Lithuanian independence - 20th anniversary
EZ
In Lithuanian press of the recent days there are some interesting
thoughts about the achievements of the country in the last 20 years. A
lot of people look at the positive things and point out the economic
prosperity, freedom of movement and thought, memberships in the
international organisations. There are pessimists who point out at the
bureaucracy and lost or botched opportunities - such as the pathetic
deal with Williams or failure to progress with the construction of the
new nuclear power plant.
I have experienced the transition of Lithuania from a Soviet Socialist
Republic to the independent Lithuania. I remember the Gorbachev's
perestroika, calls for more openness and more power in the regions. In
a sense the Gorbachev's perestroika was high-jacked in Lithuania -
democratically elected Supreme Soviet of Lithuania declared that it -
expressing the will of Lithuanian people - declares that Lithuania is
independent from the Soviet Union. All went according to the Soviet
Constitution, but of course the Soviet Union's leadership was not
happy. The Western leaders, happy at the thaw in the relations when
the Gorbachev came to the power, were also not very happy - they were
confused, and perhaps unwilling to jeopardise their relations with the
Soviet Union.
Iceland was the first country that recongnised the fact of Lithuania's
independence. The small great country had the internal fortitude and
do what is right and not what feels comfortable.
Meanwhile, Gorbachev asked Lithuania to think it over. Other countries
were not rushing it, either. Think it over, go slow; perhaps be less
dependent - but not fully free. Things like that.
To make the offer more convincing, the soviets imposed an economic
blockade on Lithuania - stopping supplies to the factories and stores,
not delivering oil and gas, and not buying any production. There were
barely any cars in the streets, there were lines at gas stations. Food
was rationed - people got coupons that gave them a privilege to buy
flour, sugar and things like that. See what it is like being free!
Fortunately, Latvia and Estonia were spared of this - their
independence was proclaimed about a year later.
For some reason, at least I or people that I know did not feel that we
need to backtrack. People dug in and kept going. As they say - 'as the
going gets tough - the tough keep going'. This thing lasted for
months, and the soviets perhaps started feeling uneasy about this
prolonged stand-off and the international attention this was
generating. Finally it erupted - on January 13, 1991 the soviets
attacked the TV tower in order to stop the flow of the local news.
People came in their thousands to defend the TV tower and the
Parliament building. There were casualties - unarmed people killed or
injured by the soviet army. Perhaps then - it is easy to say it know -
the soviets have lost. I would say 90% of the country was against
them, those who were on the sidelines before by now have chosen their
side. It would be very hard to pretend having democracy and keeping
military all over the place to suppress demonstrations etc.
The things that followed - the Coup d'Etat (calling for harsher
measures and removing Gorbachev) and final recognition of the
independence was the result of the events that were set off on March
11, 1990.
Now I would like to go back to Lithuanian press. There are a couple of
interesting articles that provide some food for the thought. One is by
G.Lucas, and the other one is by K.Girnius. Both of them are
interesting, and I feel they provide different points of view. Should
Lithuania be paying the price of having a principal position with
Russia and at the same time being sidelined by the 'great' European
powers like Germany or France? Is it not curious that not ONE high EU
official came to this very important commemoration - the 20th
anniversary of the Independence of Lithuania? Is this the kind
solidarity that the EU about? I just hope that they fix the mistake
the next year - and come to the 20th anniversary of Latvia's and
Estonia's independence.
I believe after the next 20 years the things will be much different.
The EU will be much more coherent body that looks for its own, it will
have a great common market, and I hope it will be able to compete in
the changing world. Lithuania and Russia will be good partners, who
honour each other's history and self-determination. And I hope the
whole region that was known as Eastern Europe will be able to break
this vicious circle of being on the clash line of warring fractions -
will have a region with different and unique traditions and customs.
Customs and traditions that we are being proud of.
Happy twentieth anniversary, the free Lithuania!
Dmitry
> Republic to the independent Lithuania. I remember the Gorbachev's
> perestroika, calls for more openness and more power in the regions. In
> a sense the Gorbachev's perestroika was high-jacked in Lithuania -
> democratically elected Supreme Soviet of Lithuania
"Democratically elected Supreme Soviet" sounds strange if not funny.
> To make the offer more convincing, the soviets imposed an economic
> blockade on Lithuania - stopping supplies to the factories and stores,
> not delivering oil and gas, and not buying any production.
I remember going to Lithuania for fuel at that time. I don't know who
delivered oil to Mazheikiai, but I don't think it was a fairy.
I didn't know they stopped gas suply to Lithuania. What did those
with gas cookers do - cook on open fire?
> There were
> barely any cars in the streets, there were lines at gas stations.
There were lines in Riga starting as early as midninght. I remember
joining one at 6am, reaching degviela at 11 and getting nothing
because they have run out of fuel (I should have joined this queue
earlier). However, there were still plenty of cars on the streets. It
just sounds strange that at the same time Lithuania turned carless. I
also heard of similar petrol crices in Russia at the same period.
> Food
> was rationed - people got coupons that gave them a privilege to buy
> flour, sugar and things like that.
We had these in Latvia. But these coupons weren't a result of
blocade. Food shortage was everywhere in Sovok. In Latvia coupons
were introduced locally and it was part of stopping people from Russia
and other poorer Soviet Republics moving and settling in Latvia. At
that time Riga has reached a limit of its capacity to accomodate any
more people.
> See what it is like being free!
> Fortunately, Latvia and Estonia were spared of this - their
> independence was proclaimed about a year later.
So the coupons came to Lithuania a year earlier? I thought we had
them at the same time.
> Is it not curious that not ONE high EU
> official came to this very important commemoration - the 20th
> anniversary of the Independence of Lithuania? Is this the kind
> solidarity that the EU about?
It happens quite often - when people are busy with doing things they
have no time to attend parties.
> I just hope that they fix the mistake
> the next year - and come to the 20th anniversary of Latvia's and
> I believe after the next 20 years the things will be much different.
> The EU will be much more coherent body that looks for its own,
Something like Soviet Union?
> it will
> have a great common market,
> and I hope it will be able to compete in
> the changing world.
It competes with the changing world quite well and has a common market
as we speak. What exactly should change in 20 years?
> Lithuania and Russia will be good partners, who
> honour each other's history and self-determination. And I hope the
> whole region that was known as Eastern Europe will be able to break
> this vicious circle of being on the clash line of warring fractions -
> will have a region with different and unique traditions and customs.
> Customs and traditions that we are being proud of.
>
> Happy twentieth anniversary, the free Lithuania!
Happy birthday!!! Another view could be that Lithuanian independence
is a little older than 20 years, but that may conflict with the theory
of legitimacy of Soviet occupation.
vello
In Estonia that date is not too much celebrated. Official meetings and
some partying happens on Day of Independence - a day Estonia gets it's
independence 90 years ago.
EZ
> > I have experienced the transition of Lithuania from a Soviet Socialist
> > Republic to the independent Lithuania. I remember the Gorbachev's
> > perestroika, calls for more openness and more power in the regions. In
> > a sense the Gorbachev's perestroika was high-jacked in Lithuania -
> > democratically elected Supreme Soviet of Lithuania
>
> "Democratically elected Supreme Soviet" sounds strange if not funny.
Yet that was important. I think this was the first election when we
had 2 candidates at least in some election districts.
Think about those people who put their signatures under the act of
declaration of independence - would not you not think they would be
the first ones to see KGB eye to eye had the events turned a different
way? You think it was easy for them? Perhaps it would have been easier
to 'wait and see'?
>
> > To make the offer more convincing, the soviets imposed an economic
> > blockade on Lithuania - stopping supplies to the factories and stores,
> > not delivering oil and gas, and not buying any production.
>
> I remember going to Lithuania for fuel at that time. I don't know who
> delivered oil to Mazheikiai, but I don't think it was a fairy.
>
Are you sure you are getting your timing right? I remember eerie empty
streets in Kaunas - and we had to walk from our dormitory on Taikos Pr
to the university on Laisves aleja - 1.5 - 2 hours perhaps. The other
way was to take the sardine option - and try your luck squeezing into
a trolleybus. Other than that, there was virtually no transportation
or cars.
>
> > There were
> > barely any cars in the streets, there were lines at gas stations.
>
> > Food
> > was rationed - people got coupons that gave them a privilege to buy
> > flour, sugar and things like that.
>
> We had these in Latvia. But these coupons weren't a result of
> blocade. Food shortage was everywhere in Sovok. In Latvia coupons
> were introduced locally and it was part of stopping people from Russia
> and other poorer Soviet Republics moving and settling in Latvia. At
> that time Riga has reached a limit of its capacity to accomodate any
> more people.
>
For Lithuania food was never a big issue - so the coupons were a news.
After the factories stopped it was a big change. I think GDP of the
country went from full steam ahead to almost nothing over night. It
never fully recovered in the 90s.
> > See what it is like being free!
> > Fortunately, Latvia and Estonia were spared of this - their
> > independence was proclaimed about a year later.
>
> So the coupons came to Lithuania a year earlier? I thought we had
> them at the same time.
>
the direct economic blockade hit Lithuania, not Latvia or Estonia
>
> > Is it not curious that not ONE high EU
> > official came to this very important commemoration - the 20th
> > anniversary of the Independence of Lithuania? Is this the kind
> > solidarity that the EU about?
>
> It happens quite often - when people are busy with doing things they
> have no time to attend parties.
>
> > I just hope that they fix the mistake
> > the next year - and come to the 20th anniversary of Latvia's and
> > I believe after the next 20 years the things will be much different.
> > The EU will be much more coherent body that looks for its own,
>
> Something like Soviet Union?
Huh? Do you think this would be comparable?
>
> > it will
> > have a great common market,
> > and I hope it will be able to compete in
> > the changing world.
>
> It competes with the changing world quite well and has a common market
> as we speak. What exactly should change in 20 years?
>
Europe's population is getting old faster than North America or Asia
(think about all those generous retirement schemes and low fertility
rate), it has a lot of labour unions that drive up the cost of its
products, and it is in a lot of cases inward looking - i.e. in my
opinion it does not see the bigger picture - as the case with Ukraine
shows.
Best regards,
EZ
Dmitry
> On Mar 12, 8:23 pm, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > I have experienced the transition of Lithuania from a Soviet Socialist
> > > Republic to the independent Lithuania. I remember the Gorbachev's
> > > perestroika, calls for more openness and more power in the regions. In
> > > a sense the Gorbachev's perestroika was high-jacked in Lithuania -
> > > democratically elected Supreme Soviet of Lithuania
>
> > "Democratically elected Supreme Soviet" sounds strange if not funny.
>
> Yet that was important. I think this was the first election when we
> had 2 candidates at least in some election districts.
How come they allowed two candidates? This is against Soviet version
of democracy where party elite choose one before the "election".
> Think about those people who put their signatures under the act of
> declaration of independence - would not you not think they would be
> the first ones to see KGB eye to eye had the events turned a different
> way? You think it was easy for them? Perhaps it would have been easier
> to 'wait and see'?
In my (and many other supporters of independence) experience, from
around 1986 KGB was no longer posing a threat to individuals who had
such views.
> > > To make the offer more convincing, the soviets imposed an economic
> > > blockade on Lithuania - stopping supplies to the factories and stores,
> > > not delivering oil and gas, and not buying any production.
>
> > I remember going to Lithuania for fuel at that time. I don't know who
> > delivered oil to Mazheikiai, but I don't think it was a fairy.
>
> Are you sure you are getting your timing right?
Can't be exact, but I think it was in 1990. I remember that Lithuanian
police were stopping cars with Latvian number plates on the main roads
checking for fuel cans. It was illegal to transport any more than
fits into fuel tank of the vehicle. I crossed the border by small
tracks - no check points on such roads - on my zaporozhec literally
filled up with petrol cans.
> I remember eerie empty
> streets in Kaunas - and we had to walk from our dormitory on Taikos Pr
> to the university on Laisves aleja - 1.5 - 2 hours perhaps. The other
> way was to take the sardine option - and try your luck squeezing into
> a trolleybus. Other than that, there was virtually no transportation
> or cars.
Sorry you have suffered more than us. Although reduced, we had some
car traffic in Riga and the fuel was coming either from Lithuania or
army (could buy 20 litres for 15 rubles from Soviet army bases).
> > > There were
> > > barely any cars in the streets, there were lines at gas stations.
>
> > > Food
> > > was rationed - people got coupons that gave them a privilege to buy
> > > flour, sugar and things like that.
>
> > We had these in Latvia. But these coupons weren't a result of
> > blocade. Food shortage was everywhere in Sovok. In Latvia coupons
> > were introduced locally and it was part of stopping people from Russia
> > and other poorer Soviet Republics moving and settling in Latvia. At
> > that time Riga has reached a limit of its capacity to accomodate any
> > more people.
>
> For Lithuania food was never a big issue - so the coupons were a news.
Same for Latvia.
> After the factories stopped it was a big change. I think GDP of the
> country went from full steam ahead to almost nothing over night. It
> never fully recovered in the 90s.
>
> > > See what it is like being free!
> > > Fortunately, Latvia and Estonia were spared of this - their
> > > independence was proclaimed about a year later.
>
> > So the coupons came to Lithuania a year earlier? I thought we had
> > them at the same time.
>
> the direct economic blockade hit Lithuania, not Latvia or Estonia
Why did they hit Lithuania only? Latvia and Estonia were in the same
independence boat.
> > > I just hope that they fix the mistake
> > > the next year - and come to the 20th anniversary of Latvia's and
> > > I believe after the next 20 years the things will be much different.
> > > The EU will be much more coherent body that looks for its own,
>
> > Something like Soviet Union?
>
> Huh? Do you think this would be comparable?
I think EU is as coherent as a voluntary union of independent states
can be today. EU can be criticised, there is plenty of material for
criticising EU, but making patronising comments just because the
"officials" didn't attend a "birthday party" is rather weird.
> > > it will
> > > have a great common market,
> > > and I hope it will be able to compete in
> > > the changing world.
>
> > It competes with the changing world quite well and has a common market
> > as we speak. What exactly should change in 20 years?
>
> Europe's population is getting old faster than North America or Asia
> (think about all those generous retirement schemes and low fertility
> rate), it has a lot of labour unions that drive up the cost of its
> products, and it is in a lot of cases inward looking - i.e. in my
> opinion it does not see the bigger picture - as the case with Ukraine
> shows.
Problem with big organisations is that they loose track of what is
going on the ground. However, the picture of Donetsk as part of EU
needs more th
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
I have never heard of Gorbachev's USSR or any other country on Earth
imposing a "direct economic blockade" on Lithuania. The Soviet
economy was in shambles because of the low world oil prices, and there
was rationing all over USSR.
Is there any link at all that describes this "direct economic
blockade"? If so - could you please post it. Thanks.
EZ
>
> Is there any link at all that describes this "direct economic
> blockade"? If so - could you please post it. Thanks.
>
a google search would do the trick.
for example, "economic blockade of Lithuania" yields several results,
one of them is this link
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1121270.html
EZ
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
What it says is:
"President Mikhail Gorbachev threatened today to order an economic
blockade against Lithuania in two days unless it annuls legislation
designed to bolster its unilateral declaration of independence."
THREATENED. Do you have any references that he went ahead with this
blockade?
EZ
here it is
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekonomin%C4%97_blokada_%281990%29
short summary: it confirms that the threats were carried out.
EZ
EZ
here is one more for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_the_Re-Establishment_of_the_State_of_Lithuania
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Mar 14, 7:42 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
>
>
> <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 6:33 am, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 14, 12:38 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> > > <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 13, 5:47 am, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is there any link at all that describes this "direct economic
> > > > blockade"? If so - could you please post it. Thanks.
>
> > > a google search would do the trick.
> > > for example, "economic blockade of Lithuania" yields several results,
> > > one of them is this linkhttp://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1121270.html
>
> > What it says is:
>
> > "President Mikhail Gorbachev threatened today to order an economic
> > blockade against Lithuania in two days unless it annuls legislation
> > designed to bolster its unilateral declaration of independence."
>
> > THREATENED. Do you have any references that he went ahead with this
> > blockade?
>
>
> short summary: it confirms that the threats were carried out.
>
Yes, but this was a raw materials, oil blockage. No food was
blockaded:
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekonomin%C4%97_blokada_%281990%29
Lithuania's economic blockade - the period from 1990 20 April, when
the Soviet Union's government suspended the raw materials (especially
oil) supplies to Lithuania on 1990 2 July to a total of 74 days.
But you implied a food blockade too:
> To make the offer more convincing, the soviets imposed an economic
> blockade on Lithuania - stopping supplies to the factories and stores, [...]
> Food was rationed - people got coupons that gave them a privilege to
> buy flour, sugar and things like that. See what it is like being free!
vello
2proof" that holocaust never happens? Lithuania was producer of food,
so ban on food was not so important.
J. Anderson
"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:7a4873d2-a061-4f30...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 Mar, 13:47, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> the direct economic blockade hit Lithuania, not Latvia or Estonia
>
> Why did they hit Lithuania only? Latvia and Estonia were in the same
> independence boat.
The harassment continued even after the fall of the Soviet Union. In
February '92, a few weeks after the dissolution of the USSR, I remember
having led quite a 'cool' seminar in Tallinn -- the temperature in the
conference room at Hotel Viru was +14°, and people were wearing their
outdoor clothes. Estonia was being 'punished' again for something.
EZ
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
An interesting point. Was at that point power solely controlled by
Yeltsin?
On another note, here is an interesting link from E. Lucas' blog -
about that time:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15745884
Best regards,
EZ
Peter
ander...@inbox.lv (J. Anderson)
February '92, a few weeks after the dissolution of the USSR, I remember
having led quite a 'cool' seminar in Tallinn -- the temperature in the
conference room at Hotel Viru was +14°, and people were wearing their
outdoor clothes. Estonia was being 'punished' again for something. >>
I remember 1992 Russian tv report about cold apartments in Latvia, Rus.
gov. said that Latvia didn't pay gas bill. Latvia didn't make big stink
out of it, so maybe it was true.
Petya.
Dmitry
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
Back in the 70's when I lived on Krasta (next to Lido) +15° wasn't
unusual in cold winters - the radiators were just slightly warm whilst
it is freezing outside. It was worse when the wind was also strong -
these towerblocks weren't built draft-resistant. But in October and
March the radiators were proper hot and there was no tap to turn them
off. I didn't think of it as a punishment though, just a routine -
when you are cold you put your clothes on and when you are hot open
the window.
J. Anderson
> On Mar 19, 5:46 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7a4873d2-a061-4f30...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On 13 Mar, 13:47, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> the direct economic blockade hit Lithuania, not Latvia or Estonia
>>> Why did they hit Lithuania only? Latvia and Estonia were in the same
>>> independence boat.
>> The harassment continued even after the fall of the Soviet Union. In
>> February '92, a few weeks after the dissolution of the USSR, I remember
>> having led quite a 'cool' seminar in Tallinn -- the temperature in the
>> conference room at Hotel Viru was +14°, and people were wearing their
>> outdoor clothes. Estonia was being 'punished' again for something.
>
> An interesting point. Was at that point power solely controlled by
> Yeltsin?
Can't say. Does Vello remember this winter's events?
> On another note, here is an interesting link from E. Lucas' blog -
> about that time:
> http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15745884
Thanks. This article vividly brought back the "Stimmung" of that period.
Finnish president Koivisto belonged to those who recommended that the
Balts should wait and see. Even now he doesn't want to admit having been
wrong. I was living in Germany when all this happened, and of course we
were mostly following the exciting changes preceding the German
unification, but one year later, in July 1991, when there was still a
Soviet Union, we travelled by train from Hamburg via Berlin, Warsaw,
Vilnius and Riga to Tallinn, and I'll never forget the fortified
parliaments of Lithuania and Latvia, and the feeling of approaching storm.
vello
> anderso...@inbox.lv (J. Anderson)
It was hard time indeed. In Soviet Union, all real currency was kept
on accounts in Moscow - and not a penny was given back so there was
nothing to pay for gas and other things.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Mar 19, 5:46 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>
> >news:7a4873d2-a061-4f30...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 13 Mar, 13:47, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> the direct economic blockade hit Lithuania, not Latvia or Estonia
>
> > > Why did they hit Lithuania only? Latvia and Estonia were in the same
> > > independence boat.
>
> > The harassment continued even after the fall of the Soviet Union. In
> > February '92, a few weeks after the dissolution of the USSR, I remember
> > having led quite a 'cool' seminar in Tallinn -- the temperature in the
> > conference room at Hotel Viru was +14°, and people were wearing their
> > outdoor clothes. Estonia was being 'punished' again for something.
>
> An interesting point. Was at that point power solely controlled by
> Yeltsin?
No. By Putin. Don't you know that when Yeltsin, Kravchuk and
Shushkevich gave freedom to all 15 republics, Putin came in and said:
"There will be one exception: John Anderson. Whenever John arrives in
Estonia, I want Russia to cut all oil and gas supplies to Estonia for
6 months before that."
So, as John once put it, when the Russians were freezing John with a
+14° celcius temperature in Hotel Viru, they were "lootin' for
Putin".
But seriously, there was no boycott of Estonia in 1992. On the
contrary, there was a special condition that Yeltsin put in that
allowed Estonian and Latvian governments and businessmen to buy
Russians resources, especially metals, at a fraction of their market
costs and then re-sell them to the West at full cost. That's how the
Baltic states and Yeltsin's cronies prospered at the expense of
Russian people at that time. As I recall, in the early 1990s, Estonia
became the 2nd biggest exporter of metals in the World, all of them
originating from Russia. I personally knew a guy from Riga who was one
of the people who became filthy rich off of stealing metals from
average Russians.
vello
You are weak today. ou know russia and business habits there. Do you
really think some outsider from Estonia would play serious game when
BIG MONEY is involved? Or how, in practice, estonian businesmen could
get their hands on metals inside Russia?
It was young, brutal and in big part criminal Russian business who
sells metals. They did it via Estonia and people involved in transit
get their part also. But very minor one. If our railroad and port fees
would been more expencive then in Helsinki or as corrupted/keen to
steal as Russian ports back then, not a single piece of copper would
pass Estonia.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Vello, here is how it worked:
Yeltsin passed regulations saying that because of "friendship", export
of metals and other raw materials to ex-USSR republics would be at a
fraction (say, 20%) of the World market price, while exports to the
West would be at full market prices. Thus, businessmen from Russia
sold metals to businessmen in the Baltics at these low prices, the
Balt businessmen sold these metals to Germany at full prices, and the
Russian businessmen, Balt businessmen and corrupt Russian officials
split the profits. That's how Estonia became the second biggest metal
exporter in the world in the early 1990s.
vello
Maybe it was this way - but hardly it was dictated by forces of
corruption. Yelcin was idealistic about keeping someway former SU
together - and as he had no idea about market forces, his decicion was
stupid from economical wiewpoint. But why you are angry on Estonia?
Business is about to buy cheap and sell by higher price - do you
imagine any country (well, metal scrapyard) all over the globe would
say: "we don't accept that price for your metal, that's too low and I
will get too big marginal"?
About abilities of Estonian businessmen to bribe Russian govt - it's
just laughable - look at the map. What they did, due contacts in
Scandinavia, they were able to build up ties with buyers in West
faster then guys in other former SU parts.
It is common habit for Russia (and in our case for you) to accuse
others for their own stupidity.
Dmitry
May be he was trying to make sure that the damage caused by
declaration of Russian independence was as minimal as possible to
other SSRs?
> But why you are angry on Estonia?
> Business is about to buy cheap and sell by higher price - do you
> imagine any country (well, metal scrapyard) all over the globe would
> say: "we don't accept that price for your metal, that's too low and I
> will get too big marginal"?
> About abilities of Estonian businessmen to bribe Russian govt - it's
> just laughable - look at the map. What they did, due contacts in
> Scandinavia, they were able to build up ties with buyers in West
> faster then guys in other former SU parts.
> It is common habit for Russia (and in our case for you) to accuse
> others for their own stupidity.
One of the way of minimising dependence on other countries is to
develop local renewable energy sources and effective energy saving
policies.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Yes, both of you are correct. However, when this loophole - selling to
Baltia at low prices and then re-selling at full prices to Germany -
became apparent, changes should have been made immediately. But they
were not made for several years.
As the result, an incredible amount of natural resources was stolen
from their owners - Russian people.
> > But why you are angry on Estonia?
> > Business is about to buy cheap and sell by higher price - do you
> > imagine any country (well, metal scrapyard) all over the globe would
> > say: "we don't accept that price for your metal, that's too low and I
> > will get too big marginal"?
I am not angry at Estonia. It is not Estonia's fault. My points are
different:
1. John's claim that Yeltsin was freezing Estonia to death in 1992 is
a lie, as always with John.
2. When Estonians brag about how they are superior to Russians because
they better transitioned economically form Sovok to capitalism, they
should keep in mind where much of their wealth came from
> > About abilities of Estonian businessmen to bribe Russian govt - it's
> > just laughable - look at the map. What they did, due contacts in
> > Scandinavia, they were able to build up ties with buyers in West
> > faster then guys in other former SU parts.
> > It is common habit for Russia (and in our case for you) to accuse
> > others for their own stupidity.
>
> One of the way of minimising dependence on other countries is to
> develop local renewable energy sources and effective energy saving
> policies.
I don't think the Balt businessmen wanted to minimize their
"dependence" on cheap Russian metals. Quite the contrary: the more
metals they bought from Russia at low prices, the more they sold to
Germany at high prices.
J. Anderson
"Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_be...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:70bc9c2b-ea63-45d3...@j16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> John's claim that Yeltsin was freezing Estonia
> to death in 1992 is a lie, as always with John.
Oh, the tiresome old lie accusation once again. Well, what else is new. This
guy should really visit some de-sovietization clinic.
I wrote this: "The harassment continued even after the fall of the Soviet
Union. In February '92, a few weeks after the dissolution of the USSR, I
remember having led quite a 'cool' seminar in Tallinn -- the temperature in
the conference room at Hotel Viru was +14°, and people were wearing their
outdoor clothes. Estonia was being 'punished' again for something."
He turned that into "John's claim that Yeltsin was freezing Estonia to death
in 1992".
Now, who's the liar?
I happened to be there in 1992 and know how the Estonians interpreted the
energy cut. 'Russia has a track record of turning off the energy taps during
disputes with neighbours,' as the China Daily stated 15 years (and Bog knows
how many energy cuts) later.
vello
Here you are someway right - they just ask a price most of us can't
stomach back then. There was no need for Russia to sell their fuel
cheaper to us then to other customers.
>
> 2. When Estonians brag about how they are superior to Russians because
> they better transitioned economically form Sovok to capitalism, they
> should keep in mind where much of their wealth came from
Again yo don't get the point - that money stays in Russia. Maybe it
was a "business plan" of some oligarchs near Yelcin to have "legal"
way to outsell Russia's resources - but no way estonians had even
minor change to get rich on that business. So if it was this way that
metal was exported to Estonia on price times less then market price,
be sure real owners of that metal, oligarchs, made it sure that price
difference will went into their, not our's pocket. Just sit five
minutes and think (hint: surely our people in metal business would
take that money happily - like I may dream about billions of Bill
Gates. But in both cases sad truth is that Gates will not give his
fortune to me and Russian oligarchs to Estonia. Rich people are greedy
ones :-)
>
> > > About abilities of Estonian businessmen to bribe Russian govt - it's
> > > just laughable - look at the map. What they did, due contacts in
> > > Scandinavia, they were able to build up ties with buyers in West
> > > faster then guys in other former SU parts.
> > > It is common habit for Russia (and in our case for you) to accuse
> > > others for their own stupidity.
>
> > One of the way of minimising dependence on other countries is to
> > develop local renewable energy sources and effective energy saving
> > policies.
>
> I don't think the Balt businessmen wanted to minimize their
> "dependence" on cheap Russian metals. Quite the contrary: the more
> metals they bought from Russia at low prices, the more they sold to
> Germany at high prices.
Ostap, are you really so simple-minded? Sorry, but I had to make one
thing clear for you: there are no Santa Claus on the Earth. Not for
you, for me, for Estonia. and people controlling Russian economy back
in 1992 were WERY different from St Claus and other philantropes.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:70bc9c2b-ea63-45d3...@j16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > John's claim that Yeltsin was freezing Estonia
> > to death in 1992 is a lie, as always with John.
>
> Oh, the tiresome old lie accusation once again. Well, what else is new. This
> guy should really visit some de-sovietization clinic.
>
> I wrote this: "The harassment continued even after the fall of the Soviet
> Union. In February '92, a few weeks after the dissolution of the USSR, I
> remember having led quite a 'cool' seminar in Tallinn -- the temperature in
> the conference room at Hotel Viru was +14°, and people were wearing their
> outdoor clothes. Estonia was being 'punished' again for something."
>
> He turned that into "John's claim that Yeltsin was freezing Estonia to death
> in 1992".
>
> Now, who's the liar?
So, you said that Russia was "punishing" and "harassing" Estonia in
1992 by cutting its energy supplies? What is the difference between
what you said and my sarcastic interpretation of what you said?
> I happened to be there in 1992 and know how the Estonians interpreted the
> energy cut. 'Russia has a track record of turning off the energy taps during
> disputes with neighbours,'
What dispute was Yeltsin having with Estonia in February 1992, John?
> as the China Daily stated 15 years (and Bog knows
> how many energy cuts) later.
I am glad that your information and opinions come from Communist
China's propaganda machine.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Let me repeat: back in 1994 I was best friends with a young guy form
Riga who became rich on this re-export of Russian metals. I knew not
only him but many of his Latvian colleagues, who had similarly
profited, and they told me exactly how it works.
So if it was this way that
> metal was exported to Estonia on price times less then market price,
> be sure real owners of that metal, oligarchs, made it sure that price
> difference will went into their, not our's pocket.
No. The metals were sold to real Baltic businessman like my Riga
friend, who re-sold them to Germany. They did give about half of their
profits to the Russian sellers, but they kept the other half of the
profits.
> Just sit five
> minutes and think (hint: surely our people in metal business would
> take that money happily - like I may dream about billions of Bill
> Gates. But in both cases sad truth is that Gates will not give his
> fortune to me and Russian oligarchs to Estonia. Rich people are greedy
> ones :-)
>
> > > > About abilities of Estonian businessmen to bribe Russian govt - it's
> > > > just laughable - look at the map. What they did, due contacts in
> > > > Scandinavia, they were able to build up ties with buyers in West
> > > > faster then guys in other former SU parts.
> > > > It is common habit for Russia (and in our case for you) to accuse
> > > > others for their own stupidity.
>
> > > One of the way of minimising dependence on other countries is to
> > > develop local renewable energy sources and effective energy saving
> > > policies.
>
> > I don't think the Balt businessmen wanted to minimize their
> > "dependence" on cheap Russian metals. Quite the contrary: the more
> > metals they bought from Russia at low prices, the more they sold to
> > Germany at high prices.
>
> Ostap, are you really so simple-minded?
Vello, please stop trying to show your "superior intelligence" over
me. Your own intelligence has been aptly demonstrated recently when
you claimed that Buryatia is not in Siberia and that East German anti-
american 1960s westerns are proof that American writers condemned and
exposed the genocide against Indians back in the 19th century.
> Sorry, but I had to make one
> thing clear for you: there are no Santa Claus on the Earth. Not for
> you, for me, for Estonia. and people controlling Russian economy back
> in 1992 were WERY different from St Claus and other philantropes.
Where did I say that my Riga friend and/or his Russian business
partners were "philantropes"?
Tadas Blinda
> "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:70bc9c2b-ea63-45d3...@j16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Russia is a bully, and bullies are inadequate, and one of the ways
their inadequacy expresses itself is by never being able to admit
"It's my fault. I fucked up." No, it's always gotta be someone
else's fault, a scapegoat must be found. Think about it: why is it
that in normal countries there is no concept of "Enemy of the People"
as an official label? You only get that in totalitarian countries.
Where they publicly flog and hang their whipping boys (after a show
trial), or send them to die in the frozen wasteland of Siberia.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Here is the text of one of the laws that made this tariff-free export
of Russian metals to Baltia:
http://www.bestpravo.ru/fed1992/data02/tex13309.htm
Also:
http://www.cemi.rssi.ru/mei/articles/andreev07-2.pdf
In those years in Latvia there was a re-export of goods, mostly from
Russia. Thus, in 1992, according to the Latvian Institute Research
market, from Latvia were exported 9 thousand tons of nonferrous
metals.
The main source of income for Latvia amounted was Russia's oil and
petroleum.
In 1993, trade with the West was about half of the foreign trade of
Latvia, but analysis shows that much of it was the resale of goods
purchased in Russia and other CIS countries.
http://archive.svoboda.org/programs/SP/1999/SP-85.asp.
Richard Palmer, a former CIA officer, an American expert on Russia's
organized crime says: "Recall that in 1988-89 years Estonia was ranked
first in the world in export of copper and other nonferrous metals,
while in Estonia there are no ores of these metals. All this lasted
until 1996, when Russia's domestic prices for raw materials and metals
prices reached parity with the external market."
It also appears that Baltia and especially Estonia were intermediate
points in ILLEGAL theft and sale of Russian resources:
f http://www.narcom.ru/publ/info/494
The Baltic countries were active consumers of smuggled rare and
nonferrous metals from Russia. In 1994, Estonia came in second place
in Europe for selling metals, even though on the territory of Estonia
these metals are not extracted ...
http://www.rau.su/observer/N02_93/2_05.HTM
In 1992 Russia because of the illegal outflow of hard currency abroad
has suffered damages amounting to some $ 15 billion illegal export
from Russia of raw materials, energy, non-ferrous metals through the
Baltic countries, South - East Asia has acquired a mass character.
According to the Swedish Customs, from May to September 1992 to
Scandinavia was exported from Russia through Estonia 45 thousand tons
of ferrous metals.
Dmitry
> > declaration of Russian independence was as minimal as possible to
> > other SSRs?
>
> Yes, both of you are correct. However, when this loophole - selling to
> Baltia at low prices and then re-selling at full prices to Germany -
> became apparent, changes should have been made immediately. But they
> were not made for several years.
Full EU market price of energy would put Latvians to a very difficult
position. Not many households in Latvia could sustain bills we have
in UK.
Apart from naughty industries - my friend who recently moved to London
from Latvia asked me if £150 water charge for 6 months is correct. He
just wanted to make sure that he wasn't ripped off because in Latvia
the cost of water supply isn't as near. He didn't believe that cold
tap water can cost that much. All I had to say was - the charges also
include sewage and welcome to real world.
>
> As the result, an incredible amount of natural resources was stolen
> from their owners - Russian people.
Poor Russian people robbed by Estonians...I really don't understand
this philosophy - why blame small nations instead of blaming yourself?
> I am not angry at Estonia. It is not Estonia's fault. My points are
> different:
>
> 1. John's claim that Yeltsin was freezing Estonia to death in 1992 is
> a lie, as always with John.
John was referring to earlier period.
> 2. When Estonians brag about how they are superior to Russians because
> they better transitioned economically form Sovok to capitalism, they
> should keep in mind where much of their wealth came from
Estonians should also keep in mind where their poverty came from.
About the wealth. Every Latvian who witnessed 1940 would tell you
that transition from well-being to poverty was very rapid. I think if
Baltics weren't occupied by Sovok in 1940 they would now be no
different from other North European countries. Finland is a good
example of how far ex-Russian colony could develop if it managed to
avoid Sovok's occupation.
> > One of the way of minimising dependence on other countries is to
> > develop local renewable energy sources and effective energy saving
> > policies.
>
> I don't think the Balt businessmen wanted to minimize their
> "dependence" on cheap Russian metals. Quite the contrary: the more
> metals they bought from Russia at low prices, the more they sold to
> Germany at high prices.
Less energy dependent from Russia means more independence. Metal
business can carry on if it is fit to carry on.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
>
> > I am not angry at Estonia. It is not Estonia's fault. My points are
> > different:
>
> > 1. John's claim that Yeltsin was freezing Estonia to death in 1992 is
> > a lie, as always with John.
>
> John was referring to earlier period.
>
John wrote:
"On Mar 19, 2:46 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> The harassment continued even after the fall of the Soviet Union. In
> February '92, a few weeks after the dissolution of the USSR, I remember
> having led quite a 'cool' seminar in Tallinn -- the temperature in the
> conference room at Hotel Viru was +14°, and people were wearing their
> outdoor clothes. Estonia was being 'punished' again for something.
So, what period is later than February '92?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
He also wrote:
> > I happened to be there in 1992 and know how the Estonians interpreted
> > the energy cut. 'Russia has a track record of turning off the energy taps
> > during disputes with neighbours,'
Now tell me, Dmitry, do you really believe John's story that Yeltsin
was having a "dispute" with Estonia in 1992 and "turned off the energy
taps" in February '92 to "punish" Estonia?
Anton
>>> I happened to be there in 1992 and know how the Estonians interpreted
>>> the energy cut. 'Russia has a track record of turning off the energy taps
>>> during disputes with neighbours,'
> Now tell me, Dmitry, do you really believe John's story that Yeltsin
> was having a "dispute" with Estonia in 1992 and "turned off the energy
> taps" in February '92 to "punish" Estonia?
Well for what I know Russia and Estonia for instance still have a
different opinion of where their mutual border should be. The matter has
not been agreed on last time I checked:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Russia_voids_border_treaty_with_Estonia
As I understand it the borders of the Tartu 1920 peace treaty and those
drawn in the 40's are not the same.
--
Anton
vello
>
> > Again yo don't get the point - that money stays in Russia. Maybe it
> > was a "business plan" of some oligarchs near Yelcin to have "legal"
> > way to outsell Russia's resources - but no way estonians had even
> > minor change to get rich on that business.
>
> Let me repeat: back in 1994 I was best friends with a young guy form
> Riga who became rich on this re-export of Russian metals. I knew not
> only him but many of his Latvian colleagues, who had similarly
> profited, and they told me exactly how it works.
>
> So if it was this way that
>
> > metal was exported to Estonia on price times less then market price,
> > be sure real owners of that metal, oligarchs, made it sure that price
> > difference will went into their, not our's pocket.
>
> No. The metals were sold to real Baltic businessman like my Riga
> friend, who re-sold them to Germany. They did give about half of their
> profits to the Russian sellers, but they kept the other half of the
> profits.
They get what they get for transport and middleman activity. for your
Latvian friend (and for a lot of others) it was big money for sure.
But about "half" - sit again and think: the same rule applies to all
former SU parts and other republics were much more corrupt, so SOE
advantage for Baltics over say, Ukraine or Belarus were better ties to
Western metal buying companies. It was born of market economy in it's
most dark and primitive, carnivore way. If metal owners would get
better deal via ukraine or Belarus, they would went there, not in
Baltics. and - again santa claus thing - surely they don't pay for
transit and contacts more then market asks - they were not
philantropes. Baltics live better because we are less corrupt and more
open, not due some "single event miracle".
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just sit five
> > minutes and think (hint: surely our people in metal business would
> > take that money happily - like I may dream about billions of Bill
> > Gates. But in both cases sad truth is that Gates will not give his
> > fortune to me and Russian oligarchs to Estonia. Rich people are greedy
> > ones :-)
>
> > > > > About abilities of Estonian businessmen to bribe Russian govt - it's
> > > > > just laughable - look at the map. What they did, due contacts in
> > > > > Scandinavia, they were able to build up ties with buyers in West
> > > > > faster then guys in other former SU parts.
> > > > > It is common habit for Russia (and in our case for you) to accuse
> > > > > others for their own stupidity.
>
>
> > > I don't think the Balt businessmen wanted to minimize their
> > > "dependence" on cheap Russian metals. Quite the contrary: the more
> > > metals they bought from Russia at low prices, the more they sold to
> > > Germany at high prices.
>
> > Ostap, are you really so simple-minded?
>
> Vello, please stop trying to show your "superior intelligence" over
> me. no way I want to try that - it would be laughable.
Your own intelligence has been aptly demonstrated recently when
> you claimed that Buryatia is not in Siberia and that East German anti-
> american 1960s westerns are proof that American writers condemned and
> exposed the genocide against Indians back in the 19th century.
No. If it would be true, it would show just my level of knowledge and
had nothing to do with my intellect. Try Wikipedia: "intelligence".
>
> > Sorry, but I had to make one
> > thing clear for you: there are no Santa Claus on the Earth. Not for
> > you, for me, for Estonia. and people controlling Russian economy back
> > in 1992 were WERY different from St Claus and other philantropes.
>
> Where did I say that my Riga friend and/or his Russian business
> partners were "philantropes"?
You say tens of times here that Russian oligarchs had valuable product
(metals) with Western buyers ready to pay (almost) market price for
that but they decided to give all their profit (so you say starting
this thread) or half of their profit (Latvian friend case) to guys in
Baltics instead of paying some fee for transport and middleman work.
J. Anderson
> Full EU market price of energy would put Latvians to a very difficult
> position.
Precisely. And that's what happened in early 1992. And it has happened
so many times later as well, also with Ukraine and Byelorussia, that it
definitely must be regarded as part of Russia's foreign policy. You'd
had to be blind, thoroughly brainwashed or an idiot not to recognize this.
>> 2. When Estonians brag about how they are superior to Russians because
>> they better transitioned economically form Sovok to capitalism, they
>> should keep in mind where much of their wealth came from
>
> Estonians should also keep in mind where their poverty came from.
Very well put!
Dmitry
Yes, I do trust John telling the thruth. He always does. Whether it
was Jeltsin or somebody else who turned off the taps - I simply don't
know.
Tadas Blinda
Of course not. Lenin himself (extra hot flames be upon him) signed an
"eternal" peace treaty with Lithuania in 1920 which specified the
Lithuania-Belarus border to be a lot further East and Lithuanian
territory included the towns of Breslauja, Smirgainys, Lyda, Ašmena
and Gardinas (work out the slavicised versions of the names for
yourselves). The present border is further West and does not include
those places.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
So, does anybody have any evidence that Yeltsin was having a "dispute"
with Estonia in 1992 and "turned off the energy taps" in February
'92 to "punish" Estonia? Yes or no?
Dmitry
> Dmitry wrote:
> > Full EU market price of energy would put Latvians to a very difficult
> > position.
>
> Precisely. And that's what happened in early 1992. And it has happened
> so many times later as well, also with Ukraine and Byelorussia, that it
> definitely must be regarded as part of Russia's foreign policy. You'd
> had to be blind, thoroughly brainwashed or an idiot not to recognize this.
I don't know what happened with energy supply in Latvia at that time
because I wasn't there. Neither I heard anything about this from
friends and family or British media. But in recent case of Ukraine it
looked as if Ukraine didn't want (or was unable) to pay the bill. I
think it would be wrong to assume that Russia is a charity - they
always want things in return.
Despite everything what happened, the energy prices in Latvia were not
even near to prices in UK in the 90's and they are still relatively
cheap now.
vello
>
I really don't know. But some problems do arrive coz it was the year
Russia closes with double custom taxes his market to Estonia
(annihilating soviet-style economy in Estonia effectively). So I think
it was not about "turning off the tap" (what is impossible, world is
full of open oil taps), but about sudden rise of prices Russia asks
from Estonia.
Dmitry
Latvia signed off part of Abrene, which became part of RSFSR after the
occupation in 1940. It was wrong in principle, but I think in
practical terms it was a right decission to make. You don't want
border disputes with Russia, particularly if the dispute is not
supported by the population of the area in question.
J. Anderson
> On 22 Mar, 12:59, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > Dmitry wrote:
> > > Full EU market price of energy would put Latvians to a very difficult
> > > position.
>
> > Precisely. And that's what happened in early 1992. And it has happened
> > so many times later as well, also with Ukraine and Byelorussia, that it
> > definitely must be regarded as part of Russia's foreign policy. You'd
> > had to be blind, thoroughly brainwashed or an idiot not to recognize this.
>
> I don't know what happened with energy supply in Latvia at that time
> because I wasn't there. Neither I heard anything about this from
> friends and family or British media. But in recent case of Ukraine it
> looked as if Ukraine didn't want (or was unable) to pay the bill. I
> think it would be wrong to assume that Russia is a charity - they
> always want things in return.
Like Petya said: very likely Latvia (and Estonia) hadn't been able to
pay the bill. In a normal, longterm business relationship that doesn't
immediately lead to draconic sanctions. With today's Russia, however,
nothing is normal. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was an almost
ideal business partner and very seldom confused trade and politics.It
happily traded even with its worst ideological opponents.
Back in Soviet times the foreign trade ministers (e.g. Mikoyan,
Patolitshev) were quite independent. Now everything is decided by
Putin, who is obviously unable to separate between his roles as
political leader and his interests in Gazprom.
Dmitry
> pay the bill. In a normal, longterm business relationship that doesn't
> immediately lead to draconic sanctions.
But the business relationship wasn't normal. Whatever was built in
Soviet Union had to collapse together with the collapse of the "union"
itself. Or the other option was CIS.
In England, for example, if you don't pay your mortgage you get your
house repossessed by the lending bank/building society. It doesn't
matter how long you have been a customer and the action is quite
draconic too. If you don't pay your electricity/gas bill, after a
couple of warning letters you get your electricity/gas supply cut.
Such measures are very unkind, but this isn't commonly perceived as
abnormal.
> With today's Russia, however,
> nothing is normal. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was an almost
> ideal business partner and very seldom confused trade and politics.It
> happily traded even with its worst ideological opponents.
Yes I remember they were buying wheat from Canada (I think it was
Canada????) because Sovok couldn't produce enough food to feed it's
population. They couldn't because since Lenin's revolution they were
methodically destroying Russian agriculture. From the start the
emphasis was on factory workers and soldiers and peasants were the
enemies who were split in two categories: "kulaks" - usually hard
working and successful farmers who had to go through the procedure
called "raskulachivanije" (all were robbed by Bolshevik gangs and
those who resisted were murdered) and "krestjane" who were forced to
"kolhoz" and "sovhoz". Whilst they were happily trading there was
almost no food in the shops in most of Russia. I've seen some of
those - more like a small exhibition of salt, safety matches and
"prjaniki", more of a gallery than of a shop. I don't know if the
situation there is still the same, but it seems to me that Russia is
more normal now than it was in Sovok period.
> Back in Soviet times the foreign trade ministers (e.g. Mikoyan,
> Patolitshev) were quite independent.
How on earth any Soviet minister could be independent?
> Now everything is decided by
> Putin, who is obviously unable to separate between his roles as
> political leader and his interests in Gazprom.
Putin is probably the most strategic "tsar" Russia ever had. Gazprom
is the weapon - why separate the weapon from the soldier?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Dmitry wrote:
> > Full EU market price of energy would put Latvians to a very difficult
> > position.
>
> Precisely. And that's what happened in early 1992.
>
I don't think so. As we have discussed here, Yeltsin kept low prices
on all raw materials for all ex-USSR republics for several years.
However, it may have been the case that Yeltsin did raise the prices
initially in January 1992 and then reduced them later in 1992.
In any case, if what actually happened was a price hike, then how does
this square with your earlier accusations that Yeltsin was having a
"dispute" with Estonia in 1992 and "turned off the energy taps" in
February '92 to "punish" Estonia?
> And it has happened
> so many times later as well, also with Ukraine and Byelorussia, that it
> definitely must be regarded as part of Russia's foreign policy.
You make market prices sound like a crime. Whenever Gazprom starts
charging full market prices, the Western propaganda make it sound like
an act of warfare. And there is always this logic: "Why would anybody
want to charge full prices for their products when they can charge
ridiculously low prices? The idea of making money goes against the
human nature! Clearly, the only reason why Russia wants to be paid for
its gas in full is apply political blackmail!" So, I called my local
gas company and made them a generous offer: I suggested that I pay
them only one fourth of the market price. And they refused! Clearly,
our local gas and electricity provider in California is politically
blackmailing! And so is our milkman who refused to give me his milk
for free!
Look, I am sure that a major reason why Russia subsidised Belarusan
and Ukrainian gas consumption was driven by the desire to make
Belarusans and Ukrainians love Russia. And the decision to stop
subsidising them was caused by the realisation that these subsidies
are not helping the goal of making Belarus and Ukraine like Russia.
And yes, if Lukashenka weren't such a monster and a jerk, Russia may
have been more willing to keep the subsidies.
But so what? These subsidies (i.e., ridiculously low gas prices) are
foreign aid. USA gives out foreign aid. Billions of dollars per year.
To Israel, Egypt and all kinds of other places. And you know what?
This aid only goes to those countries who behave the way USA likes. If
Egypt started behaving in an anti-American ways, the foreign aid to
Egypt would stop.
Foreign aid is not an entitlement. It's a reward.
Russia is not punishing any other country with its gas prices. Even
most anti-Russian governments like Saakashvili's Georgia (which
attacked the Russian peacekeepers in August 2008!) don't pay more than
the market price.
But if they want to get a foreign aid subsidy from Russia - they
should consider being nice to the aid givers.
> You'd
> had to be blind, thoroughly brainwashed or an idiot not to recognize this.
Recognize what? That Russia expects recipients of its foreign aid
subsidies to show gratitude? Yes, only a total idiot would expect
otherwise.
> >> 2. When Estonians brag about how they are superior to Russians because
> >> they better transitioned economically form Sovok to capitalism, they
> >> should keep in mind where much of their wealth came from
>
> > Estonians should also keep in mind where their poverty came from.
>
Estonian poverty came form the same place as RF's poverty: communists.
And plenty of communists came from Latvia, Georgia, Armenia, Poland
and all other places in the Russian Empire.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Mar 23, 1:11 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Mar, 12:59, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > Dmitry wrote:
> > > > Full EU market price of energy would put Latvians to a very difficult
> > > > position.
>
> > > Precisely. And that's what happened in early 1992. And it has happened
> > > so many times later as well, also with Ukraine and Byelorussia, that it
> > > definitely must be regarded as part of Russia's foreign policy. You'd
> > > had to be blind, thoroughly brainwashed or an idiot not to recognize this.
>
> > I don't know what happened with energy supply in Latvia at that time
> > because I wasn't there. Neither I heard anything about this from
> > friends and family or British media. But in recent case of Ukraine it
> > looked as if Ukraine didn't want (or was unable) to pay the bill. I
> > think it would be wrong to assume that Russia is a charity - they
> > always want things in return.
>
> Like Petya said: very likely Latvia (and Estonia) hadn't been able to
> pay the bill. In a normal, longterm business relationship that doesn't
> immediately lead to draconic sanctions.
My cousin once failed to pay his gas/electricity bill for a couple of
months. The PG&E utility company cut off his gas and electricity. He
lived in hell until we bailed him out and paid hist debt.
> With today's Russia, however,
> nothing is normal. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was an almost
> ideal business partner and very seldom confused trade and politics.It
> happily traded even with its worst ideological opponents.
So does Russia, as long as these "worst ideological opponents" pay the
full market price and on time.
> Back in Soviet times the foreign trade ministers (e.g. Mikoyan,
> Patolitshev) were quite independent.
Oh yes. Stalin and Khruschev were very laid-back, worldly and business-
savvy fellows and never told their foreign trade ministers what to do.
LOL.
> Now everything is decided by
> Putin, who is obviously unable to separate between his roles as
> political leader and his interests in Gazprom.
Now everything is decided by a group of grey cardinals who stand
behind Putin.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Let's not blame Lenin or Bolsheviks as a group for this. Lenin
established NEP - the New Economic Policy which restored small
capitalism in business and agriculture. The policy of collectivization
and "raskulachivanije" was the child of Comrade Stalin and was opposed
by most other Bolshevik leaders: Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, etc.
> Whilst they were happily trading there was
> almost no food in the shops in most of Russia. I've seen some of
> those - more like a small exhibition of salt, safety matches and
> "prjaniki", more of a gallery than of a shop. I don't know if the
> situation there is still the same, but it seems to me that Russia is
> more normal now than it was in Sovok period.
>
> > Back in Soviet times the foreign trade ministers (e.g. Mikoyan,
> > Patolitshev) were quite independent.
>
> How on earth any Soviet minister could be independent?
If Johnny wants it to be so - it must be so.
vello
Yeah, the same old story - alles was Austrias fault, damn austrian
Adolf :-)
Dmitry
Why not? He started the whole thing.
> Lenin
> established NEP - the New Economic Policy which restored small
> capitalism in business and agriculture.
He didn't establish it. Private enterprise was established in Russia
before his "great october revolution". His aim was to demolish it, he
allowed NEP only because his communism utopia didn't work. It was
rather an emergency to save his new Russian state from collapse.
> The policy of collectivization
> and "raskulachivanije" was the child of Comrade Stalin and was opposed
> by most other Bolshevik leaders: Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, etc.
I wonder how would Trotsky build his totalitarian state, if he
replaced Lenin, without "raskulachivanije"?
Dmitry
Communism is an ideology that tends to turn everything into poverty
wherever it lands, but I'm talking about the impact of Soviet
occupation of Baltic states in 1940 on standard of living of Baltic
population.
> And plenty of communists came from Latvia, Georgia, Armenia, Poland
> and all other places in the Russian Empire.
This is really unnecessary. Lots of communist elite were Jewish - and
that's how some get to believe that Lenin's revolution was a product
of Zionists. Yes, Pelshe came from Latvia, but it doesn't excuse the
action that Soviet Russia has taken in 1940.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Thank you for sharing with the readers your knowledge of the term
"intelligence".
The problem with the way you get caught as an ignoramus again and
again is that this happens because you refuse to check your facts. If
this happens to a person once or twice - no problem. But when you
continue to get caught saying ignorant things and keep on refusing to
check your facts before posting new things - that says a lot about
your intelligence.
But I have no need to harp on your low intelligence. The reason why I
point it out is because you continue to make jokes about what you
think is my low intelligence, like saying that my IQ is "lower than my
shoe size".
I know that you often don't understand what I am saying. But you think
that if you don't understand me - this must be because I am too dumb
for you. But has it occurred to you that it may be the other way
around?
>
> > > Sorry, but I had to make one
> > > thing clear for you: there are no Santa Claus on the Earth. Not for
> > > you, for me, for Estonia. and people controlling Russian economy back
> > > in 1992 were WERY different from St Claus and other philantropes.
>
> > Where did I say that my Riga friend and/or his Russian business
> > partners were "philantropes"?
>
> You say tens of times here that Russian oligarchs
Where did I say anything about "Russian oligarchs"?
> had valuable product
> (metals) with Western buyers ready to pay (almost) market price for
> that but they decided to give all their profit (so you say starting
> this thread)
Really? Where did I say that?
> or half of their profit (Latvian friend case) to guys in
> Baltics instead of paying some fee for transport and middleman work.
But Vello, while you are a genius in your own mind, I am finding it
very hard to explain to you a basic business transaction here. You are
so brilliant that you continue not to understand it:
Raw materials belonged not to private exporters but to the Russian
state. If the Russian exporters sold their metals to Western buyers
directly, then they would have had to pay out almost all of their
profits to the Russian state which owned these metals.
But the Russian exporters sold metals to Baltic businessmen instead.
They paid very low fees to the Russian state. Then the Baltic
businessmen re-sold the metals to the West, pocketed the profits and
shared them back with the Russian exporters.
Does this begin to register?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> > Let's not blame Lenin or Bolsheviks as a group for this.
>
> Why not? He started the whole thing.
>
> > Lenin
> > established NEP - the New Economic Policy which restored small
> > capitalism in business and agriculture.
>
> He didn't establish it. Private enterprise was established in Russia
> before his "great october revolution". His aim was to demolish it, he
> allowed NEP only because his communism utopia didn't work.
That's what I said.
> It was
> rather an emergency to save his new Russian state from collapse.
It was not a temporary emergency. It was that Lenin saw that the
economy wasn't working and returned private enterprise. But he never
abolished it, and if not for Stalin, it would have remained forever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
End of NEP
By 1925, the year after Lenin's death, Nikolai Bukharin had become the
foremost supporter of the New Economic Policy. It was abandoned in
1928 by Joseph Stalin, who had initially supported the NEP against
Leon Trotsky, in favour of Collectivization which came as a result of
the Grain Procurement Crisis and the need to accumulate capital
rapidly for the vast industrialization programme introduced with the
Five Year Plans.
> > The policy of collectivization
> > and "raskulachivanije" was the child of Comrade Stalin and was opposed
> > by most other Bolshevik leaders: Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, etc.
>
> I wonder how would Trotsky build his totalitarian state, if he
> replaced Lenin, without "raskulachivanije"?
Judge for yourself. Here is what he wrote:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/unemployment/02.htm
Leon Trotsky
World Unemployment and The Five Year Plan
(March 1930)
The internal development of the Soviet Union has reached a critical
point. No matter in what way we evaluate the present course of the
collectivization which, in one year, has surpassed by two and a half
times the plan elaborated for the whole live years (fifty percent of
the peasant holdings collectivized Instead of the twenty percent
prescribed at the end of the five years). it is clear that the tempo
of collectivization has already blown up the whole five year-plan. Up
to now, the official leadership has maintained silence on this point.
But it would be impossible to be silent for long. To Imagine that all
the other elements of the plan – industry, transportation, commerce,
finance – can develop on the formerly prescribed scale while
agriculture makes totally unforeseen jumps, would signify to see in
the economic plan not an organic whole but a simple sum of
departmental order. Until recently it was recognized, at least in
principle, that the relations between industry and agriculture
(smytchka) form the principal axis of the plan. Well, what has
happened to this axis? If the smytchka was taken into consideration in
the plan, then it must now have been destroyed by the prodigious leaps
of the collectivization which nobody foresaw. In what direction will
the line of the plan be straightened out?
At this very moment, “complete collectivization” has already called
forth among the frightened leadership a certain movement backward. At
what point will the commenced retreat come to a halt? It is as yet
impossible to foretell. It is probable that this time also the retreat
will extend much further than is required by the objective conditions,
But the retreat itself is unavoidable. It is quite probable that
because of the effects of the inflation there will begin a revision of
the slogan: “The five year plan in four years.”
Retreat is always a painful operation, in the military field as well
as in politics. But a retreat carried out in time and in an orderly
manner can prevent unnecessary losses and prepare the possibility for
developing an offensive in the future. The fatal danger is always a
belated retreat, panic-stricken, under fire, when the enemy is at your
heels. And that is why we, the Left Opposition, are not afraid to call
to the bureaucracy which is running ahead blindly: Back! It is
necessary to call a halt to the prize races of industrialization, to
revise the tempo on the basis of experience and theoretical foresight,
to coordinate collectivization with the technical and other resources,
to subordinate the policy towards the kulak to the real possibilities
of collectivization. In a word, after the periods of chvostism and
adventurism, it is necessary to take the road of Marxian realism.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
No. Austria was smaller than Germany. But per capita, Austrians are
exactly as responsible for Nazi crimes as Germans.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> > Estonian poverty came form the same place as RF's poverty: communists.
>
> Communism is an ideology that tends to turn everything into poverty
> wherever it lands, but I'm talking about the impact of Soviet
> occupation of Baltic states in 1940 on standard of living of Baltic
> population.
But we have been over this, Dmitry, before. The reason why USSR re-
occupied the Baltic states in 1940 was not because they were all
Russians but because they were ruled by Bolsheviks in general and by a
Georgian man called Stalin in particular.
> > And plenty of communists came from Latvia, Georgia, Armenia, Poland
> > and all other places in the Russian Empire.
>
> This is really unnecessary. Lots of communist elite were Jewish - and
> that's how some get to believe that Lenin's revolution was a product
> of Zionists.
But that is a faulty logic, because Zionists wanted to relocate all
Jews to Palestine and did not want to remain in Russia, while
Bolsheviks wanted to remain in Russia and/or Europe.
> Yes, Pelshe came from Latvia, but it doesn't excuse the
> action that Soviet Russia has taken in 1940.
What does Pelshe have to do with anything? Pelshe was hardly an
important figure among the Red Latvian Riflemen and other Latvian
bolshevik and CheKa leaders.
My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
The Bolshevik revolution was not a RUSSIAN NATIONALIST event. On the
contrary, it was an INTERNATIONALIST, ANTI-nationalist event, opposed
by Russian nationalists.
Tadas Blinda
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
> not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
> population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
> Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
>
> The Bolshevik revolution was not a RUSSIAN NATIONALIST event. On the
> contrary, it was an INTERNATIONALIST, ANTI-nationalist event, opposed
> by Russian nationalists.
Don't talk offensive nonsense, please. If, in the 1930s, Russia had
somehow miraculously become civilised, it would have minded its own
business and left it's neighbours alone, just like (e.g.) Sweden. It
could have joined the alliance in fighting the Nazis without having to
cast itself in the role of superhero and to grab some huge benefits
for itself (e.g. re-occupation of Baltic States, annexation of
Ostpreußen and stranglehold over all of Eastern Europe.)
You can't bring yourself to admit that they're a sick bunch of bullies
with a collective personality problem, and it's no better now than it
was 80 or 90 years ago.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Mar 24, 11:31 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
> > not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
> > population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
> > Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
>
> > The Bolshevik revolution was not a RUSSIAN NATIONALIST event. On the
> > contrary, it was an INTERNATIONALIST, ANTI-nationalist event, opposed
> > by Russian nationalists.
>
> Don't talk offensive nonsense, please. If, in the 1930s, Russia had
> somehow miraculously become civilised,
How could Russia "become civilised" if it were ruled by Bolsheviks of
all nationalities, and especially by the brutal Georgian monster
Joseph Stalin?
> it would have minded its own
> business and left it's neighbours alone, just like (e.g.) Sweden.
Ditto: it was ruled by Bolsheviks.
> It
> could have joined the alliance in fighting the Nazis
In the1930s, until 1939, there was NO "alliance in fighting the
Nazis". The only country that fought the Nazis was USSR: first, in
Spain in 1936; then in 1938, USSR asked to French to honour the tri-
lateral mutual defence treaty between Czecholslvakia, France and USSR,
but the Brits convinced France to betray its allies and to give
Czechoslovakia as a "present" to Hitler.
> without having to
> cast itself in the role of superhero
Well, since nobody else came to the defence of the democratically
elected Spanish government, USSR had to play "super hero". But they
lost anyway.
> and to grab some huge benefits
> for itself (e.g. re-occupation of Baltic States, annexation of
> Ostpreußen and stranglehold over all of Eastern Europe.)
Didn't you write a few months back that by stealing Wilno/Vilnius from
Poland in 1939, Stalin performed a great deed?
> You can't bring yourself to admit that they're a sick bunch of bullies
> with a collective personality problem, and it's no better now than it
> was 80 or 90 years ago.
Yes, Communists were and are a sick bunch of bullies with a collective
personality problem, but it may be better now than it was 80 or 90
years ago. But i am hardly a fan of Communism.
Anton
> My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
> not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
> population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
> Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
> The Bolshevik revolution was not a RUSSIAN NATIONALIST event. On the
> contrary, it was an INTERNATIONALIST, ANTI-nationalist event, opposed
> by Russian nationalists.
Let's judge by the end result:
- Re-annexation of most of the lost parts from the Russian Empire
- A russification so effective that no nationalist could ever dream of.
(Ingrians and Finns living in USSR abandoned their mother tongues
because speaking them meant deportation or execution. Stalin killed
almost entirely the whole Finnish Red diaspora that had fled to Soviet
Russia after their failed revolution in Finland.)
Perhaps The Bolshevik revolution itself wasn't an nationalist event, but
from Stalin onward the USSR was a imperialistic state that repressed
other nationalities and practiced de facto russification in the
territories it controlled.
--
Anton
vello
What ignorant things you have in mind? just don't put here your own
creations like Buryatia or East German writers :-)
>
> But I have no need to harp on your low intelligence. The reason why I
> point it out is because you continue to make jokes about what you
> think is my low intelligence, like saying that my IQ is "lower than my
> shoe size".
Did I say this way? Sorry if I did but honestly, I don't think I said
it.
>
> I know that you often don't understand what I am saying. But you think
> that if you don't understand me - this must be because I am too dumb
> for you. But has it occurred to you that it may be the other way
> around?
most probably it is just this way, sorry :-) btw, I just try to make
simple things clear to you sometimes, sad if you take it as insult.
>
>
>
> > > > Sorry, but I had to make one
> > > > thing clear for you: there are no Santa Claus on the Earth. Not for
> > > > you, for me, for Estonia. and people controlling Russian economy back
> > > > in 1992 were WERY different from St Claus and other philantropes.
>
> > > Where did I say that my Riga friend and/or his Russian business
> > > partners were "philantropes"?
>
> > You say tens of times here that Russian oligarchs
>
> Where did I say anything about "Russian oligarchs"?
Stop, please - no difference what word you use, we talk about people
"owing" Russian resources and being in position to sell them. Call
them oligarchs or metallists, it's your choice.
>
> > had valuable product
> > (metals) with Western buyers ready to pay (almost) market price for
> > that but they decided to give all their profit (so you say starting
> > this thread)
>
> Really? Where did I say that?
saying that Estonia get's rich, not russians with that business. Later
you step back and agreed (in "Latvian friend case") that part of money
went probably back to Russia, too.
>
> > or half of their profit (Latvian friend case) to guys in
> > Baltics instead of paying some fee for transport and middleman work.
>
> But Vello, while you are a genius in your own mind,
There is no need to be a genius to understand very basic things.
I am finding it
> very hard to explain to you a basic business transaction here. You are
> so brilliant that you continue not to understand it:
>
> Raw materials belonged not to private exporters but to the Russian
> state. If the Russian exporters sold their metals to Western buyers
> directly, then they would have had to pay out almost all of their
> profits to the Russian state which owned these metals.
>
> But the Russian exporters sold metals to Baltic businessmen instead.
> They paid very low fees to the Russian state. Then the Baltic
> businessmen re-sold the metals to the West, pocketed the profits and
> shared them back with the Russian exporters.
>
> Does this begin to register?
Well, I try with very simple words:
You are a guy in Russia controlling large amount of natural resources.
Now you plan to use a loophole in Russian legislation (by me most
probably created by the same people (in our case - by you) to make
billions of dollars on difference of export prices.
So what you do? You know that Estonia is small and ANY cargo is
welcomed by Estonian metal trade companies - it was hard time
economically. For estonians, there is no risk to fall under
investigation, they act 100% legally. so you will choice a company
suiting you and will offer him maybe some pocket money over ordinary
transport/resell fee - russian people are sometimes generous. But
there was no NEED to give some exra money - just to say that if
payback of price difference will not appear on your bank account in
Swiss on day and hour we agreed, next trains will be dealed with some
other Estonian (Latvian, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian etc etc)
company. Simple? It was great business for our railroad, they still
remember it as "golden age". But "golden age" in terms that they had a
lot of relatively well-payed work, not that someone in Russia would
make them rich for their nice blue eyes.
vello
?!?!?! Karla, accusing nations as whole is thing no one after did in
20th century after Hitler and Stalin - you are the third one :-) btw,
it makes you a perfect company to people thinking that jews are behind
all evil on this planet.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
What's your point? That Germany was responsible for Nazi crimes and
Austria was not? Why?
Dmitry
>
> > Communism is an ideology that tends to turn everything into poverty
> > wherever it lands, but I'm talking about the impact of Soviet
> > occupation of Baltic states in 1940 on standard of living of Baltic
> > population.
>
> But we have been over this, Dmitry, before. The reason why USSR re-
> occupied the Baltic states in 1940 was not because they were all
> Russians but because they were ruled by Bolsheviks in general and by a
> Georgian man called Stalin in particular.
Whatever the reasons were, for ordinary Latvians it was seen as
Russian occupation. And expanding territory wasn't a Bolshevik
phenomenon.
> > > And plenty of communists came from Latvia, Georgia, Armenia, Poland
> > > and all other places in the Russian Empire.
>
> > This is really unnecessary. Lots of communist elite were Jewish - and
> > that's how some get to believe that Lenin's revolution was a product
> > of Zionists.
>
> But that is a faulty logic, because Zionists wanted to relocate all
> Jews to Palestine and did not want to remain in Russia, while
> Bolsheviks wanted to remain in Russia and/or Europe.
It is faulty, but is an example of how you can blame someone else for
what is your own fault.
>
> > Yes, Pelshe came from Latvia, but it doesn't excuse the
> > action that Soviet Russia has taken in 1940.
>
> What does Pelshe have to do with anything? Pelshe was hardly an
> important figure among the Red Latvian Riflemen and other Latvian
> bolshevik and CheKa leaders.
I meant Pelshe as "soberatel'nyj obraz" and didn't have any intention
to bring this discussion down to analysing Arvid Janovich Pelshe
persona.
> My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
> not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
> population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
> Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
Of course. Bolshevik ideology wasn't driven by one ethnic group
trying to conquer other groups.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. kirjoitti:
>
> > My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
> > not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
> > population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
> > Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
> > The Bolshevik revolution was not a RUSSIAN NATIONALIST event. On the
> > contrary, it was an INTERNATIONALIST, ANTI-nationalist event, opposed
> > by Russian nationalists.
>
> Let's judge by the end result:
>
> - Re-annexation of most of the lost parts from the Russian Empire
> - A russification so effective that no nationalist could ever dream of.
Let me see... After the rule of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, the native
languages almost disappeared and virtually everybody speaks English as
their first languages.
After the Russian rule of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, these
countries happily speak their native languages, and Russian is not
even a second official national language there.
So, why would you say that the "russification" of the Baltics was "so
effective that no nationalist could ever dream of"? That sounds
bizarre.
And what does this say about the English?
> Perhaps The Bolshevik revolution itself wasn't an nationalist event, but
> from Stalin onward the USSR was a imperialistic state that repressed
> other nationalities and practiced de facto russification in the
> territories it controlled.
Russia pales in comparison to the other large European countries like
England, Spain, Portugal and France.
vello
>
Germany for sure - but not germans as people. About Austria - it was
in big part victim of Hitler.
Anton
> On Mar 24, 2:42 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
>>> not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
>>> population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
>>> Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
>>> The Bolshevik revolution was not a RUSSIAN NATIONALIST event. On the
>>> contrary, it was an INTERNATIONALIST, ANTI-nationalist event, opposed
>>> by Russian nationalists.
>> Let's judge by the end result:
>> - Re-annexation of most of the lost parts from the Russian Empire
>> - A russification so effective that no nationalist could ever dream of.
> Let me see... After the rule of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, the native
> languages almost disappeared and virtually everybody speaks English as
> their first languages.
I don't understand the logic how English hegemony makes the Russian
equivalent any better.
> After the Russian rule of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, these
> countries happily speak their native languages, and Russian is not
> even a second official national language there.
Good for them. It seems as if 1 million speakers is the required minimum
to keep a language viable (for at least half a century). The smaller
languages on the other hand, like Karelian, Finnish and Ingrian etc are
almost totally extinct in Russia.
> So, why would you say that the "russification" of the Baltics was "so
> effective that no nationalist could ever dream of"? That sounds
> bizarre.
Getting the share of Russian speakers up from 10% to 40% in a baltic
republic in five decades is quite an achievement. What would have
happened if they, like the English, had centuries (and not decades) to
impose their hegemony on their neighbours?
Keep in mind that I'm not specifically speaking of the Baltics only
either. In Russia itself many other languages than Russian have been on
the decline so that many are almost extinct.
> And what does this say about the English?
>> Perhaps The Bolshevik revolution itself wasn't an nationalist event, but
>> from Stalin onward the USSR was a imperialistic state that repressed
>> other nationalities and practiced de facto russification in the
>> territories it controlled.
> Russia pales in comparison to the other large European countries like
> England, Spain, Portugal and France.
Red Russias is the most recent. It ended only 20 years ago. Millions
still remember it, therefore it is quite logical that it's brought up often.
--
Anton
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Russians DID have centuries to impose their "hegemony on their
neighbours": Baltic states and even your Finland were ruled by the
Russian Czars for centuries. And yet, in all these centuries under the
Russian Czars, Russian speakers accounted for only 10% in Latvia,
according to you.
But you don't even remember that Czar's rule. Why? Because Russian
Czars were much less invasive and "hegemonic" than their colonialist
predecessors in the Baltic states: Swedes and Germans.
In fact, when Russia took Finland from Sweden, the Finnish language
was totally dominated by the hegemony of the Swedish language. But by
the time when Finland left Russia - the Finnish language's hegemony in
its own country was restored.
The same with Latvia: when Latvia left Russia in 1917, the Latvian
language was much stronger than when Russia first "took" Latvia.
In other words, the problem are not the Russian people and the Russian
Czars, but the internationalist Bolsheviks of all nationalities who
took over Russia in 1917 and killed tens of millions of Russians.
> Keep in mind that I'm not specifically speaking of the Baltics only
> either. In Russia itself many other languages than Russian have been on
> the decline so that many are almost extinct.
And that proves that 100% of responsibility for Bolshevism lies with
ethnic Russians?
What IS your point?
Anton
> On Mar 25, 12:13 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2:42 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So, why would you say that the "russification" of the Baltics was "so
>>> effective that no nationalist could ever dream of"? That sounds
>>> bizarre.
>> Getting the share of Russian speakers up from 10% to 40% in a baltic
>> republic in five decades is quite an achievement. What would have
>> happened if they, like the English, had centuries (and not decades) to
>> impose their hegemony on their neighbours?
> Russians DID have centuries to impose their "hegemony on their
> neighbours": Baltic states and even your Finland were ruled by the
> Russian Czars for centuries. And yet, in all these centuries under the
> Russian Czars, Russian speakers accounted for only 10% in Latvia,
> according to you.
Actually I had Estonia in mind. You can compare Czarist Russia and its
policies in the Baltics & Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and its
policies in Norway. While Sweden had had a hegemonic policy earlier,
then again its policy regarding Norway in the 1800s was slightly more
liberal than that of Russia's in the Baltics or Finland of the 1800s and
early 1900s. In other words: the Russians were not "nicer", but rather
the general political situation forced empires to take into
consideration the wishes of the conquested countries in a way they had
not had to earlier.
> But you don't even remember that Czar's rule. Why? Because Russian
> Czars were much less invasive and "hegemonic" than their colonialist
> predecessors in the Baltic states: Swedes and Germans.
LOL :) I don't remember the Swedish rule either!
> In fact, when Russia took Finland from Sweden, the Finnish language
> was totally dominated by the hegemony of the Swedish language. But by
> the time when Finland left Russia - the Finnish language's hegemony in
> its own country was restored.
The Russians were not the force pushing for "Fennomanism"; it was the
Finns themselves. At times Czarist Russia tolerated national language
and culture, but there were also periods of forced Russification.
> The same with Latvia: when Latvia left Russia in 1917, the Latvian
> language was much stronger than when Russia first "took" Latvia.
Are you sure? Also one must put the rise of national languages, culture
and national states in its historical context of the era. The "bad"
Swedes who had, according to you, imposed their hegemony in their
region, while by forcing Norway to a Swedish-Norwegian union in 1814
allowed the country to keep its sovereignty in everything except foreign
policy, and peacefully allowed the country to secede from the union in 1905.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_between_Sweden_and_Norway
> In other words, the problem are not the Russian people and the Russian
> Czars, but the internationalist Bolsheviks of all nationalities who
> took over Russia in 1917 and killed tens of millions of Russians.
Those Bolsheviks were still mostly Russian and the empire was ruled from
Moscow.
>> Keep in mind that I'm not specifically speaking of the Baltics only
>> either. In Russia itself many other languages than Russian have been on
>> the decline so that many are almost extinct.
> And that proves that 100% of responsibility for Bolshevism lies with
> ethnic Russians?
> What IS your point?
From the 1930s on, Russian was being imposed on all peoples under Soviet
rule - and that rule was as centralist as they come. Everybody were
ruled from Moscow.
--
Anton
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. kirjoitti:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 12:13 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. kirjoitti:
>
> >>> On Mar 24, 2:42 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> So, why would you say that the "russification" of the Baltics was "so
> >>> effective that no nationalist could ever dream of"? That sounds
> >>> bizarre.
> >> Getting the share of Russian speakers up from 10% to 40% in a baltic
> >> republic in five decades is quite an achievement. What would have
> >> happened if they, like the English, had centuries (and not decades) to
> >> impose their hegemony on their neighbours?
> > Russians DID have centuries to impose their "hegemony on their
> > neighbours": Baltic states and even your Finland were ruled by the
> > Russian Czars for centuries. And yet, in all these centuries under the
> > Russian Czars, Russian speakers accounted for only 10% in Latvia,
> > according to you.
>
> Actually I had Estonia in mind.
>
Fine. Substitute "Estonia" for Latvia.
> You can compare Czarist Russia and its
> policies in the Baltics & Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and its
> policies in Norway. While Sweden had had a hegemonic policy earlier,
> then again its policy regarding Norway in the 1800s was slightly more
> liberal than that of Russia's in the Baltics or Finland of the 1800s and
> early 1900s. In other words: the Russians were not "nicer", but rather
> the general political situation forced empires to take into
> consideration the wishes of the conquested countries in a way they had
> not had to earlier.
>
> > But you don't even remember that Czar's rule. Why? Because Russian
> > Czars were much less invasive and "hegemonic" than their colonialist
> > predecessors in the Baltic states: Swedes and Germans.
>
> LOL :) I don't remember the Swedish rule either!
I am talking about your comparing Russia and England:
> >> Getting the share of Russian speakers up from 10% to 40% in a baltic
> >> republic in five decades is quite an achievement. What would have
> >> happened if they, like the English, had centuries (and not decades) to
> >> impose their hegemony on their neighbours?
Here you said that the English rule lasted many centuries, while the
Russia rule lasted "five decades".
Clearly, you didn't take into account the centuries of the Russian
Czar's rule, did you? Why? Because the Russian Czars were quite gentle
towards the Estonian ethnos and language.
Your writing is the best proof that Russians under the Czar behaved
quite nicely, especially compared with other large European countries
like England or Germany
> > In fact, when Russia took Finland from Sweden, the Finnish language
> > was totally dominated by the hegemony of the Swedish language. But by
> > the time when Finland left Russia - the Finnish language's hegemony in
> > its own country was restored.
>
> The Russians were not the force pushing for "Fennomanism"; it was the
> Finns themselves. At times Czarist Russia tolerated national language
> and culture, but there were also periods of forced Russification.
My point remains: Czarist Russia was gentler on colonized peoples
than other European powers
> > The same with Latvia: when Latvia left Russia in 1917, the Latvian
> > language was much stronger than when Russia first "took" Latvia.
>
> Are you sure? Also one must put the rise of national languages, culture
> and national states in its historical context of the era. The "bad"
> Swedes who had, according to you, imposed their hegemony in their
> region, while by forcing Norway to a Swedish-Norwegian union in 1814
> allowed the country to keep its sovereignty in everything except foreign
> policy, and peacefully allowed the country to secede from the union in 1905.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_between_Sweden_and_Norway
So, your point is that Russia behaved similarly to Sweden? OK. But
with all this Tadas' ranting about Russians always having been
"genocidal barbarians", we can now see that Russians were no worse
than Swedes and not nearly as bad as the English.
> > In other words, the problem are not the Russian people and the Russian
> > Czars, but the internationalist Bolsheviks of all nationalities who
> > took over Russia in 1917 and killed tens of millions of Russians.
>
> Those Bolsheviks were still mostly Russian
No, they weren't. The majority of Bolshevik leaders were non-Russians:
Georgians, Jews, Latvians, Poles, Armenians, even Finns.
> and the empire was ruled from Moscow.
It had to be ruled from SOMEWHERE. So, they chose the largest city in
the Empire.
> >> Keep in mind that I'm not specifically speaking of the Baltics only
> >> either. In Russia itself many other languages than Russian have been on
> >> the decline so that many are almost extinct.
> > And that proves that 100% of responsibility for Bolshevism lies with
> > ethnic Russians?
> > What IS your point?
>
> From the 1930s on, Russian was being imposed on all peoples under Soviet
> rule - and that rule was as centralist as they come.
You are confusing the cause and the effect. The cause were Communists,
whose Marxist ideology says that the entire World must undergo a
Proletarian Revolution, after which the entire World would become one
big country: a Communist Paradise.
So, the Bolsheviks were planning to spread their Revolution all over
Europe. That's why they were so aggressive and expansionist. They came
very close in Hungary, Latvia and Germany, but failed in the end.
Had the Marxists won in Germany, then they would have moved the
capital to Berlin, as mandated by Marxist theory. But they lost in
Germany. So, they had to settle for Moscow.
> Everybody were ruled from Moscow.
The Marxist theory mandates that until the Communist Society is built
in the entire Europe, the Communist state must remain highly
centralised, in order to defend itself against "capitalists" and to
conquer new lands.
That's why the Communists needed a centralized rule and a single
language to unite the population. They chose Russian because Russians
were the largest group under their rule.
Had the Revolution succeeded in Germany, Austria and the rest of
Central Europe - as predicted by Marx - the Communists would have
imposed German on everybody. But they failed, so they had to settle
for Russia and Russian. And Communists from other European countries
all fled to Russia and started ruling Russia, because that's where
Communists had won. Had they won in Germany instead, the Communists
from other European countries would have moved to Germany.
Take your own Finnish Communists for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kuusinen
Animosity towards Socialists in Finland in the decades after the Civil
War prompted many Finns to emigrate to Russia to "build Socialism."
Otto Wilhelm Kuusinen became an influential official in the Soviet
state administration. He was a member of the Politburo, the highest
state organ. Kuusinen also continued his work during the reign of
Nikita Khrushchev (1953–1964). He was Secretary of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 1957–1964. In
1952 and again in 1957 he was also elected to the Presidium of the
Central Committee.
Kuusinen was one of the editors of The Fundamentals in Marxism-
Leninism, considered to be one of the fundamental works on dialectical
materialism and Leninist Communism.
................
Ask yourself: did Kuusinen emigrate to Russia because he was a Russian
nationalist/imperialist and wanted to impose the Russian language on,
say, Finland? Or did he emigrate because he was a Marxist and wanted
to "build Socialism"?
Dmitry
> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. kirjoitti:
>
> > On Mar 24, 2:42 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
> >>> not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
> >>> population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
> >>> Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
> >>> The Bolshevik revolution was not a RUSSIAN NATIONALIST event. On the
> >>> contrary, it was an INTERNATIONALIST, ANTI-nationalist event, opposed
> >>> by Russian nationalists.
> >> Let's judge by the end result:
> >> - Re-annexation of most of the lost parts from the Russian Empire
> >> - A russification so effective that no nationalist could ever dream of.
> > Let me see... After the rule of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, the native
> > languages almost disappeared and virtually everybody speaks English as
> > their first languages.
>
> I don't understand the logic how English hegemony makes the Russian
> equivalent any better.
As if Britain is the role model -)))
> > After the Russian rule of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, these
> > countries happily speak their native languages, and Russian is not
> > even a second official national language there.
>
> Good for them. It seems as if 1 million speakers is the required minimum
> to keep a language viable (for at least half a century). The smaller
> languages on the other hand, like Karelian, Finnish and Ingrian etc are
> almost totally extinct in Russia.
This is the fate of smaller languages. Even in small Latvia. Liv
language is dead and Latgalian is on its way to die.
> > So, why would you say that the "russification" of the Baltics was "so
> > effective that no nationalist could ever dream of"? That sounds
> > bizarre.
>
> Getting the share of Russian speakers up from 10% to 40% in a baltic
> republic in five decades is quite an achievement. What would have
> happened if they, like the English, had centuries (and not decades) to
> impose their hegemony on their neighbours?
Baltic republics were part of Russian empire for few centuries. Yet
the main demographical shift happened after Bolsheviks regained the
territories.
> > Russia pales in comparison to the other large European countries like
> > England, Spain, Portugal and France.
>
> Red Russias is the most recent. It ended only 20 years ago. Millions
> still remember it, therefore it is quite logical that it's brought up often.
Latvia was never occupied by England, Spain, Portugal and France. It
just happened to be occupied by Russia (Latvia was only 20 years
old). Russian imperialism can of course be compared with the above
mentioned, but Portugese colonialism is not what Latvians have
experienced. As far as I know the last colonies to join India were
Potugese and French. I've been to Goa (nobody seems to complain about
Portugese heritage), my friend from Pondichery said that they didn't
want French to go. It shouldn't be difficult to guess why Russia
didn't gain the same level of popularity in Latvia.
>
> --
> Anton
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On 25 Mar, 07:13, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. kirjoitti:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 2:42 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> My point is that the responsibility of Russians for Bolshevism should
> > >>> not be 100%. It should be equal to the share of Russians in the total
> > >>> population of the Russian Empire in 1917. All residents of the Russian
> > >>> Empire are equally responsible for the Revolution.
> > >>> The Bolshevik revolution was not a RUSSIAN NATIONALIST event. On the
> > >>> contrary, it was an INTERNATIONALIST, ANTI-nationalist event, opposed
> > >>> by Russian nationalists.
> > >> Let's judge by the end result:
> > >> - Re-annexation of most of the lost parts from the Russian Empire
> > >> - A russification so effective that no nationalist could ever dream of.
> > > Let me see... After the rule of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, the native
> > > languages almost disappeared and virtually everybody speaks English as
> > > their first languages.
>
> > I don't understand the logic how English hegemony makes the Russian
> > equivalent any better.
>
> As if Britain is the role model -)))
>
Well, you yourself, Dmitry, have emigrated to Britain and continue to
happily live there. So, the English can't be overly horrible or
barbaric, can they?
> > > After the Russian rule of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, these
> > > countries happily speak their native languages, and Russian is not
> > > even a second official national language there.
>
> > Good for them. It seems as if 1 million speakers is the required minimum
> > to keep a language viable (for at least half a century). The smaller
> > languages on the other hand, like Karelian, Finnish and Ingrian etc are
> > almost totally extinct in Russia.
>
> This is the fate of smaller languages. Even in small Latvia. Liv
> language is dead and Latgalian is on its way to die.
>
> > > So, why would you say that the "russification" of the Baltics was "so
> > > effective that no nationalist could ever dream of"? That sounds
> > > bizarre.
>
> > Getting the share of Russian speakers up from 10% to 40% in a baltic
> > republic in five decades is quite an achievement. What would have
> > happened if they, like the English, had centuries (and not decades) to
> > impose their hegemony on their neighbours?
>
> Baltic republics were part of Russian empire for few centuries. Yet
> the main demographical shift happened after Bolsheviks regained the
> territories.
>
> > > Russia pales in comparison to the other large European countries like
> > > England, Spain, Portugal and France.
>
> > Red Russias is the most recent. It ended only 20 years ago. Millions
> > still remember it, therefore it is quite logical that it's brought up often.
>
> Latvia was never occupied by England, Spain, Portugal and France.
It was occupied by Germans on more than one occasion, wasn't it? How
was that?
> It
> just happened to be occupied by Russia (Latvia was only 20 years
> old).
No, it was occupied by USSR, led by the insane Georgian Bolshevik
monster Stalin.
> Russian imperialism can of course be compared with the above
> mentioned, but Portugese colonialism is not what Latvians have
> experienced. As far as I know the last colonies to join India were
> Potugese and French. I've been to Goa (nobody seems to complain about
> Portugese heritage), my friend from Pondichery said that they didn't
> want French to go. It shouldn't be difficult to guess why Russia
> didn't gain the same level of popularity in Latvia.
Sure. First of all, the Goans weren't subjected to Stalinism and
communism.
Second, other French colonies - like Vietnam and Algeria - had a very
bad experience with the French and even had to wage terrible civil
wars to liberate themselves. Vietnam still cannot recover from this.
And neither can Haiti.
Third and most importantly: India, like many third world Asian places,
benefited from some of the European colonisation, because Europe was
much more technologically and economically advanced.
If you want to compare apples to apples, let's look at the former
Russia's colonies in that part of the World: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
and other Central Asian republics. From my experience, these people
have a mostly positive view of Russia and Russians and continue to
have close ties to Russia and even voluntarily belong to the same
Commonwealth.
> t shouldn't be difficult to guess why Russia
> didn't gain the same level of popularity in Latvia.
Maybe because Latvians are not Asians but Europeans, and Europeans
tend not to like being colonised? Are/were the English colonizers
popular in Ireland? Are the Spanish popular with the Basques? Are
ethnic Romanians happy to be part of Ukraine? Were Corsicans always
happy to be under the French? Were Sudetan Germans happy in democratic
Czechoslovakia in the 1930s?
The Black Monk
The Nazis never won an election in Austria and indeed Nazi Germany
invaded right before an Austrian referendum on unification with
Germany. OTOH Nazis came to power in Germany through democratic
means. Germans - specifically Protestant Germans - were responsible
for Nazism. Here is the German electoral map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.png
With freedom comes repsonsibility, and protestant Germany which freely
elected Hitler was the only place in the world responsible for
Nazism. Whether indivividual Austrians or whoever played important
roles in Nazism is irrelevent for the purposes of national
responsibility. Otherwise we can blame Latvia for Bolshevism, right?
regards,
BM
vello
I think that even accusing germans as nation may be wrong and not
justified: there were no war, KZ camps and gas chambers on their pre-
election posters :-). Germans vote for young energy-full group of
politicians promising to finish with corruption and powerty - and to
rebuild new, better Germany. If you want to accuse germans, you may do
it on grounds they were unable to stop nazis when they finished with
democracy in Germany.
The Black Monk
When was Mein Kampf written? And this happened before the German
protestants voted for the Nazis:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm
On June 4, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections were called
for the end of July. On June 15, the ban on the SA and SS was lifted.
The secret promises made to the Nazis by Schleicher had been
fulfilled.
Murder and violence soon erupted on a scale never before seen in
Germany. Roaming groups of Nazi Brownshirts walked the streets singing
Nazi songs and looking for fights.
"Blut muss fliessen, Blut muss fliessen! Blut muss fliessen
Knuppelhageldick! Haut'se doch zusammen, haut'se doch zusammen! Diese
gotverdammte Juden Republik!" - the Nazi storm troopers sang.
(translation)
"Blood must flow, blood must flow! Blood must flow as cudgel thick as
hail! Let's smash it up, let's smash it up! That goddamned Jewish
republic!"
The Nazis found many Communists in the streets wanting a fight and
they began regularly shooting at each other. Hundreds of gun battles
took place. On July 17, the Nazis under police escort brazenly marched
into a Communist area near Hamburg in the state of Prussia. A big
shoot-out occurred in which 19 people were killed and nearly 300
wounded. It came to be known as "Bloody Sunday."
Papen invoked Article 48 and proclaimed martial law in Berlin and also
took over the government of the German state of Prussia by naming
himself Reich Commissioner. Germany had taken a big step closer to
authoritarian rule.
Hitler now decided that Papen was simply in the way and had to go.
"I regard your cabinet only as a temporary solution and will continue
my efforts to make my party the strongest in the country. The
chancellorship will then devolve on me." - Hitler told Von Papen.
The July elections would provide that opportunity. The Nazis, sensing
total victory, campaigned with fanatical energy. Hitler was now
speaking to adoring German audiences of up to 100,000 at a time. The
phenomenon of large scale 'Führer worship' had begun. On July 31, the
people voted and gave the Nazis 13,745,000 votes, 37% of the total,
granting them 230 seats in the Reichstag. The Nazi party was now the
largest and most powerful in Germany.
---------------------
So the German Protestants knew who the Nazis were, and they voted for
them anyways in March 1933.
regards,
BM
> - Show quoted text -
Dmitry
> > > equivalent any better.
>
> > As if Britain is the role model -)))
>
> Well, you yourself, Dmitry, have emigrated to Britain and continue to
> happily live there.
Yes, very happily. I love this country.
> So, the English can't be overly horrible or
> barbaric, can they?
Most of English people are very nice and friendly. However, in the
past British colonisers committed many crimes against humanity around
the globe.
> > > Red Russias is the most recent. It ended only 20 years ago. Millions
> > > still remember it, therefore it is quite logical that it's brought up often.
>
> > Latvia was never occupied by England, Spain, Portugal and France.
>
> It was occupied by Germans on more than one occasion, wasn't it? How
> was that?
The territory of today Latvia was occupied by several countries.
Latvia as a sovereign state was occupied by Germany once for 3 years.
How was that? Very bad for Jews and communists (as in any other
country occupied by Nazi Germany). For the rest of Latvian population
it was not as bad as Soviet occupation. This view is based on what I
heard from older generation who witnessed both, German and Soviet,
rules.
> > It
> > just happened to be occupied by Russia (Latvia was only 20 years
> > old).
>
> No, it was occupied by USSR, led by the insane Georgian Bolshevik
> monster Stalin.
Yes, but USSR didn't come from Mars. It was still the same Russia
that changed its name.
> > Russian imperialism can of course be compared with the above
> > mentioned, but Portugese colonialism is not what Latvians have
> > experienced. As far as I know the last colonies to join India were
> > Potugese and French. I've been to Goa (nobody seems to complain about
> > Portugese heritage), my friend from Pondichery said that they didn't
> > want French to go. It shouldn't be difficult to guess why Russia
> > didn't gain the same level of popularity in Latvia.
>
> Sure. First of all, the Goans weren't subjected to Stalinism and
> communism.
Secondly, they were better off than the rest of Indian states. Even
now the standard of living there is higher than in bordering states.
> Second, other French colonies - like Vietnam and Algeria - had a very
> bad experience with the French and even had to wage terrible civil
> wars to liberate themselves. Vietnam still cannot recover from this.
> And neither can Haiti.
I didn't have an intention to give credits to French and Portugese
colonialism -))
> Third and most importantly: India, like many third world Asian places,
> benefited from some of the European colonisation, because Europe was
> much more technologically and economically advanced.
India, as a whole, didn't benefit much. You can read the figures of
Indian economical growth and make a conclusion that the Indians are
doing fine. If you visit there and see the poverty and chaos you
would wonder how these people who live on the streets or slums benefit
from colonial past.
> If you want to compare apples to apples, let's look at the former
> Russia's colonies in that part of the World: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
> and other Central Asian republics. From my experience, these people
> have a mostly positive view of Russia and Russians
The same in my experience back in USSR. Not only people from Central
Asian SSRs, but Georgians too were very positive about Russia and
Russians. It was somewhat different in Baltic SSRs. Being forced
into LSSR didn't benefit Latvian people, but had a detrimental effect
on their well-being.
> and continue to
> have close ties to Russia and even voluntarily belong to the same
> Commonwealth.
> > t shouldn't be difficult to guess why Russia
> > didn't gain the same level of popularity in Latvia.
>
> Maybe because Latvians are not Asians but Europeans, and Europeans
> tend not to like being colonised? Are/were the English colonizers
> popular in Ireland?
I know few people from Republic of Ireland; they don't seem to have
any anti-English sentiments.
vello
Well Bloody Sunday I know happens in St. Pete :-)
>
> Papen invoked Article 48 and proclaimed martial law in Berlin and also
> took over the government of the German state of Prussia by naming
> himself Reich Commissioner. Germany had taken a big step closer to
> authoritarian rule.
>
> Hitler now decided that Papen was simply in the way and had to go.
>
> "I regard your cabinet only as a temporary solution and will continue
> my efforts to make my party the strongest in the country. The
> chancellorship will then devolve on me." - Hitler told Von Papen.
Without such hope no one can become a party leader even in modern
society. Parties are created to obtain maiority and get top jobs in
govt.
>
> The July elections would provide that opportunity. The Nazis, sensing
> total victory, campaigned with fanatical energy. Hitler was now
> speaking to adoring German audiences of up to 100,000 at a time. The
> phenomenon of large scale 'Führer worship' had begun. On July 31, the
> people voted and gave the Nazis 13,745,000 votes, 37% of the total,
> granting them 230 seats in the Reichstag. The Nazi party was now the
> largest and most powerful in Germany.
>
> ---------------------
>
> So the German Protestants knew who the Nazis were, and they voted for
> them anyways in March 1933.
>
> regards,
>
> BM
>
We may discuss about "protestants" being anti-jewish but historically
there will be little support for that thesis. Protestant nations had
experience of 400 years of full literacy back then what may (or may
not of course) leave a lesser space for crazy ideas. Fo me list of
fully protestant nations seems more sounding: Estonia,Finland, Sweden,
Norway, Danemark, Netherlands. How much I know those are countries
with minimal (if at all) record of anti-jewish pogroms/actions. One
way to read "election map" is that areas more close to territory what
was cut to Poland after Versailles were more motivated to support a
guy promising restoration of nations territorial integrity.
About "blut muss fliessen" - don't know how popular was that song,
Horst Wessel and some others much more known. But it was time of hard
words, other groups singing about killing down capitalists march under
the same red banners and maybe there were more. Germans want "law and
order" in bancrupt and corrupted Weimar state back then - and Adolf
was guy promising to fulfill that desire.
About Main Kampf - hardly %% of germans reading that book was higher
then %% of people who had read "European constitution" today.
Political books are reading matter for small minority. Sadly I don't
find (during very brief search) key slogans of Nazis for 1933
elections. but surely it is not too hard to find them - and this way
to find out, for what germans voted in 1933.
Accusing nations in something seriously, not as synonyme of actions
taken by govt of particular nation, seems not too serious or me - like
accusing tanks or guns. We live on this planet as individuals and sole
thing what may carry responsibility is a man or woman as individual.
Don't forgot that "Germans" will cover SS-men but also German
democrats and germans of jewish faith - it would be too much to accuse
him for being german :-)
The Black Monk
I was speaking specifically of German Protestants here. The electoral
map shows that the Nazis won only in Protestant areas. The reason I
specified "German Protestants" when discussing responsibility for
Nazism was simply because they are the ones who voted for the Nazis.
Blaming Catholic Bavarians for Nazism is as ridiculous as blaming
Californians or people from Massachussets for 8 years of Bush's rule.
I was simply being accurate and fair.
> How much I know those are countries
> with minimal (if at all) record of anti-jewish pogroms/actions. One
> way to read "election map" is that areas more close to territory what
> was cut to Poland after Versailles were more motivated to support a
> guy promising restoration of nations territorial integrity.
No, because Protestant areas in extreme southwestern Germany also
voted for Nazis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.png
Moreover, within Bavaria a pocket of Nazi voters existed, not
coincidentally, near Nuremberg which happens to be a Protestant
enclave within generally Catholic Bavaria.
>
> About "blut muss fliessen" - don't know how popular was that song,
> Horst Wessel and some others much more known. But it was time of hard
> words, other groups singing about killing down capitalists march under
> the same red banners and maybe there were more. Germans want "law and
> order" in bancrupt and corrupted Weimar state back then - and Adolf
> was guy promising to fulfill that desire.
> About Main Kampf - hardly %% of germans reading that book was higher
> then %% of people who had read "European constitution" today.
> Political books are reading matter for small minority. Sadly I don't
> find (during very brief search) key slogans of Nazis for 1933
> elections. but surely it is not too hard to find them - and this way
> to find out, for what germans voted in 1933.
Mein Kampf was a best-seller that most German families owned, AFAIK.
> Accusing nations in something seriously, not as synonyme of actions
> taken by govt of particular nation, seems not too serious or me - like
> accusing tanks or guns. We live on this planet as individuals and sole
> thing what may carry responsibility is a man or woman as individual.
When people vote they are responsible for their actions.
> Don't forgot that "Germans" will cover SS-men but also German
> democrats and germans of jewish faith - it would be too much to accuse
> him for being german :-)
And the majority of German Protestants voted for Nazis even after Nazi
racism and glorifcation of violence was quite clear.
regards,
BM
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
The Black Monk
> > I don't understand the logic how English hegemony makes the Russian
> > > > equivalent any better.
>
> > > As if Britain is the role model -)))
>
> > Well, you yourself, Dmitry, have emigrated to Britain and continue to
> > happily live there.
>
> Yes, very happily. I love this country.
>
> > So, the English can't be overly horrible or
> > barbaric, can they?
>
> Most of English people are very nice and friendly. However, in the
> past British colonisers committed many crimes against humanity around
> the globe.
>
> > > > Red Russias is the most recent. It ended only 20 years ago. Millions
> > > > still remember it, therefore it is quite logical that it's brought up often.
>
> > > Latvia was never occupied by England, Spain, Portugal and France.
>
> > It was occupied by Germans on more than one occasion, wasn't it? How
> > was that?
>
> The territory of today Latvia was occupied by several countries.
> Latvia as a sovereign state was occupied by Germany once for 3 years.
> How was that? Very bad for Jews and communists (as in any other
> country occupied by Nazi Germany). For the rest of Latvian population
> it was not as bad as Soviet occupation. This view is based on what I
> heard from older generation who witnessed both, German and Soviet,
> rules.
This was exactly the case in western Ukraine, which was under seperate
(and much milder) administration than the rest of Ukraine and which
explains why western Ukrainian attitude towards Soviets vs. Germans
was different from the attitude in the rest of Ukraine.
Those implying that western Ukrainians were more nuetral or who
considered the Germans a lesser evil out of some sort of inherent
western Ukrainian nastiness or sympathy for Nazism are either ignorant
or simply demogogue scum.
>
> > > It
> > > just happened to be occupied by Russia (Latvia was only 20 years
> > > old).
>
> > No, it was occupied by USSR, led by the insane Georgian Bolshevik
> > monster Stalin.
>
> Yes, but USSR didn't come from Mars. It was still the same Russia
> that changed its name.
It didn't come from Mars, it came from an international gang of
criminals who were a tiny minority of Russians and which relied on
Latvian "muscle" for their success. (these criminals were a minority
of Latvians too so I do not place any responsibility on Latvia for
their actions).
regards,
BM
> > Czechoslovakia in the 1930s?- Hide quoted text -
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Then wouldn't accusing Russians as nation for Stalin's and BOlshevik
crimes also wrong and not justified?
>there were no war, KZ camps and gas chambers on their pre-
> election posters :-).
Did Bolsheviks advertise GULAGs and CheKa when they stormed the Winter
Palace in 1917? :-)
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Of course. Baltics are European. Goa and Central Asia are Asian.
You should compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
> Being forced
> into LSSR didn't benefit Latvian people, but had a detrimental effect
> on their well-being.
So, your Goa example is tramped/explained by my example of Central
Asia and Georgia/Armenia?
> > and continue to
> > have close ties to Russia and even voluntarily belong to the same
> > Commonwealth.
> > > t shouldn't be difficult to guess why Russia
> > > didn't gain the same level of popularity in Latvia.
>
> > Maybe because Latvians are not Asians but Europeans, and Europeans
> > tend not to like being colonised? Are/were the English colonizers
> > popular in Ireland?
>
> I know few people from Republic of Ireland; they don't seem to have
> any anti-English sentiments.
Here in USA, Irish-Americans tend to be quite resentful towards
England. Also in Northern Ireland the Catholics went so far as to
wage a civil war.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Well, I have seen anti-semites accuse that the Revolution was
accomplished with "Jewish brain" and "Latvian muscle". This is, of
course, a huge simplification.
Anton
Yes, unless they hadn't failed to punish the guilty and rehabilitate the
victims instead of doing the opposite: rehabilitate the perpetrators.
>> there were no war, KZ camps and gas chambers on their pre-
>> election posters :-).
> Did Bolsheviks advertise GULAGs and CheKa when they stormed the Winter
> Palace in 1917? :-)
As for the Nazi antisemitism goes: the Germans should have known. IIRC
"Mein Kampf" was published in the 20's, in due time before the 1933
elections, and it sold millions of copies (10 million according to
Wikipedia). I don't know exactly what Lenin published before storming
the Winter palace, so I can't comment on that. It is indeed justified to
hold the German people responsible. The Russians on the other hand have
not dealt with the past. Until it is dealt with there are no other
possible conclusions than they still don't think it was something that
needs to be renounced and condemned. Until it is dealt with the people
share the responsibility.
--
Anton
vello
> On Mar 26, 6:55 pm, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 11:00 pm, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 3:55 pm, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:
>
> > > > > The Nazis never won an election in Austria and indeed Nazi Germany
> > > > > invaded right before an Austrian referendum on unification with
> > > > > Germany. OTOH Nazis came to power in Germany through democratic
> > > > > means. Germans - specifically Protestant Germans - were responsible
> > > > > for Nazism. Here is the German electoral map:
>
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.png
>
> > > > > With freedom comes repsonsibility, and protestant Germany which freely
> > > > > elected Hitler was the only place in the world responsible for
> > > > > Nazism. Whether indivividual Austrians or whoever played important
> > > > > roles in Nazism is irrelevent for the purposes of national
> > > > > responsibility. Otherwise we can blame Latvia for Bolshevism, right?
>
> > > > > regards,
>
> > > > > BM
>
> > > > I think that even accusing germans as nation may be wrong and not
> > > > election posters :-). Germans vote for young energy-full group of
> > > > politicians promising to finish with corruption and powerty - and to
> > > > rebuild new, better Germany. If you want to accuse germans, you may do
> > > > it on grounds they were unable to stop nazis when they finished with
> > > > democracy in Germany.
>
As I say there are more natural reasons behind election results then
creating a theory that "german protestants" are totally different from
all others - they are not. One reason I put in my earlier post -
strong support to nazis was in regions close to areas lost to Poland.
Other is as (or even more) important: nazis get biggest support in
Preussen. Preussen was for united Germany almost the same what Russia
was for Soviet Union "a state-building nation". For prussians, united
German Reich was biggest achievement prussians ever had. For some guy
in Bavaria, there was a lot of space to think is it better to live
under prussian rule in united Germany or as independent peaceful
Bayern Kingdom. So prussians feel himself much more sad about losses
in ww1.
>
> > How much I know those are countries
> > with minimal (if at all) record of anti-jewish pogroms/actions. One
> > way to read "election map" is that areas more close to territory what
> > was cut to Poland after Versailles were more motivated to support a
> > guy promising restoration of nations territorial integrity.
>
> No, because Protestant areas in extreme southwestern Germany also
> voted for Nazis:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NSDAP_Wahl_1933.png
>
> Moreover, within Bavaria a pocket of Nazi voters existed, not
> coincidentally, near Nuremberg which happens to be a Protestant
> enclave within generally Catholic Bavaria.
Don't know roots of those protestant enclaves, but being protestant,
it is highly possible that they follow ways of thinking in northern
protestant dominated prussian areas. I can't see any reason faith is
someway involved in those processes. If you think so, just make clear
how "german protestants" are so different from other protestants.
>
>
>
> > About "blut muss fliessen" - don't know how popular was that song,
> > Horst Wessel and some others much more known. But it was time of hard
> > words, other groups singing about killing down capitalists march under
> > the same red banners and maybe there were more. Germans want "law and
> > order" in bancrupt and corrupted Weimar state back then - and Adolf
> > was guy promising to fulfill that desire.
> > About Main Kampf - hardly %% of germans reading that book was higher
> > then %% of people who had read "European constitution" today.
> > Political books are reading matter for small minority. Sadly I don't
> > find (during very brief search) key slogans of Nazis for 1933
> > elections. but surely it is not too hard to find them - and this way
> > to find out, for what germans voted in 1933.
>
> Mein Kampf was a best-seller that most German families owned, AFAIK.
Before 1933?!?!?! After 1933 - for sure, it was a popular wedding
gift :-) There was no house without Stalin's book in SU - even if
house owner was illiteral.
>
> > Accusing nations in something seriously, not as synonyme of actions
> > taken by govt of particular nation, seems not too serious or me - like
> > accusing tanks or guns. We live on this planet as individuals and sole
> > thing what may carry responsibility is a man or woman as individual.
>
> When people vote they are responsible for their actions.
>
> > Don't forgot that "Germans" will cover SS-men but also German
> > democrats and germans of jewish faith - it would be too much to accuse
> > him for being german :-)
>
> And the majority of German Protestants voted for Nazis even after Nazi
> racism and glorifcation of violence was quite clear.
And maybe maiority of left-handers, numismatics etc etc. No way it say
something about ALL numismatics - just about those numismatics voting
for nazis. And before accusing even that part of numismatics, we must
learn for what they voted: was there some program a la "we build 100
KZ camps and 50 gas chambers per year, we start war agains all other
countries, we close all democratic media, most important - we finish
with that stupid elections thing coz we know better then you what you
want" in nazi agenda back in 1933. If we digg out that in real slogans
there were words about a "New, stronger and healthier Germany, about
fight with poverty and unemployment etc etc" - there is not much in
what we can accuse even numismatics voting for nazis. We can't accuse
them in inability to predict that nazis will use democratic process to
end with democracy, agreed?
>
> regards,
>
> BM
>
vello
>
> > I think that even accusing germans as nation may be wrong and not
> > justified:
>
> Then wouldn't accusing Russians as nation for Stalin's and BOlshevik
> crimes also wrong and not justified?
Of course.
>
> >there were no war, KZ camps and gas chambers on their pre-
> > election posters :-).
>
> Did Bolsheviks advertise GULAGs and CheKa when they stormed the Winter
> Palace in 1917? :-)
Well bolsheviks don't bothered with democratic process, so accusing
russians in commie crimes do have even less point then accusing
germans in nazi crimes.
>
vello
pre-1933 sales. Is 10 million really number sold before nazis come to
pover. If to think it means one book per 6 germans, I think it is all
printruns together with 99% of them printed in Nazi Reich where that
book was acting like bible?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Where did you get that? My grandparents didn't have any books by
Stalin. In fact, I personally have never seen a book by Stalin. What
did he write? I recall people making a lot of jokes about him thinking
that, since he knew two languages, he was a great linguist. Did he
write a book on linguistics? Or were his books on philosophy? If so -
why would illiterate people buy books on such esoteric subjects?
So, which books by Stalin have you seen? Give me titles. I am not sure
Stalin wrote any books.
>
> > > Accusing nations in something seriously, not as synonyme of actions
> > > taken by govt of particular nation, seems not too serious or me - like
> > > accusing tanks or guns. We live on this planet as individuals and sole
> > > thing what may carry responsibility is a man or woman as individual.
>
> > When people vote they are responsible for their actions.
>
> > > Don't forgot that "Germans" will cover SS-men but also German
> > > democrats and germans of jewish faith - it would be too much to accuse
> > > him for being german :-)
>
> > And the majority of German Protestants voted for Nazis even after Nazi
> > racism and glorifcation of violence was quite clear.
>
> And maybe maiority of left-handers, numismatics etc etc. No way it say
> something about ALL numismatics - just about those numismatics voting
> for nazis. And before accusing even that part of numismatics, we must
> learn for what they voted: was there some program a la "we build 100
> KZ camps and 50 gas chambers per year, we start war agains all other
> countries, we close all democratic media, most important - we finish
> with that stupid elections thing coz we know better then you what you
> want" in nazi agenda back in 1933. If we digg out that in real slogans
> there were words about a "New, stronger and healthier Germany, about
> fight with poverty and unemployment etc etc" - there is not much in
> what we can accuse even numismatics voting for nazis. We can't accuse
> them in inability to predict that nazis will use democratic process to
> end with democracy, agreed?
>
In the 1936 elections, 98.8% of all Germans - Protestant and Catholic
- voted for Hitler. So, if Catholics were less enthusiastic than
Protestants about the Nazi doctrine in 1933, by 1936 they all realised
how wonderful it was for them.
vello
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thesis put into history of marxism-leninism by O.S.B.M Bender, born
Karlamov:
" I am not sure
> Stalin wrote any books".
Must I really reply to this? Some part of his works are collected in
14 volumes edition, look:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/Index.html
Anton
>>>> there were no war, KZ camps and gas chambers on their pre-
>>>> election posters :-).
>>> Did Bolsheviks advertise GULAGs and CheKa when they stormed the Winter
>>> Palace in 1917? :-)
>> As for the Nazi antisemitism goes: the Germans should have known. IIRC
>> "Mein Kampf" was published in the 20's, in due time before the 1933
>> elections, and it sold millions of copies (10 million according to
>> Wikipedia). I don't know exactly what Lenin published before storming
>> the Winter palace, so I can't comment on that. It is indeed justified to
>> hold the German people responsible. The Russians on the other hand have
>> not dealt with the past. Until it is dealt with there are no other
>> possible conclusions than they still don't think it was something that
>> needs to be renounced and condemned. Until it is dealt with the people
>> share the responsibility.
> Hi anton, I looked for Main Kampf's printruns but don't find data for
> pre-1933 sales. Is 10 million really number sold before nazis come to
> pover. If to think it means one book per 6 germans, I think it is all
> printruns together with 99% of them printed in Nazi Reich where that
> book was acting like bible?
I looked it up at Wikipedia. It did not mention when the copies were
sold. Wikipedia mentioned that the first part was released 1924 and the
second 1927.
--
Anton
Anton
> vello kirjoitti:
>> Hi anton, I looked for Main Kampf's printruns but don't find data for
>> pre-1933 sales. Is 10 million really number sold before nazis come to
>> pover. If to think it means one book per 6 germans, I think it is all
>> printruns together with 99% of them printed in Nazi Reich where that
>> book was acting like bible?
> I looked it up at Wikipedia. It did not mention when the copies were
> sold. Wikipedia mentioned that the first part was released 1924 and the
> second 1927.
Ok. most other Wikipedia sources say 1925 and 1926 - in the same
ballpark anyways. it would be interesting to find accurate sources that
one can trust.
--
Anton
vello
his opus went over 5-10 000 before 1933. For today, a book about
politics hardly jump over few thousands in Germany.
Anton
> On Mar 25, 3:06 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. kirjoitti:
>> You can compare Czarist Russia and its
>> policies in the Baltics & Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and its
>> policies in Norway. While Sweden had had a hegemonic policy earlier,
>> then again its policy regarding Norway in the 1800s was slightly more
>> liberal than that of Russia's in the Baltics or Finland of the 1800s and
>> early 1900s. In other words: the Russians were not "nicer", but rather
>> the general political situation forced empires to take into
>> consideration the wishes of the conquested countries in a way they had
>> not had to earlier.
>>> But you don't even remember that Czar's rule. Why? Because Russian
>>> Czars were much less invasive and "hegemonic" than their colonialist
>>> predecessors in the Baltic states: Swedes and Germans.
>> LOL :) I don't remember the Swedish rule either!
> I am talking about your comparing Russia and England:
"Because Russian Czars were much less invasive and "hegemonic" than
their colonialist predecessors in the Baltic states: Swedes and Germans."
>>>> Getting the share of Russian speakers up from 10% to 40% in a baltic
>>>> republic in five decades is quite an achievement. What would have
>>>> happened if they, like the English, had centuries (and not decades) to
>>>> impose their hegemony on their neighbours?
> Here you said that the English rule lasted many centuries, while the
> Russia rule lasted "five decades".
The Baltics were occpupied by 'Red Russia' aka the USSR from 1940 to
1991. That makes five decades. I did not say that the Russian rule
lasted for five decades.
> Clearly, you didn't take into account the centuries of the Russian
> Czar's rule, did you? Why? Because the Russian Czars were quite gentle
> towards the Estonian ethnos and language.
Yes, like their rivals the Swedes etc.
> Your writing is the best proof that Russians under the Czar behaved
> quite nicely, especially compared with other large European countries
> like England or Germany
That is a possibility. The post-Czar, "non-nationalist" Red Russia
however was quite at the same pace as these other empires.
>>> In fact, when Russia took Finland from Sweden, the Finnish language
>>> was totally dominated by the hegemony of the Swedish language. But by
>>> the time when Finland left Russia - the Finnish language's hegemony in
>>> its own country was restored.
>> The Russians were not the force pushing for "Fennomanism"; it was the
>> Finns themselves. At times Czarist Russia tolerated national language
>> and culture, but there were also periods of forced Russification.
> My point remains: Czarist Russia was gentler on colonized peoples
> than other European powers
In Europe Czarist Russia was neither gentler or tougher. See my
comparison to Sweden.
>>> The same with Latvia: when Latvia left Russia in 1917, the Latvian
>>> language was much stronger than when Russia first "took" Latvia.
>> Are you sure? Also one must put the rise of national languages, culture
>> and national states in its historical context of the era. The "bad"
>> Swedes who had, according to you, imposed their hegemony in their
>> region, while by forcing Norway to a Swedish-Norwegian union in 1814
>> allowed the country to keep its sovereignty in everything except foreign
>> policy, and peacefully allowed the country to secede from the union in 1905.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_between_Sweden_and_Norway
> So, your point is that Russia behaved similarly to Sweden? OK. But
> with all this Tadas' ranting about Russians always having been
> "genocidal barbarians", we can now see that Russians were no worse
> than Swedes and not nearly as bad as the English.
I'm not Tadas. If you have something to say to him, discuss it with him
then.
>>> In other words, the problem are not the Russian people and the Russian
>>> Czars, but the internationalist Bolsheviks of all nationalities who
>>> took over Russia in 1917 and killed tens of millions of Russians.
>> Those Bolsheviks were still mostly Russian
> No, they weren't. The majority of Bolshevik leaders were non-Russians:
> Georgians, Jews, Latvians, Poles, Armenians, even Finns.
Let's see. The makeup of the original Politbyro:
Lenin: Russian
Trotsky: Russian (Jew)
Kamenev: Russian (Jew)
Krestinsky: Russian
Stalin: Georgian
Even the word 'Bolshevik' is a derivative of Russian words. The only
commie with real impact on course of history that was not Russian is
Stalin. (His lackeys like Beria had been unimportant nobodies without him.)
>> and the empire was ruled from Moscow.
> It had to be ruled from SOMEWHERE. So, they chose the largest city in
> the Empire.
Like Dmitry put it: the USSR didn't come from Mars. It was Russia with a
new name.
>>>> Keep in mind that I'm not specifically speaking of the Baltics only
>>>> either. In Russia itself many other languages than Russian have been on
>>>> the decline so that many are almost extinct.
>>> And that proves that 100% of responsibility for Bolshevism lies with
>>> ethnic Russians?
>>> What IS your point?
>> From the 1930s on, Russian was being imposed on all peoples under Soviet
>> rule - and that rule was as centralist as they come.
> You are confusing the cause and the effect. The cause were Communists,
> whose Marxist ideology says that the entire World must undergo a
> Proletarian Revolution, after which the entire World would become one
> big country: a Communist Paradise.
> So, the Bolsheviks were planning to spread their Revolution all over
> Europe. That's why they were so aggressive and expansionist. They came
> very close in Hungary, Latvia and Germany, but failed in the end.
> Had the Marxists won in Germany, then they would have moved the
> capital to Berlin, as mandated by Marxist theory. But they lost in
> Germany. So, they had to settle for Moscow.
Never did I say that Communism was only a Russian phenomenon. I'm
discussing
>> Everybody were ruled from Moscow.
> The Marxist theory mandates that until the Communist Society is built
> in the entire Europe, the Communist state must remain highly
> centralised, in order to defend itself against "capitalists" and to
> conquer new lands.
Yes, that's convenient, ain't it. Proves that democracy and true rule of
the people had little room in their ideology. In the early beginning the
local worker's soviets were quite democratic 'grassroots' type of
bodies, but Lenin & Co of course got rid of them as soon as they, the
real workers, opposed his and the Bolshevik's decisions.
> That's why the Communists needed a centralized rule and a single
> language to unite the population. They chose Russian because Russians
> were the largest group under their rule.
How convenient... as long as you oppress for a 'good cause' that makes
it right? (The "good" can be debated.)
> Had the Revolution succeeded in Germany, Austria and the rest of
> Central Europe - as predicted by Marx - the Communists would have
> imposed German on everybody.
We cannot possibly know that for sure.
> But they failed, so they had to settle
> for Russia and Russian. And Communists from other European countries
> all fled to Russia and started ruling Russia, because that's where
> Communists had won. Had they won in Germany instead, the Communists
> from other European countries would have moved to Germany.
Sounds like a realistic possibility.
> Take your own Finnish Communists for example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Kuusinen
>
> Animosity towards Socialists in Finland in the decades after the Civil
> War prompted many Finns to emigrate to Russia to "build Socialism."
Most of these were later killed in Stalin's purges. They had prominent
positions in the Karelian SSR, and once they were gotten rid of Soviet
Karelia was extensivly Russified.
> Otto Wilhelm Kuusinen became an influential official in the Soviet
> state administration. He was a member of the Politburo, the highest
> state organ. Kuusinen also continued his work during the reign of
> Nikita Khrushchev (1953–1964). He was Secretary of the Central
> Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 1957–1964. In
> 1952 and again in 1957 he was also elected to the Presidium of the
> Central Committee.
>
> Kuusinen was one of the editors of The Fundamentals in Marxism-
> Leninism, considered to be one of the fundamental works on dialectical
> materialism and Leninist Communism.
> ................
>
> Ask yourself: did Kuusinen emigrate to Russia because he was a Russian
> nationalist/imperialist and wanted to impose the Russian language on,
> say, Finland? Or did he emigrate because he was a Marxist and wanted
> to "build Socialism"?
The latter. Do you know why he was in Russian and not Finland? He had
been put to trial for revolting against the legal government and been
shot or locked up for a long time had he stayed. Stalin left him alive
for two reasons: he needed a puppet governor for the Finnish SSR and
Kuusinen wasn't bothered by the fact that Stalin had killed most of his
communist compatriots.
Ask yourself: did Kuusinen have any real impact of the history of the
USSR? Had history of the USSR been any different without him? The
obvious answer is: no.
--
Anton
Anton
>>> vello kirjoitti:
The Finnish Wikipedia article was quite vague about details (and even
totally incorrect about the years of the initial releases). According to
the English Wiki article 10 million copies were sold by the end of the
war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Popularity
"By the end of the war, about 10 million copies of the book had been
sold or distributed in Germany."
> For today, a book about
> politics hardly jump over few thousands in Germany.
According to the Wikipedia article it sold 240,000 in Germany before
Hitler became the chancellor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Popularity
This section describes sales figures and copies printed in English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#Sales_and_royalties
--
Anton
vello
mislook what I was looking for :-)
Tadas Blinda
> >>> Russian
> >>> Czars were much less invasive and "hegemonic" than their colonialist
> >>> predecessors in the Baltic states: Swedes and Germans.
Garbage. Even the Lithuanian language was banned 1864–1904.
> > My point remains: Czarist Russia was gentler on colonized peoples
> > than other European powers
Don't be an idiot. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Nikolayevich_Muravyov-Vilensky
Does that sound "gentle" to you?
> > Tadas' ranting about Russians ...
на хуй. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Nikolayevich_Muravyov-Vilensky
And just generally do your homework.
Anyone who denies that the Russians are "genocidal barbarians" is
mentally ill.
And a creep.
> >>> In other words, the problem are not the Russian people and the Russian
> >>> Czars, but the internationalist Bolsheviks of all nationalities who
> >>> took over Russia in 1917 and killed tens of millions of Russians.
> >> Those Bolsheviks were still mostly Russian
> > No, they weren't. The majority of Bolshevik leaders were non-Russians:
> > Georgians, Jews, Latvians, Poles, Armenians, even Finns.
Irrelevant who the leaders were, where they were from. They were
russified in language and mentality. It was the cesspit of Russia
that made them what they were. And it's interesting that the sovok
nostalgists never mention the nationality of "Soviet" authors,
composers, academics, Olymoic gold medal winners .... No, they only
mention it if they are mafiozi or big bad bolševiks.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Stop demagoguery.
1. The country of Russian Federation came into existence 40 years
after Stalin's death. By that time virtually all Stalin's henchmen
were dead and the rest were dying.
2. Russia voluntarily abandoned communism and voluntarily gave freedom
to the other 14 republics. Germany did no such thing. It was defeated.
Had it not been defeated, the Great German Reich would still be there
from the Atlantic to the Urals.
3. Germany didn't hold Nuremberg Trials. USSR and its Allies did that.
And the only reason why Germany continued with other trials of Nazi
criminals was because Germany had been defeated. USSR was never
defeated.
4. The guilt for a crime does not disappear just because you
apologized for it. If you committed a murder, you remain a murderer
even if you apologized.
> >> there were no war, KZ camps and gas chambers on their pre-
> >> election posters :-).
> > Did Bolsheviks advertise GULAGs and CheKa when they stormed the Winter
> > Palace in 1917? :-)
>
> As for the Nazi antisemitism goes: the Germans should have known. IIRC
> "Mein Kampf" was published in the 20's, in due time before the 1933
> elections, and it sold millions of copies (10 million according to
> Wikipedia). I don't know exactly what Lenin published before storming
> the Winter palace, so I can't comment on that. It is indeed justified to
> hold the German people responsible. The Russians on the other hand have
> not dealt with the past. Until it is dealt with there are no other
> possible conclusions than they still don't think it was something that
> needs to be renounced and condemned. Until it is dealt with the people
> share the responsibility.
No. A deed is a deed. A crime is a crime. The reason why you think
that Russia was responsible for Stalin's crimes from 60 years ago is
because you dislike Putin's policies.
Assigning guilt to events from 60 years ago based on the West's
hysterical propagandist hatred of today's Russia is insane.
Were the Germans as a group guilty in 1933 - 1945 of Hitler's crimes?
If yes - then they were guilty. If not - they weren't guilty.
Were the Russians as a group guilty in 1917 - 1953 of Stalin's crimes?
If yes - then they were guilty. If not - they weren't guilty.
Any lawyer will tell you that what is happening today is irrelevant as
to whether the accused is guilty of a crime committed 60 years ago.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Good. Thanks.
Anton
> On Mar 27, 12:35 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. kirjoitti:
>>> Then wouldn't accusing Russians as nation for Stalin's and BOlshevik
>>> crimes also wrong and not justified?
>> Yes, unless they hadn't failed to punish the guilty and rehabilitate the
>> victims instead of doing the opposite: rehabilitate the perpetrators.
> Stop demagoguery.
> 1. The country of Russian Federation came into existence 40 years
> after Stalin's death. By that time virtually all Stalin's henchmen
> were dead and the rest were dying.
Are you of the opinion that also Nazis who committed terrible atrocities
should have their cases swept under the rug?
> 2. Russia voluntarily abandoned communism and voluntarily gave freedom
> to the other 14 republics. Germany did no such thing. It was defeated.
> Had it not been defeated, the Great German Reich would still be there
> from the Atlantic to the Urals.
We have no possibility to know that form sure. They could might as well
have abandoned Nazism at some point. (You do remember that a group of
Germans conspired to kill Hitler in 1944)?
> 3. Germany didn't hold Nuremberg Trials. USSR and its Allies did that.
> And the only reason why Germany continued with other trials of Nazi
> criminals was because Germany had been defeated. USSR was never
> defeated.
De-Nazification has been a welcome thing. It was really needed.
> 4. The guilt for a crime does not disappear just because you
> apologized for it. If you committed a murder, you remain a murderer
> even if you apologized.
True. That does not change the fact that the least you can do is
rehabilitate the victims and condemn the perpetrators. Instead of doing
this contemporary Russia is rehabilitating Stalin instead.
>>>> there were no war, KZ camps and gas chambers on their pre-
>>>> election posters :-).
>>> Did Bolsheviks advertise GULAGs and CheKa when they stormed the Winter
>>> Palace in 1917? :-)
>> As for the Nazi antisemitism goes: the Germans should have known. IIRC
>> "Mein Kampf" was published in the 20's, in due time before the 1933
>> elections, and it sold millions of copies (10 million according to
>> Wikipedia). I don't know exactly what Lenin published before storming
>> the Winter palace, so I can't comment on that. It is indeed justified to
>> hold the German people responsible. The Russians on the other hand have
>> not dealt with the past. Until it is dealt with there are no other
>> possible conclusions than they still don't think it was something that
>> needs to be renounced and condemned. Until it is dealt with the people
>> share the responsibility.
> No. A deed is a deed. A crime is a crime. The reason why you think
> that Russia was responsible for Stalin's crimes from 60 years ago is
> because you dislike Putin's policies.
I dislike his policies of rehabilitating the reputation of the USSR and
its most terrible leader Joseph Stalin. Celebrating such criminals is
giving the wrong signals: "it's ok to be a terrible murderer - as long
as you are on our side". Such acceptation is pawing way for a return of
a new guy that is the same as him.
> Assigning guilt to events from 60 years ago based on the West's
> hysterical propagandist hatred of today's Russia is insane.
Are you also of the opinion that assigning guilt to Nazi events from
60-80 years ago is "insane"?
> Were the Germans as a group guilty in 1933 - 1945 of Hitler's crimes?
> If yes - then they were guilty. If not - they weren't guilty.
They were. Although "Mein Kampf" is a terribly written rant it should
have been obvious that the author its insane and should not have been
allowed anywhere near power.
> Were the Russians as a group guilty in 1917 - 1953 of Stalin's crimes?
> If yes - then they were guilty. If not - they weren't guilty.
Let's assume it was an accident, a fatal accident: after fatal accidents
the accident is analyzed in detail and conclusions are made of what
caused it and how such an accident can be prevented in the future.
Russia has failed this "investigation of the accident".
> Any lawyer will tell you that what is happening today is irrelevant as
> to whether the accused is guilty of a crime committed 60 years ago.
Many laawyers and prosecutors bringing old Nazis to justice might disagree.
--
Anton
Anton
I agree. After terrible accidents an thorough investigation is conducted
to prevent such accidents in the future. What is you opinion: has this
investigation taken place and the necessary preventive measures taken?
--
Anton
vello
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Karlamov on Germany's historical quilt:
The guilt for a crime does not disappear just because you
> apologized for it. If you committed a murder, you remain a murderer
> even if you apologized.
>
Karlamov on Russia's historical quilt:
> Assigning guilt to events from 60 years ago based on the West's
> hysterical propagandist hatred of today's Russia is insane.
>
Both statements are from the one single post :-)
vello
For sure not. That's the problem with Russia, state funded patriotism
don't allow them to condemnate even darkest happenings in nations
history.
vello
> On Mar 28, 2:50 am, Anton <anton.use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Russian
> > >>> Czars were much less invasive and "hegemonic" than their colonialist
> > >>> predecessors in the Baltic states: Swedes and Germans.
>
> Garbage. Even the Lithuanian language was banned 1864–1904.
>
> > > My point remains: Czarist Russia was gentler on colonized peoples
> > > than other European powers
>
> Does that sound "gentle" to you?
>
> > > Tadas' ranting about Russians ...
>
> And just generally do your homework.
>
> Anyone who denies that the Russians are "genocidal barbarians" is
> mentally ill.
> And a creep.
Sheremetev's report to Czar from Estonia during Livonian war: "No
smoke on the horizon left, no bark of a dog in night"
Dmitry
> > > monster Stalin.
>
> > Yes, but USSR didn't come from Mars. It was still the same Russia
> > that changed its name.
>
> It didn't come from Mars, it came from an international gang of
> criminals who were a tiny minority of Russians and which relied on
> Latvian "muscle" for their success. (these criminals were a minority
> of Latvians too so I do not place any responsibility on Latvia for
> their actions).
Yes, the responsibility should be placed on induviduals responsible
for the crime, not on the whole nation. However, Latvia didn't even
exist when Uljanov's Red Guards stormed Winter Palace.