in the new transformed Russian man. Or maybe it's the
same old story of Russia's many utter transformations. A lot of
cultured, educated late-Soviet intelligentsia speaking of the
post-Soviet gangsters are so similar to Bulgakov's good doctor speaking
fo the new Soviet rabble. But this is a completely different topic...
> The most moving nostalgia for the Soviet Union is in Russia.
Yes, but would the Russian people have felt this way in 1919 or 1939?
regards,
BM
J. Anderson
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169073175.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This leads to an interesting point though. Having secured power,
> at what point did the entity that was clearly in the early years a gang
> ruling a terrified population through violence become a legitmate
> government of the Russian people.
Now you're talking.
And, interestingly, as far as Germany is concerned we can reverse the
question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
Regards,
John
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
DK wrote:
> The riflemen division was drafted exclusively in Latvia and Latvians
> where overwhelming majority in Latvia then.
The little problem with this idea is that there was no Latvia -- I
don't see why it seems so difficult for some to grok this. To join
Martin in looking for analogies -- let's say I'm an ethnic Croat, but
devoted to a Socialist Yugoslavia and then to a Greater Serbia.
Yugoslavia breaks up, and I go join the courageous Serbian forces. I
spit upon Croatia and join my beloved Serbs in crushing the unwashed
Albanians of Kosova for the greater glory of Slavic brotherhood, etc.
Excuse me, but how would Republika Hrvatska be responsible?
The Republic of Latvia wasn't even _proclaimed_ until 18 November 1918.
It had never existed before -- there were the Baltic Provinces of
Courland and Livonia, and eastern Latvia was part of Votebsk and Pskov
_gubernii_.
Of the ca. 35 000 Riflemen active before the Christmas Battles, 4000
were killed or wounded, 200 joined the Troitsk or Imanta regiments, and
more than 25 000 were demobilized, many later joining the Latvian Army.
Of ca. 1000 officers, 770 took part in the Latvian War of Liberation.
Of the Reds -- of the 16 333 men in the "Latvian Division" that took
the Crimea, only 6278 were ethnic Latvians!
Some of you seem to be forgetting that Latvia fought _against_ the
Bolsheviks. There were plenty of Lettish Bolsheviks, yes, and many
reached high positions. They were _ethnic_ Latvians -- they were
_never_ Latvian citizens.
What's next? You want Israel to apologize for Jewish Bolsheviks, maybe?
> So, unless you come
> up with a solid proof otherwise, it is safe to think that majority of
> Riflemen were ethnic Latvian.
See any decent history book. Edgars Andersons, for example -- _Latvijas
vesture 1914-1920_, p. 591. Stockholm: Daugava, 1967.
Regards,
/P
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > The Black Monk wrote:
> > > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > > The whole discussion is (again) as intelligent as blaming the Soviet Union
> > > > for whatever the Vlassov army did. Or blaming Ukraina for what happened in
> > > > Nazi camps because of the Ukrainian guards who participated.
> > >
> > > I agree. Blaming Latvia or Russia for the actions of Bolshevik
> > > criminals is somewhat like blaming the USSR for Vlasov. I was simply
> > > pointing out that those who want to engage in that foolish game have to
> > > put Latvia in the same position as Russia (or, per capita, in an even
> > > worse position than Russia). More info:
> >
> > No, sorry. As has been pointed our more than once, you seem to be
> > having trouble distinguishing nations, ethnicities, governments, and
> > individuals.
>
> Not at all. Rather, you seem to to have trouble differentiating a
> government or a nation from a criminal gang. To make a rough analogy,
> the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers had passengers and
> hijackers. Don't blame the former for the destruction caused by the
> latter.
I don't see how one could conduct foreign policy of any kind is if this
is how one insisted upon seeing the world. Every dictator is
illegitimate, then? Some are more legitimate than others, at some
level, sure -- but if a despot or a criminal gang sits on a throne long
enough, especially if that throne is a rich one, you have to deal with
it. Either that or cry "régime change!" and enjoy the quagmire...
> > Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> > much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> > doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> > citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
>
> And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
> Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
> alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
This doesn't make much sense to me, Black Monk. Russia is the successor
state to the Soviet Union, as Soviet Russia was renamed, which was the
successor state to the Russian Empire. Not too may people tried to
restore the Empire -- they brought back some double-headed eagles and a
flag most Russians probably didn't even recognize unless to recoil, but
no Tsar returned to the throne and the structure stayed the same, with
some adaptations.
Your position makes about as much sense to me as that of some retro
Ottoman -- instead of fighting the invaders, he might whine about his
hatred for the tranformation of his Empire into a secular, Western,
nationalist, Turkish state. That's sort of the reverse, but I think you
can see why there's a parallel -- countries _do_ transform, and
backslide, and break up, and marry and give in marriage.
> > You wanna talk about the
> > Iskolat Republic or sumfin'? Excuse me, but this is getting mighty
> > tawdry -- a more comparable world-view would be the one Russian
> > chauvinists tend to come up with at every murky breakfast: Russians are
> > great, but evil Jews and muscled Letts and assorted devious Freemasons
> > subjugate them and stall their glory. Sorry, but that's somewhat
> > pathetic. Blame every Jew for the invasion of Lebanon, etc.
>
> Sorry, I was quite clear in not blaming Latvians in generalm, and by
> extension, Latvia, for the crimes of the monstrous Latvian Riflemen. I
> was just pointing out yours (and others') double standard in doing the
> same for Russia.
For the record, I've never asked for compensation -- in fact, I think
it's idiotic to ask for it, and I've said so many a time... I mean,
compensation from Russia to Latvia; _individuals_ who performed forced
labor _should_ be compensated, and Germany does pay --
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/30/europe/EU_GEN_Compensating_Nazi_Victims.php
(The woman quoted at the end is my mother-in-law, by the way -- today
is her 79th birthday!)
Relations between states follow guidelines, even if those are fluid --
we maintain relations with all sorts of gangs of thugs, don't we? Then
there are the gangs nobody (or almost nobody) recognizes -- Chechens,
the Taliban.
I have no trouble at all acknowledging the fact that lots of Latvians
did lots of evil things, whether as Red Riflemen or in Einsatzgruppen.
Hey, were we to tabulate it they probably got their recompense, as
Gordons would suggest, no?
> > Frightening, when not boring.
> >
> > You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> > power, victimized Austria, etc.
>
> As MTRP pointed out to you, those guys came to power legally in
> democratic elections.
That doesn't really fly. The Nazis did indeed get a plurality of the
vote (never a majority), and they quickly perverted the system to
destroy the democracy that had brought them to power. As I've said
again and again in various debates here -- elections aren't all there
is to democracy. Putin came to power in democratic elections, and we're
about to embark upon the latest in Russian elections. Timedrifter
equates democracy with instability, and he thinks just like Lt. Col.
Putin does -- the sort of democracy the West has, especially in
Britain, just can't work in Russia. Well, at one level he is right --
democracy has its organic aspects, methinks. There's a massive inertia
in Russia. Latvia isn't exactly Iceland. Finland is fine, though, no?
Why? Historical reasons, not necessarily ethnic, I suppose -- don't you
think? But countries do change -- I mean, Spain was what three decades
ago? How did that happen? Look at where the Baltics are in the RSF
press freedom index, and look at where Russia is, or Ukraine is. Okay,
we're small, easier to fix things.
What's ultimately depressing is that so many Russians don't _want_ to
fix things -- we see that in this group, with Russians who almost
without exception have abandoned Russia, never to return. Look at what
they say, Black Monk. Are the Latvians, those ancient devotees of the
murderous Riflemen, defending Soviet mores? Such an interesting nation,
the Russian! On the one hand, those nasty Riflemen raped Mother Russia
-- on the other, the crimes of the USSR must be lied about, justified,
or minimized in comparison to the Native American genocide at every
turn. Why do you think that is?
> > Germany has no problem with apologizing
> > -- in fact, Germany even pays compensation. Russia not only doesn't
> > apologize --
>
> Does Latvia whose statue in Riga dedicated to Latvian Riflemen is every
> bit as offensive as those for Lenin still standing in Russia or eastern
> Ukraine? Then why should Russia apologize.
Please forgive us, but this is a democracy -- no tsar decides which
statue stands at which street-corner. The "three drunkards" (that's
their nickname, from when vodka cost three rubles and three
impoverished sots were needed to buy a bottle) stand there for the same
reason the Victory Monument does -- moving monuments is mighty iffy,
and screams ensue from various quarters when anyone touches them or
Brits piss on them. The proposal for the three drunkards, not too long
ago, was to move them to the so-called Moscow _rayon_, which is mostly
Russian. There are sites there that are more appropriate historically
-- and it so happens that many Russians in Latvia are rather more
Soviet than Letts are. The Red Riflemen were heroes a couple of decades
ago.
> > it denies historical fact, supports the Stalinist
> > distortions of history that make it feel good about itself,
>
> Which facts are distorted in this specific thread?
No comment.
> > and limps along like the proverbial person with bad breath arguing that his
> > breath smells like violets.
> >
> > Do you know who Frank(s) Gordon(s) is -- the man you are quoting? I
> > respect the man, but he is an extreme right-winger in Tel Aviv, someone
> > who thinks Latvia should be like Likud's Israel.
>
> Why not. That is an honorable opinion. More importantly, why do you
> avoid what he said and instead shift the focus to the author's
> political orientation.
It is an honorable opinion, indeed -- but I was wondering whether you
realize "where he's coming from," not trying to shift the focus. I just
don't think you know very much about the Riflemen, and you're leaving
out most of their history, conveniently -- you showed that when you
said they did not fight for Russia. Most did, Black Monk, and they
fought hard and suffered massive losses. You are talking about the
_Red_ Riflemen, a minority of Riflemen, and you cannot possibly
understand them until you know more about the Riflkemen as a whole.
You might enjoy this book, for instance --
http://www.amazon.com/Latvian-Impact-Bolshevik-Revolution/dp/088033035X
> > He has expressed profound sympathy for the far right in Latvia, e.g., "Visu Latvijai!"
> > Baltic Russians are as Palestinian Arabs to him, in some sense.
>
> In the case of Lithuanians or Estonians or western Ukrainians that is
> fine with me. With Latvians, perhaps - although like Solzhenitzin part
> of me thinks that this is a sort of cruel trick of fate.
It's _not_ fine with me. I find the far right fearsome, whether it's
Russian, Latvian, Ukrainian, or Lithuanian.
> > Do you know how many people in the "Latvian" units that reached the Crimea
> > were actually Latvian, ethnically?
>
> I am more interested in how many in the Latvian units who saved the
> Bolshevik regime in 1918 were ethnically Latvians. And I know that
> most fo the ones slaughtering Ukrainian peasants were ethnic Latvians
> (that's specifically why they were there).
Get the Ezergailis book, then. It's a great book.
> > But, again -- a state does not bear responsibility for an _ethnos_,
>
> I agree. Which is why neither Latvia nor Russia bear responsibility
> for the ethnic makeup of the international band of criminals who
> hijacked Russia in 1917.
To return to your earlier metaphor -- most hostages aren't held for
seventy years, Black Monk. If they are, they bear children and probably
have grandchildren.
> > period. The Treaty of Rîga gave everybody a choice -- Russians could
> > go to Russia, Latvians to Latvia, and citizenship was freely granted.
> > Prior to that, all Latvians were Russian subjects. The Republic of
> > Latvia never even influenced the Red Riflemen, much less controlled
> > them.
>
> As if any legitimate Russian governemnt controlled them either?
So you would like to call those seventy plus years illegitimate? I get
the point, Black Monk -- if we call half a century of occupation
illegitimate, you can disown the Soviets, as Topolski would like to do?
Sorry, but the comparison fails, and fails badly -- Latvia beat the
Bolsheviks and established a democracy that was hijacked by Ulmanis,
who didn't kill anybody. This state was and is perfectly legitimate.
Russia was plunged into Bolshevism, Stalinism, stagnation, etc., taking
Latvia along for the ride by force for some time. We restored the
Republic -- Russia features election billboards with Ivan, Peter,
Stalin, Putin, et al. Latvia's legitimacy derives from a constituent
assembly chosen in free elections in 1920. That assembly drafted the
constitution we use today.
> > You, Topolski, and many others would like to pretend that Russia
> > was hijacked by an internationalist Soviet Union Russians do not bear
> > any responsibility for
>
> They bear about as much or less responsibility as Latvians, when
> considering the number of participants in the hijacking relative to
> population.
Back to the beginning, Black Monk -- you seem to be having trouble
distinguishing between...
> > -- that's bullshit, sorry, because the seat of
> > power was in the Kremlin,
>
> Well, the international gang wasn't going to take over the world based
> from Riga, were they?
It slowly assumed the essence and the trappings of the Russian Empire.
> > and the New Soviet Man would speak Russian.
>
> In many cases, after learning it.
Um, yeah. So you have no problem with the far right, but you have
trouble with the fact that people experience language shift,
assimilate, and/or integrate? There really aren't many choices for a
federation or an empire -- you can brutally crush minorities, treat
them as subject peoples, etc. -- but the basic problem with taking over
more territory than anybody ever has is pretty basic, no? I mean,
Russia can either be cool and multinational, or it can engage in
nationalist orgies and attempt to russify everybody in the federation.
Strive for the golden mean maybe. I suppose it could also just give up
and shrivel into Muscovy, but I don't think that's in the cards.
> > If it was a gang in 1917 (as opposed to the gang of "Whites," which I
> > see as at least as gangsterish as the Bolshevik gang), it was an
> > internationally recognized gang in full controlof Russian territory
> > only a few years later, and Russia inherited its UN seat.
>
> Let's not get chronologically mixed up here. Soviet rule wasn't
> recognized until years after the Revolution.
But Latvia and Estonia were the first to recognize it, no? Didn't take
so many years, sorry.
> This leads to an
> interesting point though. Having secured power, at what point did the
> entity that was clearly in the early years a gang ruling a terrified
> population through violence become a legitmate government of the
> Russian people.
To us, this took place in 1920.
> I suspect that this was a process that only began with
> Lenin's death. Stalin's reversal of national communist movement and
> his complete destruction of the other internationalists (virtually all
> of the original revolutionaries) was a necessary first step in this
> process. On a broad social level, the generations that had grown up in
> Russia had to die off and be replaced by those who only understood the
> Soviet reality. The Great Patriotic War may have been the event that
> finally ushered in the new transformed Russian man. Or maybe it's the
> same old story of Russia's many utter transformations. A lot of
> cultured, educated late-Soviet intelligentsia speaking of the
> post-Soviet gangsters are so similar to Bulgakov's good doctor speaking
> fo the new Soviet rabble. But this is a completely different topic...
>
> > The most moving nostalgia for the Soviet Union is in Russia.
>
> Yes, but would the Russian people have felt this way in 1919 or 1939?
My dear Black Monk (I wish you had a real name so I could address you
more familiarly -- by the way, one of the best restaurants in Rīga is
reportedly Melnie Mūki... I don't know if it really is that great
'cause I can't afford it -- to what does your nick refer?), _probably
not_ is my answer. The very brief period of Bolshevik rule in Latvia
ca. 1919 was enough to spoil the fun of communism for most Letts.
Fabriciuss (nice name, eh?) swore to build barricades made of bourgeois
bodies.
One of my favorite stories is that of the redoubtable Ilya Ehrenburg,
starving, staying on the train that stopped in Rīga despite the
inviting smell of the food, so as not to disgrace Soviet Man.
Do you really believe that Russia underwent utter transformations? I am
not so certain -- revolutions eat their children, to be sure, but they
also have a tendency to grow into trees that are not so very different
from the trees that their first fervent revolutionaries tried to chop
down.
Warm regards,
/P
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
DK wrote:
> In article <1169095816.5...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "=?iso-8859-1?q?Peteris_Cedrin=9A_(Peteris_Cedrins)?=" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >DK wrote:
> >> In article <1169069120....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "=?windows-1257?q?P=E7teris_Cedri=F2=F0_(Peteris_Cedrins)?="
> > <ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> Your arguments seem to have the same tone and flavour as the arguments
> >> >> by Russians denying the responsibility of Russia for the Soviet Union.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rostyk
> >> >
> >> >Dear Rostyk,
> >> >
> >> >They do? That's truly fascinating! Pray tell.
> >> >
> >> >One thing some people can't seem to get through their heads is that
> >> >ethnicity and nationality are quite different. Nationalism was retarded
> >> >here [sic!].
> >> >
> >> >As to the ethnic composition of those units -- maybe those arguing
> >> >could read a (non-Soviet) book instead of Googling and holding forth?
> >> >Maybe not.
> >>
> >> Vacietis, Judens, Peters, Klutsis - they were not Latvian?
> >> The riflemen division was drafted exclusively in Latvia and Latvians
> >
> >The little problem with this idea is that there was no Latvia -- I
> >don't see why it seems so difficult for some to grok this.
>
> independent country. Well, O.K., to make you happy, please
> substitute above "Latvia" with "territory that approximately
> corresponds to what now is a Latvian Republic". Sheesh.
Sheesh? Excuse me, but becoming a nation-state requires rather more
than a territory and a tribe. So, hey, if Latvia is a "territory that
approximately corresponds to..." -- you blame territories for what
happens? I mean, it must have been blank oblast' that hurt the Russians
so. Brandenburg should be enemy number one? Sheesh!
You fail to get the point -- Latvia was part of Russia. The Latvian
nation, in the modern sense, just turned 150. That's pretty young,
don't you think? 150 years ago it wasn't a political entity at all. It
wasn't yet a political entity in 1917, even. Russia didn't occupy
Latvia in the 18th C -- it absorbed statelets and sub-statelets that
were administered by Germans, who mostly remained faithful to retarded
feudal ideas even unto 1919. Courland was never a nation-state -- get
it?
> >To join
> >Martin in looking for analogies -- let's say I'm an ethnic Croat, but
> >devoted to a Socialist Yugoslavia and then to a Greater Serbia.
> >Yugoslavia breaks up, and I go join the courageous Serbian forces. I
> >spit upon Croatia and join my beloved Serbs in crushing the unwashed
> >Albanians of Kosova for the greater glory of Slavic brotherhood, etc.
> >Excuse me, but how would Republika Hrvatska be responsible?
> >
> >The Republic of Latvia wasn't even _proclaimed_ until 18 November 1918.
> >It had never existed before -- there were the Baltic Provinces of
> >Courland and Livonia, and eastern Latvia was part of Votebsk and Pskov
> >_gubernii_.
> >
> >Of the ca. 35 000 Riflemen active before the Christmas Battles, 4000
> >were killed or wounded, 200 joined the Troitsk or Imanta regiments, and
> >more than 25 000 were demobilized, many later joining the Latvian Army.
> >Of ca. 1000 officers, 770 took part in the Latvian War of Liberation.
> >
> >Of the Reds -- of the 16 333 men in the "Latvian Division" that took
> >the Crimea, only 6278 were ethnic Latvians!
>
> "Only" :-) But lets not forget that that was the end of the division
> existence. What about Jan 1918, Petrograd? - they went straight from
> Latvia there. How about Moscow, summer 1918? Does your book list
> these numbers?
I see no reason to pursue the argument ifyou can't tell the difference
between an ethnic Latvian and a Latvian national, sorry. Maybe you
would like the numbers of ethnic Russians in the Waffen-SS? What would
that do for you?
> >Some of you seem to be forgetting that Latvia fought _against_ the
> >Bolsheviks. There were plenty of Lettish Bolsheviks, yes, and many
> >reached high positions. They were _ethnic_ Latvians -- they were
> >_never_ Latvian citizens.
> >
> >What's next? You want Israel to apologize for Jewish Bolsheviks, maybe?
>
> Get a grip. I don't want anyone to apologize for anything. Certainly
> a state apologizing for its past deeds is a very stupid thing.
Oh, I have a grasp, methinks, even if tenuous. I'm just trying to
follow your logic.
Let us a seek a heavenly allegory, no matter how hellish. I, Vanya,
part Viking but resolutely Russkie, expand like a pretty balloon. Here
is this nice house, dominated by Hans. I take it. There are these
savages running about, Jani. I make a deal with Hans. Janis never
had much to do with it, except that the storm called the enlightenment
swept over this house and the savages happened to be considerably more
literate than I, and thus consumed Marxism. My giant house fell apart,
and Janis is partly to blame -- but Janis went home and fixed his
house whilst I indulged in red orgies. Any Jani in my house, which
experienced the bliss of electrification like a blessed virgin might,
were Ivans. Threatened by Hans, I made friends with Hans. I then took
over the tiny house of this pesky Janis. Hans betrayed me and scorched
my earth. But I had hidden reserves and trounced Hans, and so those
dirty Jani were once again in my hands. Lo and behold, my beautiful
_khrushchovka_ finally collapsed. Again, that filthy Janis got away
and fixes his house! Oil bubbles beneath me, and so does my resentment.
Nobody respects me, and this disrespect compounds my resentment.
> I am, like others, just pointing out to you that you *demand* a double
> standard - Russians have to apologize for everything and Latvians
> don't have anything to apologize for.
When did I ever ask Russians to apologize for anything?
Were I a Russian, I should like to be able to face myself in the
mirror. That could be quite difficult.
Double standards? Where? Sorry, but the Reds lost in Latvia.
> If you want *citizens* to apologize then, if you insist on Russians
> apologizing now, all Latvians who lived in the USSR have to
> apologize as well - after all, they *were* citizens! Also, keep in
> mind that a large part of Red Riflemen went back to Latvia after
> 1920 and was granted a *Latvian citizenship*. So, here you go,
> even your objection "they were not Latvians because Latvia
> did not exist" does not formally hold.
Yes, many came back. Maybe you should consider the Israel comparison
more closely? The Treaty, which I already quoted, is quite clear -- it
drew a line through what each did to the other. Maybe you will pirsue
these arguments with every nation that came into being? I mean, those
vile AmeriKKKans ruined part of the British Empire!
The difference there is that America is a democracy and rather rich.
Russia is a bardak with petrorubles.
> >> So, unless you come
> >> up with a solid proof otherwise, it is safe to think that majority of
> >> Riflemen were ethnic Latvian.
> >
> >See any decent history book. Edgars Andersons, for example -- _Latvijas
> >vesture 1914-1920_, p. 591. Stockholm: Daugava, 1967.
>
> I'll check it out when I get time to go to a library. Will also try to find
> other sources.
Check it out, please. But the point is one you just can't seem to
swallow -- no book will help you with that.
Regards,
/P
The Black Monk
There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
German people.
In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror. And
guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
support.
regards,
BM
>
> Regards,
> John
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > > No, sorry. As has been pointed our more than once, you seem to be
> > > having trouble distinguishing nations, ethnicities, governments, and
> > > individuals.
> >
> > Not at all. Rather, you seem to to have trouble differentiating a
> > government or a nation from a criminal gang. To make a rough analogy,
> > the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers had passengers and
> > hijackers. Don't blame the former for the destruction caused by the
> > latter.
>
> I don't see how one could conduct foreign policy of any kind is if this
> is how one insisted upon seeing the world. Every dictator is
> illegitimate, then? Some are more legitimate than others, at some
> level, sure -- but if a despot or a criminal gang sits on a throne long
> enough, especially if that throne is a rich one, you have to deal with
> it. Either that or cry "régime change!" and enjoy the quagmire...
Sure. But in 1917 or 1920 the gang had not been sitting on Russia's
throne long enough to be legitimized by any standard of what that means
(indeed, the struggle for that throne had not yet ended in 1920). It
wasn't diplomatically recognized by most European countries until 1924
and the US until 1933.
But besides diplomatic recognition out of necessity isn't a standard
that equals culpability. Recognizing a regime in order to be able to
work with it is not the same thing as recognizing that this regime
represents the will of its population and thus that the population must
pay for the regime's crimes (say, through demands of compensation from
their post-regime government, which means that the Russian taxpayers
will pay).
This is why no normal Czech would blame Poland, Hungary etc. for the
invasion of 1968. And why a normal Latvian or Ukrainian shouldn't
blame Russia for things that happened in the 1920's and 1930's. OTOH
blaming the Communist parties and seeking compensation from them is
another story...
> > > Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> > > much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> > > doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> > > citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
> >
> > And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
> > Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
> > alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
>
> This doesn't make much sense to me, Black Monk. Russia is the successor
> state to the Soviet Union, as Soviet Russia was renamed, which was the
> successor state to the Russian Empire.
In order to create Soviet Russia it was necessary to destroy the old
society "root and branch." A brutal war was waged by a small minority
of Russians who considered themselves first and foremost
internationalists, along with Latvians and others against the Russian
aristocracy, the Russian Church, the Russian peasantry, the Russian
workers, and the Russian middle classes who constituted Russia. The
USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire in the sense that it
was created like a Frankenstein monster out of that Empire's corpse, by
that Empire's murderers.
So, blame the murderers and creators of the monster. No _nation_ was
responsible. Indeed, all nations that came into contact with those
murderers were victims, including the Russian nation. Among the gang
of murderers responsible for those crimes were a large number of
Latvians.
...cut...
> Your position makes about as much sense to me as that of some retro
> Ottoman -- instead of fighting the invaders, he might whine about his
> hatred for the tranformation of his Empire into a secular, Western,
> nationalist, Turkish state. That's sort of the reverse, but I think you
> can see why there's a parallel -- countries _do_ transform, and
> backslide, and break up, and marry and give in marriage.
The difference here is that Ataturk didn't come to power against the
will of the Turkish people. But let's bring this topic back to its
original focus: alleged culpability for Soviet crimes. In 1917-1920
Russia could have been transformed into many things, such as a
constitutional democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or something
resembling Hortha's Hungarian White government.
Instead, it became the Soviet Union due to a process in which the
participation of the Latvian Red Rifles was critical.
...cut...
> > Sorry, I was quite clear in not blaming Latvians in generalm, and by
> > extension, Latvia, for the crimes of the monstrous Latvian Riflemen. I
> > was just pointing out yours (and others') double standard in doing the
> > same for Russia.
>
> For the record, I've never asked for compensation -- in fact, I think
> it's idiotic to ask for it, and I've said so many a time... I mean,
> compensation from Russia to Latvia; _individuals_ who performed forced
> labor _should_ be compensated, and Germany does pay --
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/30/europe/EU_GEN_Compensating_Nazi_Victims.php
>
> (The woman quoted at the end is my mother-in-law, by the way -- today
> is her 79th birthday!)
I have no problem with compensating individuals for their suffering.
But the payer should not be the Russian state (i.e., Russian taxpayers)
because as has been said many many times the Russian people were not
responsible for the crimes. Unlike the Germans who do bear
responsibilty for the acts of their chosen and beloved government.
> Relations between states follow guidelines, even if those are fluid --
> we maintain relations with all sorts of gangs of thugs, don't we? Then
> there are the gangs nobody (or almost nobody) recognizes -- Chechens,
> the Taliban.
>
> I have no trouble at all acknowledging the fact that lots of Latvians
> did lots of evil things, whether as Red Riflemen or in Einsatzgruppen.
> Hey, were we to tabulate it they probably got their recompense, as
> Gordons would suggest, no?
Probably...
> > > Frightening, when not boring.
> > >
> > > You can say the same things about the Nazis -- gang of thugs, took
> > > power, victimized Austria, etc.
> >
> > As MTRP pointed out to you, those guys came to power legally in
> > democratic elections.
>
> That doesn't really fly. The Nazis did indeed get a plurality of the
> vote (never a majority), and they quickly perverted the system to
> destroy the democracy that had brought them to power.
To an extent. OTOH there is no reason to suggest that the Germans
didn't like this perversion. A similar but much softer process
happened in the US following 9-11. But nobody's suggesting that Bush
2004 was somehow less legitimate than Bush 2002 in proportion to the
curtailing of certailing of certain freedoms.
(I find the rest quite interesting but beyond the scope of this topic,
so I will comment later)
regards,
BM
MTRP™
> J. Anderson wrote:
> > question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
> > cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
> There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
> of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
> time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
> and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
> German people.
That's right. Hitler's govt was legal and legitimate from the very
beginning in 1933 until his suicide in the fuehrerbunker in 1945. As
for the broad support, statistics sez that 'Adolf' was the most popular
male baby name in Germany between 1933 and the Stalingrad debacle in
1942-43.
> In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
> and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror. And
> guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
> support.
Yep, nothing to add here.
martin
And loved by the current Russian leadership, which declared the
collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political tragedy of the
20th century.
>And
> guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
> support.
And also the support of Trotsky and his 5 million Red Army combatants.
Regards,
Martin
MTRP™
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> > people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> > and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror.
> And loved by the current Russian leadership, which declared the
> collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political tragedy of the
> 20th century.
That's just your newest illogical interpretation. Of course the
collapse of SU was one of the greatest geopolitical tragedies of the
20th century. Even the collapse of East Germany was a geopolitical
tragedy (not a great one though). But it does not imply that Putin (the
author of your citation) loves ex-communist bosses. Actually he's
trying to "silently" rehabilitate Russian White Guard ... and
reportedly he already tried (but failed) to kick out Lenin's cadaver
from the Mausoleum. It just takes time.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
>
B.M. To satisfy Mr. Cedrins you must make sure to specify
Ethnic Latvians (with a further description), vs Latvians in the Latvian
nationals sense (with further qualifications) ;) and explain the position
of those supporters within the boundaries of those disctinct but overlapping
definitions. ;)
Also keep in mind the arguements (defenses, denials) of the Russians
who claim that Russians were not responsible for the majority of the policies
and deeds of the Soviet Union.
--
Rostyk
o
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1169073175.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
> > > cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
> >
> > There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
> > of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
> > time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
> > and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
> > German people.
> >
> > In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
> > and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> > people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> > and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror.
>
> And loved by the current Russian leadership, which declared the
> collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political tragedy of the
> 20th century.
The USSR whose collapse was in that way described by Putin was not
exactly the same as the one from the 1920's and 30's. Can you find
quotes of Putin praising Stalin?
> >And guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
> > support.
>
> And also the support of Trotsky and his 5 million Red Army combatants.
You seem to have trouble with historical dates. The Red Army reached
five million at the end of the war. The Latvian involvement was
decisive in 1917 through the summer of 1918. Remember, it was the
Latvian Red Riflemen who crushed the revolt in Moscow that would have
led to Lenin's, Trotsky's, Dzerzhinsky's end. The Latvians literally
saved the Revolution. Without them it would have failed.
Conscription into the Red Army started in July 1918 and by the end of
that year the Red Army had 500,000 troops. Your 5 million are about as
relevent in this discussion as the 11.3 million Soviet troops in 1945.
I will quote extensively from historian Visvaldis Mangulis. The author
states that the Latvians were lied to by Lenin, etc. which is probably
true but irrelevent to the purpose of this discussion. I will only
quote, for your education, the actions conducted by the Latvians that
made the Bolshevik revolution successful:
http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/05.nod.htm
"The disarray and confusion of Russia after the downfall of the Czar
gave Lenin and his Bolshevik minority a chance to grab power. When he
did succeed in the establishment of a Bolshevik government, few people
expected that to last longer than a few weeks. It did last longer than
that largely because he had a military force - the Latvian Rifles -
which was unbeatable at the crucial early moments of the birth of the
Soviet Union."
...
"The Military Revolutionary Committee of the 12th Army was organized on
October 31 (18) with a Latvian chairman Juris Carinš and mostly
Latvian members[4], [6]. At the last moment Kerensky tried to improve
his relations with the Latvians by authorizing the unification of the
regiments into a Latvian Rifle Corps, something which Colonel Vacietis
and other officers had sought for a long time[7]. However, this gesture
was too little too late. It could not eradicate the bitterness
generated previously by Kerensky's hostility toward non-Russian
nationalities.
The Bolshevik uprising in Petrograd took place during the night from
November 6 to 7 (old style calendar, October 24 to 25, hence it is
called the October Revolution). Troops loyal to Bolsheviks occupied
railway stations, banks, and the telephone exchange. Kerensky fled for
the front. The Provisional Government in the [page 27] Winter Palace
surrendered during the night from November 7 to 8 to a force of Red
Guards, sailors, and soldiers. The sailors were led by the Latvian
Eižens Bergs[8].
The Second Congress of Soviets met in the great hall of the Smolny
Institute in the evening of November 7 while the Winter Palace was
still under siege. The Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries
denounced the uprising. A delegate from the 12th Army protested the
revolution as a stab in the back of the army and a crime against the
people. Khinchuk, an officer from the 5th Army, declared that the
Congress of Soviets was not necessary because a Constituent Assembly
was scheduled to be held in three weeks. Khinchuk read a Menshevik
declaration of withdrawal from the Congress. The delegates hesitated -
perhaps the Bolsheviks did stand alone, and perhaps the army was
marching on Petrograd. Then, as described by the American correspondent
John Reed[9], a delegate of the Latvian Rifles, Karlis Petersons,
leaped upon the speaker's platform:
"Comrades!" he cried and there was a hush. "My name is Petersons
- I speak for the 2nd Latvian Rifles. You have heard the statements of
two representatives of the Army committees; these statements would have
some value if their authors had been representatives of the Army."
Wild applause. "But they do not represent the soldiers! ... Our
Committee refused to call a meeting of the representatives of the
masses until the end of September, so that the reactionaries could
elect their own false delegates to this Congress. I tell you now, the
Latvian soldiers have many times said, 'No more resolutions! No more
talk! We want deeds-the Power must be in our hands!' Let these
impostor delegates leave the Congress! The Army is not with them!"
According to John Reed the hall rocked with cheering and suddenly the
delegates stopped wavering-this seemed to be the voice of soldiers. In
reality most of the 12th Army was either neutral or against the
Bolsheviks, and the Latvian Rifles (plus a few Russian regiments) were
the only ones actively supporting them, misled by Lenin's promises of
self-determination for all nationalities.
However, the Bolshevik foothold in Russia was still small and
precarious. The Menshevik majority in the Executive Committee of the
Soldiers' Soviet of the 12th Army in the Latvian town of Valka
declared itself against the new Bolshevik government on November 8.
However, the Latvian Rifles purged their regiments of anti-Bolshevik
officers and occupied Cesis on November 9, Valmiera on November 11.
They frustrated the attempts of the 12th Army Headquarters to send
troops to Petrograd and, in the words of the Russian General
Baronovskii, terrified the whole 12th Army. The reserve regiment,
stationed in Estonia, secured the town of Tartu. The last stronghold of
the anti-Bolsheviks, the 12th Army Headquarters in Valka, was occupied
by Latvian Rifles on November 20. To avoid the appearance of ethnic
warfare, a Russian regiment was sent along. The planner of the seizure
of Valka, Colonel Vacietis, was appointed Commander of the 12th Army.
Kerensky had gathered a small force and clashed with Red Guards
southwest of Petrograd on November 12-14 while officer cadets attempted
an unsuccessful uprising against the Bolsheviks inside the city.
Defeated, Kerensky fled into exile.
In Moscow the Latvian Ensign O.Berzinš became the Bolshevik
commandant of the Kremlin on November 7. The Kremlin was important both
as a fortress and as an arsenal for the Red Guards. The Chief of Staff
of the Moscow Red Guards was the Latvian Janis Piece. Fighting
between Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik forces ended on November 15 with
victory by the Bolshevik Red Guards.
Since the German occupation of Latvia had dispersed Latvians throughout
Russia, they were active in the October Revolution from the Baltic Sea
to the Pacific Ocean. Ivars Smilga was the head of the Regional Soviet
Committee in Finland. Roberts Eidemanis was the vice-chairman of the
Siberian Executive Committee. The chairman of the Crimean Military
Revolutionary Committee was Juris Gavenis. The Commandant of Petrograd
was Augusts Klavs-Klavinš. Martinš Lacis, Jekabs Peterss,
Karlis Petersons, and Peteris Stucka were members of the Petrograd
Military Revolutionary Committee. Stucka became Commissar of Justice
(equivalent to a cabinet minister) at the end of November. In general
the oppressed non-Russians were prominent in the October Revolution:
Stalin and Ordzhonikidze were Georgians; Sverdlov, Trotsky, Kamenev,
Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Radek were Jews; etc.
During Kerensky's attack several regiments of the Petrograd garrison
had refused to take part in the battle against Kerensky. The Russian
soldiers were disorganized, the Kronstadt sailors were reluctant to
accept any authority, and the Red Guards were militarily weak. To
secure the Bolshevik position the Military Revolutionary Committee
asked for a transfer of some Latvian Rifle units to Petrograd.
Antonov-Ovseenko requested such units by telegram on November 19. A
special selected company for guard duty at the Smolny Institute (the
location of Lenin's government) arrived in Petrograd on December 9.
The 6th Latvian Rifle Regiment arrived on December 8 to perform general
guard duty in Petrograd. Similar requests for Latvian Rifles came from
Moscow and other cities because of their reputation as elite units. At
first the Rifles resisted such dismemberment into small detachments
scattered all over Russia, but by 1918 one could find Latvian regiments
on all fronts of the ensuing civil war.
....
The Russian Constituent Assembly convened on January 18 in Petrograd to
write the new constitution. The elections had given the Bolsheviks only
24% of the vote; the Socialist Revolutionaries had received 58% [43].
The Bolsheviks had supported the Assembly when they had hopes of
dominating it. Now they dispersed it by force, using sailors and
Latvian Rifles
....
And while the Germans occupied Latvia, the Latvian Rifles were
foolishly busy elsewhere. The 3rd Regiment seized Rostov, the capital
of the Don Cossacks, from the Volunteer Army and anti-Bolshevik
Cossacks on February 22 together with a Red Guard unit commanded by the
Latvian Rudolfs Siverss. The 1st Regiment and a battalion of the 4th
Regiment captured Rogachev from an anti-Bolshevik Polish Corps on
February 11. In March and April all Latvian Rifle Regiments were
transformed into regiments of a newly formed Russian Red Army and
combined into a division, known as Latdivision, commanded by Vacietis.
It was the first fully organized division of the new Red Army, although
it was scattered all over Russia: the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 9th
Regiments were in Moscow, 6th in Petrograd, 5th and 8th in Bologoye,
7th in Novgorod. The division also had units of cavalry, artillery,
aviation, and [page 33] engineers. The 9th Regiment was formed from the
special company of Lenin's bodyguards. Lenin and the rest of the
government moved to Moscow on March 12 since now the Germans were
uncomfortably close to Petrograd.
....
In June Bolsheviks had expelled Mensheviks and Right Socialist [page
36] Revolutionaries from all Soviets, leaving the Left Socialist
Revolutionaries (SRs) as the only non-Bolshevik legal political party.
The latter wanted to resume the war with Germany. Therefore, two Left
SR conspirators assassinated the German Ambassador in Moscow, Count
Mirbach, on July 6. The Left SRs seized the Moscow telegraph office and
sent messages to all Soviets declaring that the SRs were now in power.
Troops loyal to the SRs occupied a large part of Moscow and moved on
the Kremlin, the seat of the Bolshevik government, guarded by the 9th
Regiment of the Latvian Rifles. Other Latvian Regiments were stationed
outside Moscow. Lenin placed Vacietis in command of the Bolshevik
forces in Moscow[74]. Since the SR troops moved slowly and cautiously,
Vacietis was able to bring the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Latvian Rifle
Regiments into Moscow during the night and to counterattack on July 7.
A Latvian artillery unit, commanded by Eduards Berzinš, took up a
position directly across from the SR Staff Headquarters, and the first
shell landed in their conference room. By the end of the day the revolt
of the Left SRs was finished. The revolt in Petrograd was put down by
the 6th and 7th Latvian Rifle Regiments and other Red Army detachments.
....
Here is what an arrested Western spy said about the Red Latvians whom
you and others accused of being "Soviet Russians." Here is what they
thought of Russians:
"The Letts [Latvians] were the best [sentries]. Most of them were
contemptuous of the Russians, whom they regarded as inferiors. One Lett
informed me that, if Russia could have put a million non-Russian troops
into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the war. Every time
the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by the Russians, who
failed invariably to support them. He despised, too, the dirt and
laziness of the Russian troops. On the other hand, he had a wholesome
respect for the Bolshevik leaders, whom he regarded as supermen."
....
The turning point in the Russian civil war came at Kazan, a city [page
40] on the Volga river, east of Moscow. The Red forces who had been
retreating from the periphery toward Moscow and Petrograd on all fronts
made a stand at Kazan and turned the tide.
Vacietis was appointed as commander of the entire Bolshevik Eastern
Front in July with his headquarters in Kazan. The 5th Regiment of the
Latvian Rifles was stationed in Kazan and repulsed the initial attack
by the Czecho-Slovak Corps on August 4. However, by August 6 the White
forces were gradually surrounding the Reds in Kazan, and the city was
passing into White hands in heavy street fighting. A White insurgent
underground appeared in the rear of the Reds, firing from rooftops and
windows. Several Red units, including Latvians, and even some of
Vacietis staff officers deserted to the White side.
Vacietis had decided to defend Kazan until the last man. His
headquarters with 180 Latvian Rifles, 2 artillery pieces, and 2 armored
cars was surrounded. He broke through the encirclement with 120 Rifles
and tried to reach the Kazan Kremlin (the citadel). However, when they
had almost reached it, the Kremlin garrison suddenly opened fire - they
had deserted to the Whites. The Rifles broke up into small groups and
attempted to fight their way out of Kazan. Vacietis group started out
with 27 Rifles; six made it to the Red lines, the rest were killed. The
Whites captured Kazan and the former gold reserve of the Imperial
Government which the Latvians had transported there from Petrograd.
The Latvians suffered heavy losses at Kazan. Even though they had to
surrender Kazan temporarily to the Whites, their stubborn stand gave
the Reds a chance to regroup and made the Whites cautious about further
advances. In exchange for this blood sacrifice the 5th Regiment was the
first in the Red Army to receive the new highest decoration - the Flag
of Honor.
Trotsky arrived at Sviyazhsk, near Kazan, and issued an order that
commanders and commissars (the Bolshevik political overseers of the
professional officers) of regiments which fled would be shot. The
Latvian Smilga and some other old Bolsheviks flatly refused to carry
out such orders.
The 1st and 6th and parts of the 2nd Latvian Rifle Regiment were
transferred to Sviyazhsk and stopped a White attempt to capture it on
August 28. On September 5 the Latvians counterattacked and retook Kazan
on September 10. It was heralded [page 41] throughout Bolshevik Russia
as the first major victory of the Red forces.
Trotsky appointed Vacietis as the Commander-in-Chief of all Armed
Forces on September 6
-----------------------
regards,
BM
> Regards,
> Martin
martin
Sure, they may have failed, but Hitler failed too in his first attempt
to grab power in 1923 via the Beerhall Putsch. Lenin was a resourceful
guy, he would have tried again later, probably via electoral means, as
did Hitler.
>
> Conscription into the Red Army started in July 1918 and by the end of
> that year the Red Army had 500,000 troops. Your 5 million are about as
> relevent in this discussion as the 11.3 million Soviet troops in 1945.
>
>
> I will quote extensively from historian Visvaldis Mangulis. The author
> states that the Latvians were lied to by Lenin, etc. which is probably
> true but irrelevent to the purpose of this discussion. I will only
> quote, for your education, the actions conducted by the Latvians that
> made the Bolshevik revolution successful:
>
> http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/05.nod.htm
>
> "The disarray and confusion of Russia after the downfall of the Czar
> gave Lenin and his Bolshevik minority a chance to grab power. When he
> did succeed in the establishment of a Bolshevik government, few people
> expected that to last longer than a few weeks. It did last longer than
> that largely because he had a military force - the Latvian Rifles -
> which was unbeatable at the crucial early moments of the birth of the
> Soviet Union."
Well you would expect a Latvian historian to over inflate the
importance of the Latvian Rifles in toppling the mighty Russian Empire.
Does official Soviet history view them in the same way?
Regards,
Martin
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
[deletions]
It's Russia that is at the forefront of efforts to quash or water
resolutions condemning communism, Black Monk. Russia is one of the
countries that has the most profound difficulties with facing the
Soviet past, except for select parts like its victory in the War.
Latvia was independent in the 1920s and 1930s -- there's nothing to
blame Russia for until 1939, except for its failure to fulfill the
terms of the 1920 Treaty and return things that were taken during the
First World War.
> > > > Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> > > > much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> > > > doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> > > > citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
> > >
> > > And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
> > > Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
> > > alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
A certain Corsican didn't fight for the France of the "legitimate"
Bourbons, but we don't try to pretend that the First Empire wasn't
French. Not so dissimilar -- wild-eyed idealists destroy the _ancien
régime_ and institute terror. Later a man comes along and takes power.
> > This doesn't make much sense to me, Black Monk. Russia is the successor
> > state to the Soviet Union, as Soviet Russia was renamed, which was the
> > successor state to the Russian Empire.
>
> In order to create Soviet Russia it was necessary to destroy the old
> society "root and branch." A brutal war was waged by a small minority
> of Russians who considered themselves first and foremost
> internationalists, along with Latvians and others against the Russian
> aristocracy, the Russian Church, the Russian peasantry, the Russian
> workers, and the Russian middle classes who constituted Russia. The
> USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire in the sense that it
> was created like a Frankenstein monster out of that Empire's corpse, by
> that Empire's murderers.
>
> So, blame the murderers and creators of the monster. No _nation_ was
> responsible. Indeed, all nations that came into contact with those
> murderers were victims, including the Russian nation. Among the gang
> of murderers responsible for those crimes were a large number of
> Latvians.
Not to get overly repetitive, but an empire is not a nation-state --
Latvians were citizens of the empire, and they fought very bravely for
the empire in a war that the empire prosecuted with the same ineptitude
by which that empire had long been misgoverned. There was a revolution,
and people, Latvians included, fought on different sides. Latvia has
three governments simultaneously for a period -- Stučka's Red one,
Ulmanis' Republic, and Niedra's German puppet government. Though the
Bolsheviks were very popular in 1917 (which was prior to Latvia's
independent existence even fomally), the brief period of Soviet rule in
part of the country quickly dissolved their support. Even the Latvian
Social Democratic party, then under Bolshevik control, was not
independent -- it was an autonomus _regional_ organization of the
Russian party from 1906, and the non-Bolshevik party wasn't
(re-)established until June 1918.
The Republic won in Latvia, but the Bolsheviks won in Russia -- by the
time the Republic was invaded, Russia/Soviet Russia/the USSR was
indisputably the new Russian Empire. That the empire still paid lip
service to "internationalism" and included many non-Russians doesn't
affect the _state_ in a meaningful way -- Russia is _still_ an empire,
isn't it, even if it's called a "federation"? The Bourbons were
returned to power in France, Haiti had become independent, we've seen a
number of republics, etc. -- it's still France, and if large numbers of
Haitians or pieds-noirs, citizens of France, had raped Monaco on behalf
of the nth Republic, taking their orders in French from Paris, we
wouldn't say that Monaco was invaded by Haiti or Algeria, would we?
> ...cut...
>
> > Your position makes about as much sense to me as that of some retro
> > Ottoman -- instead of fighting the invaders, he might whine about his
> > hatred for the tranformation of his Empire into a secular, Western,
> > nationalist, Turkish state. That's sort of the reverse, but I think you
> > can see why there's a parallel -- countries _do_ transform, and
> > backslide, and break up, and marry and give in marriage.
>
> The difference here is that Ataturk didn't come to power against the
> will of the Turkish people. But let's bring this topic back to its
> original focus: alleged culpability for Soviet crimes. In 1917-1920
> Russia could have been transformed into many things, such as a
> constitutional democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or something
> resembling Hortha's Hungarian White government.
What concerns me most is that it _wasn't_ -- I've read stuff like
Kerensky's memoirs, and of course I agree that Russia was victimized.
As a Latvian, though, I don't have much sympathy for Russian
monarchists, reactionaries, or even democrats (of that era; for those
in this era, I do) -- as I've mentioned before, almost none of them
seemed particularly sympathetic to the cause of the non-Russian
peoples. The Bolsheviks _were_, at least on paper, and that is part of
what made them so attractive to Letts. We have hindsight, but the
Riflemen didn't. Personally, I think it would have been very difficult
to make such a smooth transformation -- because of the level of
education in Russia proper, mostly, and because you had what Reds would
call a "revolutionary situation." The time to introduce a
constitutional monarchy was in 1905. Didn't really happen.
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
Well, on that score -- who were the Dvintsi? Maybe they were Latvians,
too?
/P
captain.
like he can :)
J. Anderson
at all for the Empire of Evil. They prefer to go back 80+ years in history
pointing out a few thousand Latvians as the real culprits.
In addition to the Riflemen, it's OK to blame the communists*, who for some
reason had no nationality. But in the case of Germany one shouldn't blame
only the Nazis but the whole German people.
*) There were 19 million party members end of the 80s. All totally innocent,
of course. Except the non-Russians, of course.
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
>
>
> > Pçteris Cedriòð (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > > The Black Monk wrote:
...cut...
> > But besides diplomatic recognition out of necessity isn't a standard
> > that equals culpability. Recognizing a regime in order to be able to
> > work with it is not the same thing as recognizing that this regime
> > represents the will of its population and thus that the population must
> > pay for the regime's crimes (say, through demands of compensation from
> > their post-regime government, which means that the Russian taxpayers
> > will pay).
> >
> > This is why no normal Czech would blame Poland, Hungary etc. for the
> > invasion of 1968. And why a normal Latvian or Ukrainian shouldn't
> > blame Russia for things that happened in the 1920's and 1930's. OTOH
> > blaming the Communist parties and seeking compensation from them is
> > another story...
>
> It's Russia that is at the forefront of efforts to quash or water
> resolutions condemning communism, Black Monk.
This modern phenomenon, to the extent that it is true, does not relate
to the Soviet regime of 1917 through the 1930's, the one responsible
for the crimes we are discussing.
> Russia is one of the
> countries that has the most profound difficulties with facing the
> Soviet past, except for select parts like its victory in the War.
I would say based on this thread that Latvians share this difficulty ;)
> Latvia was independent in the 1920s and 1930s -- there's nothing to
> blame Russia for until 1939, except for its failure to fulfill the
> terms of the 1920 Treaty and return things that were taken during the
> First World War.
>
> > > > > Latvia hadn't even been proclaimed independence in 1917,
> > > > > much less was it a functioning nation-state. Martin's flawed analogy
> > > > > doesn't take that into account. The Red Riflemen were not Latvian
> > > > > citizens, and they never fought for Latvia.
> > > >
> > > > And the Russian Soviets did not fight for Russia but for the
> > > > Internationalist Soviet project. Indeed they fought against Russia
> > > > alongside their Latvian and other colleagues.
>
> A certain Corsican didn't fight for the France of the "legitimate"
> Bourbons, but we don't try to pretend that the First Empire wasn't
> French.
Again, Latvian participation wasn't merely some important individuals
(unlike Polish or Georgian particpiation). It's not a good analogy for
this reason.
> Not so dissimilar -- wild-eyed idealists destroy the _ancien
> régime_ and institute terror. Later a man comes along and takes power.
There are many similarities between the Bolshevik terrorists and the
French Republican mass murderers. A difference is that the French
murders were mostly a local project and the vicitms were also mostly
local. The ones operating in Russia were an international gang
operating with an internationalist ideology. According to the an
imprisoned Western diplomat/spy:
"The Letts [Latvians] were the best [sentries]. Most of them were
contemptuous of the Russians, whom they regarded as inferiors. One Lett
informed me that, if Russia could have put a million non-Russian troops
into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the war. Every time
the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by the Russians, who
failed invariably to support them. He despised, too, the dirt and
laziness of the Russian troops. On the other hand, he had a wholesome
respect for the Bolshevik leaders, whom he regarded as supermen."
> > > This doesn't make much sense to me, Black Monk. Russia is the successor
> > > state to the Soviet Union, as Soviet Russia was renamed, which was the
> > > successor state to the Russian Empire.
> >
> > In order to create Soviet Russia it was necessary to destroy the old
> > society "root and branch." A brutal war was waged by a small minority
> > of Russians who considered themselves first and foremost
> > internationalists, along with Latvians and others against the Russian
> > aristocracy, the Russian Church, the Russian peasantry, the Russian
> > workers, and the Russian middle classes who constituted Russia. The
> > USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire in the sense that it
> > was created like a Frankenstein monster out of that Empire's corpse, by
> > that Empire's murderers.
> >
> > So, blame the murderers and creators of the monster. No _nation_ was
> > responsible. Indeed, all nations that came into contact with those
> > murderers were victims, including the Russian nation. Among the gang
> > of murderers responsible for those crimes were a large number of
> > Latvians.
>
> Not to get overly repetitive, but an empire is not a nation-state --
> Latvians were citizens of the empire, and they fought very bravely for
> the empire in a war that the empire prosecuted with the same ineptitude
> by which that empire had long been misgoverned. There was a revolution,
> and people, Latvians included, fought on different sides. Latvia has
> three governments simultaneously for a period -- Stuèka's Red one,
> Ulmanis' Republic, and Niedra's German puppet government. Though the
> Bolsheviks were very popular in 1917 (which was prior to Latvia's
> independent existence even fomally), the brief period of Soviet rule in
> part of the country quickly dissolved their support. Even the Latvian
> Social Democratic party, then under Bolshevik control, was not
> independent -- it was an autonomus _regional_ organization of the
> Russian party from 1906, and the non-Bolshevik party wasn't
> (re-)established until June 1918.
>
> The Republic won in Latvia, but the Bolsheviks won in Russia --
Thanks to Red Latvians.
> by the time the Republic was invaded, Russia/Soviet Russia/the USSR was
> indisputably the new Russian Empire.
Not at all. The Whites were still a significant force at that time.
> That the empire still paid lip
> service to "internationalism" and included many non-Russians doesn't
> affect the _state_ in a meaningful way -- Russia is _still_ an empire,
> isn't it, even if it's called a "federation"?
Actually the criminal Soviet Union was pretty internationalist until
Stalin's dominance. The original Bulgarian Commie ruler of Ukraine
cracked down on the local language but he was replaced. Soviet Ukraine
experienced somewhat of a cultural renaissance in the 1920's, before
most of the people involved were shot in the 1930's. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Skrypnyk#Ukrainization
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Khvylovy
A Soviet Latvia would have been similar, perhaps more priviledged given
the special place of Latvians among the old Bolsheviks (in contrast,
there were virtually no Ukrainians among the criminals responsible for
the establishment of the USSR, the only exception being
Antonov-Ovseenko).
> The Bourbons were
> returned to power in France, Haiti had become independent, we've seen a
> number of republics, etc. -- it's still France, and if large numbers of
> Haitians or pieds-noirs, citizens of France, had raped Monaco on behalf
> of the nth Republic, taking their orders in French from Paris, we
> wouldn't say that Monaco was invaded by Haiti or Algeria, would we?
How about if that government wasn't popular among the French to begin
with, and indeed was only in power through force? And how about if
Haitians were the ones without whom that guilty Republic would not be
in power? If a Haitian designed the first concentration camp, and the
local Monaco cheka was commanded by a Haitian. Sounds like Monaco
could demand compensation from both France and Haiti.
And of course, to complete the analogy if in addition to raping Monaco
that government raped France. Now imagine if that government later
invaded Haiti. Could Haiti demand reparations from the descendents of
the French victims due to crimes committed by a government that would
not have even been in power if not for Haitians?
> > The difference here is that Ataturk didn't come to power against the
> > will of the Turkish people. But let's bring this topic back to its
> > original focus: alleged culpability for Soviet crimes. In 1917-1920
> > Russia could have been transformed into many things, such as a
> > constitutional democracy, a constitutional monarchy, or something
> > resembling Hortha's Hungarian White government.
>
> What concerns me most is that it _wasn't_ -- I've read stuff like
> Kerensky's memoirs, and of course I agree that Russia was victimized.
> As a Latvian, though, I don't have much sympathy for Russian
> monarchists, reactionaries, or even democrats (of that era; for those
> in this era, I do) -- as I've mentioned before, almost none of them
> seemed particularly sympathetic to the cause of the non-Russian
> peoples.
In exchange for not pressing for outright independence Ukrainians were
given full autonomy under the provisional government, and the head of
the secretariat of the Central Rada, Vynnychenko, was de facto prime
minister. Was it different for Latvia?
Even if not, that doesn't erase Latvian culpability, it only explains
it.
> The Bolsheviks _were_, at least on paper, and that is part of
> what made them so attractive to Letts. We have hindsight, but the
> Riflemen didn't.
I agree with you here (moreover, Russian workers were fooled also).
But such or any explanations don't contradict the fact that the
Latvians did indeed play a central role in the Bolsheviks' Revolution's
success.
regards,
BM
vello
No-nationality idea disappears very soon. And for 1937 there was time
to kill down most non-russian commies. And let sing the anthem of that
"riflemen-created" empire: "Union of nations, created by Great Russia
etc etc"
The Black Monk
> It's useless, Peeteri. The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
> at all for the Empire of Evil.
What's it like looking in the mirror, John?
> They prefer to go back 80+ years in history
> pointing out a few thousand Latvians as the real culprits.
Well, who was responsbile? The Russian peasants, nobles, workers being
slaughtered by a regime that depended on Latvian bayonets for its
military survival?
> In addition to the Riflemen, it's OK to blame the communists*, who for some
> reason had no nationality.
They did. And Lativans were way overrepresented among their ranks.
> But in the case of Germany one shouldn't blame
> only the Nazis but the whole German people.
You can't tell the difference between a popular elected government and
an imposed one (imposed to a large extent by Latvians remember) ruling
a hostile population through fear?
> *) There were 19 million party members end of the 80s. All totally innocent,
> of course. Except the non-Russians, of course.
Are you implying that the millions of 1980's Russian Communist party
members time travelled and brought Bolshevism to Russia in 1917-1920?
Interesting.
BM
MTRP™
> The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
> at all for the Empire of Evil.
Eh? Why Russians? Even Krapo knows that the Empire of Evil is where
Evil, aka El Diablo, has his earthly residence. Now Hugo Chavez
enlightened us that El Diablo is sitting in the White House,
Washington, D.C.. BTW this morning MTRP™ was swimming together with
Hugo Chavez who's visiting Rio along with Evo Morales and other nice
gentlemen. The sun was shining and everything was just fine! Policia
Militar & Guarda Federal was busy chasing away unfriendly yanx, sharks
and piranhas. Greetings to Henry!
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> J. Anderson wrote:
>
>> It's useless, Peeteri. The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
>> at all for the Empire of Evil.
>
> What's it like looking in the mirror, John?
>
Yes the Latvians, for whatever reason, were there and instrumental in
the success of the Bolsheviks --> USSR.
But the Russians were there continuously. Were there in pre-revolution
Czarist Russia. Were there during the revolution and the USSR. And are
there now. Their imperialist tendencies have been constant.
So the 'image in the mirror' is not a true faithful reflection,
but not a completely different scene either.
The Black Monk
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> >
> >> It's useless, Peeteri. The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
> >> at all for the Empire of Evil.
> >
> > What's it like looking in the mirror, John?
> >
> B.M. I think that here you are being a bit vindictively unfair.
I respectfully disagree. With the specific case of the creation of
Soviet power Latvians were involved in that project to an extent that
was greater, per population, than that of Russians. Indeed, even
greater than were the Russians, at least in terms of military
assistance in those crucal first months. Although in the case of both
nations the commies were a small minority.
> Yes the Latvians, for whatever reason, were there and instrumental in
> the success of the Bolsheviks --> USSR.
> But the Russians were there continuously. Were there in pre-revolution
> Czarist Russia. Were there during the revolution and the USSR. And are
> there now. Their imperialist tendencies have been constant.
Sure. But there is a vast gulf between Commie imperialism and that of
the czarist kind, which objectively speaking was pretty mild as far as
European empires went. Compare the Ukrainians' fate with that of the
Irish, people of India, Africa, etc. for instance. And the best
-treated of all native Americans were the ones ruled by Russians in
Alaska.
> So the 'image in the mirror' is not a true faithful reflection, but not a completely different scene either.
Again, I respectfully disagree. A Latvian saying "it was the Russians,
not us", is essentially the same as a Russian saying, "it was the
Latvians, Jews and Georgians, not us." Actually, none of the nations
above should be blamed for the commie project, as it was the work of a
relatively small criminal gang. But singling out the Russians is like
singling out the Latvians, Jews or Georgians.
regards,
BM
vello
Poor Black, you constantly put ethnos and state in the same cattle.
Nobody accuses ethnic russians being responsible for Red Russias crimes
- crimes were commited by RUSSIAN STATE. Wise man Churchill says about
germans - their quilt is, they allowed to exist such a blood hungry
government. Same is true also for Russia. Being elected or not elected,
it makes no difference here. Germans don't voted for gass chambers and
world war back in 1933 - they voted for guy promising to bring Germany
up from misery, unemployment and corruption. Problem is, both nations
were unable to stop their govt, if it was clear that no worker's
paradise is coming nor in Berlin, nor in Moscow, but real hell for
neighbours (and nation himself). It puts some moral responsibility on
germans and russians.
Despite Pol Poth was mass murderer, Kampuchea was still Kampuchea
during his regime - or you say there was no Kampuchea but an anonymus
territory occupied by gang of bastards :-)
The Black Monk
vello wrote:
It's getting rather tedious repeating myself to you, but I'll go ahead:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> Poor Black, you constantly put ethnos and state in the same cattle.
> Nobody accuses ethnic russians being responsible for Red Russias crimes
> - crimes were commited by RUSSIAN STATE.
No, it was explicitly not a RUSSIAN STATE. In was an Internationalist
one, based in Russia.
> Wise man Churchill says about
> germans - their quilt is, they allowed to exist such a blood hungry
> government. Same is true also for Russia.
No, because Russians didn't "allow" it to exist. It was forced on
them. Largely, by Latvians. Thus the civil war, thus the gulags
(designed by a Latvian), etc. etc. The Nazis didn't need all those
things to keep power over Germany because they were elected and
popular.
> Being elected or not elected, it makes no difference here.
Then don't complain about the actions of the non-elected Soviet Latvian
or Estonian puppet governments in your own countries. If a Soviet
government saved by Latvian Red Rifles is a legitimate Russian
government, than by the same logic a Latvian government that existed
thanks to the Russian military is also legitimate. Therefore, just as
Soviet crimes of the 1920's and 1940's are crimes for which
Russia/Russians are responsible, so the request by Latvia's government
to join the USSR was a Latvian act which is Latvia's/Latvians'
responsibility. After all, the Latvians "allowed" such a government.
Therefore, to apply your logic consistantly, the annexation of the
Baltics was legitimate.
Or is it okay for Latvians to determine another country's destiny but
not okay for Russians to do so.
> Germans don't voted for gass chambers and
> world war back in 1933 - they voted for guy promising to bring Germany
> up from misery, unemployment and corruption.
Fact is, they voted. Russians didn't. On the contrary, they were mass
murdered into submission. By a regime that only survived 1918 thanks
to Latvians.
> Problem is, both nations
> were unable to stop their govt, if it was clear that no worker's
> paradise is coming nor in Berlin, nor in Moscow, but real hell for
> neighbours (and nation himself).
Hitler was popular in Germany until the end of the war. I've been to
former (now Polish) German Silesia and even the old Germans there (who
no longer hide their identity) admit that the population was ecstatic
when Poland was invaded.
> It puts some moral responsibility on germans and russians.
Anybody but Latvians. When will Latvian politicians apologize to
Russia and Ukraine for the Latvian Red Rifles?
BM
vello
The Black Monk wrote:
> vello wrote:
> It's getting rather tedious repeating myself to you, but I'll go ahead:
>
> > The Black Monk wrote:
> > > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
>
> > Poor Black, you constantly put ethnos and state in the same cattle.
> > Nobody accuses ethnic russians being responsible for Red Russias crimes
> > - crimes were commited by RUSSIAN STATE.
>
> No, it was explicitly not a RUSSIAN STATE. In was an Internationalist
> one, based in Russia.
Oh, you don't believe it by himself. RFSR was exactly the same state as
Russian Empire both by territory and population. What changes, was one
unelected group takes place from another unelected group (Romanov
family). Here one can use simple formula: anything happens inside some
country without intervention from abroad is internal problem of
particular country. Only then ,if regime will be changed by armed
forces from abroad, it may be international case taking responsibility
from people living in particular country.
>
> > Wise man Churchill says about
> > germans - their quilt is, they allowed to exist such a blood hungry
> > government. Same is true also for Russia.
>
> No, because Russians didn't "allow" it to exist. It was forced on
> them. Largely, by Latvians. Thus the civil war, thus the gulags
> (designed by a Latvian), etc. etc. The Nazis didn't need all those
> things to keep power over Germany because they were elected and
> popular.
So red-white civil war went this way by you: russians on one, red
latvians on other side? And Latvian side takes over? A few thousands of
riflemen beat nation of 150 000 000? Try to be serious?
For voting, there were some votings also in SU almost any year -
support to commies was normally 99,98% By my experience it was not easy
to find people in Russia thinking about Red Empire like we did - as a
criminal gang. Maybe support to Hitler was a bit higher - he really
pushed living standards up from Weimar level.
>
> > Being elected or not elected, it makes no difference here.
>
> Then don't complain about the actions of the non-elected Soviet Latvian
> or Estonian puppet governments in your own countries. If a Soviet
> government saved by Latvian Red Rifles is a legitimate Russian
> government, than by the same logic a Latvian government that existed
> thanks to the Russian military is also legitimate. Therefore, just as
> Soviet crimes of the 1920's and 1940's are crimes for which
> Russia/Russians are responsible, so the request by Latvia's government
> to join the USSR was a Latvian act which is Latvia's/Latvians'
> responsibility. After all, the Latvians "allowed" such a government.
> Therefore, to apply your logic consistantly, the annexation of the
> Baltics was legitimate.
Don't be childish! YES, coup d'Etate in Latvia, organised by latvian
citizens no matter of latvian, russian, georgian or jewish heritage
would be "Latvian thing" - like commie rebel in Russia. But with
Latvia, Poland, Estonia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Netherlands
etc etc "force maior" comes from outside - civilized world call it
occupation
>
> Or is it okay for Latvians to determine another country's destiny but
> not okay for Russians to do so.
Again you are not up on level to understand that it is not about
ethnicity - commie rebel was performed by people of that some Russian
Empire. With Latvia, it was occupied by army from abroad.
>
> > Germans don't voted for gass chambers and
> > world war back in 1933 - they voted for guy promising to bring Germany
> > up from misery, unemployment and corruption.
>
> Fact is, they voted. Russians didn't. On the contrary, they were mass
> murdered into submission. By a regime that only survived 1918 thanks
> to Latvians.
We discussed earlier what that "vote" counts. And as I say, there was
some elections in SU almost any year - with 99+% support to red govt.
>
> > Problem is, both nations
> > were unable to stop their govt, if it was clear that no worker's
> > paradise is coming nor in Berlin, nor in Moscow, but real hell for
> > neighbours (and nation himself).
>
> Hitler was popular in Germany until the end of the war. I've been to
> former (now Polish) German Silesia and even the old Germans there (who
> no longer hide their identity) admit that the population was ecstatic
> when Poland was invaded.
And during Finnish war and occupation of Baltics there were mass
demonstrations against it in Moscow?
>
> > It puts some moral responsibility on germans and russians.
>
> Anybody but Latvians. When will Latvian politicians apologize to
> Russia and Ukraine for the Latvian Red Rifles?
No need to. Two years ago one madman from Russia kills in Estonia 5-6
persons during armed robbings. Was it Russia's fault? For sure no -
nobody thinks he acts by will of govt of Russian State. It was "private
business" of him. Same with the riflemen - they were not a unit of
Latvian State.
Timedrifter
<urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>The Black Monk wrote:
>> J. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> It's useless, Peeteri. The 'victimized' Russians refuse to accept any guilt
>>> at all for the Empire of Evil.
>>
>> What's it like looking in the mirror, John?
>>
>B.M. I think that here you are being a bit vindictively unfair.
>Yes the Latvians, for whatever reason, were there and instrumental in
>the success of the Bolsheviks --> USSR.
>But the Russians were there continuously. Were there in pre-revolution
>Czarist Russia. Were there during the revolution and the USSR. And are
>there now. Their imperialist tendencies have been constant.
>So the 'image in the mirror' is not a true faithful reflection,
>but not a completely different scene either.
>>
I seem to have recalled a referendum near the end of the Soviet era
about preserving the USSR. Out of curiosity I went and looked up the
figures and it seems 9 of 15 republics participated and it passed in
all nine by various margins. Ukraine 58%, Russia 71% , Belarus 83%,
Kazaskstan, 87%, Kyrgyzastan 88% Uzbekistan 98% and so on. I did not
bother looking up Tadzhikistan, Azerbaidzhan and Turkmenistan. Those
numbers tell me that Russians were not the most pro-soviet as is often
claimed here and elsewhere. Central Asia and Belarus seem to be the
most pro-Soviet areas. These numbers alone make it absurd to try and
pawn off every evil of the USSR onto the modern Russian state or
people.
vello
Do you remember the set of question on that "referendum"? It was
something about "Do you want to live in bright future built by us all
hand in hand" :-) About Southern Republics, no real elections or
referendum was ever held there - by local tradition results of some
"elections" will be determined by person in power at the moment.
But try to notice that nobody puts some responsibility on russian
people. Well Rssian State is descendant state of SU - both naturally
and by their own declaration. You cant cut-paste history taking Gagarin
and Red hockey team but leaving Gulag, imperialism and ethnic
cleansings. No one thinks modern Russia is "quilty" in Soviet crimes -
but we also can't see Russia clearly condemning Soviet crimes. Germans
and Japanese had made quit with dark past, openly and loud. It is time
to Russia to show that Russia REALLY thinks SU and Russia being
different things. You can't find easily a german or japanese glorifying
their agressive politics during ww2. But in Russia you find such people
directly from Kremlin.
Timedrifter
>You can't find easily a german or japanese glorifying
>their agressive politics during ww2. But in Russia you find such people
>directly from Kremlin.
The German and Japanese militaries were defeated while the Soviet was
victorious. Its hard to glorify a military defeat. You don't see
Russia glorifying its performance in WWI either, since there was very
little glory there. I don't think I have ever seen a monument to the
millions of Russian soldiers who died in WWI, even thought I believe
they certainly deserve one. If Germany and Japan had won I have no
doubt triumphant victory day parades would be held annually in those
countries.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
[deletions]
> > Russia is one of the
> > countries that has the most profound difficulties with facing the
> > Soviet past, except for select parts like its victory in the War.
>
> I would say based on this thread that Latvians share this difficulty ;)
I disagree. I've never denied that Latvians were instrumental to the
Bolsheviks' early successes, and I've written about Latvian Bolsheviks
and the large numbers of Latvians in the Cheka, and their prominence,
before. I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand
that (a) all of these Latvians were Russians, in terms of their
citizenship and their convictions, and (b) the Republic of Latvia,
which fought _against_ the Bolsheviks, is in no way responsible for
their actions. As I suggested, you may as well demand that Israel take
responsibility for Leon Trotsky. It makes no sense, sorry.
An empire is "international" by nature -- Latvians, Jews, Georgians,
Poles, Baltic Germans, etc. were subjects of the tsar (who wasn't
Russian by blood, either). Latvia did not proclaim independence until
18 November 1918. The law on citizenship wasn't adopted until 23 Auguat
1919. It did not control its territory until 1920.
To distill things for you once again, this is what you are asking: that
the Republic of Latvia take responsibility for things ethnic Latvians
did, the period you are most concerned with having preceded the
existence of the Republic, only because the Riflemen were of Latvian
ethnicity. This despite the fact that the Republic was at war with the
Reds from its inception until the Republic concluded a peace treaty
with the government of Russia in August 1920.
That you consider that government to have been illegitimate is
essentially immaterial -- you could just as well consider the Latvian
government illegitimate. Both were recognized sooner or later, both
were members of the League of Nations, and both have successor states
-- the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation. The United
Nations replaced the League of Nations; the RF replaced the USSR, which
had replaced the Russian Empire.
Aleksei Kara-Murza, in an interesting debate on Russian history and
identity:
"The imperial principle dominated, and it was Peter who made this
happen. He brought communal structures into the table of ranks,
subordinating them to the interests of the empire. And I think that
Chubais is right that Communist identity recreated these structures:
instead of Orthodoxy there was Communism, instead of the imperial table
of ranks there was the hierarchy of Party committees, and the new
Soviet collectivism took a variety of forms. What I can't say is how
one can call this a violation of Russian tradition -- it was a
continuation of Russian (rossiiskii) tradition. These traditions were
winding down, and the Bolsheviks had to use force to maintain this old
imperial logic. . . . Don't say that there is a fundamental conflict
between pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia -- the latter actually
represents an attempt to forcibly continue this system."
Viktor Kuvaldin:
"The most important thing, and here I agree with Professor Kara-Murza,
is that whether we like it or not, Communist Russia was fully a
successor of the previous state. The integration took place on a number
of levels, including the establishment of a secular religion (svetskaia
religiia), the military-industrial complex, and a unified command
economy. And [like tsarist Russia] they wound up with a set of unsolved
problems (nereshaemye zadachi). During the Stalinist period, the Soviet
empire stretched from the middle of Europe all the way to North Korea.
The [Soviet] attempt to modernize the empire and expand it was
unrealistic, and we all know how it turned out."
http://www.loc.gov/about/welcome/speeches/russianperspectives/colloq3s1.html
Regards,
/P
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
DK wrote:
> In article <1169309078.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "=?windows-1257?q?P=E7teris_Cedri=F2=F0_(Peteris_Cedrins)?=" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I've written about Latvian Bolsheviks
> >and the large numbers of Latvians in the Cheka, and their prominence,
> >before. I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand
> >that (a) all of these Latvians were Russians, in terms of their
> >citizenship and their convictions
>
>
> DK
I don't feel inconvenienced at all. The slogan of the Riflemen was "a
free Latvia in a free Russia." No Latvian government directed them.
They were Russian citizens. Now, I realize that citizenship isn't
important to many a Russian, but it happens to be the primary link
between an individual and his or her state. This may not be meaningful
to people who look for Jews, Letts, or Masons under their unmade beds
every night -- but please don't ask other people to plumb the depths of
Russia's inferiority complexes. If you want a "Russian" state, shrivel
unto Muscovy and practice Lebensborn -- see how far it gets you. You
haven't ever had a nation-state in the modern sense -- you've had a
bloated empire that shifted guises, and this little game of disowning
peoples and parts of history whenever they disturb you, only to claim
them whenever it's convenient, is repulsive; you can't take the
Security Council seat and sing about victory in the Great Patriotic War
whilst disclaiming responsibility for all that is ugly. Like I said --
frightening, when not boring.
Regards,
/P
MTRP™
> The slogan of the Riflemen was "a
> free Latvia in a free Russia." No Latvian government directed them.
> They were Russian citizens.
How so? You mean foreign-rooted citizens (inorodcy) of multinational
Russian Empire that they helped to destroy?
vello
Sure. But after possible turn to democracy years later? Still think
they would glorify gas chambers and annexation of other nations?
Blame It On Rio !
"MTRPT" <Mir.To...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1169321278.7...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Hey slab head,
If the Lats destroyed the Russian empire, they are heroes.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
So you are claiming that in each of the republics the majority of
the population voted to preserve the USSR on their referendums?
So gosh and golly according to your sources the people voted to stay
united and some dastardly politicians decided that the republics
will go their separate ways?
Would you be so kind as to point us to your sources that prove
your information?
Oh and if that is so, they why are all the Stans not uniting?
--
Rostyk
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
How were they "foreign-rooted," Topolski? They hailed from one of the
nations of the "multinational" Russian Empire. In fact, the Latvians
didn't share the strident anti-Russian sentiments of most of the other
nations under the Russian yoke (due to an understandable Germanophobia
and a weak and recent national identity). The Latvians were about as
foreign to Russia as the Bretons are to France. The national movement
that began in the 1850s was essentially apolitical -- the political
element first appears in a striking fashion among the Latvian _eseri_,
and they didn't side with the Bolsheviks.
Latvia didn't become "foreign" to Russia until 1917/18, and the
Bolsheviks were among the least Latvian, or "foreign," of the Latvians.
In fact, the bulk of the left (and I mean that part of the spectrum
ranging from center-left to extreme) opted out of the national project
until late 1919. You can label them "internationalists" as Black Monk
does, but where are you trying to go with this is "inorodtsy" shit,
really? Rootless cosmopolitans?
I have to agree with John, as usual, and with Vello -- this is pretty
useless. You people make Nazis look good, sorry. It strikes me now and
then -- even way back in 1991, you could sip some wine with some Soviet
officer's daughter and hear her dramatic ululations about the evils of
the fascist Balts -- but five minutes later you'd get encomia to the
purity of the blue-eyed Russian race.
Again -- frightening, when not boring.
Vsego khoroshego,
/P
Blame It On Rio !
"Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169396764.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Vsego khoroshego,
/P
WTF?
Where do you come up with a hard G for a soft V sound?
Do you say SYEGGO KHORO-SHEGGO?
It would be more correct to say VSEVAW KHOROSHEVAW.
An O is an OHH in English, not an AW.
Russians must be idiots. They have a letter for CH and a letter for SH and a
third letter for SHCH.
Besides that, they have no W and their H suxx.
IT'S NOT GAMBURGER, IT'S HAMBURGER !!!
The Black Monk
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> DK wrote:
> > In article <1169309078.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "=?windows-1257?q?P=E7teris_Cedri=F2=F0_(Peteris_Cedrins)?=" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I've written about Latvian Bolsheviks
> > >and the large numbers of Latvians in the Cheka, and their prominence,
> > >before. I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand
> > >that (a) all of these Latvians were Russians, in terms of their
> > >citizenship and their convictions
> >
> > ROFL. Brilliant solution to the inconvenient historical problem.
> >
> > DK
>
> I don't feel inconvenienced at all. The slogan of the Riflemen was "a
> free Latvia in a free Russia." No Latvian government directed them.
> They were Russian citizens.
> Now, I realize that citizenship isn't
> important to many a Russian, but it happens to be the primary link
> between an individual and his or her state.
Ah. So the actions of a Red Latvian who happened to be a Russian
citizen by birth, who despised Russians and who fought to impose a
government on the Russians whom he despised are the exclusive
responsibility of the Russian, not Latvian people, because at the time
of the Red Latvian's birth his homeland happened to be a part fo
Russia. How conveneient.
Here is what the Latvian Reds thought of the Russians on whom they were
forcing the Bolshevik government:
"The Letts [Latvians] were the best [sentries]. Most of them were
contemptuous of the Russians, whom they regarded as inferiors. One Lett
informed me that, if Russia could have put a million non-Russian troops
into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the war. Every time
the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by the Russians, who
failed invariably to support them. He despised, too, the dirt and
laziness of the Russian troops. On the other hand, he had a wholesome
respect for the Bolshevik leaders, whom he regarded as supermen."
> This may not be meaningful
> to people who look for Jews, Letts, or Masons under their unmade beds
> every night --
In your other post you admitted that you understood that the Latvian
Red Riflemens' role was instrumental in the Red victory. Yet here you
mockingly refer to those well established facts as an unrealistic
conspiracy theory. It's not "looking for Jews, Letts, or Masons under
their unmed beds" to describe the well-kniown and accepted hisotrical
facts that without Latvian participation, there would have been no
Soviet government after 1918 (and perhaps at all). And this is true no
matter whether or not you choose to play games with citizenship. (I
guess since the thousands of Latvian Red Riflemen who moved to Latvia,
having succeeded in playing their part in imposing the Soviet
government on the Russian people, were only given Latvian citizenship
after 1918 their pre-citizenship activities in Russia don't count as
Latvian actions either, according to the rules of your game).
> but please don't ask other people to plumb the depths of
> Russia's inferiority complexes. If you want a "Russian" state, shrivel
> unto Muscovy and practice Lebensborn -- see how far it gets you. You
> haven't ever had a nation-state in the modern sense -- you've had a
> bloated empire that shifted guises, and this little game of disowning
> peoples and parts of history whenever they disturb you, only to claim
> them whenever it's convenient, is repulsive;
Actually, that is exactly what you are doing.
> you can't take the Security Council seat and sing about victory in the Great Patriotic War
> whilst disclaiming responsibility for all that is ugly.
So taking the security council seat in the 1990's equals accepting
responsibility for a project that only succeeded thanks to Latvian
interference in 1917-1918?
regards,
BM
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > vello wrote:
> > It's getting rather tedious repeating myself to you, but I'll go ahead:
> >
> > > The Black Monk wrote:
> > > > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> >
> > > Poor Black, you constantly put ethnos and state in the same cattle.
> > > Nobody accuses ethnic russians being responsible for Red Russias crimes
> > > - crimes were commited by RUSSIAN STATE.
> >
> > No, it was explicitly not a RUSSIAN STATE. In was an Internationalist
> > one, based in Russia.
>
> Oh, you don't believe it by himself. RFSR was exactly the same state as
> Russian Empire both by territory and population. What changes, was one
> unelected group takes place from another unelected group (Romanov
> family).
If you were remotely aware of basic history you would know that the
Reds took over from the Provisional Government, not the Romanovs. And
they disbanded the elected assembly.
> Here one can use simple formula: anything happens inside some
> country without intervention from abroad is internal problem of
> particular country.
By that logic Latvia was an internal Russian affair.
> Only then ,if regime will be changed by armed
> forces from abroad, it may be international case taking responsibility
> from people living in particular country.
> >
> > > Wise man Churchill says about
> > > germans - their quilt is, they allowed to exist such a blood hungry
> > > government. Same is true also for Russia.
> >
> > No, because Russians didn't "allow" it to exist. It was forced on
> > them. Largely, by Latvians. Thus the civil war, thus the gulags
> > (designed by a Latvian), etc. etc. The Nazis didn't need all those
> > things to keep power over Germany because they were elected and
> > popular.
>
> So red-white civil war went this way by you: russians on one, red
> latvians on other side?
Small group of international criminals on one side; small group of
diverse Whites on the other. The former won thanks to the bravery and
professionalism of the Latvian soldiers among them. I've already
posted the information for you.
> And Latvian side takes over? A few thousands of riflemen beat nation of 150 000 000?
Even a child can strangle Mike Tyson if the big guy is comotose.
> Try to be serious?
Why don't you try to read some history. Did you know, for instance,
that a few tens of thousands of Czech ex-POW's held the balance of
power in Siberia for a while?
> For voting, there were some votings also in SU almost any year -
> support to commies was normally 99,98%
Even in Latvia?
> By my experience it was not easy to find people in Russia thinking about Red Empire like we did - as a
> criminal gang.
So most of the people you met thought Stalin, Lenin, Dzerzhinsky were
good people?
> Maybe support to Hitler was a bit higher - he really
> pushed living standards up from Weimar level.
You are really showing off your ignorance, sorry.
> > > Being elected or not elected, it makes no difference here.
> >
> > Then don't complain about the actions of the non-elected Soviet Latvian
> > or Estonian puppet governments in your own countries. If a Soviet
> > government saved by Latvian Red Rifles is a legitimate Russian
> > government, than by the same logic a Latvian government that existed
> > thanks to the Russian military is also legitimate. Therefore, just as
> > Soviet crimes of the 1920's and 1940's are crimes for which
> > Russia/Russians are responsible, so the request by Latvia's government
> > to join the USSR was a Latvian act which is Latvia's/Latvians'
> > responsibility. After all, the Latvians "allowed" such a government.
> > Therefore, to apply your logic consistantly, the annexation of the
> > Baltics was legitimate.
>
> Don't be childish! YES, coup d'Etate in Latvia, organised by latvian
> citizens no matter of latvian, russian, georgian or jewish heritage
> would be "Latvian thing" - like commie rebel in Russia. But with
> Latvia, Poland, Estonia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Netherlands
> etc etc "force maior" comes from outside - civilized world call it
> occupation
So how many Latvians were killed by Soviet troops in 1939, in order to
install the Latvian government that asked for annexation.
> > Or is it okay for Latvians to determine another country's destiny but
> > not okay for Russians to do so.
>
> Again you are not up on level to understand that it is not about
> ethnicity - commie rebel was performed by people of that some Russian
> Empire. With Latvia, it was occupied by army from abroad.
I understand that you have to play games with citizenship in order to
absolve Latvians of any guilt in forcing the Red regime on Russia.
> > > Germans don't voted for gass chambers and
> > > world war back in 1933 - they voted for guy promising to bring Germany
> > > up from misery, unemployment and corruption.
> >
> > Fact is, they voted. Russians didn't. On the contrary, they were mass
> > murdered into submission. By a regime that only survived 1918 thanks
> > to Latvians.
>
> We discussed earlier what that "vote" counts. And as I say, there was
> some elections in SU almost any year - with 99+% support to red govt.
Are you suggesting that the German votes where Nazis won were like
Soviet voting? Are you that ignorant (a serious question,not meant to
be insulting)?
> > > Problem is, both nations
> > > were unable to stop their govt, if it was clear that no worker's
> > > paradise is coming nor in Berlin, nor in Moscow, but real hell for
> > > neighbours (and nation himself).
> >
> > Hitler was popular in Germany until the end of the war. I've been to
> > former (now Polish) German Silesia and even the old Germans there (who
> > no longer hide their identity) admit that the population was ecstatic
> > when Poland was invaded.
>
> And during Finnish war and occupation of Baltics there were mass
> demonstrations against it in Moscow?
About as many as there were mass demonstrations in Estonia and Latvia
against Stalin the late 1940's and early 1950's. And about an equal
measure of Stalin's popularity.
> > > It puts some moral responsibility on germans and russians.
> >
> > Anybody but Latvians. When will Latvian politicians apologize to
> > Russia and Ukraine for the Latvian Red Rifles?
>
> No need to.
Of course.
> Two years ago one madman from Russia kills in Estonia 5-6
> persons during armed robbings.
What if it was tens of thousands of armed Russian madmen who in a
moment of chaos brought a murderous regime to power, in part because
they felt the legitimate Estonian government was bad for Russians.
Because of their actions, the Estonians had a bloody government and the
murderous Russians' homeland within Estonia was able to break free and
rejoin Russia. After their victory, many of those murderous Russians
were granted Russian citizenship and went home, to their part of
ex-Estonia now Russia. Now, if at the time of the putsch the murderous
Russians were Estonian citizens this is strictly an internal matter.
It's Estonia's internal responsibility, because the gang that became
their government all happeend to be Estonian citizens at the time.
regards,
BM
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
The Black Monk wrote:
[deletions]
> Ah. So the actions of a Red Latvian who happened to be a Russian
> citizen by birth, who despised Russians and who fought to impose a
> government on the Russians whom he despised are the exclusive
> responsibility of the Russian, not Latvian people, because at the time
> of the Red Latvian's birth his homeland happened to be a part fo
> Russia. How conveneient.
His homeland only happened to be a part of Russia? His homeland had
been ruled by Russia, in the inimitable Russian manner ("Stolypin's
necktie," for example, is a term for a noose in Latvian), for a couple
of centuries. The Riflemen fought the Germans and suffered heavy
losses. His homeland wasn't merely a part of Russia when he was born --
it was a part of Russia when he was fighting. Part was occupied by the
Germans due to the Russians' traditional military ineptitude. His
efforts to liberate his homeland were futile because of Russian
commanders and the poor quality of Russian troops.
> Here is what the Latvian Reds thought of the Russians on whom they were
> forcing the Bolshevik government:
>
> "The Letts [Latvians] were the best [sentries]. Most of them were
> contemptuous of the Russians, whom they regarded as inferiors. One Lett
> informed me that, if Russia could have put a million non-Russian troops
> into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the war. Every time
> the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by the Russians, who
> failed invariably to support them. He despised, too, the dirt and
> laziness of the Russian troops. On the other hand, he had a wholesome
> respect for the Bolshevik leaders, whom he regarded as supermen."
See above. Yes, I can find you innumerable passages from that time that
contain such views of the Russians -- in fact, there must be some truth
to them, no? I mean, later, tiny Finland was also able to inflict
massive losses on the Russians in 1939/40 -- why? Because the Finns
were fighting for their freedom. You're emphasizing the dramatic rôle
the Riflemen played -- they must have been pretty impressive in battle
by comparison to the Russians then, no?
As soldiers, the Russians were indeed inferior. The Latvians became
aware of their military prowess, which was celebrated even in the West
(by the Belgian poet Émile Verhaeren, for example: "And here, at
Verdun / and Yser, we listen / With bated breath, / As the Latvian oaks
call to one another. / They know not how to bend, but only break.") The
Riflemen lost 37% of their fighting strength in the Christmas Battles
-- you're surprised that they turned against the tyrant who sent them
to suicide?
The battle hymn that Akuraters (also a Rifleman) wrote in 1905,
"castles will crumble, thrones will fall" came true. Such is the fate
of despots, and I don't feel at all bad about the Letts having helped
to destroy the putrid Empire.
Arnolds Spekke, a remarkable scholar and diplomat, recalls his travels
through Russia in the early years of the Revolution in his memoirs,
_Atmiņu brīži_ (Stockholm: Zelta Ābele, 1967). Riding in the
unheated coupé of a train crammed with twenty people, he heard an
elegantly coiffed woman curse the Latvian Riflemen -- according to her,
everything in Russia would be fine if it weren't for them. In an
inoccent voice, he asked this _gospozha_ how many of these Riflemen
there were. Twenty or thirty thosand. Spekke: "And how many Russians
are there in Russia?" All of the soldiers in the rail car burst into
laughter as the _gospozha_ gave him looks to kill.
Spekke describes he "we the _inorodtsy_" went home to put our houses in
order while the "chosen people of the Revolution" (Stalin's phrase)
marched toward a futureless transformation on the "voclanic plains"
(Marinetti). He recalls the notorious nihilistic apathy of the "chosen
people" -- an Orthodox priest ("I always said that the Jews and Masons
would destroy Russia -- well, they finally did, but what's it to me?"),
and conversations with deserters who understood nothing but their
immediate _mir_ and were headed home... the rest of the world, and
Russia itself, were abstracts that could go to hell.
Speaking of the Russian national character and Russia's prospects,
Spekke observes that people often react with sneers of disbelief... he
must be exaggerating -- so be it, he says, and let each see things as
he sees them; he has Dostoevsky to read. One day, he thinks, the sons
of the "Great Russian - Leninist" paradise will have trouble looking in
the mirror, in view of what they have done to themselves and those
around them. Those days are here, methinks, and I think most of the
participants in this forum know who has the most difficulty facing the
looking-glass.
But this is repetitive repetitive repetitive by now, Black Monk. See
things as you see them!
Regards,
/P
captain.
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169231818.7...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
And the best
> -treated of all native Americans were the ones ruled by Russians in
> Alaska.
i've read stories of russian soldiers dropping dynamite into the underground
homes of aleutians while people were still inside. i can't remember the
source because it was a while ago so you'll have to take it with a grain of
salt.
captain.
"Blame It On Rio !" <YouCanCa...@WoHochtDieBus.de> wrote in message
news:73Psh.20$Oh7...@newsfe09.lga...
>
> "Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169396764.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Vsego khoroshego,
> /P
>
> WTF?
>
> Where do you come up with a hard G for a soft V sound?
>
> Do you say SYEGGO KHORO-SHEGGO?
nope. but mr.cedrins is correct in his spelling. in this case, they both
sound like "v" but use "g".
J. Anderson
"Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169461584.0...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, I can find you innumerable passages from that time that
> contain such views of the Russians -- in fact, there must be some truth
> to them, no? I mean, later, tiny Finland was also able to inflict
> massive losses on the Russians in 1939/40 -- why? Because the Finns
> were fighting for their freedom. You're emphasizing the dramatic rôle
> the Riflemen played -- they must have been pretty impressive in battle
> by comparison to the Russians then, no?
> As soldiers, the Russians were indeed inferior. The Latvians became
> aware of their military prowess [etc.]
The Russian WWI soldiers may have been 'inferior' (= unmotivated) like you
say, Peeteri, but as far as the Russo-Finnish wars of 1939-40 and 1941-44
are concerned it should be noted that the Finns had quite high regard for
the enemy as soldiers. Apparently the Bolshie brainwash produced a better
army than Czar, popes and nobles had been able to.
But the Finns were shocked at the Soviet commanders' total indifference
regarding losses. Many a Finnish machine-gunner had tears in his eyes while
mowing down charge after charge of mindlessly attacking Russians.
Regards,
John
MTRP™
> MTRP™ wrote:
> > Peteris Cedrinð wrote:
> > > The slogan of the Riflemen was "a
> > > free Latvia in a free Russia." No Latvian government directed them.
> > > They were Russian citizens.
> > How so? You mean foreign-rooted citizens (inorodcy) of multinational
> > Russian Empire that they helped to destroy?
> How were they "foreign-rooted," Topolski?
Read carefully what I wrote : "inorodcy". So was the proper
designation. I didn't think much about precise translation though ...
perhaps "rooted outside" suits better. Besides I suppose they weren't
Orthodox Christians, ergo they were religious "foreigners" in the Chr.
Orthodox empire. And they spoke different language, right? All in all
they were Latvians, not Russians proper, aka "velikorosy". And hey,
Latvians themselves used to differentiate between "Latvian" and
"Russian", for why else they chose to live in an independent state, eh?
> nations of the "multinational" Russian Empire. In fact, the Latvians
> didn't share the strident anti-Russian sentiments of most of the other
> nations [snip]
Irrelevant. I'm just trying to be formal.
MTRP™
> "Pçteris Cedriòð wrote:
> > Vsego khoroshego,
> WTF?
> Where do you come up with a hard G for a soft V sound?
> Do you say SYEGGO KHORO-SHEGGO?
> It would be more correct to say VSEVAW KHOROSHEVAW.
Still better: FSEVAW KHOROHHSHEVAW.
> An O is an OHH in English, not an AW.
Cuz the yanx are plain stoopet.
Vladimir Makarenko
Hah, did you ever talk to the Japanese? Do you know what is the beef
between Japan and the SE Asia for all these years?
VM.
MTRP™
> "The Black Monk" wrote:
> > -treated of all native Americans were the ones ruled by Russians in
> > Alaska.
> i've read stories of russian soldiers dropping dynamite into the underground
> homes of aleutians while people were still inside. i can't remember the
> source because it was a while ago so you'll have to take it with a grain of
> salt.
Those were mad yanx disguised as russkies. Cuz dynamite was invented
(by Alfred Nobel) later than Russia sold Alaska to USA (for lousy
$7200000.
Vladimir Makarenko
MTRP™ wrote:
>
> Pēteris Cedriņš wrote:
> > MTRP™ wrote:
> > > Peteris Cedrinð wrote:
> > > > The slogan of the Riflemen was "a
> > > > free Latvia in a free Russia." No Latvian government directed them.
> > > > They were Russian citizens.
> > > How so? You mean foreign-rooted citizens (inorodcy) of multinational
> > > Russian Empire that they helped to destroy?
> > How were they "foreign-rooted," Topolski?
>
> Read carefully what I wrote : "inorodcy". So was the proper
> designation. I didn't think much about precise translation though ...
> perhaps "rooted outside" suits better.
Literally it means "of other (different) family"
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
Get real - it was reported by Msocw Times (or News - I cannot remember
which one of these rags captain reads).
Therefore it's an sacred truth, besides it probably is verified by some
Baltic historian.
VM.
MTRP™
> MTRP™ wrote:
> > Pēteris Cedriņš wrote:
> > > MTRP™ wrote:
> > > > Peteris Cedrinð wrote:
> > > > > The slogan of the Riflemen was "a
> > > > > free Latvia in a free Russia." No Latvian government directed them.
> > > > > They were Russian citizens.
> > > > How so? You mean foreign-rooted citizens (inorodcy) of multinational
> > > > Russian Empire that they helped to destroy?
> > > How were they "foreign-rooted," Topolski?
> > Read carefully what I wrote : "inorodcy". So was the proper
> > designation. I didn't think much about precise translation though ...
> > perhaps "rooted outside" suits better.
> Literally it means "of other (different) family"
OK.
vello
Pretty the same :-) But well, japanese politicians don't describe their
loss in ww2 as "greatest tragedy in history".
Blame It On Rio !
Hey! Nobuddy ever accuzed the damn Russkies of bein' smart.
Vladimir Makarenko
Japanese PMs as you probably know annualy pay a visit to one particular
shrine of national heroes.
It is Japan economic and military circumstances which do not allow them
to talk much. Japan's history textbooks however, according to the SE
Asian countries do not regard Japanese military extension of presence as
a conquest. Etc.
Concerning "the greates tragedy in history" (I am pretty sure the quote
is not correct), then the divorce could have been done in civilized
manner. It happened however without even participation of all sides
involved. As result, numerous bloody conflicts followed with total
number of killed between 500,000 and 1,000,000. I understand that the
Baltics regard these casualties as irrelevant to their cause, however
the famous quote wasn't from a speech made on behalf of Baltics. At
least there was nothing in it about vodka, baby, dry fish and wild
singing.
VM.
vello
Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>
> Japanese PMs as you probably know annualy pay a visit to one particular
> shrine of national heroes.
> It is Japan economic and military circumstances which do not allow them
> to talk much. Japan's history textbooks however, according to the SE
> Asian countries do not regard Japanese military extension of presence as
> a conquest. Etc.
If so, do you have idea what they write in their textbooks? A divine
nation created to master over others?
>
> Concerning "the greates tragedy in history" (I am pretty sure the quote
> is not correct)
Well, correct will be "in XXth century"
, then the divorce could have been done in civilized
> manner. It happened however without even participation of all sides
> involved. As result, numerous bloody conflicts followed with total
> number of killed between 500,000 and 1,000,000. I understand that the
> Baltics regard these casualties as irrelevant to their cause, however
> the famous quote wasn't from a speech made on behalf of Baltics. At
> least there was nothing in it about vodka, baby, dry fish and wild
> singing.
Well, if to e honest, it WAS done in quite civilized manner. Think
about Yugoslavia :-) Well, czech-slovak divorce was more "civilized",
but it was much easier case with just two sides involved and with
historical borderline between them not disputed by both of sides. By me
outcome for SU was much better then one might imagine. One important
difference also - two hippos may divorce, but with hippo-mouse case,
for mouse it is more "run till hole is open"-thing.
But from where you get so many victims? There was not so much fighting
in Moldova, and for Georgia and Aseri-Armenia I think we can possibly
talk about tens of thousands not hundreds of thousands.
>
> VM.
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
Um, my dear Volodya, have you ever looked at what toll these "great
tragedies of history" exacted here? A million or so people is not so
many people to Japan or Russia, sorry (my personal regrets to all of
the families) -- but Latvia lost about a third of its population in the
Great War, and another quarter or so in its Great Follow-Up.
Then there is how the other losses were targeted, as in -- oops, there
went your schoolteachers and students, off to Siberia. There went your
landowners. There went your shopkeepers. There went your women of
child-bearing age. There went the boy scouts -- they would probably
have become fascists, anyway; they were counter-revolutionary at birth.
As to the vodka, baby, dry fish and wild singing -- why is it so hard
for you and Karlamov to figure out exactly what our President was
saying? Why does that phrase so offend you? Ever read the rest of her
comments? The point was simple -- she accepted the invitation to
Moscow's celebrations of victory in the Great Patriotic War. She was
saying that we should mark this victory over fascism, but not in the
way most do -- we should realize that the victory was not a liberation
but the beginning of another phase of occupation, one which lasted
until 1991.
Stereotype? Hey, when I've seen Russians celebrate that victory here in
Dvinsk, it's most often been with vodka, roach, and chastushka -- it
does't seem to analytical a celebration,. either, but I might be
mistaken.
vkar...@yahoo.com
Maris wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2007 14:54:32 -0800, "MTRP™" <Mir.To...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> >martin wrote:
> >> Okay, in my view a fair price would be $1 and official Russian
> >> recognition and apology that the Baltic states were occupied and
> >> illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union.
> >
> >Yes to recognition, but why the hell apology? Let Latvia first
> >apologize for Latvian Riflemen! This comedy kinda reminds me of poor
> >Japanese who used to apologize for every little thing before they can
> >actually start a conversation ...
>
> You don't appear to be able to distinguish between activities
> initiated by a state and those by individuals.
>
Doesn't a state, both in terms of its population and its government,
consist of individuals?
How do you allocate guilt for past state crimes to individuals and to
sub-regions?
Let's take the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. How will you
allocate shares of guilt to individual areas of former USSR and,
ultimately, to individual citizens?
Let's say, the population of USSR was 250 million, of which 2.5 million
lived in the Latvian SSR. Should Latvia hold 1% of the guilt for the
1968 invasion, or should it be exempt? If the latter - then how about
Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Communist Moldova,
etc?
If you say that Russia and only Russia should hold 100% of the
responsibility, then imagine that Zbiggie Brzezinsky got his wish in
breaking up Russia further into 100 tiny pieces. Which pieces would
hold responsibility for Soviet crimes and which shouldn't? Should
Karelia? Chechnya? Komi? Yakutia? Tatarstan? Jewish Autonomous Region?
Kuban? Belgorod? Smolensk?
How about average individuals? Should ethnic Russia in Russia bear
their share of responsibilities? How about ethnic Latvians living in
Russia for 40 years? How about ethnic Latvians living in Russia for
140 years? Ethnic Russians living in Latvia for 40 years? Ethnic
Russians living in Latvia for 140 years? Etc., etc....
Imagine that we decided that Belgorod should be responsible, while
Karelia shouldn't. What if all the individual residents of Belgorod got
up and moved to Karelia, and all the residents of Karelia moved to
Belgorod. Then who which country would now be responsible: Belgorod or
Karelia?
vkar...@yahoo.com
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> DK wrote:
> > >
> > >Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Your arguments seem to have the same tone and flavour as the arguments
> > >> by Russians denying the responsibility of Russia for the Soviet Union.
> > >> --
> > >> Rostyk
> > >
> > >Dear Rostyk,
> > >
> > >They do? That's truly fascinating! Pray tell.
> > >
> > >One thing some people can't seem to get through their heads is that
> > >ethnicity and nationality are quite different. Nationalism was retarded
> > >here [sic!].
> > >
> > >As to the ethnic composition of those units -- maybe those arguing
> > >could read a (non-Soviet) book instead of Googling and holding forth?
> > >Maybe not.
> >
> > Vacietis, Judens, Peters, Klutsis - they were not Latvian?
> > The riflemen division was drafted exclusively in Latvia and Latvians
> > where overwhelming majority in Latvia then.
>
> The little problem with this idea is that there was no Latvia -- I
> don't see why it seems so difficult for some to grok this.
>
Your demagogical insistence that Latvia is not responsible for any bad
acts committed by any Latvian, who didn't live in Latvia in 1918-1940
or after 1992, is getting really tiring. Just because several nations
live in the same large Empire, which breaks up only recently, doesn't
mean that these nations don't ahvea long history and/or don't take any
responsibility for the historical misdeeds of the Empire.
Take, for example, the Austrian Empire. Do only Austrians take
responsibility or merit for its bad and good actions? And Czechs and
Hungarians bear no responsibility or merit?.....
No, wait! It was actually called the Austro-Hungarian Empire for a
while! So, Austrians ***and*** Hungarians take responsibility actions,
while Czechs don't.
And had it been re-named the Austro-Hungarian-Czech Empire, then the
Czechs would be responsible too. Right?
So, your whole argument is based on linguistic jingoism.
>
> To join
> Martin in looking for analogies -- let's say I'm an ethnic Croat, but
> devoted to a Socialist Yugoslavia and then to a Greater Serbia.
> Yugoslavia breaks up, and I go join the courageous Serbian forces. I
> spit upon Croatia and join my beloved Serbs in crushing the unwashed
> Albanians of Kosova for the greater glory of Slavic brotherhood, etc.
> Excuse me, but how would Republika Hrvatska be responsible?
>
Your analogy is total BS. Latvian Riflemen and Biolsheviks never spat
on Latvia and never fought for "Greater Russia" or for "Slavic
Brotherhood". In fact, they were enemies of dividing people based on
ethnicity, they beleived in the Communist International, and that all
nationalities must be abolished for the International Workers
Brotherhood. These people still loved Latvia more than any other land,
but they remained in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1940 because
they were Communist idealists/fanatics, because the Soviet Union was
Communist, while Latvia was the "opposite"; and they wanted to spread
Communism to their own Latvia and to the rest of Europe, using
Communist Russia as the base and the lives of Soviet soldiers as cannon
fodder, to turn all of Europe Communist. As you know, many of these
people returned to Latvia as soon as it became Communist in 1940.
A much better comparison would be to a Cuban exile, who escapes
Castro's rule, comes to America and becomes a Senator from Florida,
devoting much of his time to efforts to take Cuba away from Communists.
Would you deny him the right to be called a Cuban patriot?
>
> The Republic of Latvia wasn't even _proclaimed_ until 18 November 1918.
> It had never existed before -- there were the Baltic Provinces of
> Courland and Livonia, and eastern Latvia was part of Votebsk and Pskov
> _gubernii_.
>
So what? To take your own example, let's look at the President of
Yugoslavia Joseph Bros Tito. He was a Croat from Croatia. The Republic
of Croatia wasn't even _proclaimed_ until just recently, years after
Tito's death. Does that take away Croatia's responsibility for Tito?
Then which ex-Yugoslav republic should fully claim Croat man Tito as it
own and take 100% of responsibility for his actions? Serbia?
Montenegro? Slovenia? Macedonia? Bosnia?
vkar...@yahoo.com
martin wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > >
> > > > This leads to an interesting point though. Having secured power,
> > > > at what point did the entity that was clearly in the early years a gang
> > > > ruling a terrified population through violence become a legitmate
> > > > government of the Russian people.
> > >
> > > Now you're talking.
> > >
> > > And, interestingly, as far as Germany is concerned we can reverse the
> > > question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
> > > cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
> >
> > There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
> > of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
> > time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
> > and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
> > German people.
> >
> > In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
> > and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> > people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> > and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror.
>
> And loved by the current Russian leadership,
>
Which current leader are you referring to? Putin? Fradkov? Lavrov?
>
> which declared the
> collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political tragedy of the
> 20th century.
>
Please give the exact quote or reference. I don't recall any of the 3
people above making any such statements.
The only two ex-Soviet , whose leadership appears to be fond of the
Soviet times, are Moldova, which is ruled by Communists, and Georgia,
whose current leader Saakashvili worships Stalin and even started his
Revolution of Roses from a Stalin Monument
////////////////////////////////
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3047georgia_soros.html as
This article appears in the December 5, 2003 issue of Executive
Intelligence Review.
Georgia: Soros, Stalin, And a Barrel of Wine
by Roman Bessonov
On Nov. 21, two correspondents of the Russian newspaper Kommersant
Daily traveled from Gori, Georgia, the birthplace of Iosif Stalin, to
the Georgian capital of Tbilisi-accompanying a column of opposition
activists headed by Michael Saakashvili, an ambitious young man with an
American education and economic views considered by Georgian
businessmen to be "complete nonsense." After a rally before the huge
statue of Stalin, the marchers set out under a Crusaders' banner with
five white crosses on a field of red. A 40-liter cask of wine helped
them along.
/////////////////////////
http://www.guardian.co.uk/georgia/story/0,,1183424,00.html
Georgia on their mind
John Laughland in Batumi
Thursday April 1, 2004
The Guardian
In an interview with a Dutch magazine, Sandra Roelofs, the Dutch wife
of the new Georgian president and hence the new first lady of Georgia,
explained that her husband aspires to follow in the long tradition of
strong Georgian leaders "like Stalin and Beria". Saakashvili started
his march on Tbilisi last November with a rally in front of the statue
of Stalin in his birthplace, Gori. Unfazed, the western media continue
to chatter about Saakashvili's democratic credentials, even though his
seizure of power was consolidated with more than 95% of the vote in a
poll in January, and even though he said last week that he did not see
the point of having any opposition deputies in the national parliament.
In Sunday's vote - for which final results are mysteriously still
unavailable - the government appears to have won nearly every seat.
Georgia is now effectively a one-party state...
New world order enthusiasts have praised the nightly displays on
Georgian television of people being arrested and bundled off to prison
in handcuffs. The politics of envy and fear combine in an echo of 1930s
Moscow, as Saakashvili's anti-corruption campaign, egged on by the
west, allows the biggest gangsters in this gangster state to eliminate
their rivals.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
vkar...@yahoo.com
martin wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > martin wrote:
> > > The Black Monk wrote:
> > > > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > > > "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1169073175.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
> > > > > cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
> > > >
> > > > There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
> > > > of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
> > > > time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
> > > > and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
> > > > German people.
> > > >
> > > > In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
> > > > and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> > > > people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> > > > and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror.
> > >
> > > collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geo-political tragedy of the
> > > 20th century.
> >
> > exactly the same as the one from the 1920's and 30's. Can you find
> > quotes of Putin praising Stalin?
> >
> > > >And guess what - all of this was made possible thanks to crucial Latvian
> > > > support.
> > >
> > > And also the support of Trotsky and his 5 million Red Army combatants.
> >
> > You seem to have trouble with historical dates. The Red Army reached
> > five million at the end of the war. The Latvian involvement was
> > decisive in 1917 through the summer of 1918. Remember, it was the
> > Latvian Red Riflemen who crushed the revolt in Moscow that would have
> > led to Lenin's, Trotsky's, Dzerzhinsky's end. The Latvians literally
> > saved the Revolution. Without them it would have failed.
>
> Sure, they may have failed, but Hitler failed too in his first attempt
> to grab power in 1923 via the Beerhall Putsch. Lenin was a resourceful
> guy, he would have tried again later, probably via electoral means, as
> did Hitler.
>
I love your trying to pass your wild fantasies as facts.
Who knows, had Bush lost to Gore in 2000, he may have started a bloody
revolution, which may have killed 100 million Ameircans, after which
Bush and Cheney may have flown to Mars and opened a local Halliburton
office there....
There is a good Russian saying: "If your Grandma had testicles, she
would be be your Grandpa", coined by Igor Guberman.
> >
> > Conscription into the Red Army started in July 1918 and by the end of
> > that year the Red Army had 500,000 troops. Your 5 million are about as
> > relevent in this discussion as the 11.3 million Soviet troops in 1945.
> >
> >
> > I will quote extensively from historian Visvaldis Mangulis. The author
> > states that the Latvians were lied to by Lenin, etc. which is probably
> > true but irrelevent to the purpose of this discussion. I will only
> > quote, for your education, the actions conducted by the Latvians that
> > made the Bolshevik revolution successful:
> >
> > http://www.historia.lv/publikacijas/gramat/mangulis/05.nod.htm
> >
> > "The disarray and confusion of Russia after the downfall of the Czar
> > gave Lenin and his Bolshevik minority a chance to grab power. When he
> > did succeed in the establishment of a Bolshevik government, few people
> > expected that to last longer than a few weeks. It did last longer than
> > that largely because he had a military force - the Latvian Rifles -
> > which was unbeatable at the crucial early moments of the birth of the
> > Soviet Union."
>
> Well you would expect a Latvian historian to over inflate the
> importance of the Latvian Rifles in toppling the mighty Russian Empire.
> Does official Soviet history view them in the same way?
>
So, you claim that Latvian historians' opinions about Latvian history
cannot be trusted? Does that apply to **all** Latvian historians? Or
only to those, whose facts and opinions you don't like?
And do you **really** give more credence on Latvian hostory to the
"official Soviet" (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) propaganda than to modern
Latvian historian? If so - that's an amazing admission.... though
moronic.
vkar...@yahoo.com
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> >> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1169073175.5...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>> at what point did the entity that was clearly in the early years a gang
> >>> ruling a terrified population through violence become a legitmate
> >>> government of the Russian people.
> >> Now you're talking.
> >>
> >> question: at what point did the 'democratically elected' Nazi rulership
> >> cease to be the legitimate government of Germany?
> >
> > There is no reason to suspect that it lacked the broad support of most
> > of Germany's people until the very end of the war. Certainly, at the
> > time of the most of its crimes, it was Germany's legitimate government
> > and therefore those crimes were the collective responsibility of the
> > German people.
> >
> > In contrast, the crimes committed by the Soviet regime in the 1920's
> > and 1930's were those of a government that was hated by most of the
> > people, never chosen by them, and which only came to power over them
> > and subsequently controlled them through mass murder and terror. And
> > support.
> >
> >
> B.M. To satisfy Mr. Cedrins you must make sure to specify
> Ethnic Latvians (with a further description), vs Latvians in the Latvian
> nationals sense (with further qualifications) ;) and explain the position
> of those supporters within the boundaries of those disctinct but overlapping
> definitions. ;)
> Also keep in mind the arguements (defenses, denials) of the Russians
> who claim that Russians were not responsible for the majority of the policies
> and deeds of the Soviet Union.
> --
Actually, Peteris' point is that Latvia didn't exist as an independent
state until 1918, and thus it cannot claim credit for any of the deeds
done by any Latvians born before 1918. Similarly, the great Polish poet
Mizkiewicz and composer Chopin were not Polish but Russians. Yes,
Russians! Why? Because there was no Poland at that time, it was part of
Russia. Thus, Chopin was a great Russian composer. :-)
Or maybe, Peteris' point is that all bad Latvians and Poles, born
before 1918, were Russians, while all good Latvians and Poles, born
before 1918, were Latvian/Polish? An interesting assymetry...
vkar...@yahoo.com
vello wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
> > > The Black Monk wrote:
> > > > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> at all for the Empire of Evil.
> > > >
> > > > What's it like looking in the mirror, John?
> > > >
> > > B.M. I think that here you are being a bit vindictively unfair.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree. With the specific case of the creation of
> > Soviet power Latvians were involved in that project to an extent that
> > was greater, per population, than that of Russians. Indeed, even
> > greater than were the Russians, at least in terms of military
> > assistance in those crucal first months. Although in the case of both
> > nations the commies were a small minority.
> >
> > > Yes the Latvians, for whatever reason, were there and instrumental in
> > > the success of the Bolsheviks --> USSR.
> > > But the Russians were there continuously. Were there in pre-revolution
> > > Czarist Russia. Were there during the revolution and the USSR. And are
> > > there now. Their imperialist tendencies have been constant.
> >
> > Sure. But there is a vast gulf between Commie imperialism and that of
> > the czarist kind, which objectively speaking was pretty mild as far as
> > European empires went. Compare the Ukrainians' fate with that of the
> > Irish, people of India, Africa, etc. for instance. And the best
> > -treated of all native Americans were the ones ruled by Russians in
> > Alaska.
> >
> >
> > Again, I respectfully disagree. A Latvian saying "it was the Russians,
> > not us", is essentially the same as a Russian saying, "it was the
> > Latvians, Jews and Georgians, not us." Actually, none of the nations
> > above should be blamed for the commie project, as it was the work of a
> > relatively small criminal gang. But singling out the Russians is like
> > singling out the Latvians, Jews or Georgians.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > BM
> >
> > > >> They prefer to go back 80+ years in history
> > > >> pointing out a few thousand Latvians as the real culprits.
> > > >
> > > > Well, who was responsbile? The Russian peasants, nobles, workers being
> > > > slaughtered by a regime that depended on Latvian bayonets for its
> > > > military survival?
> > > >
> > > >> In addition to the Riflemen, it's OK to blame the communists*, who for some
> > > >> reason had no nationality.
> > > >
> > > > They did. And Lativans were way overrepresented among their ranks.
> > > >
> > > >> But in the case of Germany one shouldn't blame
> > > >> only the Nazis but the whole German people.
> > > >
> > > > You can't tell the difference between a popular elected government and
> > > > an imposed one (imposed to a large extent by Latvians remember) ruling
> > > > a hostile population through fear?
> > > >
> > > >> *) There were 19 million party members end of the 80s. All totally innocent,
> > > >> of course. Except the non-Russians, of course.
> > > >
> > > > Are you implying that the millions of 1980's Russian Communist party
> > > > members time travelled and brought Bolshevism to Russia in 1917-1920?
> > > > Interesting.
> > > >
> > > > BM
>
> Poor Black, you constantly put ethnos and state in the same cattle.
> Nobody accuses ethnic russians being responsible for Red Russias crimes
> - crimes were commited by RUSSIAN STATE.
>
No, it was committed by the SOVIET state, which consisted of many
republics, which are currently indpendent states. Russia was only one
of them, although the largest int erms of area and population. And
most of the Soviet leaders, responsible for the worst crimes, came from
those OTHER republics, including the worst of them all: Stalin, as well
as the next layer of criminals: Dzierzhinsky, Yagoda, and Beria. Only
Ezhov came from Russia.
>
> Wise man Churchill says about
> germans - their quilt is, they allowed to exist such a blood hungry
> government.
>
They did much more: they democratically chose such government in 1932
and overwhelmingly voted for total approval of its bloody plans in
1936.
>
Same is true also for Russia. Being elected or not elected,
> it makes no difference here.
>
Wow.
>
> Germans don't voted for gass chambers and
> world war back in 1933 - they voted for guy promising to bring Germany
> up from misery, unemployment and corruption.
>
They voted for the guy who hadwritten Mein Kampf and who promised to
Germans that he would make them a master race, enslave Slavs and
others, and eliminate Jews from the faxce of Europe.
On the other hand, Russians never voted for or listened to Lenin, and
moreover, had they listened to him, they would ahve heard him
promisethem that he would make all peoples on Earth into brothers,
would eliminate war and misery and bring equality, love and brotherhood
to Earth.
Quite a difference, isn't it? Totally opposing ideologies.
>
Problem is, both nations
> were unable to stop their govt, if it was clear that no worker's
> paradise is coming nor in Berlin,
>
Hitler wasn't talking about "Workers Paradise". He was talking about
German"Aryan Paradise" at the expense of all other ethnicities and
races.
>
> nor in Moscow, but real hell for
> neighbours (and nation himself).
>
No, Bolsheviks really promised to bring as much happiness to their
neighbors as to the Russians. Bolsheviks were opposed to nationalism,
and persecuted anybody suspected of Russian (or any other) nationalism.
And you know that.
>
> It puts some moral responsibility on
> germans and russians.
>
For what? For liking internationalism and hating Russian nationalism?
>
> Despite Pol Poth was mass murderer, Kampuchea was still Kampuchea
> during his regime - or you say there was no Kampuchea but an anonymus
> territory occupied by gang of bastards :-)
>
Pol Pot's victims also were Kampucheans. Kampuchean victims of a
Kampuchean dictator. And most Stalin's (who was Georgian) victims were
Russians and/or Ukrainians. Soviet victims of a Soviet dictator. And
many Soviets died at the hands of Soviet CheKa criminals from Latvia.
So, all republics have their share of guilt. And so, stop isolating
Russia as the only republic responsible for Stalin's crimes.
captain.
"Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:45B506AC...@popmail.med.nyu.edu...
i somehow don't think that the "msocw" times was involved. it could have
been on usenet actually...
captain.
"Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:45B506AC...@popmail.med.nyu.edu...
>
>
also, free english lesson here, when someone says to "take it with a grain
of salt", it means that it could very well be bullshit.
Peteris Cedrinš (Peteris Cedrins)
My dear Karlamov,
Poets, composers, and other artists _usually_ have a rather different
connection to states (if they have such a connection at all) than
soldiers do (I say "usually" because of "engineers of the human soul,"
etc., and the fact is that many artists _do_ twine with the state --
see Dubravka Ugrešic, one of my favorite writers on these subjects
and somebody you and I could probably both share a liking for). What
state claims Kafka? Rothko?
Who's the demagogue here, Karlamov? I think I've suggested more than
once that (a) the Latvian Riflemen were not bad but good, and (b) the
Red Riflemen are historically problematic. I think everybody knows what
a Latvian is, no? But, like Jews, Latvians can be many things, and even
more than one thing at the same time -- Latgallians, cosmopolitans,
internationalists, Russians, Russophobes, Soviets, romantics,
_biznismeny_, loyalists, traitors, etc.
Modern soldiers in a regular army serve a state or a supranational
structure endorsed by states -- guerillas and terrorists usually do
not. There are some pretty large gray areas, which seem to be
expanding. I am certain that if you transported the Red Riflemen to 23
January 2007, they'd be vicious Latvian terrorists. Doesn't bother me
-- they were who they were. Many if not most were very nice, fanatical
Lettish boys fighting for freedom in a desperate situation. I'm not
going to repeat what I wrote yet again. How you get to what you wrote
above is very mysterious to me.
vello
No. Propaganda of imperial leaders is based on play with words. Despite
name, Austro-Hungarian Empire was governed from Vienna, working on
german and ruled y austrogerman dynasty. By the same playrule, Russian
Empire become one day "a union of 15 nations" - without any change in
territory, population and in way it was governed.
>
> >
> > To join
> > Martin in looking for analogies -- let's say I'm an ethnic Croat, but
> > devoted to a Socialist Yugoslavia and then to a Greater Serbia.
> > Yugoslavia breaks up, and I go join the courageous Serbian forces. I
> > spit upon Croatia and join my beloved Serbs in crushing the unwashed
> > Albanians of Kosova for the greater glory of Slavic brotherhood, etc.
> > Excuse me, but how would Republika Hrvatska be responsible?
> >
>
> Your analogy is total BS. Latvian Riflemen and Biolsheviks never spat
> on Latvia and never fought for "Greater Russia" or for "Slavic
> Brotherhood". In fact, they were enemies of dividing people based on
> ethnicity, they beleived in the Communist International, and that all
> nationalities must be abolished for the International Workers
> Brotherhood.
But that Brotherhood would need some language to communicate each
other, sure? So it is wiser to notics they plan to abolish other
nations to create igger russian-speaking one.
These people still loved Latvia more than any other land,
> but they remained in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1940 because
> they were Communist idealists/fanatics, because the Soviet Union was
> Communist, while Latvia was the "opposite"; and they wanted to spread
> Communism to their own Latvia and to the rest of Europe, using
> Communist Russia as the base and the lives of Soviet soldiers as cannon
> fodder, to turn all of Europe Communist. As you know, many of these
> people returned to Latvia as soon as it became Communist in 1940.
It may be true, sure
>
> A much better comparison would be to a Cuban exile, who escapes
> Castro's rule, comes to America and becomes a Senator from Florida,
> devoting much of his time to efforts to take Cuba away from Communists.
> Would you deny him the right to be called a Cuban patriot?
Sure - they are patriots of Cuban state. But as they are not in service
of modern Cuba and even don't livein Cuba, it would be childish to
accuse Cuba for their actions.
>
> >
> > The Republic of Latvia wasn't even _proclaimed_ until 18 November 1918.
> > It had never existed before -- there were the Baltic Provinces of
> > Courland and Livonia, and eastern Latvia was part of Votebsk and Pskov
> > _gubernii_.
> >
>
> So what? To take your own example, let's look at the President of
> Yugoslavia Joseph Bros Tito. He was a Croat from Croatia. The Republic
> of Croatia wasn't even _proclaimed_ until just recently, years after
> Tito's death. Does that take away Croatia's responsibility for Tito?
Of course! Your logic puts responsibility on German and Russian Empires
to ...Austria and Georgia :-) If you are not a Nazi, ethnicity is not a
big matter in modern world - if I, say, working as Russian spy in
Estonia, sure Russia isresponsible for my activity (and myself, sure),
but not Estonia, despite I'm ethnic estonian.
> Then which ex-Yugoslav republic should fully claim Croat man Tito as it
> own and take 100% of responsibility for his actions? Serbia?
> Montenegro? Slovenia? Macedonia? Bosnia?
Yugoslavia, despite Serian dominition, was different case. There was no
words in their anthem about "Great Serb nation creating union of
nations forever". Yugoslavia was not born by just renaming Serbian
Empire but it was really created by uniting different lands
vello
You fall in a childish mood again, Karla. Sure Chopin was polish - as
riflemen were letts, ethnically. But yes if there have been some
Eurovision back then, Chopin would be represent Russian STATE, not
nonexisting Poland.
vello
You are fantastic, Karla! Knowing % of jews in Germany, you can easily
calculate hof big part of quilt in Holocaust falls on Jews themselves
:-) But hardly other jews will share your way to fix quiltiness.
>
> If you say that Russia and only Russia should hold 100% of the
> responsibility, then imagine that Zbiggie Brzezinsky got his wish in
> breaking up Russia further into 100 tiny pieces. Which pieces would
> hold responsibility for Soviet crimes and which shouldn't? Should
> Karelia? Chechnya? Komi? Yakutia? Tatarstan? Jewish Autonomous Region?
> Kuban? Belgorod? Smolensk?
Not Karelia, Chechenia, Komi, Yakutia, Tatarstan and other lands
occupied by Russian Empire for sure. For Russia proper - well, in
Brzezinsky's dreams there would be Russia Proper any more, so
responsibility is gone like we can't accuse any part of Roman Empire
for things romans did.
>
> How about average individuals? Should ethnic Russia in Russia bear
> their share of responsibilities? How about ethnic Latvians living in
> Russia for 40 years? How about ethnic Latvians living in Russia for
> 140 years? Ethnic Russians living in Latvia for 40 years? Ethnic
> Russians living in Latvia for 140 years? Etc., etc....
Poor nazi, in real life no individual care responsiility for State's
acts - no russian, latvian, jew etc.
>
> Imagine that we decided that Belgorod should be responsible, while
> Karelia shouldn't. What if all the individual residents of Belgorod got
> up and moved to Karelia, and all the residents of Karelia moved to
> Belgorod. Then who which country would now be responsible: Belgorod or
> Karelia?
You "we" is beaten, Karla - you can't decide what nation is worth to
live and what not any more. First half of you went down the toilet in
1945, other part mostly in 1991 (well, not all unhappily)
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> difference also - two hippos may divorce, but with hippo-mouse case,
> for mouse it is more "run till hole is open"-thing.
>
I also wonder what conjugal life was like for that union and what their
offspring (individuals) look like? ;)
Do you picture yourself as Mighty Mouse ? or as Minnie?
--
Rostyk
The Black Monk
> The Black Monk wrote:
>
>
> > Ah. So the actions of a Red Latvian who happened to be a Russian
> > citizen by birth, who despised Russians and who fought to impose a
> > government on the Russians whom he despised are the exclusive
> > responsibility of the Russian, not Latvian people, because at the time
> > of the Red Latvian's birth his homeland happened to be a part fo
> > Russia. How conveneient.
>
> His homeland only happened to be a part of Russia?
What I meant was that his only connection to Russia was one of
political boundaries. He was not Russian ethnically nor in terms of
allegience.
> His homeland had
> been ruled by Russia, in the inimitable Russian manner ("Stolypin's
> necktie," for example, is a term for a noose in Latvian), for a couple
> of centuries.
According to the Black Book of Communism, under the tsars between 1825
and 1914 less than 4,000 people were executed for political crimes
(often but not exclusively for terorrism). A number incidentally,
exceeded by the Bolsheviks in the first two months of their rule under
Latvian protection..
> The Riflemen fought the Germans and suffered heavy
> losses. His homeland wasn't merely a part of Russia when he was born --
> it was a part of Russia when he was fighting. Part was occupied by the
> Germans due to the Russians' traditional military ineptitude.
This is another topic but Russia hardly monopolized ineptitude during
World War I. Remember all of those wasted lives during the trench
warfare on the western front? The famous quote about the British army
come to mind- "an army of lions led by jackasses." And there were some
successes in Russia's peformance during that war - the Brusilov
offensive comes to mind.
> His efforts to liberate his homeland were futile because of Russian commanders and the poor quality of
> Russian troops.
>
> > Here is what the Latvian Reds thought of the Russians on whom they were
> > forcing the Bolshevik government:
> >
> > "The Letts [Latvians] were the best [sentries]. Most of them were
> > contemptuous of the Russians, whom they regarded as inferiors. One Lett
> > informed me that, if Russia could have put a million non-Russian troops
> > into the trenches, she could not have failed to win the war. Every time
> > the Letts advanced, he said, they were let down by the Russians, who
> > failed invariably to support them. He despised, too, the dirt and
> > laziness of the Russian troops. On the other hand, he had a wholesome
> > respect for the Bolshevik leaders, whom he regarded as supermen."
>
> See above. Yes, I can find you innumerable passages from that time that
> contain such views of the Russians -- in fact, there must be some truth
> to them, no? I mean, later, tiny Finland was also able to inflict
> massive losses on the Russians in 1939/40 -- why? Because the Finns
> were fighting for their freedom. You're emphasizing the dramatic rôle
> the Riflemen played -- they must have been pretty impressive in battle
> by comparison to the Russians then, no?
Of course they were. So much so that their long-term, critical
participation in the Red adventure guarenteed that Russians would be
forced to live under the genocidal Communist regime.
> As soldiers, the Russians were indeed inferior. The Latvians became
> aware of their military prowess, which was celebrated even in the West
> (by the Belgian poet Émile Verhaeren, for example: "And here, at
> Verdun / and Yser, we listen / With bated breath, / As the Latvian oaks
> call to one another. / They know not how to bend, but only break.") The
> Riflemen lost 37% of their fighting strength in the Christmas Battles
Was this different from other front-line units?
> -- you're surprised that they turned against the tyrant who sent them
> to suicide?
Their motivations are irrelevent. Your argument reminds me of the
defense attorney, unable to cast doubt upon the crime, who brings up
the criminals' history of poverty or abuse. Interesting and true, but
irrelevent.
> The battle hymn that Akuraters (also a Rifleman) wrote in 1905,
> "castles will crumble, thrones will fall" came true. Such is the fate
> of despots, and I don't feel at all bad about the Letts having helped
> to destroy the putrid Empire.
Remember that they rebelled not against the tsar but against the
elected provisonal government. They crushed several White forces, not
only monarchists but also socialists, anarchists, constitutional
democrats, etc. It wasn't a war against the tsar the Latvians Red
Rifles were conducting, but a war for the Soviets against any
non-Soviet Russian.
As for the "putrid Empire", it's also a culture that gave the world
Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Tchaikovsky, Berdyaev, Soloviov, Repin,
Serov, Wrubel, etc. And punishing Tsarist Russia by forcing Bolshevik
rule upon it (which essentially is what the Latvian Red Rifles did) is
like punishing a mugger who beat his victim up by having him drawn and
quartered, and his family burned alive.
> Arnolds Spekke, a remarkable scholar and diplomat, recalls his travels
> through Russia in the early years of the Revolution in his memoirs,
> _Atmiņu brīži_ (Stockholm: Zelta Ābele, 1967). Riding in the
> unheated coupé of a train crammed with twenty people, he heard an
> elegantly coiffed woman curse the Latvian Riflemen -- according to her,
> everything in Russia would be fine if it weren't for them. In an
> inoccent voice, he asked this _gospozha_ how many of these Riflemen
> there were. Twenty or thirty thosand. Spekke: "And how many Russians
> are there in Russia?" All of the soldiers in the rail car burst into
> laughter as the _gospozha_ gave him looks to kill.
Why? Is it funny to kick someone while they're down? Does it excuse
it? While this story is accurate it reminds me too much of blaming a
rape victim for her rape because she was too drunk or otherwise
incapacitated to resist.
> Spekke describes he "we the _inorodtsy_" went home to put our houses in
> order while the "chosen people of the Revolution" (Stalin's phrase)
> marched toward a futureless transformation on the "voclanic plains"
> (Marinetti). He recalls the notorious nihilistic apathy of the "chosen
> people" -- an Orthodox priest ("I always said that the Jews and Masons
> would destroy Russia -- well, they finally did, but what's it to me?"),
> and conversations with deserters who understood nothing but their
> immediate _mir_ and were headed home... the rest of the world, and
> Russia itself, were abstracts that could go to hell.
Sure, all true. But none of these examples of Russian passivity excuse
Latvian activity. "It's the Russians' own fault that the Latvians
helped force them to live under Communism. They didn't fight us
Latvians hard enough or well enough."
Look, millions of Russian former canon fodder deserted the tsarist army
and came home to their villages. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of
Latvians fought to establish Soviet control over that territory.
Having imposed the genocidal regime on the Russian and Ukrainian
people, many (most?) of those tens of thousands of Latvians went home
to comfortable, safe lives in Latvia. While the Latvian
genocide-bringers enjoyed their freedom in the bourgeois Latvian state,
the passive Russian victims of Latvian activism suffered through
millions of losses. Now, it seems, rather shamelessly, you and others
are essentially demanding that that the surviving relatives and
descendents of this brutality collectively (as citizens of the Russian
state) acknowledge their guilt for Soviet crimes to the Latvian state
or Latvian people. I mean, there would even be the situation in which
the descendents of Russians who fought, and were crushed, by Latvian
Bolsheviks in Moscow or Kazan would end up apologizing to Latvia whose
state gave those Red Riflemen citizenship and comfortable lives, for
Soviet crimes. Sorry, but any neutral observer would see that as
grotesque and absurd.
If my family lived in terror for 30 years, if my grandfather along with
100,000s or millions of other Russians had been butchered by the Cheka
(whose number 2 and number 3 were Latvians), all thanks to the critical
Latvian participation in the Revolution, I would NEVER want Putin to
apologize on my behalf to Latvia or to have a kopeck of my taxes be
paid to Latvian victims. And no democratic ruler of Russia would do
such a thing.
> Speaking of the Russian national character and Russia's prospects,
> Spekke observes that people often react with sneers of disbelief... he
> must be exaggerating -- so be it, he says, and let each see things as
> he sees them; he has Dostoevsky to read. One day, he thinks, the sons
> of the "Great Russian - Leninist" paradise will have trouble looking in
> the mirror, in view of what they have done to themselves and those
> around them. Those days are here, methinks, and I think most of the
> participants in this forum know who has the most difficulty facing the
> looking-glass.
The Latvians, obviously. They allay their guilt through talk of
citizenship and by pushing the blame onto someone else. At least on
this newsgroup. Russians OTOH haven't been demanding apologies or
reparations from anyone.
The logical approach is that neither they nor Latvians nor Jews should
feel any guilt nor collective responsibility for the actions of a
relatively tiny number of criminals (in 1917 - 1918, perhaps 150,000
people out of 150 million, I'm purely speculating), even though as a
proportion of their population Latvians contributed more to this crime
than anybody else.
If you want to play this game (note agfain: I think it's wrong, for the
reason outlined above), however, perhaps you can make a fund whose
contributions would depend on the ratio of Bolshevik criminals per
nationality. Maybe Latvians would be responsible for 30% of the pool,
Russian/Ukrainian Jews by nationality for a similar amount, Russians by
nationality for slightly less and the rest of the responsibility
divided amongst Georgians, Ukrainians, Poles, etc. Then distribute the
money according to the number of victims (Russians, Ukrainians,
Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Jewish, etc.) of the Soviet rulers
brought to power during the Revolution. That would be the only just
way of playing that game.
regards,
BM
> But this is repetitive repetitive repetitive by now, Black Monk. See
> things as you see them!
>
> Regards,
> /P
>
> http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
The Black Monk wrote:
[snip]
> As for the "putrid Empire", it's also a culture that gave the world
> Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Tchaikovsky, Berdyaev, Soloviov, Repin,
> Serov, Wrubel, etc. And punishing Tsarist Russia by forcing Bolshevik
> rule upon it (which essentially is what the Latvian Red Rifles did) is
> like punishing a mugger who beat his victim up by having him drawn and
> quartered, and his family burned alive.
I do hate to blow my lunch twice in one day -- but what was the
relationship of these figures to the Empire, exactly? Take them one by
one.
/P
Vladimir Makarenko
The Black Monk wrote:
>
> Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> > The Black Monk wrote:
> >
> > [deletions]
> >
> > > Ah. So the actions of a Red Latvian who happened to be a Russian
> > > citizen by birth, who despised Russians and who fought to impose a
> > > government on the Russians whom he despised are the exclusive
> > > responsibility of the Russian, not Latvian people, because at the time
> > > of the Red Latvian's birth his homeland happened to be a part fo
> > > Russia. How conveneient.
> >
> > His homeland only happened to be a part of Russia?
>
> What I meant was that his only connection to Russia was one of
> political boundaries. He was not Russian ethnically nor in terms of
> allegience.
>
> > His homeland had
> > been ruled by Russia, in the inimitable Russian manner ("Stolypin's
> > necktie," for example, is a term for a noose in Latvian), for a couple
> > of centuries.
>
> According to the Black Book of Communism, under the tsars between 1825
> and 1914 less than 4,000 people were executed for political crimes
> (often but not exclusively for terorrism).
I think it's worth to mention that the date 1825 as a beginning is
given not accidentally: for almost fifty preceding years there was no
death penalty.
So you can add the period from 1825 to the date around end of Pugacheov
rebellion, i.e. ~1775. Murder in the time was punishable by "katorga".
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
Don't bother to give me anything for "free". I always pay my bills.
Otherwise, you reminded me and what I compared - once, now many years
ago, I heard from a Brazilian graduate student how a priest in his small
town was scaring the flock that Russkies shoot Christians and eat their
children. See the difference?
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
The number is obviously a tentative as nobody really accurately did the
count but, you have to add Asian republics - at least, 200,000-300,000
in Tajikistan. Several tens of thousands in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan,
both ethnic and secular-islamists conflicts. Karabakh about 30-35,000
civilians and combatants together, etc. And of course Chechnya and the
rest.
VM.
captain.
yes. yes i do.
captain.
"DK" <d...@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
news:b7yth.53$M92...@newsfe06.lga...
> In article <Tpmth.151283$rv4.66794@edtnps90>, "captain."
>>i somehow don't think that the "msocw" times was involved. it could have
>>been on usenet actually...
>
> Still it's a clear bullshit. Dynamite was patented in 1867 - the same year
> Alaska was sold. There wasn't much of it produced by then, certainly none
> was available in Russia.
>
> Indeed, the truth is that Russians treated various Alaska natives
> immesurably better than the genocidal Americans that replaced them.
>
> DK
>
changing the subject a bit here but why did russia sell alaska? what was the
reasoning?
Blame It On Rio !
"DK" <d...@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
news:b7yth.53$M92...@newsfe06.lga...
> In article <Tpmth.151283$rv4.66794@edtnps90>, "captain."
> Alaska was sold. There wasn't much of it produced by then, certainly none
> was available in Russia.
>
There could have been beta testers ?!
J. Anderson
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:1169553613.1...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>> Similarly, the great Polish poet Mizkiewicz and
>> composer Chopin were not Polish but Russians.
That vkarlamov cannot differentiate between ethnos, nation, patria and
empire should not surprise anybody. I doubt that he can see himself as
belonging to any of them.
Vladimir Makarenko
> Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>
>
>> Japanese PMs as you probably know annualy pay a visit to one particular
>>shrine of national heroes.
>>It is Japan economic and military circumstances which do not allow them
>>to talk much. Japan's history textbooks however, according to the SE
>>Asian countries do not regard Japanese military extension of presence as
>>a conquest. Etc.
>
>
> If so, do you have idea what they write in their textbooks? A divine
> nation created to master over others?
This article is very shy but still, gives an idea of direction:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4411771.stm
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
When did I say that it offends me? I am not a little precious flower
from an elite private school terrifyed by a drunk classmate who exposed
himself with a stupid grin. With such people I just shrug and move on
and do not deal with the person unless absolutely necessary. It says
however volumes about the perfomer's IQ.
Ever read the rest of her
> comments? The point was simple -- she accepted the invitation to
> Moscow's celebrations of victory in the Great Patriotic War. She was
> saying that we should mark this victory over fascism, but not in the
> way most do -- we should realize that the victory was not a liberation
> but the beginning of another phase of occupation, one which lasted
> until 1991.
>
> Stereotype? Hey, when I've seen Russians celebrate that victory here in
> Dvinsk, it's most often been with vodka, roach, and chastushka -- it
> does't seem to analytical a celebration,. either, but I might be
> mistaken.
I sincerely reccomend not to suggest ever any Russian to have vodka with
a roach - you will be looked at as a very strange sick person. And if
you in addition will start to sing chastushka, be ready that people will
call ambulance. One thing is a joy of your ethnic myths imported from
across ocean, another hard ball of reality among real people on the
ground. The devil is in the details.
VM.
Blame It On Rio !
> In article <5Myth.182106$YV4.104843@edtnps89>, "captain."
>>
>>changing the subject a bit here but why did russia sell alaska? what was
>>the
>>reasoning?
>
>
> - Decreasing profits from fur hunting and increased competition
> by Americans and British.
>
> - A sense that expansionist United States early or later will take
> Alaska for free anyway, by violent methods if the need be.
>
Yeah well...Russkis first tried to sell California back to the Spanish but
they weren't buyin'.
US got it bargain price.
> - Strong influence of the political lobby that advocated the idea
> that Russian empire will be better off with continental land only,
> without dispersing resource to govern various colonies.
> (For instance, Russia at some point declined the idea if taking
> up Hawaii).
>
Right...no fur bearing animals on Hawaii so not worth plundering.
> - State budget deficit and the need for extra money in the
> face of the increasing military costs (that was time right between
> Crimean War and Russo-Turkish War).
>
> DK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
captain.
> In article <5Myth.182106$YV4.104843@edtnps89>, "captain."
> <spammer...@now.net> wrote:
>>
>>the
>>reasoning?
>
>
> - Decreasing profits from fur hunting and increased competition
> by Americans and British.
>
> - A sense that expansionist United States early or later will take
> Alaska for free anyway, by violent methods if the need be.
>
> that Russian empire will be better off with continental land only,
> without dispersing resource to govern various colonies.
> (For instance, Russia at some point declined the idea if taking
> up Hawaii).
>
> face of the increasing military costs (that was time right between
> Crimean War and Russo-Turkish War).
>
> DK
>
thanks
The Black Monk
On Jan 23, 1:01 pm, "Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)"
I wrote quite clearly. By the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
Tsarist Russia was producing the greatest novels in the world and its
contributions in visual arts, ballet, classical music, opera and
theater were among the greatest. I agree with K. Leontiev that
equality kills culture; isn't all of Europe a monument to the beauty
that was produced when there was inequality? Tsarist Russia was hardly
a "putrid Empire."
The relationship of Russia's cultural figures towards their Empire's
government is largely irrelevent in this context. Dostoyevsky, of
course, was considered a "reactionary" and, the wisest of them all, was
a Tsarist, but some others were rather rebellious. At any rate, they
are all the products of their era. The one that followed was,
comparably, a cultural desert. Leftovers from the times of tsar
survived in the shadows (Bulgakov, Blok before dying young, etc.), but
then? Trifonov (you might appreciate his brilliant humanization of the
Stalin-era elite and the pathos of their downfall during Khrushchev's
time in his classic "House on the Embankment") and some others, but
generally it has been a swift downfall. The best that can be said is
that Soviet culture in its inefficiency has proven less able to wipe
out culture than has been late radical Western commercialism of the
American kind.
regards,
BM
> /P
Vladimir Makarenko
What exactly you mean by "inequality" or its opposite?
VM.
captain.
"Blame It On Rio !" <YouCanCa...@WoHochtDieBus.de> wrote in message
news:hRMth.16$S_5...@newsfe09.lga...
>
>
> Yeah well...Russkis first tried to sell California back to the Spanish but
> they weren't buyin'.
>
> US got it bargain price.
>
i was checking out google earth for a while last night and i discovered that
the "easternmost" part of the usa is not where you might imagine. now i know
that you are a touch geographically challenged but would you care to take a
guess where it is and what it's called?
The Black Monk
On Jan 26, 7:11 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <makar...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
Cultures begin with equality and end with it also. Primitive tribe
members are more or less equal, with little difference between the
chief and the regular members. In the late stage, everyone is more or
less the same also (the triumph of the lower middle class and its
values). Cultures at their highest stage demonstrate the greatest
degree of inequality. This was seen in western Europe in the 19th and
18th centuries, before the ideals of the Enlightenment poisoned and
ultimately destroyed the entire culture. Versailles, Mozart, Tolstoy,
Beethoven, Dostoyevsky, Moliere, were all products of that time of
extreme inequality. Parallels can be found in the Classical world as
well, of course (i.e., the unequal Athenian democracy). It is no
coincidence that arguably America's greatest writer, Faulkner, emerged
from a part of the country whose culture resembled that of 19th
century Russia. In the modern world the best writers tend to be from
Latin America which has the least equality in its society. However
this will change with the two-pronged assault of, on the one hand,
American consumerist propaganda and on the other hand the Quebec-like
aping of the EU among the worst elements of the (semi-)educated
classes.
In the West equality/degeneration has been a home-grown phenomenon.
>From the triumph of the ideals of the Snopeses in the American South,
to that of lower middle- class fascists, or secular social democrats,
in Europe, it all means the same thing. In Russia however, the
brilliant culture would not have been destroyed if not for
international intervention. In other words, it was a murder more than
a suicide...
regards,
BM
>
> VM.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
J. Anderson
> Cultures begin with equality and end with it also.
Just a quick comment. Sorry, Monk, but I'm not able to place my own nation
in your highly élitist pattern. Finland began to flourish culturally with
the evolution of a middle class. That evolution was forwarded by the age of
enlightenment. Before that, the 'greatest degree of inequality' had produced
absolutely nothing of enduring value.
Of course financial support will help great creative talent to bear fruit,
but that has to do with money, not with class. Talent is distributed evenly
through all social strata. Through all the centuries of feudalism, that
talent existed also in the Baltic and Finnish peasantry, but your 'greatest
degree of inequality' kept it suppressed.
Regards,
John
MTRP™
> "The Black Monk" wrote:
> Just a quick comment. Sorry, Monk, but I'm not able to place my own
A quick, but obvious response: there's no contradiction here cuz
Finland is yet to enter the world of culture-producers. Nothing
against Nokia and Mika Häkkinen though ...
Vladimir Makarenko
The Black Monk wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 7:11Â pm, Vladimir Makarenko <makar...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
> wrote:
> > The Black Monk wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 23, 1:01 pm, "Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)"
> > > <cedr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>The Black Monk wrote:[snip]
> >
> > >>>As for the "putrid Empire", it's also a culture that gave the world
> > >>>Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Tchaikovsky, Berdyaev, Soloviov, Repin,
> > >>>Serov, Wrubel, etc. Â And punishing Tsarist Russia by forcing Bolshevik
> > >>>rule upon it (which essentially is what the Latvian Red Rifles did) is
> > >>>like punishing a mugger who beat his victim up by having him drawn and
> > >>>quartered, and his family burned alive.
> >
> > >>I do hate to blow my lunch twice in one day -- but what was the
> > >>relationship of these figures to the Empire, exactly? Take them one by
> > >>one.
> >
> > > I wrote quite clearly. Â By the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
> > > Tsarist Russia was producing the greatest novels in the world and its
> > > contributions in visual arts, ballet, classical music, opera and
> > > theater were among the greatest. Â I agree with K. Leontiev that
> > > equality kills culture; isn't all of Europe a monument to the beauty
> > > that was produced when there was inequality? Â Tsarist Russia was hardly
> > > a "putrid Empire."
> >
> > > The relationship of  Russia's cultural figures towards their Empire's
> > > government is largely irrelevent in this context. Â Dostoyevsky, of
> > > course, was considered a "reactionary" and, the wisest of them all, was
> > > a Tsarist, but some others were rather rebellious. Â At any rate, they
> > > are all the products of their era. Â The one that followed was,
> > > comparably, a cultural desert. Â Leftovers from the times of tsar
> > > survived in the shadows (Bulgakov, Blok before dying young, etc.), but
> > > then? Â Trifonov (you might appreciate his brilliant humanization of the
> > > Stalin-era elite and the pathos of their downfall during Khrushchev's
> > > time in his classic "House on the Embankment") and some others, but
> > > generally it has been a swift downfall. Â The best that can be said is
OK, I am not really asking about real or imaginative advantages of one
or another social system. I wonder what exactly "equality" or
"inequality" means when you use the notions.
VM.
The Black Monk
On Jan 29, 11:44 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1170084934.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Cultures begin with equality and end with it also.Just a quick comment.
> Sorry, Monk, but I'm not able to place my own nation in your highly élitist pattern.
Not necessarily elitist. The folk culture of the peasantry is also
extinguished when nations decompose (i.e., equality).
> Finland began to flourish culturally with the evolution of a middle class.
Which cultural achievements?
> That evolution was forwarded by the age of enlightenment.
Yes, the age of enlightenment probably contributed to the growth of
the middle class, at the expense of the nobility and the peasantry,
the true bearers of culture.
> Before that, the 'greatest degree of inequality' had produced
> absolutely nothing of enduring value.
Is there a difference then? Anything of "enduring cultural value" now
being produced in Finland? Maybe I just haven't heard of it.
On the other hand, I have heard of Finland's greatest statesman, Baron
Mannerheim.
> Of course financial support will help great creative talent to bear fruit,
> but that has to do with money, not with class.
Evident in the positive cultural contributions of American movie
actors and sports stars, or for that matter Bill Gates.
> Talent is distributed evenly through all social strata.
That is the claim of your ideology. However, reality stubbornly gets
in the way of that assertion.
> Through all the centuries of feudalism, that talent existed also in the Baltic and
> Finnish peasantry,
Sure. And it still exists in places such as India, Indonesia, and
Mexico, where Western tourists go to try to see real folk cultures
that were extinguished in their own countries during the ascendency of
the secular, bourgeois middle classes. A process even more complete
than the parallel one involving the working classes clumsily and
brutally imposed on Russia.
> but your 'greatest degree of inequality' kept it suppressed.
So when will modern Finland produce a Tolstoy? Ironic that in the era
of mass literacy and distributed wealth, little of cultural value (not
just high) is produced.
regards,
BM
> Regards,
> John
J. Anderson
On Jan 29, 11:44 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1170084934.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Cultures begin with equality and end with it also.Just a quick comment.
>> Sorry, Monk, but I'm not able to place my own nation in your highly
>> élitist pattern.
> Not necessarily elitist. The folk culture of the peasantry is also
> extinguished when nations decompose (i.e., equality).
Decompose? So you mean that a nation decomposes when an educated middle
class emerges between the peasantry and the feudal lords?
>> Finland began to flourish culturally with the evolution of a middle
>> class.
> Which cultural achievements?
The fact that you or Topolski are unfamiliar with Finnish cultural
achievements does not mean that they don't exist. It merely shows how narrow
your outlook is. There's a 'slight' difference in producing for instance
literature in languages like Russian or Spanish (not to mention English)
compared to writing in Finnish or Swedish.
>> That evolution was forwarded by the age of enlightenment.
> Yes, the age of enlightenment probably contributed to the growth of
> the middle class, at the expense of the nobility and the peasantry,
> the true bearers of culture.
Incredible! Of the names you mentioned earlier, only Tolstoy was a nobleman
and no one was a peasant. Who's a peasant or nobleman among the Latin
American writers you so admire?
>> Before that, the 'greatest degree of inequality' had produced
>> absolutely nothing of enduring value.
> Is there a difference then? Anything of "enduring cultural value" now
> being produced in Finland? Maybe I just haven't heard of it.
What pitiful arrogance.
> On the other hand, I have heard of Finland's greatest
> statesman, Baron Mannerheim.
Statesman? Mannerheim was a uniting figure -- he wasn't even very good as a
military strategist; there were other brains behind our successful warfare.
>> Of course financial support will help great creative talent to bear
>> fruit,
>> but that has to do with money, not with class.
> Evident in the positive cultural contributions of American movie
> actors and sports stars, or for that matter Bill Gates.
Is that sarcasm? In that case you seem not to know that men like Chaucer,
Dante, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Rembrandt, J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc.
all were dependent on affluent sponsors.
>> Talent is distributed evenly through all social strata.
> That is the claim of your ideology. However, reality stubbornly gets
> in the way of that assertion.
What ideology? I don't subscribe to any -ism. What reality? Are you outing
yourself as a Nazi?
>> Through all the centuries of feudalism, that talent
>> existed also in the Baltic and Finnish peasantry,
> Sure. And it still exists in places such as India, Indonesia, and
> Mexico, where Western tourists go to try to see real folk cultures
> that were extinguished in their own countries during the ascendency of
> the secular, bourgeois middle classes.
You really despise the large majority of Western people, don't you?
> A process even more complete
> than the parallel one involving the working classes clumsily and
> brutally imposed on Russia.
And the reason for that imposition was the total failure of your 'greatest
degree of inequality'.
> So when will modern Finland produce a Tolstoy?
It's obvious that Count Tolstoy is your great hero, after all he was both a
nobleman and a peasant. But don't overrate him, he was 'only' a great epic
writer, hardly the non plus ultra.
> Ironic that in the era of mass literacy and distributed
> wealth, little of cultural value (not just high) is produced.
That's your opinion -- others will disagree. We cannot know who or what will
be the great classic heritage of our time and we'll never find out. Others
will decide that long after we've passed away. The contemporaries of many an
ancient Master seldom could predict his enduring greatness.
Regards,
John