Occupation of Latvia
Alexei
Let me preface this post by saying that all I'm seeking is an opinion, a
view from you guys.
June 17 marks the day when the Soviet Army marched to Riga and occupied
Latvia. A day later, Latvia was annexed into the Soviet Union.
There's a lot of talk about compensation, repatriation and recognition of
the occupation. (That's a lot of -tions). However, from purely legal point
of view, did the Latvian government sign the documents releasing the power
to the Soviet Union? Forcefully or otherwise. So, from a purely legal stand
point - setting aside all of the emotions -- the chances of getting
compensation and recognition of occupation have a little bit of a dilemma.
Legally, it is hard to prove the occupation even occurred.
Perhaps, I will hear from the lot of you about Russian propaganda, but in my
mind, I think it is a counterpoint that *legally* outweighs the argument.
What do you think?
--
Aleks Tapinsh
www.allaboutlatvia.com
All About Latvia Weblog
Henry Alminas
"Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bcokfe$1b6b$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Why play the idiot Alex? The chance of the Balts getting any kind of
compensation from russkieland is zip, zero, nada. Obviously everybody
but you seems to understand that. That is not the way russkieland
operates. The money is not what it is all about - even the russkies
seem to understand that - all, perhaps, but you. As to their stupid
definition of "legality" - only the twisted minds of that clan would
come up with *that*. To a russkie all is legal that they can get away
with. Now go to bed.
Best - - Henry
Alexei
>
> Why play the idiot Alex? The chance of the Balts getting any kind of
> compensation from russkieland is zip, zero, nada.
I understand that there's no chance. Although I doubt Lstrad33 understands
it. But -- That was not my question.
Obviously everybody
> but you seems to understand that. That is not the way russkieland
> operates. The money is not what it is all about - even the russkies
> seem to understand that - all, perhaps, but you. As to their stupid
> definition of "legality" - only the twisted minds of that clan would
> come up with *that*. To a russkie all is legal that they can get away
> with. Now go to bed.
Is that all you have to offer to me? It is all "russkies" twisted minds?
I'll need a better explanation.
I understand that it was de facto occupation, but de juro it was one
government asking another government for help...
It can be said of *any* person is "all is legal that they can get away
with". You know, at the time of occupation, Latvia was run by a man who came
to power in a least democratic way to begin with. Ulmanis dissolved the
parliament and was de facto a sole ruler of the country aka a dictator. I am
certain he had a legal way "to get away with".
Thanks for the answer anyhow,
Aleks
Henry Alminas
Just what is your IQ Alex? Consider - you put your overwhelming
army into a small country. You establish whatever government you
wish - with a 99.9% vote. Fairly obviously that (your) government
will sign anything you wish. No doubt that establishes "legality"
by russkie definition. After all - your clan is still working on the
"legality" of the M-R agreement - no?
Now go to bed - I hear your wife calling.
Best - - Henry
Martin Georgin
ask yourself this: If I came into your home and put a gun to your head
and a knife to your wife's throat and a document on the table, and
told you that this document is an agreement to let me move my family
into your house, and I also told you that if you do not sign it, I
will kill your wife. Now setting aside all emotion, by your logic you
must believe that document is legal, it would have your signature on
it, would it not?
Regards,
Martin
Alexei
>
> Just what is your IQ Alex? Consider - you put your overwhelming
> army into a small country. You establish whatever government you
> wish - with a 99.9% vote. Fairly obviously that (your) government
> will sign anything you wish. No doubt that establishes "legality"
> by russkie definition. After all - your clan is still working on the
> "legality" of the M-R agreement - no?
No. And good night. I'll post something tomorrow.
Lstrad33
>No. And good night. I'll post something tomorrow.
Don't bother russian.
LS/
pas de deux
Russians are a bunch of cunts.
GK
***
"Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bcokfe$1b6b$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
pas de deux
(ablative case) = by law
GK
***
"Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bcom05$1cm7$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Alexei
So, if legally, it will never be possible to demand the monetary
compensation, as Henry said, and Russia is not likely to admit the de facto
occupation, the gathering held in Riga demanding the compensation and
repatriation of the so-called colonists is nothing but hot air coming from
"Visu Latvijai"?
Aleks Tapinsh
Anita
Duress is sufficient grounds to invalidate any contract. I would
think a huge foreign army on a country's soil qualifies as duress.
Krisy
pasport, half-Latvian by blood - a Russian cauvinist at heart.
A Latvian father, a Russian mother.
A Latvian surname, a Russian name.
No doubt there are some who got both Latvian name and surname.
But what happens next? The parents divorce and the mother teaches her
son hatred towards all things Latvian.
The result is here. A Russian Chauvinist with a Latvian name.
As for illegality of the occupation - there was never a question of it
in the West. And that's what matters. Because we, the West, rule
this world, not your decaying Oblastina.
But as long as Russia still inspires fear with its rusty nules, and
greed with its oil, nothing will be done to set the things right.
Because there is no justice in the world, and it is naive to expect
any.
All that matters if force - so the Baltic States are becoming
stronger, both through association with EU - NATO, and through
economic growth, while Russia is declining.
When Russia becomes reduced to the level of say - Jugoslavia or Iraq -
we can expect to have the justice served.
Not before.
So we all must have patience and we will survive untill that day.
And we must trumpet about the human right abuse in Russia, and demand
economic sanctions, like it was against South Africa, or Cuba, or the
old Soviet Union.
If we could scamper some business deals between Russia and the West,
Russia will lose $$$$$. But, we, the West will find alternative
supplies and still make $$$$$.
So if you think of investing in Russia, please reconsider. They will
use the proceeds to murder people in Chechnya, and enslave the nations
elsewhere.
Do not buy Ladas, or anything else produced in Russia, or the money
will be diverted into maintaining nukes that are still being pointed
at us.
join and talk live at un-moderated forum
VV
> Let me preface this post by saying that all I'm seeking is an opinion, a
> view from you guys.
> June 17 marks the day when the Soviet Army marched to Riga and occupied
> Latvia.
That was the 'Latvian Libery' operation. It's goal was to liberate
poor Latvians from the evil-evil Ulmanis dictatorship.
Also everybody knew that Latvia was hastily aquiring, making and
stockpiling horrible arsenals of Weapons of Mass Destruction -
chemical, biological, physical, phylosophical, acoustic, electric,
mathematical, optical, theological etc that posed a great threat to
the world community, peace and stability of the entire world.
These arsenals have never, however, been found, but I'm pretty sure
they will be found. Just be patient ;-).
Regards
VV
Eugene Holman
kris...@hotmail.com (Krisy) wrote:
<ant-Aleksejs propaganda deleted>
>
> As for illegality of the occupation - there was never a question of it
> in the West. And that's what matters. Because we, the West, rule
> this world, not your decaying Oblastina.
>
> But as long as Russia still inspires fear with its rusty nules, and
> greed with its oil, nothing will be done to set the things right.
Russia hardly inspires fear any more, but the West is very interested in
its oil, just as Russia is very interested in the dollars it earns selling
it.
>
> Because there is no justice in the world, and it is naive to expect
> any.
>
> All that matters if force - so the Baltic States are becoming
> stronger, both through association with EU - NATO, and through
> economic growth, while Russia is declining.
Your view is simplistic.
Russia is currently spinning along at a healthy 4% growthrate (Source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Econ) and its
GDP/capita is currently $8,800 (same source), slightly *higher* than
Latvia's or Lithuania's ($8,300 and $8,400, respectively, same source,
suffixes Š/lg.html#Econ and Š/lh.html#Econ). I live in Helsinki and can
attest to the growth of an affluent, well-dressed Russian middle class,
mostly from Moscow and St. Petersburg, that can afford to vacation in
Finland, staying at better quality hotels and eating at expensive
restaurants. I see busloads of them every day. Athough it remains a
country in which about 40% of the population lives below the poverty line,
there are more affluent Russians today than there are Estonians, Latvians,
and Lithuanians combined.
Russia has become poitically more authoritarian over the past few years
(just as the US has since September 11), but this has pulled it out of the
tailspin it was in under Yeltsin. Russia *works* now, and, like the Baltic
countries, it has also reassessed and upgraded its relationship with EU
and NATO, not to mention the G7 group, of which it is an associate member.
> When Russia becomes reduced to the level of say - Jugoslavia or Iraq -
> we can expect to have the justice served.
That ain't gonna happen. Too many Russians have finally made it to the
middle class and like what they see.
> Not before.
>
> So we all must have patience and we will survive untill that day.
>
> And we must trumpet about the human right abuse in Russia, and demand
> economic sanctions, like it was against South Africa, or Cuba, or the
> old Soviet Union.
Human rights abuses in Russia are nothing like those in the old USSR,
South Africa, or Cuba. There is, in principle, rule of law. The US
presently incarcerates more people per capita and gives far longer prison
sentences than Russia does.
>
> If we could scamper some business deals between Russia and the West,
> Russia will lose $$$$$. But, we, the West will find alternative
> supplies and still make $$$$$.
Russia has untold amounts of oil which they can always sell. After having
lived for almost half a century with a mean and threatening USSR, why
should you want to derail a development which is bringing Russia much
needed peace, prosperity, political stability, and a localized version of
rule of law, even if not yet perfect?
> So if you think of investing in Russia, please reconsider. They will
> use the proceeds to murder people in Chechnya, and enslave the nations
> elsewhere.
The Chechen cause has been totally derailed. Last fall's hostage taking
episode was Russia's September 11. The Chechens are now regarded by much
of the international community as international terrorists and Islamic
extremists. Even if such a characterization is unjustified, most people in
positions of authority are as interested in the Chechen struggle for
independence as most Americans are in whether or not Saddam Hussein really
had weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Do not buy Ladas, or anything else produced in Russia, or the money
> will be diverted into maintaining nukes that are still being pointed
> at us.
Don't derail development which is leading to Russia becoming a responsible
member in good standing of the international community. This is
particularly important for the Baltic countries, who will be the first to
be affected geopolitically and economically if things start to deteriorate
in Russia. Give Russia the opportunity to develop into a good neighbor and
entangle it in so many international organizations and treaties that the
consequences of not being a good neighbor will be politically and
economically intolerable for it.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Henry Alminas
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1806...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> In article <743ebefb.03061...@posting.google.com>,
> kris...@hotmail.com (Krisy) wrote:
>
> <ant-Aleksejs propaganda deleted>
>
> >
> > As for illegality of the occupation - there was never a question of it
> > in the West. And that's what matters. Because we, the West, rule
> > this world, not your decaying Oblastina.
> >
> > But as long as Russia still inspires fear with its rusty nules, and
> > greed with its oil, nothing will be done to set the things right.
>
> Russia hardly inspires fear any more, but the West is very interested in
> its oil, just as Russia is very interested in the dollars it earns selling
> it.
>
> >
> > Because there is no justice in the world, and it is naive to expect
> > any.
> >
> > All that matters if force - so the Baltic States are becoming
> > stronger, both through association with EU - NATO, and through
> > economic growth, while Russia is declining.
>
> Your view is simplistic.
>
> Russia is currently spinning along at a healthy 4% growthrate (Source:
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Econ) and its
> GDP/capita is currently $8,800 (same source), slightly *higher* than
> Latvia's or Lithuania's ($8,300 and $8,400, respectively, same source,
Krissy - Before swallowing the Holmanian crapola
go to:
http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2003/06/18/62357.html
This is an article in Rosbalt by some russkie
scientists looking at the situation there.
Holman probably is on the same plane with Gref
who indicated that the average income there
had risen something like 14% over the last year
without mentioning that the inflation was 16%
over the same time period. (Don't hold me
to exact numbers). It is still the same people
publishing these numbers as those who wrote
rave reviews about the last 5-year plan a few
years ago.
Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
<halm...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Krissy - Before swallowing the Holmanian crapola
> go to:
>
> http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2003/06/18/62357.html
>
> This is an article in Rosbalt by some russkie
> scientists looking at the situation there.
>
> Holman probably is on the same plane with Gref
> who indicated that the average income there
> had risen something like 14% over the last year
> without mentioning that the inflation was 16%
> over the same time period.
Three or four years ago Russian GDP/capita was in the range of $4,500, so
they've just about doubled it under Putin's tenure. The same holds, by the
way, for Latvia and Lithuania.
> (Don't hold me
> to exact numbers). It is still the same people
> publishing these numbers as those who wrote
> rave reviews about the last 5-year plan a few
> years ago.
Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Econ
"Inflation rate (consumer prices): 16.2% (2002 est.)"
Moscow is presently the most expensive city in Europe for foreign visitors.
In any case, I see dozens, sometimes hundreds, of Russian tourists every
day. They are well dressed and stay by the busload or, increasingly, in
their own cars - usually high-end Mercedes and Volvos in an expensive
hotel across from a building in which I teach. The wealth is trickling
down.
I realize that there are many sides to the story, but this one is concrete
and visible to anyone who know where to look.
Best,
Eugene Holman
pas de deux
news:743ebefb.03061...@posting.google.com...
> Such 'Tapinshs' are a major problem in Latvia - an ethnic Latvian by
> pasport, half-Latvian by blood - a Russian cauvinist at heart.
>
> A Latvian father, a Russian mother.
> A Latvian surname, a Russian name.
>
> No doubt there are some who got both Latvian name and surname.
>
> But what happens next? The parents divorce and the mother teaches her
> son hatred towards all things Latvian.
>
> The result is here. A Russian Chauvinist with a Latvian name.
xxxx Look at Viktor Alksnis. What a nasty piece of Scheiße he is. [GK]
xxxx
pas de deux
news:holman-1806...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>entangle it in so many international organizations and treaties that the
>consequences of not being a good neighbor will be politically and
>economically intolerable for it.
I say 'maybe': to some extent, and always very cautiously and always
suspecting them of harboring bad intentions - because centuries have proved
that they always do. Always with EU and NATO - never alone. Safety in
numbers.
GK
****
pas de deux
pigs in shit. They are genetically incapable of telling the truth when it
comes to matters of defending the reputation of their kurva mat homeland.
GK
*************
"Henry Alminas" <halm...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xn0Ia.20485$vq.4145@sccrnsc04...
Alexei
"pas de deux" <pas_d...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:WP1Ia.5828$9y3.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I forgot to add in my note about never trusting the Russians: they lie
like
> pigs in shit. They are genetically incapable of telling the truth when it
> comes to matters of defending the reputation of their kurva mat homeland.
>
> GK
>
Aleks
PS. Have a great time in Lithuania!
Alexei
> > The result is here. A Russian Chauvinist with a Latvian name.
>
> xxxx Look at Viktor Alksnis. What a nasty piece of Scheiße he is. [GK]
> xxxx
"A Russian Chauvinist" would be quick to point out to Aivars Garda as a
sample of a "nasty piece of Scheiße" on the other side of political
spectrum.
But I am not a Russian chauvinist, so I won't.
Henry Alminas
> > >
> > > The result is here. A Russian Chauvinist with a Latvian name.
> >
> > xxxx Look at Viktor Alksnis. What a nasty piece of Scheiße he is.
[GK]
> > xxxx
>
> "A Russian Chauvinist" would be quick to point out to Aivars Garda as a
> sample of a "nasty piece of Scheiße" on the other side of political
> spectrum.
> But I am not a Russian chauvinist, so I won't.
<<snip>>
Just curious - has Aivars Garda (whoever he is) advocated Baltic
occupation of russkieland? Has anyone in the Baltics - for that
matter? Has any Baltic parliamentarian advocated spreading
radioactive dust over russkieland - as a russkie has advocated
doing to the Baltics? I mean, come on Alex, you are on the
dirty end of the stick here for this list could go on and on...
Best - - Henry
Vidas
I don't believe there's any controversy to the fact that the SU
created political change within the Baltics via armed aggression
beginning in 1940 and continued on from there.
In Lithuania's case, the government was arrested and jailed en masse.
A new government was declared by Paleckis and Snieckus (arrived in
Lithuania from Russia two days prior under Red Army security
protection) - after which point they requested that Lithuania be
annexed into the SU. There was no transition or even coopted signature
of transition of power. This is the primary reason why the US never
acknowledged the forced annexation of the Lithuania into the SU.
And from a strictly legal standpoint (as Anita also points out)-
anything produced under duress, be it a signature, confession or
otherwise, is not considered legally enforceable.
As to reparations, no one is holding their breath there. The Russian
Duma just approved Lithuanias border agreement today and part of the
deal was that Lithuania drop any reparation claims. The expectation
was a ludicrous dream of Landsbergis and died the death it deserved.
Vidas
Thomas Hensley
>
>And from a strictly legal standpoint (as Anita also points out)-
>anything produced under duress, be it a signature, confession or
>otherwise, is not considered legally enforceable.
>
How far does this go? For example we all know Nicholas II abdicated
under duress. Was his abdication therefore illegal? We do know most
western governments did not recognize the Soviet regime until the 30s.
So just how legal were those documents the Bolsheviks signed in the
late teens and early 20s? Or was the duress factor introduced after WW
II with the founding of the United Nations? International Law has
always suffered from being a bit vague and thus led to tyrants putting
their own spin on it when it suited their purposes. Even today we can
see might makes right trumps it at times unfortunately.
Henry Alminas
"Thomas Hensley" <td...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:8la2fv0jc9lbgtsnt...@4ax.com...
To Hensley -
So just what is it that made the presence of the troops of N -2 in the
Baltics legal? This "legality" game is totally idiotic. If you claim that
the russkie occupation of the Baltics was "legal" then why not the
German occupation of the rest of Europe? It would have to be on
the same basis. And, if so, then the allied attacks on Germany were
completely "illegal" and all the previously German occupied lands
should be handed back to Germany. Idiocy piled upon idiocy if you
want to play the russkie game.
To Vidas -
I think you miss the point on the reparations demand. No one expects
the russkies to pay. After all - we all understand Russia. I find,
however,
that the reparations demand is quite proper - as an indictment. I had
not read that the demand had been dropped in connection with the
border agreement. If so then that slime-ball Brazauskas has yet again
kissed russkie ass - a rather pronounced and accelerating habit on his part.
Best - - Henry
Lstrad33
>Good morning:
Get lost.
>So, if legally, it will never be possible to demand the monetary
>compensation
What ever gave you that idea?
Baltic commissions still have the bills handy.
Someday they will be paid.
Lstrad33
>I don't believe there's any controversy to the fact that the SU
>created political change within the Baltics via armed aggression
>beginning in 1940 and continued on from there.
The damm russians created their puppets regimes *after* they invaded all three
republics.
>And from a strictly legal standpoint (as Anita also points out)-
Where? In the infested forum?
>As to reparations, no one is holding their breath there.
Yes they are. The russians already promised the Poles compensation. Are you
less deserving than Polish people?
LS/
Lstrad33
>How far does this go? For example we all know Nicholas II abdicated
>under duress. Was his abdication therefore illegal? We do know most
>western governments did not recognize the Soviet regime until the 30s.
>So just how legal were those documents the Bolsheviks signed in the
>late teens and early 20s? Or was the duress factor introduced after WW
>II with the founding of the United Nations? International Law has
>always suffered from being a bit vague and thus led to tyrants putting
>their own spin on it when it suited their purposes. Even today we can
>see might makes right trumps it at times unfortunately.
Rest assured that all of your considerations were veted and layed to rest with
the international determination made by the League of Nations (of which
Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia were all members) that the russian soviet had
invaded and occupied the Baltics illegally.
LS/
Martin Georgin
Exactly my point Anita. Contracts over the millenia have been based
upon the fundamental doctrine of freedom of choice and voluntariness.
Contracts that lack this choice are deemed to be obtained by duress.
Duress is defined as threats of physical or actual violence to the
contracting parties.
This principle extends to treaties and is explicitly enshrined in
international law as article 51 and 52 of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties:
Article 51 - Coercion of a representative of a State
The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has
been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or
threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.
Article 52 - Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or
use of force in violation of the principles of international law
Regards,
Martin
Lstrad33
>When Russia becomes reduced to the level of say - Jugoslavia or Iraq -
>we can expect to have the justice served.
Kris...
Within twenty years the Chinese will have chewed off most of russia's backside.
It is already happening today.
I smile.
LS/
Lstrad33
>Three or four years ago Russian GDP/capita was in the range of $4,500, so
>they've just about doubled it under Putin's tenure.
Pure bullshit, Hole man.
LS/
Lstrad33
>xxxx Look at Viktor Alksnis. What a nasty piece of Scheiße he is. [GK]
>xxxx
Don't delude yourself...
Viktors' grandpappy moved to matooshka two generations back.
The only remnant of civilization left in that lineage is the Latvian surname.
LS/
Lstrad33
>"A Russian Chauvinist" would be quick to point out to Aivars Garda as a
>sample of a "nasty piece of Scheiße" on the other side of political
>spectrum.
>But I am not a Russian chauvinist, so I won't.
>
Das right, puppet.
LS/
Lstrad33
>Just curious - has Aivars Garda (whoever he is) advocated Baltic
>occupation of russkieland? Has anyone in the Baltics - for that
>matter? Has any Baltic parliamentarian advocated spreading
>radioactive dust over russkieland - as a russkie has advocated
>doing to the Baltics? I mean, come on Alex, you are on the
>dirty end of the stick here for this list could go on and on...
>
>Best - - Henry
Alexei is yet another example of russian amnesiacs on the internet.
LS/
Alexei
"Martin Georgin" <mart...@joymail.com> wrote in message
news:a656d98c.03061...@posting.google.com...
> kod...@aol.com (Anita) wrote in message
news:<d3c4b607.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > mart...@joymail.com (Martin Georgin) wrote in message
news:<a656d98c.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Alex,
> > >
> > > ask yourself this: If I came into your home and put a gun to your head
> > > and a knife to your wife's throat and a document on the table, and
> > > told you that this document is an agreement to let me move my family
> > > into your house, and I also told you that if you do not sign it, I
> > > will kill your wife. Now setting aside all emotion, by your logic you
> > > must believe that document is legal, it would have your signature on
> > > it, would it not?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Martin
> >
> > Duress is sufficient grounds to invalidate any contract. I would
> > think a huge foreign army on a country's soil qualifies as duress.
>
> Exactly my point Anita. Contracts over the millenia have been based
> upon the fundamental doctrine of freedom of choice and voluntariness.
> Contracts that lack this choice are deemed to be obtained by duress.
> Duress is defined as threats of physical or actual violence to the
> contracting parties.
Though I agree with you that the signing of the assistance pact between
Latvia and Soviet Russia that occure in the fall 1939 and was the base for
the Soviet military presence in Latvia at the time was forced on Latvia, I
don't see it how it would hold in court, if Latvia, per se, sue for the
compensation.
Alexei
"Lstrad33" <lstr...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030619021856...@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
Do you ever have proof of your statements, or this is the best argument you
can come up with? Much like whoever disagrees with you is an automatic
Russian puppet.
>
> LS/
Alexei
> >From: "Henry Alminas" halm...@attbi.com
>
> >Just curious - has Aivars Garda (whoever he is) advocated Baltic
> >occupation of russkieland?
the strength ratio between Russia and Latvia), he did advocate the departure
of all non-Latvians from Latvia, eg. Jews (or as he calls him "Zhidy"),
Russians , Belorussians etc.
Has anyone in the Baltics - for that
> >matter? Has any Baltic parliamentarian advocated spreading
> >radioactive dust over russkieland - as a russkie has advocated
> >doing to the Baltics?
But there's the project to build the radar in Audrini....
Alexei
>
> >Good morning:
>
> Get lost.
Labrit :)
>
> >So, if legally, it will never be possible to demand the monetary
> >compensation
>
> What ever gave you that idea?
Henry seemed to agree with me, but he must be "Russian" then. :)
Henry Alminas
Yes, yes - certainly equivalent matters. Russkie proposals for the
genocide of the Baltic peoples - as opposed to the repatriation
of illegals to their homeland (done by every nation in this world).
The proposal to invade and reoccupy the Baltics - as opposed to
the construction of a radar facility on one's own territory.
Sometimes I wonder about you boy. Perhaps it is the lousy
drinking water in Michigan.....
Best - - Henry
Alexei
states. I don't remember reading about the reaction from the League of
Nations at the time. In editorials, however, reporters were doubting the
Russian spin on the events (rightly so): the Baltic states were accused of
conspiring against Soviet Union and thus, voilated the signed assistence
treaty. At least that was their unright justification. At the same time,
there was a large concentration of German and Soviet military on
Lithuianian-German border, which seemed to expode at any time. (By the way,
whatever happened to Lithuanian president Smetona? Did he run to Germany? Or
did he share the doom of Ulmanis?) One way or the other, "people were calm
in Riga" at the time of the invasion, one report said. No riots reported
etc. It was also interesting to read that the Soviets promised a "slow"
nationalization of private property. But we know what their promises were
worth.
Now, the question is what can a government do to protect itself? We watched
Iraq on the news, when the US tried to "defend herself" from the "evil"
regime thousands of miles away. Surely, the Soviets used a similar spin to
invade the Baltics.
Sorry if I opened a can of worms.
Aleks Tapinsh
Alexei
in Latvia under Ulmanis?
Aleks
Alexei
I'm just trying to bring another perspective into the debate. And yeah, the
water is not so good.
>
> Best - - Henry
>
>
pas de deux
> We watched Iraq on the news, when the US tried to "defend herself" from
the "evil"
> regime thousands of miles away. Surely, the Soviets used a similar spin to
> invade the Baltics.
Careful with your comparisons. I am on record before, during and after the
US invasion of Iraq in saying that the USA had no right to do it.
However, I resent you comparing it to USSR versus Lithuania in 1940. For
one thing, Saddam Hussein was a certified loonie who had gassed his ethnic
minorities, invaded two neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and was generally a
murderous monster and miscreant, and his régime was a reign of terror.
Still doesn't justify US invasion, but USSR didn't even have anything like
that to use as an excuse.
But then brutal creeps feel they don't need excuses...
GK
pas de deux
in 2003.
GK
"Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bcscpb$1ri6$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Alexei
Alexei
>
> ask yourself this: If I came into your home and put a gun to your head
> and a knife to your wife's throat and a document on the table, and
> told you that this document is an agreement to let me move my family
> into your house, and I also told you that if you do not sign it, I
> will kill your wife. Now setting aside all emotion, by your logic you
> must believe that document is legal, it would have your signature on
> it, would it not?
>
> Regards,
> Martin
It seems the Finnish diplomats managed to avoid signing "the pact of mutual
assistance" in the presence of guns to their heads, which cost them a war,
but most importantly the country maintained its independence.
Aleks
Alexei
I just read some place that upon signing the pact "of mutual assistence"
between Lithuania and Soviet Russia, USSR returned Vilna, persent day
Vilnuis, to Lithuania, which was greeted with much rejoicing. And once
Lithuania "join" the Soviet Union, the capital was moved from Kaunas to
Vilnius.
Henry Alminas
Wherever you read about the "rejoicing".....
My reading matter indicates that the Lithuanians
noted the event with irony: "Vilnius musu o mes rusu".
Best - - Henry
Alexei
>
> "Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:bcsnhn$265h$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> > FYI:
> >
> > I just read some place that upon signing the pact "of mutual
assistence"
> > between Lithuania and Soviet Russia, USSR returned Vilna, persent day
> > Vilnuis, to Lithuania, which was greeted with much rejoicing. And once
> > Lithuania "join" the Soviet Union, the capital was moved from Kaunas to
> > Vilnius.
> >
> >
>
> Wherever you read about the "rejoicing".....
I think it was October 1939 when Vilnius was returned to Lithuania. So I
don't doubt the Lithuanians were gald to see their historic capital again.
pas de deux
precursor to annexation. We knew that and it was forced on us.
All that was happening was that USSR, in accordance with the
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, took the first step toward annexing Eastern Europe
by seizing Poland's eastern territories (illegally held by Poland anyway)
when Germany attacked Poland proper. A lot of Lithuanian territory that had
been agreed on as Lithuanian by USSR and Lithuania in the peace treaty of
1920 was ripped off Lithuania and awarded to Belarus. He could not in all
conscience take that process as far as Vilnius - that would be just too
outrageous. So they said to us «Vilnius j?su, bet j?s m?su» {«Vilnius vaðe,
a vi naði»] and invaded in June 1940. That's when the Jews who formed the
backbone of the Lithuanian Communist Party ran to greet the invaders with
flowers and were assigned all the dirty jobs organising the deportations of
Lithuania to Siberia in cattle wagons.
GK
****************
"Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bcsnhn$265h$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Martin
For which act the Soviet Union was kicked out of the League of Nations, and
made the threat of force, and therefore duress, against the Baltics even
more real and threatening.
Regards,
Martin
Lstrad33
>I've been reading the New York Times from June 1940 period about the Baltic
>states. I don't remember reading about the reaction from the League of
>Nations at the time.
And you claimed to be 'young'..
>whatever happened to Lithuanian president Smetona? Did he run to Germany? Or
>did he share the doom of Ulmanis?)
"Doom of Ulmanis"?
You mean illegal execution of a president of a neutral democracy in some
unmarked chekist grave in russia?
No. I don't think so.
>One way or the other, "people were calm
>in Riga" at the time of the invasion, one report said.
And you are a liar.
>No riots reported
>etc.
You lie again.
>But we know what their promises were
>worth.
Same as yours. Nothing changes.
>Now, the question is what can a government do to protect itself?
Join NATO.
>Surely, the Soviets used a similar spin to
>invade the Baltics.
No. They didn't.
>Sorry if I opened a can of worms.
>
>Aleks Tapinsh
It's Ok Tarpingsh...we understand.
You *are* a worm.
LS/
Lstrad33
>And one more question: does anybody know if there were political prisoners
>in Latvia under Ulmanis?
>
>Aleks
Of course they weren't idiot.
A few radicals - mostly communists and fascists - were detained (some under
'house arrest') *for a few weeks* to cool their rhetoric down..some under
public nusance charges.
But nothing that can be likened to the millions of 'political prisoners'
*killed* by the nazi-communist partnership of the russo-german Molotov Treaty
partners.
Regards,
LS/
Lstrad33
>Go slit your wrists, Scheißkopf. Focus instead what's happening in Chechnya
>in 2003.
>
>GK
You are so fickle, dancer!
First you dance so happily with Tarpingsh, and now this pique of anger!
hahahhahahhah...
LS/
Lstrad33
Lstrad33
And I just read somewhere that you are a happy russian nematode.
Regards,
LS/
Lstrad33
>I think it was October 1939 when Vilnius was returned to Lithuania. So I
>don't doubt the Lithuanians were gald to see their historic capital again.
Just so. Just as I expect you to be happy to see russia's eastern provinces,
now being returned to the Chinese. (taken, actually)
These things even out.
LS/
Anita
Gintai-
Though I perhaps understand your reaction, we should learn this from
the Russians: we should not deny any part of our history. Things
happened as they happened, and we should admit to the past, lest we be
revisionist in our history as well. Look how stupid it appeared when
Russia tried to whitewash, and it fooled nobody. And Chechnya in 2003
really has no bearing on the question on Latvia in 1935 (or
thereabouts).
Aleks, yes, there were. But I suspect you knew that already. I also
suspect you have more than a passing knowledge of the circumstances.
Anita
Alexei
We don't have to agree on everything, do we? And, my last name is spelled
T-A-P-I-N-S-H, Mr. Schmuck, er, I mean Kalninsh.
I could focus instead of Chechnya, but it's none of my concern, since I
never voted for that government.
Alexei
> >From: "Alexei" g...@russianlegs-nospam.com
>
> >I've been reading the New York Times from June 1940 period about the
Baltic
> >states. I don't remember reading about the reaction from the League of
> >Nations at the time.
>
> And you claimed to be 'young'..
I am. Ever heard about archives? And thanks to my University for proving me
with the free access to ProQuest data base.
>
> >whatever happened to Lithuanian president Smetona? Did he run to Germany?
Or
> >did he share the doom of Ulmanis?)
>
> "Doom of Ulmanis"?
> You mean illegal execution of a president of a neutral democracy in some
> unmarked chekist grave in russia?
>
> No. I don't think so.
So what happened to Smetona?
>
> >One way or the other, "people were calm
> >in Riga" at the time of the invasion, one report said.
>
> And you are a liar.
Go to the New York Times for June 19, 1940.
>
> >No riots reported
> >etc.
>
> You lie again.
see above
>
> >But we know what their promises were
> >worth.
>
> Same as yours. Nothing changes.
Mr. 8 identities has no room to talk about promises.
>
> >Now, the question is what can a government do to protect itself?
>
> Join NATO.
>
> >Surely, the Soviets used a similar spin to
> >invade the Baltics.
>
> No. They didn't.
>
> >Sorry if I opened a can of worms.
> >
> >Aleks Tapinsh
>
> It's Ok Tarpingsh...we understand.
> You *are* a worm.
Ok. Mr. Kalninsh, or whatever your name is. Thanks for your input. Ever
considered therapy?
Alexei
> >From: "Alexei" g...@russianlegs-nospam.com
>
> >Just askin'! geesh.
>
> And you just got answered, worm.
No I didn't. I asked if there were any cases of political prisoners under
Ulmanis. So far no one gave me a straight answer. Mr. 8.
>
> LS/
Lstrad33
>Though I agree with you that the signing of the assistance pact between
>Latvia and Soviet Russia
>that occure in the fall 1939 and was the base for
>the Soviet military presence in Latvia at the time was forced on Latvia, I
>don't see it how it would hold in court, if Latvia, per se, sue for the
>compensation
What does that mean?
It is a very mangled sentence.
Show this to your teacher at MSU and ask for futher assistance.
The so-called 1939 treaty is not a basis for war damage claims against the
russian state...
The armed invasions of 1940 are.
Regards,
LS/
.
Alexei
It was not a comparison in any way. I was just curious about the situation
in Latvia on the eve of the occupation. By saying "were there any political
prisoners in Latvia under Ulmanis" I do not intend to undermind the severity
of the Soviet autrocities in the Baltic.
>
> Regards,
> LS/
Alexei
I didn't know you could read.... wow, that's education for you.
>
> Regards,
> LS/
>
Alexei
Stick with the Baltics, would you?
Lstrad33
>It seems the Finnish diplomats managed to avoid signing "the pact of mutual
>assistance" in the presence of guns to their heads, which cost them a war
Yes. It cost them a war.
>but most importantly the country maintained its independence.
Yes. We should have fought earlier - and later - than we did.
But these are new times now.
We can try harder next time.
LS/
Lstrad33
>Russian GDP/capita was in the range of $4,500, so
>> >they've just about doubled it under Putin's tenure.
>>
>> Pure bullshit, Hole man.
>
>Do you ever have proof of your statements, or this is the best argument you
>can come up with? Much like whoever disagrees with you is an automatic
>Russian puppet.
We have already discussed these points in depth, Tarpingsh.
Refer to the archives and quit wasting our time.
LS/
Lstrad33
>Though he may not have advocated an occupation (it is highly impossible with
>the strength ratio between Russia
Not if we wait a little bit.. demographics are on our side.
> he did advocate the departure
>of all non-Latvians from Latvia, eg. Jews (or as he calls him "Zhidy"),
>Russians , Belorussians etc.
Garda, I think, is probably a constructed figurehead meant to discredit
legitimate local concerns by entangling them with other, highly unpopular
notions.
Thus he serves the purposes of attempted 'de-legitimization' of important
policy issues. I just wonder whose puppet he is.
>eg. Jews (or as he calls him "Zhidy"),
Yes. Exactly as the local Latvian Jews call themselves "Zhidi". So what?
You must not be 'latvian' enough to recognize local terminology, fool.
Regards,
LS/
Alexei
> >From: "Alexei" g...@russianlegs-nospam.com
>
> >Russian GDP/capita was in the range of $4,500, so
> >> >they've just about doubled it under Putin's tenure.
> >>
> >> Pure bullshit, Hole man.
> >
> >Do you ever have proof of your statements, or this is the best argument
you
> >can come up with? Much like whoever disagrees with you is an automatic
> >Russian puppet.
>
> We have already discussed these points in depth, Tarpingsh.
Obviously not, since you can't even spell my last name correctly. What was
your name again?
Alexei
> >From: "Alexei" g...@russianlegs-nospam.com
>
> >Though I agree with you that the signing of the assistance pact between
> >Latvia and Soviet Russia
> >that occure in the fall 1939 and was the base for
> >the Soviet military presence in Latvia at the time was forced on Latvia,
I
> >don't see it how it would hold in court, if Latvia, per se, sue for the
> >compensation
>
> What does that mean?
> It is a very mangled sentence.
> Show this to your teacher at MSU and ask for futher assistance.
At least I know how to spell "privilege."
>
> The so-called 1939 treaty is not a basis for war damage claims against the
> russian state...
>
> The armed invasions of 1940 are.
The armed invasions of 1940 were based on supposed violation of 1939
"so-called" treaty, therefore, it would be the basis for any compensation.
Alexei
> >From: "Alexei" g...@russianlegs-nospam.com
>
> >It seems the Finnish diplomats managed to avoid signing "the pact of
mutual
> >assistance" in the presence of guns to their heads, which cost them a war
>
> Yes. It cost them a war.
>
> >but most importantly the country maintained its independence.
>
> Yes. We should have fought earlier - and later - than we did.
Was that an admission of a mistake? Furthermore, were you agreeing with
something I said? Congrats, Mr. Eight.
Lstrad33
>I'm just trying to bring another perspective into the debate.
Correct...
The KGB one.
Please do note, though, that this review of old chekist clap-trap no longer
works... at all.
If anything, it is an educational review of the paucity of russkie propaganda
in the modern world - by its glaring juxtapositioning against truthfullness.
It shows, Tarpingsh. It really does.
LS/
PS.. Where did you pick your moniker from?
I suspect you have a mole in your organization.
'Tarpingsh' means 'little worm' in Latvian..
Hahahhahahahhahahhahah!
Alexei
"Anita" <kod...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d3c4b607.0306...@posting.google.com...
> "pas de deux" <pas_d...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<QhjIa.7586$9y3.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > Go slit your wrists, Scheißkopf. Focus instead what's happening in
Chechnya
> > in 2003.
> >
> > GK
> >
> >
> > "Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:bcscpb$1ri6$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> > > And one more question: does anybody know if there were political
prisoners
> > > in Latvia under Ulmanis?
> > >
> > > Aleks
> > >
> > >
>
> Gintai-
>
> Though I perhaps understand your reaction, we should learn this from
> the Russians: we should not deny any part of our history.
"those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it".
Things
> happened as they happened, and we should admit to the past, lest we be
> revisionist in our history as well. Look how stupid it appeared when
> Russia tried to whitewash, and it fooled nobody. And Chechnya in 2003
> really has no bearing on the question on Latvia in 1935 (or
> thereabouts).
I agree with you as well.
>
> Aleks, yes, there were. But I suspect you knew that already.
Now in my archival search, I found something mentioned about the political
prisoners. I don't recall ever being taught about political prisoners in
Latvia before 1940, that's why I asked the question. It was new to me.
I also
> suspect you have more than a passing knowledge of the circumstances.
Actually, I am only 26. I only remember the 1989 human line connecting the
Baltic States makring the day when the M-R pact was signed. And growing up
in the so-called transitional period, I heard very little about the
pre-Soviet Latvia. Now I am learning. Thanks for the feedback.
Aleks
Alexei
> >From: "Alexei" g...@russianlegs-nospam.com
>
> >I'm just trying to bring another perspective into the debate.
>
> Correct...
> The KGB one.
How many is that:
1. Russian propagandist
2. A Native English speaker "full of youself"
3. A Russian national
4. Kremlin mouthpiece (the preceding words have been approved for use by Mr.
Vladimiar Putin)
>
> Please do note, though, that this review of old chekist clap-trap no
longer
> works... at all.
>
> If anything, it is an educational review of the paucity of russkie
propaganda
> in the modern world - by its glaring juxtapositioning against
truthfullness.
of which of course, you are a sole bearer.
>
> It shows, Tarpingsh. It really does.
>
> LS/
>
> PS.. Where did you pick your moniker from?
> I suspect you have a mole in your organization.
How witty! You must have consulted the dictionary for that one. But since we
all know how well you know how to use dictionaries, it would explain the
delay in the pun execution.
Tapina, a female version of Tapinsh, means "little brad"
Alexei
> >From: "Alexei" g...@russianlegs-nospam.com
>
> >Though he may not have advocated an occupation (it is highly impossible
with
> >the strength ratio between Russia
>
> Not if we wait a little bit.. demographics are on our side.
>
> > he did advocate the departure
> >of all non-Latvians from Latvia, eg. Jews (or as he calls him "Zhidy"),
> >Russians , Belorussians etc.
>
> Garda, I think, is probably a constructed figurehead meant to discredit
> legitimate local concerns by entangling them with other, highly unpopular
> notions.
>
> Thus he serves the purposes of attempted 'de-legitimization' of important
> policy issues. I just wonder whose puppet he is.
>
> >eg. Jews (or as he calls him "Zhidy"),
>
> Yes. Exactly as the local Latvian Jews call themselves "Zhidi". So what?
To a Jew, this term would be highly offensive. But then again, you don't get
out much to talk to people other than your own demographic.
>
>
Alexei
> whatever happened to Lithuanian president Smetona? Did he run to Germany?
Or
> did he share the doom of Ulmanis?)
house fire. His grave is close to Michigan, by the way -- Columbus, Ohio.
Aleks
>
Lstrad33
>> >But we know what their promises were
>> >worth.
>>
>> Same as yours. Nothing changes.
>
>Mr. 8 identities has no room to talk about promises.
Is it 8 today!?
This is cool.. I am multiplying without even breaking a sweat.
When did 7 and 8 arrive?
LS/
Lstrad33
>Date: 6/19/03 2:11 PM US Eastern
>> Go slit your wrists, Scheißkopf. Focus instead what's happening in
>Chechnya
>> in 2003.
>>
>> GK
>Gintai-
>
>Though I perhaps understand your reaction, we should learn this from
>the Russians: we should not deny any part of our history.
What in the world are you blabbering about, Njutka?
"Learn (honesty) from the russians".
You get 'stupider' every day.
Regards,
LS/
Lstrad33
Niutka said:
>> the Russians: we should not deny any part of our history.
>
>"those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it".
Unfortunately for you two... you haven't had the opportunity to learn anything
- simply because you russians haven't ever stopped your previous crimes.
Regards,
LS/
Martin Georgin
> "Martin Georgin" <mart...@joymail.com> wrote in message
> news:a656d98c.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > kod...@aol.com (Anita) wrote in message
> news:<d3c4b607.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > mart...@joymail.com (Martin Georgin) wrote in message
> news:<a656d98c.03061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Alex,
> > > >
> > > > ask yourself this: If I came into your home and put a gun to your head
> > > > and a knife to your wife's throat and a document on the table, and
> > > > told you that this document is an agreement to let me move my family
> > > > into your house, and I also told you that if you do not sign it, I
> > > > will kill your wife. Now setting aside all emotion, by your logic you
> > > > must believe that document is legal, it would have your signature on
> > > > it, would it not?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Martin
> > >
> > > Duress is sufficient grounds to invalidate any contract. I would
> > > think a huge foreign army on a country's soil qualifies as duress.
> >
> > Exactly my point Anita. Contracts over the millenia have been based
> > upon the fundamental doctrine of freedom of choice and voluntariness.
> > Contracts that lack this choice are deemed to be obtained by duress.
> > Duress is defined as threats of physical or actual violence to the
> > contracting parties.
>
> Though I agree with you that the signing of the assistance pact between
> Latvia and Soviet Russia that occure in the fall 1939 and was the base for
> the Soviet military presence in Latvia at the time was forced on Latvia, I
> don't see it how it would hold in court, if Latvia, per se, sue for the
You seem to be focusing on "mutual assistance" pact of 1939, which is
a diversion from the central issue, which was the formation of a
puppet government and subsequent illegal annexation of Latvia on July
17 1940. Some 35,000 Latvians were murdered by the Soviet Union in the
year following July 17.
You should focus on the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed in
1939, if you want to understand the true motives of the Soviet Union.
For a period of 2 years, from the signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop to
when Hilter stabbed Stalin in the back in August 1941, The Soviets
collaborated with Hitler. Stalin provided naval facilities at Murmansk
to the German Navy so that their ships could resupply in the naval war
against Britain, the Nazis and Soviets set up a joint command post in
Belarus to co-ordinate the attack on Poland. The soviets provided the
German airforce with radio location beacons to assist them in locating
Polish targets. The Soviets also assisted the Germans in defeating
Poland by killing over 4000 Polish military officiers.
Note that the Soviet Union long denied the existence of the secret
protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, only admitting they existed
in the 1980's. Why the denial? Was Moscow trying to hide the shameful
truth all these years that the annexation of the Baltics was illegal?
If your were a real journalist, you would investigate these issues,
not recycle old Soviet propaganda. Here is a link to the original
diplomatic correspondance , captured by allied forces at the end of
World War 2, between the Nazis and the Soviets during the golden
period of the Nazi-Soviet alliance of 1939-1941, read the shameful
truth here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nazsov.htm
Regards,
Martin
xlmcn
> Big deal. Old news and inaccurate. The "pact of mutual assistance" was a
> precursor to annexation. We knew that and it was forced on us.
>
> All that was happening was that USSR, in accordance with the
> Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, took the first step toward annexing Eastern Europe
> by seizing Poland's eastern territories (illegally held by Poland anyway)
"Illegally", according to whose laws? Russian, Lithuanian?
Henry Alminas
Frankly, Martin, what Alex wants are simplistic sound bites.
It is assinine to attempt to learn a rather complex bit of
history via short usenet posts. I believe that even Alex
realizes that.
By now it is also very obvious that the sound bites that Alex
wants will support only conclusions redeeming the russkies
and condemning the Balts. This game has been played in
this forum all too frequently in the past. Taking Alex seriously
would be a waste of time Martin.
Best - - Henry
Alexei
> > http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nazsov.htm
> >
> > Regards,
> > Martin
>
> Frankly, Martin, what Alex wants are simplistic sound bites.
> It is assinine to attempt to learn a rather complex bit of
> history via short usenet posts. I believe that even Alex
> realizes that.
>
> By now it is also very obvious that the sound bites that Alex
> wants will support only conclusions redeeming the russkies
> and condemning the Balts. This game has been played in
> this forum all too frequently in the past. Taking Alex seriously
> would be a waste of time Martin.
Actually, I want to know the truth, so I am reading Martin's suggested web
site. Quite interesting. And for the record, I never justified anything that
Stalin's government did - from purging of kulaks to the invasion of the
Baltics. I'm trying to understand the history of it all, since I was hardly
taught it in school.
Aleks
pas de deux
that meant nothing to Polish fanatics at the time, whose first act in the
occupied territories was to ban the local languages and shut the schools
that taught in the local language.
GK
***
"xlmcn" <xl...@ctoue.com> wrote in message
news:3EF262E5...@ctoue.com...
lupaty
German counterpart Joachim von Ribbentrop signed a nonaggression pact.
The Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact and especially the appended secret protocol
divided Eastern and Central Europe into German and Soviet spheres of
influence. Then a friendship and frontier treaty and a second secret
protocol of September 28, 1939, were signed, providing for the partition
of Poland between the two powers along with the Soviet occupation of
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Most remarkably, the document stipulated
what was later referred to as the reunification of Western Ukraine and
North Bukovyna with Soviet Ukraine, and Western Belarus with Soviet
Belarus. Thus the act of Ukraine's reunification of Ukraine, adopted in
January 1919, was confirmed. [..]
The pact played a crucial role in Nazi Germany's unleashing its
Blitzkrieg. It not only resulted in the political destruction of Poland,
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia as independent states, but also triggered
mass deportations and other acts of political repression in the
territories joined to the USSR in 1939-40, armed resistance to the
Soviet regime by national liberation forces in Ukraine and the Baltic
states, Polish guerrilla movement in Western Belarus, and much else.
J.D.C.
--------Who is that stupid SBobrow, anyway?--------
"SBobrow940" <sbobr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030619160845...@mb-m28.aol.com...> You paid the price
of the secession from Rzeczpospolita. You will never allow
> yourself to get it, you blockheads, for the fear of perpetual
headakes.
> If Rzeczpospolita existed the way it supposed to be, there would be
no Pact
> inforced on Lithuania to 'unite' with the mother_f*** Soviet Union.
Most
> probably there would be no World War II - the balance of power would
be
> different. There would be no deportees to Siberia by the millions;
> there would be no Holocaust and other casualties exceeding well over
50
> million victims. See, what did you do by opposing Pilsudski and
> Zeligowski, and other patriotic citizens of Rzeczpospolita?
> You are traitors and mass murderers - by extension.
>
> S.B.
>
> -----they will never grow up-----
> Subject: Re: Occupation of Latvia
> From: "pas de deux" pas_d...@sympatico.ca
> Date: 6/19/2003 10:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
> Message-id: <jMmIa.2131$%91.3...@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
> Big deal. Old news and inaccurate. The "pact of mutual assistance"
was a
> precursor to annexation. We knew that and it was forced on us.
>
> All that was happening was that USSR, in accordance with the
> Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, took the first step toward annexing Eastern
Europe
> by seizing Poland's eastern territories (illegally held by Poland
anyway)
> when Germany attacked Poland proper. A lot of Lithuanian territory
that had
> been agreed on as Lithuanian by USSR and Lithuania in the peace treaty
of
> 1920 was ripped off Lithuania and awarded to Belarus. He could not in
all
> conscience take that process as far as Vilnius - that would be just
too
> outrageous. So they said to us «Vilnius j?su, bet j?s m?su» {«Vilnius
vaðe,
> a vi naði»] and invaded in June 1940. That's when the Jews who formed
the
> backbone of the Lithuanian Communist Party ran to greet the invaders
with
> flowers and were assigned all the dirty jobs organising the
deportations of
> Lithuania to Siberia in cattle wagons.
>
> GK
>
> ****************
>
> "Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:bcsnhn$265h$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> > FYI:
> >
> > I just read some place that upon signing the pact "of mutual
lupaty
collapsed and whem the Republic of Latvia proclaimed its independence.
Alexei
> truth here:
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nazsov.htm
>
> Regards,
> Martin
Thanks for the link. I read these notes for the first time in my life. Those
politicians were horrid. It is a horrible thing that happened to the Baltic
States. Germany and Russia were literally sharing the world (or at least
Europe) among themselves. Unfortunately, it seems to be the destined of all
the empires in the world. There's no place for the little man. The rich, the
powerful, the mighty... Yek.
pas de deux
countries.
For example, did Russia have any more "right" to invade the Baltic states in
1940 than — for example — USA would have had to invade Canada in 1940?
If it is outrageous to contemplate a US invasion of Canada, why should it be
any less outrageous for Russia to invade its neighbours?
Gintautas Kaminskas
********************
"Alexei" <g...@russianlegs-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bctr60$bit$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
pas de deux
rant is that he admits something mostly denied by other Polish chauvinists:
that the Poles wanted to re-create a Rzeczpospolita [code name for "Polish
Empire"] after WWI. Look at his words.
>If Rzeczpospolita existed the way it supposed to be, there would be
> no Pact inforced on Lithuania to 'unite' with the mother_f*** Soviet
Union.
> Most probably there would be no World War II - the balance of power would
> be different. There would be no deportees to Siberia by the millions;
> there would be no Holocaust and other casualties exceeding well over
> 50 million victims. See, what did you do by opposing Pilsudski and
> Zeligowski, and other patriotic citizens of Rzeczpospolita?
Well, according to him, WWII is all the fault of the Balts, Belarusians and
Ukrainians for opposing Polish imperialism! That's a good one!
What's next? Poland should have permanent presidency of EU? Then Polish
should become official language of EU? Sure, why not?
That must be the way God wants it. After all, the Pope is Polish....
GK
*****
"lupaty" <Dzia...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3hvIa.14129$3o3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> vaše,
> > a vi naši»] and invaded in June 1940. That's when the Jews who formed
Lstrad33
>Date: 6/19/03 8:27 PM US Eastern
>"Illegally", according to whose laws? Russian, Lithuanian?
Try the world's Charter of the League of Nations - for a starter.
Because if its criminal international aggression against the Baltic
democracies, soviet russia was kicked out.
(Are you dense, or what?)
Regards,
LS/
Lstrad33
It is good to see more knowledable people posting.
>August 23, 1939, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and his
>German counterpart Joachim von Ribbentrop signed a nonaggression pact.
>The Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact and especially the appended secret protocol
>divided Eastern and Central Europe into German and Soviet spheres of
>influence. Then a friendship and frontier treaty and a second secret
>protocol of September 28, 1939, were signed, providing for the partition
>of Poland between the two powers along with the Soviet occupation of
>Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Most remarkably, the document stipulated
>what was later referred to as the reunification of Western Ukraine and
>North Bukovyna with Soviet Ukraine, and Western Belarus with Soviet
>Belarus. Thus the act of Ukraine's reunification of Ukraine, adopted in
>January 1919, was confirmed. [..]
>
>The pact played a crucial role in Nazi Germany's unleashing its
>Blitzkrieg. It not only resulted in the political destruction of Poland,
>Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia as independent states, but also triggered
>mass deportations and other acts of political repression in the
>territories joined to the USSR in 1939-40, armed resistance to the
>Soviet regime by national liberation forces in Ukraine and the Baltic
>states, Polish guerrilla movement in Western Belarus, and much else.
>J.D.C.
>
>--------Who is that stupid SBobrow, anyway?--------
Probably another russian puppet, I am thinking.
LS/
Lstrad33
>I don't know who that stupid S.Bobrow is, but the one thing clear from his
>rant is that he admits something mostly denied by other Polish chauvinists:
>that the Poles wanted to re-create a Rzeczpospolita [code name for "Polish
>Empire"] after WWI. Look at his words.
I think you are playing this the wrong way...
The initial discussion was about russian atrocities against us (Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, *and* Poland) all..
Picking on Polish-Lithunian differences, ignore our common enemy, which is
imperialistic russia.
Worry about russian problems first - - -
Simply because they will be at Lithuania's borders once again in 3-5 years;.
when their re-union with Belarus has been completed.
Consider you choices; the great bardak as you neighbor - or Poland as your
neighbor.
If you keep up purposeless and counter-productive rants against Poland, I will
have to re-consider your motivations for doing so.
Regards,
LS/
Thomas Hensley
>>From: Thomas Hensley td...@eudoramail.com
>
>>How far does this go? For example we all know Nicholas II abdicated
>>under duress. Was his abdication therefore illegal? We do know most
>>western governments did not recognize the Soviet regime until the 30s.
>>So just how legal were those documents the Bolsheviks signed in the
>>late teens and early 20s? Or was the duress factor introduced after WW
>>II with the founding of the United Nations? International Law has
>>always suffered from being a bit vague and thus led to tyrants putting
>>their own spin on it when it suited their purposes. Even today we can
>>see might makes right trumps it at times unfortunately.
>
>Rest assured that all of your considerations were veted and layed to rest with
>the international determination made by the League of Nations (of which
>Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia were all members) that the russian soviet had
>invaded and occupied the Baltics illegally.
>
>LS/
Thanks. I had thought of the League of Nations right after I got
offline. You are of course right since all the Baltic nations were
members in good standing.
Alexei
> >From: xlmcn xl...@ctoue.com
> >Date: 6/19/03 8:27 PM US Eastern
>
> >"Illegally", according to whose laws? Russian, Lithuanian?
>
> Try the world's Charter of the League of Nations - for a starter.
>
> Because if its criminal international aggression against the Baltic
> democracies, soviet russia was kicked out.
Correction: According to this
(http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/391214a.html), the Soviet Russia was
kicked out of the League of Nations at the request of the Finnish government
due to the war between Soviet Union and Finland. Once again, Finland seemed
to have withstood the pressure from the Soviet Union on its own, as opposed
to the Baltic States that gave in.
Dmitry
> > We watched Iraq on the news, when the US tried to "defend herself" from
> the "evil"
> > regime thousands of miles away. Surely, the Soviets used a similar spin to
> > invade the Baltics.
> > Aleks Tapinsh
>
> Careful with your comparisons. I am on record before, during and after the
> US invasion of Iraq in saying that the USA had no right to do it.
>
> However, I resent you comparing it to USSR versus Lithuania in 1940. For
> one thing, Saddam Hussein was a certified loonie who had gassed his ethnic
> minorities, invaded two neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and was generally a
> murderous monster and miscreant, and his régime was a reign of terror.
> Still doesn't justify US invasion, but USSR didn't even have anything like
> that to use as an excuse.
>
> But then brutal creeps feel they don't need excuses...
They were driven by the idea to spread commusnism across the world.
The most straight forward method was to invade their weak neighbours,
later they've learned how to install pupet governments (i.e. Bulgaria,
Poland etc.). I don't think anything can justify Soviet invasion of
Baltic Republics.
Even Saddam can't compete with Djugashvili's brutality.
>
> GK
Alexei
Martin:
I have read most of the documents found on the site you suggested, and I
would like to share with you my conclusions.
I didn't doubt the offensive intentions of the Soviet Union in relations to
the Baltic States. But I had been puzzled by the inability of the Baltic
States to protect themselves against the Soviet forces.
So -- Once the new Foreign Minister - Molotov - took his post, there seemed
to be a drastic change in the foreign policy towards Germany. There were
constant negations, mutual trade agreements and ultimately, the signing of
the MR pact in August 1939 which was amended later that year. The leaders
spoke of the zone of influence: Western Poland for Germany and the Baltic
States and Finland for the Soviet Russia. For whatever reasons, the Baltic
States turned out to be in a slightly different position than Finland,
though both the Baltic States and Finland declared themselves neural.
However, several tactical and diplomatic mistakes had been made by the three
Baltic States prior to the occupation by the Soviet troops in 1940.
1. Signing the mutual assistance treaty with Soviet Russia which allowed the
Soviets to put a few military bases in the Baltics. The leaders seemed to
have ignored the dangers of this policy and thus violated their neutral
stance.
2. Disinterest by Latvia and Estonia in Lithuania's problem of Memel and
thus voiding the Treaty of Mutual Understanding and Cooperation between the
three Baltic States signed on Sept. 12, 1931. The three states should have
cooperated fully both politically and militarily.
3. Unlike Finland, the Baltic States did not file complaint to the League of
Nations of which they were full members.
4. There was much naiveté on the past of the Baltic leaders that they were
securing the peace within their lands.
5. Unlike Finland, the Baltic States did not fight to preserve their
independence.
The conclusion I drew for myself: freedom comes at a cost, but it's worth to
be fighting for.
I, in any way, am justifying the actions of the Soviet government during
these years. I was simply trying to figure out what was taking place in the
Baltic States at the time.
As you rightfully pointed out, the existence of the secret protocol in the
pact was denied by the Soviet government until the 80s. But it is highly
typical of the Soviet government to deny truths that were inconvenient: like
the cult of personality of one J. Stalin, the constant oppression of any
opposition etc. So it doesn't surprise me one little bit that the Soviet
government denied the existence of the secret protocol.
Aleks Tapinsh
Johnie
>
> <ant-Aleksejs propaganda deleted>
Did you mean anti-Alesejs? Or were you trying to belittle our Russian
friend by calling him an ant?
>
> Russia hardly inspires fear any more, but the West is very interested in
> its oil, just as Russia is very interested in the dollars it earns selling
> it.
>
Some on the Baltic Loyalist say that there is no need for oil in the
world. Read Krisy's article on
http://groups.msn.com/BalticLoyalist/alternativeenergyandimperializm.msnw
> >
> > Because there is no justice in the world, and it is naive to expect
> > any.
> >
> > All that matters if force - so the Baltic States are becoming
> > stronger, both through association with EU - NATO, and through
> > economic growth, while Russia is declining.
>
> Your view is simplistic.
>
Yours is too complex to spot any meaning...
> Russia is currently spinning along at a healthy 4% growthrate (Source:
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Econ) and its
> GDP/capita is currently $8,800 (same source), slightly *higher* than
> Latvia's or Lithuania's ($8,300 and $8,400, respectively, same source,
> suffixes ?/lg.html#Econ and ?/lh.html#Econ).
Do you believe everything you read on the Net?
GDP/capita in UK is £ 17 000, note, that a public sector workers
(police, teachers, nurses) earn around
22 000 per annum. And a graduate professional £ 30 000.
See, the annual income is higher than GDP/capita.
Do the Police earn $15 000 in Russia or in the Eastern Europe?
In Russia they earn some $ 1000 per year. So the true GDP/capita in
Russia would be closer to $ 600.
Are you just misinformed or are you lying?
I live in Helsinki and can
> attest to the growth of an affluent, well-dressed Russian middle class,
> mostly from Moscow and St. Petersburg, that can afford to vacation in
> Finland, staying at better quality hotels and eating at expensive
> restaurants. I see busloads of them every day. Athough it remains a
> country in which about 40% of the population lives below the poverty line,
> there are more affluent Russians today than there are Estonians, Latvians,
> and Lithuanians combined.
There are only 5.5 million of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians
combined. But there are 144 m of Russians. So if 0.1% of Russia's
population are froliking in Helsinki, it doesn't mean that the things
are getting better in their country.
>
> > When Russia becomes reduced to the level of say - Jugoslavia or Iraq -
> > we can expect to have the justice served.
>
> That ain't gonna happen. Too many Russians have finally made it to the
> middle class and like what they see.
What middle class? 0.1% of population?
>
>
> Human rights abuses in Russia are nothing like those in the old USSR,
> South Africa, or Cuba. There is, in principle, rule of law.
Tell it to the 200 000 Chechens murdered because of the colour of
their skin. And that is put of the total population of 800 000. The
genocide of the Holocaust proportions is taking place right before our
eyes, but according to Eugene Holman all's hunky-dory.
The US
> presently incarcerates more people per capita and gives far longer prison
> sentences than Russia does.
Thats because in Russia the criminals are in power.
> >
>
> Russia has untold amounts of oil which they can always sell. After having
> lived for almost half a century with a mean and threatening USSR, why
> should you want to derail a development which is bringing Russia much
> needed peace...
What kind of PEACE is that when the cities are raized to the ground in
Chechnya?
>
> The Chechen cause has been totally derailed. Last fall's hostage taking
> episode was Russia's September 11. The Chechens are now regarded by much
> of the international community as international terrorists and Islamic
> extremists.
The international community in the person of Mr. Holman, I presume?
>
> Don't derail development which is leading to Russia becoming a responsible
> member in good standing of the international community.
What good standing? What development?
This is
> particularly important for the Baltic countries, who will be the first to
> be affected geopolitically and economically if things start to deteriorate
> in Russia. Give Russia the opportunity to develop into a good neighbor and
> entangle it in so many international organizations and treaties that the
> consequences of not being a good neighbor will be politically and
> economically intolerable for it.
Russia a good neighbour? Of the Baltic states?
Regards
Johnie
Our forum is on
http://groups.msn.com/BalticLoyalist/messages.msnw
Alexei
"Johnie" <johnie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a395ceef.0306...@posting.google.com...
> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote in message
news:<holman-1806...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi>...
> >
>
> > <ant-Aleksejs propaganda deleted>
>
> Did you mean anti-Alesejs? Or were you trying to belittle our Russian
> friend by calling him an ant?
>
and heeeeeerrrrreee's Johnie!!!! Or Lstrad33? I'm confused.
>
>
> There are only 5.5 million of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians
> combined. But there are 144 m of Russians. So if 0.1% of Russia's
> population are froliking in Helsinki, it doesn't mean that the things
> are getting better in their country.
Where did you get the number of Russia's population "froliking in
Helskinki"?
>
> >
> > > When Russia becomes reduced to the level of say - Jugoslavia or Iraq -
> > > we can expect to have the justice served.
> >
> > That ain't gonna happen. Too many Russians have finally made it to the
> > middle class and like what they see.
>
> What middle class? 0.1% of population?
Where's the info coming from?
> >
> >
> > Human rights abuses in Russia are nothing like those in the old USSR,
> > South Africa, or Cuba. There is, in principle, rule of law.
>
> Tell it to the 200 000 Chechens murdered because of the colour of
> their skin. And that is put of the total population of 800 000. The
> genocide of the Holocaust proportions is taking place right before our
> eyes, but according to Eugene Holman all's hunky-dory.
Where do you get your numbers, Johnie?
>
> The US
> > presently incarcerates more people per capita and gives far longer
prison
> > sentences than Russia does.
>
> Thats because in Russia the criminals are in power.
> > >
> >
> > Russia has untold amounts of oil which they can always sell. After
having
> > lived for almost half a century with a mean and threatening USSR, why
> > should you want to derail a development which is bringing Russia much
> > needed peace...
>
> What kind of PEACE is that when the cities are raized to the ground in
> Chechnya?
the purpose of this forum, as I understand it, not to discuss things
Russian (unless, of course, they're highly negative). For that purpose you
should go to soc.culture.russia
> >
> > The Chechen cause has been totally derailed. Last fall's hostage taking
> > episode was Russia's September 11. The Chechens are now regarded by much
> > of the international community as international terrorists and Islamic
> > extremists.
>
> The international community in the person of Mr. Holman, I presume?
Well, the US state department for one. See
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/28/chechens.terror/index.html)
"Regards to you Lstrad33, eh, I mean Johnnie.
Aleks
Even through google, I am still Aleks.
Martin
> > http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nazsov.htm
> Martin:
>
> I have read most of the documents found on the site you suggested, and I
> would like to share with you my conclusions.
>
> I didn't doubt the offensive intentions of the Soviet Union in relations
to
> the Baltic States. But I had been puzzled by the inability of the Baltic
> States to protect themselves against the Soviet forces.
I've also been puzzled by the inability of France, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Poland and Czechoslvakia to protect themselves against the Nazi forces.
>
> So -- Once the new Foreign Minister - Molotov - took his post, there
seemed
> to be a drastic change in the foreign policy towards Germany. There were
> constant negations, mutual trade agreements and ultimately, the signing of
> the MR pact in August 1939 which was amended later that year. The leaders
> spoke of the zone of influence: Western Poland for Germany and the Baltic
> States and Finland for the Soviet Russia. For whatever reasons, the Baltic
> States turned out to be in a slightly different position than Finland,
> though both the Baltic States and Finland declared themselves neural.
>
> However, several tactical and diplomatic mistakes had been made by the
three
> Baltic States prior to the occupation by the Soviet troops in 1940.
> 1. Signing the mutual assistance treaty with Soviet Russia which allowed
the
> Soviets to put a few military bases in the Baltics. The leaders seemed to
> have ignored the dangers of this policy and thus violated their neutral
> stance.
Probably true, but then you don't expect to be annexed, do you? The USA has
military bases all over the world, but you don't see those countries being
annexed and incorporated into the USA.
> 2. Disinterest by Latvia and Estonia in Lithuania's problem of Memel and
> thus voiding the Treaty of Mutual Understanding and Cooperation between
the
> three Baltic States signed on Sept. 12, 1931. The three states should have
> cooperated fully both politically and militarily.
Wasn't it this treaty that gave the Soviet Union pretext to issue a second
ultimatum in 1940?
> 3. Unlike Finland, the Baltic States did not file complaint to the League
of
> Nations of which they were full members.
Untrue. Representatives of the Baltic states did attempt to file a complaint
to the League of Nations, in fact the Latvian government had in May 1940,
before being annexed, confirmed special powers to it's diplomats in London
and New York to represent the Latvian government. However the League of
Nations turned a blind eye to their representations of the situation in the
Baltics. This was an example of how the League of Nations was a failed
organisation.
> 4. There was much naiveté on the past of the Baltic leaders that they were
> securing the peace within their lands.
The evilness and double dealing of Hitler and Stalin was unprecedented in
history.
> 5. Unlike Finland, the Baltic States did not fight to preserve their
> independence.
Untrue. Many thousands of Balts did fight for their independance after the
Soviets were expelled by the Germans in 1941.
>
> The conclusion I drew for myself: freedom comes at a cost, but it's worth
to
> be fighting for.
>
> I, in any way, am justifying the actions of the Soviet government during
> these years. I was simply trying to figure out what was taking place in
the
> Baltic States at the time.
>
> As you rightfully pointed out, the existence of the secret protocol in the
> pact was denied by the Soviet government until the 80s. But it is highly
> typical of the Soviet government to deny truths that were inconvenient:
like
> the cult of personality of one J. Stalin, the constant oppression of any
> opposition etc. So it doesn't surprise me one little bit that the Soviet
> government denied the existence of the secret protocol.
It goes beyond that. What's at stake is the dirtying of the Soviet Union's
role in World War 2. The russians like to see themselves as the glorious
victors against Nazism, so it must hide the truth about their dirty
collaboration with Hitler in 1939-1940 in dividing up Europe and the
annexation of the Baltics, because it they admit the truth, then they admit
their role in the origins of World War 2 was not so honourable after all.
Regards,
Martin
Lstrad33
>Correction: According to this
>(http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/391214a.html), the Soviet Russia was
>kicked out of the League of Nations at the request of the Finnish government
>due to the war between Soviet Union and Finland. Once again, Finland seemed
>to have withstood the pressure from the Soviet Union on its own, as opposed
>to the Baltic States that gave in.
The same (il)legal pact was the source of all these nations woes.
Finland was listed along side of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Romanian
'Bessarabia' (Moldavia) as part of the soviet-union's 'interests' in the
Moltov-Ribentrop Treaty's 'Side Protocols'.
Finland's resolve to resist the russians was no doubt steeled by what it had
seen to have occurred to its Baltic neighbors south of the Gulf.
In the pre-WWII period, Finland was considered a Baltic state - more than a
Nordic state.
LS/