On Johan Bäckman
Eugene Holman
aseveljet* ['Secret comrades-in-arms'] yesterday and saw, but did not
speak to, Johan Bäckman.
Silvennoinen, like Bäckman, is trying to construct a histrical narrative
in which there are no heroes or villains, but rather people acting within
the framwork of the bureaucratic structure, even if subsequently proven to
be criminal, that was their employer and paid the salary that put food on
the table.
Like most members of this forum, I sympathize with the three Baltic
nations and no difficulty accepting the Baltic version of what happened
there between 1940 and 1991. I do, however, also accept that a different
narrative, one that it is neither "lies" nor "Kremlin propaganda", can be
constructed about the events.
How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
Why is the fact that Barack Obama was born in "exotic Hawaii" being used
by many Americans as a reason to consider him to be not quite a real
American?
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Andrius
What is a real American? A books of early childhood let me understand
clearly - it is Indians.
Regards,
http;//labaslietuva.blogspot.com
tadas....@lycos.es
> I attended Oula Silvenoinen's doctoral defense of his book *Salaiset
> aseveljet* ['Secret comrades-in-arms'] yesterday and saw, but did not
> speak to, Johan Bäckman.
>
> Silvennoinen, like Bäckman, is trying to construct a histrical narrative
> in which there are no heroes or villains, but rather people acting within
> be criminal, that was their employer and paid the salary that put food on
> the table.
>
> nations and no difficulty accepting the Baltic version of what happened
> there between 1940 and 1991. I do, however, also accept that a different
> narrative, one that it is neither "lies" nor "Kremlin propaganda", can be
> constructed about the events.
Yeah, "narrative". As in fairy story. You forget to factor in to the
equation the rather major issue of motivation: whereas Balts are
motivated by nothing more than a desire for the truth (i.e. unprovoked
aggression followed by illegal occupation) to be known , the Soviets /
Russians have a far more self-serving motivation.
> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
Red herring. Why bring it up? It has it been clarified ad infinitum
in this forum and elsewhere that both the Russian Empire and the
American Empire grew in pretty much the same way: a serious of
illegal invasions and annexations, stealing other people's land. As
usual, Russia comes out covered with more govno than the other place,
because whereas the other place had pretty well cut out that sort of
nasty behaviour by 1900, Russia was still actively grabbing ill-gotten
gains as late as 1945 and hanging onto as much as it could until
1991.
Indeed, if you like "narratives", here's one: Russia's illegal
invasion and annexation of Abkhazia and Osetia proves that Russia is
still very much an imperialist state in the 21st century. It's a
national psychosis, they can't give it up.
> Why is the fact that Barack Obama was born in "exotic Hawaii" being used
> by many Americans as a reason to consider him to be not quite a real
> American?
Do you ever breathe new life into the definition of "non sequitur"!
We were talking about "lies" and "Kremlin propaganda" and you go and
bring this up. I think you know the answer to your own question just
as well as any intelligent non-American observer does. Despite so
many Americans' feigned 'political correctness', deep down they are
still very much a racist and xenophobic nation, and they will throw
anything that they can at Obama, including the Hawaii thing, because
he's not the 'boy next door', not the guy you would want to see
marrying the champion cheerleader or the homecoming queen. The
American majority, the hundred million or more Homer & Marge Simpson
clones out there, forgive Bush all his idiocy because he is white and
has a one syllable surname that coincides with an English word. Heck,
Obama has even been accused of being un-American for not Americanising
his surname. Maybe Apfelbaum would have been acceptable?
That reminds me, God's other chosen people (the ones who were already
that before the Americans anointed themselves it too) are in the
forefront of running around trying to depict Obama as a "Black
Muslim". They are stating publicly (to TV news cameras, etc.) "I can
never trust someone with a Muslim parent." What would happen if there
were a Jewish candidate and someone told the nation news "I can never
trust someone with a Jewish parent?"
J. Anderson
>> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
>
> Red herring. Why bring it up?
It's psychological, he can't help it. It goes back to his traumatic
experience in the 60's, when he felt forced to leave the US. After that
he hates the States as a sort of belated justification for his decision.
Hating the United States in the 60's and 70's meant, if not loving then
at least sympathizing with its opponent, the Soviet Union. And this
still today leads to compulsorily juxtaposing any SU crime with
something the US has done.
"Anything SU has done, US has done badder..."
MTRP™
> Hating the United States in the 60's and 70's meant, if not loving then
> at least sympathizing with its opponent, the Soviet Union. And this
> still today leads to compulsorily juxtaposing any SU crime with
> something the US has done.
> "Anything SU has done, US has done badder..."
This nonsense reminds me of yet another old chap ... ex-DDR ex-
dissident who recently confessed that back in those archaic times he
and his buddies condemned Vietnamese ex-aggression against ex-
Campuchea that stopped Pol Pot's manslaughter - simply because
"anything US has done, its enemies must have done badder". But old
morons aside consider our time of multipolar trouble. Look how many
options current US regime haters have somebody to love!
1) Osama's Al-Caeda.
2) Ahmad's Iran.
3) Hugo's Venezuela.
4) Putin's Russia.
5) Hu's (?) China.
6), ... ?
Let 1000 flowers bloom!
martin
Eugene, it's not a "Baltic version", it is the mainstream Western view
that the Baltics were occupied. Note that Barack Obama co-sponsoring
the recently passed US Senate resolution reaffirming the occupation:
http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/21354/
Regards,
Martin
MTRP™
P.S. But which options have russkie haters these days? OK, Henry +
George = tru luv. What about Johnny?
Andrius
True, Martin, true! If Baltic countries were occupied, why this
"occupations' were not accepted at nineteen forties? Why these
'occupations' were discowered only at ninteen eighties? It is a shit,
what it is calling 'occupations'. Lets talk about the leaving of USSR
by Baltics. Why were not given for people to decide through
referendum? A gang get to the power through USA support and announced
a new order and new truth.
Regards,
http://labaslietuva.blogpsot.com
Maris
wrote:
>True, Martin, true! If Baltic countries were occupied, why this
>"occupations' were not accepted at nineteen forties? Why these
>'occupations' were discowered only at ninteen eighties?
They were accepted as occupations in the 1904s. That's why the free
world didn't recognise the annexation de iure.
> It is a shit,
>what it is calling 'occupations'. Lets talk about the leaving of USSR
>by Baltics. Why were not given for people to decide through
>referendum? A gang get to the power through USA support and announced
>a new order and new truth.
They did have a referendum to decide on independence. 73.6 % of
Latvian voters voted for independence. have you been asleep for 20
years?
>
>Regards,
>http://labaslietuva.blogpsot.com
darsi...@comcast.net
> Like most members of this forum, I sympathize with the three Baltic
> nations and no difficulty accepting the Baltic version of what happened
> there between 1940 and 1991. I do, however, also accept that a different
> narrative, one that it is neither "lies" nor "Kremlin propaganda", can be
> constructed about the events.
Roll eyes. Shake head....
Eugene. Your sympathies are noted - but your posts betray you.
>
> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
Besides you ? Likely very few.
> Why is the fact that Barack Obama was born in "exotic Hawaii" being used
> by many Americans as a reason to consider him to be not quite a real
> American?
I consider him to be a real American. He was born in America. His past
is quite impressive. Harvard standout. Illinois State Senator. US
Senator.
I, as a US citizen, will judge Obama as a candidate for President of
the United States. Same for McCain.
As for you Eugene - I lump you together with Andriushka to be honest.
Lots of sloganeering. Lots of wordy rhetoric. A firm commitment to
communist ideals.
I wonder... If Russia becomes an aggressive force in the Baltic
theater - aggressive towards Finland... Will the Amerikkkan occupied
New York injun territory find you as a return resident ? My guess is
that your convictions are closely tied to your livelihood....
Vidas
Colonel Sanders
UN + NATO says he is with the Queen.
martin
What I find humorous is that socialists like Hugo Chavez, in their
nostalgia for the USSR, have effectively become supporters of Russian
nationalism. Putin must be laughing heartily at these useful idiots.
Regards,
Martin
Eugene Holman
<c8853a7d-28b5-46fc...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
darsi...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sep 28, 9:57=A0am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> > Like most members of this forum, I sympathize with the three Baltic
> > nations and no difficulty accepting the Baltic version of what happened
> > there between 1940 and 1991. I do, however, also accept that a different
> > narrative, one that it is neither "lies" nor "Kremlin propaganda", can be
> > constructed about the events.
>
> Roll eyes. Shake head....
>
> Eugene. Your sympathies are noted - but your posts betray you.
>
> >
> > How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
>
> Besides you ? Likely very few.
That is precisely my point. Most Americans know nothing about the manner
in which the erstwhile Kingdom of Hawaii was co-opted, subverted, and
eventually annexed, much against the will of its native population, by the
United States during the 1890s in order to further the interests of
American pineapple growers. They would be surprised and offended if
someone claimed that Hawaii is actually foreign territory under American
occupation, even though this can be easily verified. It is not something
most Americans want to know about their history.
Many Russians, not to mention Russian speakers of other former Soviet
nationalities, living in the Baltics moved there after the dirty work had
been done and feel no more that they were moving to occupied territory or
consider themselves occupants than Americans living in or moving to Hawaii
do.
Mr. Bäckman recently published a book in which he presented his
understanding of why it is incorrect to claim that Estonia occupied by the
Soviet Union. I disgree with him, but I certainly know that many people
share his views, even if they are not able or willing to articulate them
as clearly as he is. He certainly has the right to present his take on
things in a country that has a free press and honors freedom of opinion.
Indeed, a lack of the right to express dissenting views publicly was one
of the primary complaints that the Baltic peoples had about living under
Soviet rule. If Bäckman's views are unsustainable, he should not be shut
up or banned from Estonia, as some peole have suggested here, they should
be countered with better interpretations of the historical evidence.
>
> > Why is the fact that Barack Obama was born in "exotic Hawaii" being used
> > by many Americans as a reason to consider him to be not quite a real
> > American?
>
> I consider him to be a real American. He was born in America. His past
> is quite impressive. Harvard standout. Illinois State Senator. US
> Senator.
I agree with you. But the media constantly questions his Americanness: his
exotic name and birthplace, the fact that his second name is Hussein, the
possibiity that his admission to and success at Harvard were more the
consequence of affirmative action and political correctness than his own
ability, the fact that his father was a Muslim and that he might have been
or still be one as well...
> I, as a US citizen, will judge Obama as a candidate for President of
> the United States. Same for McCain.
Good for you. I hope that your candidate is successful.
> As for you Eugene - I lump you together with Andriushka to be honest.
> Lots of sloganeering. Lots of wordy rhetoric. A firm commitment to
> communist ideals.
Communist ideals? How? I have been writing about alternative historical
narratives. The fact that many Russians and Russian speakers in the
Baltics do not regard the Baltics as having been occupied has nothing
shatsoever to do with communism or communist ideals. It is an alternative
interpretation of history. We often forget how countries grab territory,
and that the people who lived in the territory grabbed by a larger country
often have a different perception of their history than that held by the
people whose country made the grab. The Basques, the Northern Irish
Catholics, and the Corsicans would, like the trepresentatives of the
titular populations of the hree Baltic nations, have a very different
understanding of local history than the Spanish, Northern Irish
Protestants, or Corsica-resident Frenchmen. Not to mention, of course, the
average Chicagoan and any descendants of the Miami-Illinois Indians still
living in the area.
> I wonder... If Russia becomes an aggressive force in the Baltic
> theater - aggressive towards Finland... Will the Amerikkkan occupied
> New York injun territory find you as a return resident ?
Nope.
> My guess is
> that your convictions are closely tied to your livelihood....
They are indeed, and my livelihood is in Finland; for better or worse.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
<ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> tadas....@lycos.es wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 5:57 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> >> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
> >
> > Red herring. Why bring it up?
>
> It's psychological, he can't help it. It goes back to his traumatic
> experience in the 60's, when he felt forced to leave the US.
I left the US on my own free will.
> After that
> he hates the States as a sort of belated justification for his decision.
I don't hate the US at all, I visited it twice during this past summer. I
am extremely fortunate to have been born, raised, and educated in the US.
I think that US society has some of its priorities profoundly wrong, and I
prefer the manner in which Nordic societies are run. Having had the
opportunity to choose which kind of society I wwanted to live in, I made
my choice. It's as simple as that. No strong emeotions such as love or
hate were involved, it was simply a choice between alternatives.
> Hating the United States in the 60's and 70's meant, if not loving then
> at least sympathizing with its opponent, the Soviet Union. And this
> still today leads to compulsorily juxtaposing any SU crime with
> something the US has done.
>
> "Anything SU has done, US has done badder..."
No, John. The issue is one of double standards. Neither the former SU nor
the US got to be the size that they are (were) without a considerable
amount of land grabbing, ethnic cleansing, and geographical sleight of
hand. Nor could the citizens of these countries feel good about themselves
if a major issue were to be made out of these less than heroic episodes in
their history. The history of the manner in which the United States gained
control over and eventually annexed Hawaii reads almost like a dress
rehersal for what the Soviets did in the Baltic countries half a century
later. The British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Germans, Italians,
and Danes were no angels, either.
I despise what the Americans did in Hawaii as much as I despise what the
Soviets did in the Baltics. However, I recognize that the "official"
historical narrative in the two countries downplays or ignores these
tawdry episodes, and that the average American or Russian easily goes into
denial when the facts and parallelism are pointed out. I feel extremely
uncomfortable when people say, well, the Hawaiians were just a bunch of
childlike hula-hula dancers whose women walked around bare breasted in
grass skirts, so the Americans civilized them by taking over their
country, but the Soviets were a bunch of barbarians who brutalized the
Baltic peoples and should be damned to the deepest region of hell for
having done so. Even if this is a Baltic forum, the double standard is
profoundly disturbing.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Colonel Sanders
> In article <48DFD9E3.2090...@inbox.lv>, "J. Anderson"
>
> <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
Well said, Holman.
I too think that Baltic culture must be way-better than the Anglo-
American
trash that some individuals are demonstrating.
martin
Ofcourse Bäckman should be banned from setting foot in Estonia, just
as Estonia recently banned some Finnish neo-Nazis. The fact that
Bäckman claims the Finnish neo-Nazi Risto Teinonen is being subjected
by Estonian authorities to a "Stalinist show trial":
http://pronssisoturi.blogspot.com/2008/09/international-press-release.html
shows his true colours. The guy is clearly a crypto-Nazi sympathizer
attempting to stir up ethnic hatred.
Regards,
Martin
tadas....@lycos.es
> I despise what the Americans did in Hawaii as much as I despise what the
> Soviets did in the Baltics. However, I recognize that the "official"
> historical narrative in the two countries downplays or ignores these
> tawdry episodes, and that the average American or Russian easily goes into
> denial when the facts and parallelism are pointed out.
"Linkage" of issues is a standard KGB dezinformacija / agit-prop
tactic.
> I feel extremely uncomfortable when people say, well, the Hawaiians were just a bunch of
> childlike hula-hula dancers whose women walked around bare breasted in
> grass skirts, so the Americans civilized them by taking over their
> country, but the Soviets were a bunch of barbarians who brutalised the
> Baltic peoples and should be damned to the deepest region of hell for
> having done so. Even if this is a Baltic forum, the double standard is
> profoundly disturbing.
What's profoundly disturbing is your single-minded dedication to being
an apologist for the USSR / Russia. I feel extremely uncomfortable
when people like you link the Baltic issue to the Hawaii non-issue,
hoping that since people (especially Americans) don't give a fuck
about how Hawaii came to be part of USA, you hope the linkage of
issues will plant the idea in their minds that it doesn't matter how
the Baltic states came to be part of USSR, or that Ossetia and
Abkhazia are right at this moment becoming part of the Russian Empire
by the same process. Your Leitmotiv is "Like, everybody does it, so
it's OK, it's no big deal."
Well, your linkage sucks. We, as civilised Europeans (i.e. – non-
Russians), need to be telling those eastern barbarians NOT that it's
OK to emulate what USA did more than a century ago, BUT we should be
telling them they have to emulate civilised countries, like
Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, that haven't attempted
imperialism for a couple of hundred years (Switzerland – never) and
most Western European countries, that have behaved themselves for more
than a century now, with the unfortunate exception of Italy and
Germany. But the great civilising force of the EU is here to stay,
and European standards (= EU standards) should be what all Europeans
strive for. If the Russians want to call themselves Europeans, that's
the standard they have to aim to meet. So stop making excuses for
them. Sorry, "Yankeeland does it too" doesn't get the Russians off
the hook.
Colonel Sanders
Eugene Holman wrote:
> I attended Oula Silvenoinen's doctoral defense of his book *Salaiset
> aseveljet* ['Secret comrades-in-arms'] yesterday and saw, but did not
> speak to, Johan B�ckman.
>
> Silvennoinen, like B�ckman, is trying to construct a histrical narrative
> in which there are no heroes or villains, but rather people acting within
> the framwork of the bureaucratic structure, even if subsequently proven to
> be criminal, that was their employer and paid the salary that put food on
> the table.
>
> Like most members of this forum, I sympathize with the three Baltic
> nations and no difficulty accepting the Baltic version of what happened
> there between 1940 and 1991. I do, however, also accept that a different
> narrative, one that it is neither "lies" nor "Kremlin propaganda", can be
> constructed about the events.
>
> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
> Why is the fact that Barack Obama was born in "exotic Hawaii" being used
> by many Americans as a reason to consider him to be not quite a real
> American?
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
They prefer a *White* mass-murderer-cum-POW-hero
who hasn't even bothered to construct a presidential
agenda as he knows he will be waiting on the ultra-rich
to tell him what to do.
But coming back to Obama, as charismatic as he is, it
is doubtful he will have the guts to stand up to the Federal
Reserve Crime Syndicate.
Kennedy tried and got shot.
Colonel Sanders
Russians should probably stand up and denounce the British trained
and directed Bolshevik sell-out scum. The problem is it goes deeper
than simply that as the Nazis were exactly just that too.
Making information public, under the current global set-up would be
the equivalent of declaring a war to the Anglo-American Empire.
Not to mention that it is protected by heavy PC buffer regarding
the mythological Jewish community. The risks are too high and
Russia could end up looking like a bad guy for telling the truth.
First the World Jewish community must deal with it's demons and
denounce its British masters.
Balts who invite Russia to sacrifice itself and take the blame are
perfectly aware of this and can only be motivated by irrational
hatred.
tadas....@lycos.es
Get help, "kernel". I hear tell that the new medications work wonders.
Colonel Sanders
Indeed they do.
Hating is a huge waste of time but don't take my word for it
you'll get there eventually. Personal development and evolution
should not come by coercion so take your time.
Colonel Sanders
PS
What was the point of setting up this childish follow-up?
How "European" and "Civilized" of you, tada!
soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.nordic, alt.politics removed
follow up to soc.culture.baltics
tadas....@lycos.es
wrote:
> What was the point of setting up this childish follow-up?
> How "European" and "Civilised" of you, Tadas!
More than you could ever hope or dream, you monolingual colonial.
soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.nordic, alt.politics added again
lorad
A little late in the day (90 years late) for that bit of news, don't
you think?
The genesis of russian bolshevism is a matter more for historians.
Current day problems exist today, now, with thr russkies - who still
act as though international communist global revolution never ended.
(see Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Chechnya for examples)
> > > > Making information public, under the current global set-up would be
> > > > the equivalent of declaring a war to the Anglo-American Empire.
> > > > Not to mention that it is protected by heavy PC buffer regarding
> > > > the mythological Jewish community. The risks are too high and
> > > > Russia could end up looking like a bad guy for telling the truth.
>
> > > > First the World Jewish community must deal with it's demons and
> > > > denounce its British masters.
>
> > > > Balts who invite Russia to sacrifice itself and take the blame are
> > > > perfectly aware of this and can only be motivated by irrational
> > > > hatred.
No one is inviting russia to sacrifice itself..
Instead they are inviting the medieval barbarian russian scum not to
invade other people's countries.
It's pretty simple, actually.
Oh... and the only obvious hatred on anyone's screen is that of the
russians.. who for some reason hate neighboring countries and people
so much that they actually invade them and kill them. There's your
'hate' comrade.
Go complain to the proper moskow authorities.
> > > Get help, "kernel". I hear tell that the new medications work wonders.
>
> > Indeed they do.
> > Hating is a huge waste of time but don't take my word for it
> > you'll get there eventually. Personal development and evolution
> > should not come by coercion so take your time.
Seeing as how you represent the extremist russian Nazi-Bolsheviks
('NatzBols') in russia..(who stomp non-russians to death for fun).. I
can see how much you are interested in hate.
Colonel Sanders
We have an old saying:
"Pred stenata umniyat otstupva" transl: "The smarter one stops(gives
up) at the brick wall"
my Russian grammar is not very good but I think in Russian it sounds
like that:
"Pered stenky umneyshey otstupaet"
Have a nice day.
Eugene Holman
<403d9b46-05d8-4ae9...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
tadas....@lycos.es wrote:
> Your Leitmotiv is "Like, everybody does it, so
> it's OK, it's no big deal."
No it isn't. I despise what Russia did in the Baltics as much as I despise
what the Americans did in Hawaii. It is not OK, nor can you excuse what
one country did because it happened a hundred and ten years ago to
Polynesians but excoriate the other one becase it happened only sixty-five
years ago and to Europeans if you are going to be intellectually honest.
> Well, your linkage sucks. We, as civilised Europeans (i.e. =96 non-
> Russians), need to be telling those eastern barbarians NOT that it's
> OK to emulate what USA did more than a century ago, BUT we should be
> telling them they have to emulate civilised countries, like
> Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, that haven't attempted
> imperialism for a couple of hundred years (Switzerland =96 never) and
> most Western European countries, that have behaved themselves for more
> than a century now, with the unfortunate exception of Italy and
> Germany.
I don't know about you, but I have actually done that. I worked for a
summer in New York and Kiev with the Freedom Support Act helping teenagers
from the former USSR who had been awarded a year's scholarship to live in
the USA attending American high schools to understand how American society
and families work, and I have worked publishing books, films, and teaching
packages to help young Estonians and Estonia-resident Russian speakers
understand such issues as democracy, tolerance, and majority-minority
relations.
> But the great civilising force of the EU is here to stay,
> and European standards (=3D EU standards) should be what all Europeans
> strive for.
Here we agree one hundred per cent.
> If the Russians want to call themselves Europeans, that's
> the standard they have to aim to meet. So stop making excuses for
> them. Sorry, "Yankeeland does it too" doesn't get the Russians off
> the hook.
I am *not* making excuses for them. Russia and the United States both have
a history of imperialism. What I am objecting to is that some of the same
people expressing amazement that Russians can deny the fact of the Baltic
countries having been occupied, but denying that Hawaii came to be a part
of the United States according to precisely the same scenario, but, unlike
the three Baltic countries, is still under foreign occupation. It ain't
OK, and I do not make excuses for either.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
<12e7a079-6ad8-4766...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Colonel Sanders <thema...@unwired.com.au> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 6:25=A0pm, tadas.bli...@lycos.es wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 11:14=A0am, Colonel Sanders <themail...@unwired.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What was the point of setting up this childish follow-up?
> > > How "European" and "Civilised" of you, Tadas!
> >
> > More than you could ever hope or dream, you monolingual colonial.
> >
> > =A0soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.nordic, alt.politics added again
>
> We have an old saying:
>
> "Pred stenata umniyat otstupva" transl: "The smarter one stops(gives
> up) at the brick wall"
Na bölgarski ezik?!
> my Russian grammar is not very good but I think in Russian it sounds
> like that:
>
> "Pered stenky umneyshey otstupaet"
>
> Have a nice day.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
J. Anderson
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2909...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> I despise what Russia did in the Baltics
> as much as I despise what the Americans did in Hawaii.
OK, let's make an experiment. Now try to say the upper line without adding
the second line.
I know that you will find that almost impossible. Your lips will probably
continue forming the second line even against your intention. But keep
training! One day you will succeed, and then you'll be Free At Last.
Colonel Sanders
You got that wrong, lorad, I don't represent any NutBolts and you
know very well that Russia didn't finance the Bolsheviks.
Ossetia, Abkhazia don't want to be part of Georgia, it's neither mine
nor is it your business to tell them what to do. In case you haven't
noticed, the Russians managed to restore peace quickly and
efficiently.
Where is Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Wallstreet ...
Colonel Sanders
> In article
> <12e7a079-6ad8-4766-a802-b5d727bd1...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Colonel Sanders <themail...@unwired.com.au> wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 6:25=A0pm, tadas.bli...@lycos.es wrote:
> > > On Sep 29, 11:14=A0am, Colonel Sanders <themail...@unwired.com.au>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > What was the point of setting up this childish follow-up?
> > > > How "European" and "Civilised" of you, Tadas!
>
> > > More than you could ever hope or dream, you monolingual colonial.
>
> > > =A0soc.culture.europe, soc.culture.nordic, alt.politics added again
>
> > We have an old saying:
>
> > "Pred stenata umniyat otstupva" transl: "The smarter one stops(gives
> > up) at the brick wall"
>
> Na bölgarski ezik?!
Pone na teoriya.:)
tadas....@lycos.es
> No it isn't. I despise what Russia did in the Baltics as much as I despise
> what the Americans did in Hawaii. It is not OK, nor can you excuse what
> one country did because it happened a hundred and ten years ago to
> Polynesians but excoriate the other one becase it happened only sixty-five
> years ago and to Europeans if you are going to be intellectually honest.
I am probably one of the few SCB contributors who does consider
American imperialism to be just as rreprehensible as Tsarist /
Soviet / Russian Federation imperialism. But the matter of a
century's time difference cannot be ignored. And as far as I am
aware, the Yanks did not deport any Hawaiians to Alaska.
> > We need to be telling those eastern barbarians NOT that it's
> > OK to emulate what USA did more than a century ago, BUT we should be
> > telling them they have to emulate civilised countries, like
> > Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, that haven't attempted
> > imperialism for a couple of hundred years (Switzerland =96 never) and
> > most Western European countries, that have behaved themselves for more
> > than a century now, with the unfortunate exception of Italy and
> > Germany.
>
> I don't know about you, but I have actually done that. I worked for a
> summer in New York and Kiev with the Freedom Support Act helping teenagers
> from the former USSR who had been awarded a year's scholarship to live in
> the USA attending American high schools to understand how American society
> and families work, and I have worked publishing books, films, and teaching
> packages to help young Estonians and Estonia-resident Russian speakers
> understand such issues as democracy, tolerance, and majority-minority
> relations.
Excellent.
> > But the great civilising force of the EU is here to stay,
> > and European standards (=3D EU standards) should be what all Europeans
> > strive for.
>
> Here we agree one hundred per cent.
Wunderbar.
> > If the Russians want to call themselves Europeans, that's
> > the standard they have to aim to meet. So stop making excuses for
> > them. Sorry, "Yankeeland does it too" doesn't get the Russians off
> > the hook.
>
> I am *not* making excuses for them. Russia and the United States both have
> a history of imperialism. What I am objecting to is that some of the same
> people expressing amazement that Russians can deny the fact of the Baltic
> countries having been occupied, but denying that Hawaii came to be a part
> of the United States according to precisely the same scenario, but, unlike
> the three Baltic countries, is still under foreign occupation. It ain't
> OK, and I do not make excuses for either.
Well, as I said to Macbeth's friend (McDuff), it doesn't go over well
telling us Balts that you find a creep like the nats-bol Bäckman's
left-wing revisionist theories "interesting" when you should be
finding them repulsive, just as you would find theories of left-wing
neo-nazi revisionist repulsive.
MTRP™
> We, as civilised Europeans
lol(ing)@chico_the_aussie.
MTRP™
Shame! What a heartless monster Johnny is, then. Even Dropoutski knows
that SHE killed sweet Lady Di!
Colonel Sanders
They are bent on extravagant and ultra-expensive executions.
But Johnny is probably just naive.
J. Anderson
So what? Freddie Mercury killed Queen.
MTRP™
And where is Freddie now? See? He'd better be more cautious ...
Eugene Holman
<d9cc572b-bd1d-49f6...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
tadas....@lycos.es wrote:
> On Sep 29, 12:23=A0pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > No it isn't. I despise what Russia did in the Baltics as much as I despis=
> e
> > what the Americans did in Hawaii. It is not OK, nor can you excuse what
> > one country did because it happened a hundred and ten years ago to
> > Polynesians but excoriate the other one becase it happened only sixty-fiv=
> e
> > years ago and to Europeans if you are going to be intellectually honest.
>
> I am probably one of the few SCB contributors who does consider
> American imperialism to be just as rreprehensible as Tsarist /
> Soviet / Russian Federation imperialism.
I am another of this select fraternity, if you hadnt noticed. I find it
hypocritical that people can go ballistic when ordinary Russians claim
that the Baltics were not occupied, but do not understand, and sometimes
get very angry, when told that their own country has done the same thing
to Hawaii. the story of how the US acquired Texas, California, New Mexico,
Nevada, and some other land would read like the history of Czarist Russia
if some of te names were changed.
> But the matter of a
> century's time difference cannot be ignored.
The United States, after subverting its government, absorbed Hawaii in
1898; the USSR, after subverting their governments, absorbed the three
Baltic countries (for the first and, according to the Russian way of
thinking, only time in 1940). The time difference, forty-two years, is not
all that great.
> And as far as I am
> aware, the Yanks did not deport any Hawaiians to Alaska.
No, but they flooded the place with migrant workers from Japan, China, and
the Philippines to work the pineapple planations, as well as with soldiers
from the mainland to man the famous base at Pearl Harbor. Hawaiian culture
and language were virtually destroyed and survive today primarily as bits
and pieces of "local color".
<deletions>
> > I am *not* making excuses for them. Russia and the United States both hav=
> e
> > a history of imperialism. What I am objecting to is that some of the same
> > people expressing amazement that Russians can deny the fact of the Baltic
> > countries having been occupied, but denying that Hawaii came to be a part
> > of the United States according to precisely the same scenario, but, unlik=
> e
> > the three Baltic countries, is still under foreign occupation. It ain't
> > OK, and I do not make excuses for either.
>
> Well, as I said to Macbeth's friend (McDuff), it doesn't go over well
> telling us Balts that you find a creep like the nats-bol B=E4ckman's
> left-wing revisionist theories "interesting" when you should be
> finding them repulsive, just as you would find theories of left-wing
> neo-nazi revisionist repulsive.
I do not agree with him, but I disagree even more with people who would
silence, censor, or ban him. Many of his viewpoints are indeed repulsive,
but his raising the issue of the degree to which the word "occupation" is
appropriate to the Baltic countries after the early 1950s, or, arguably,
the mid-1960s, wen they were opened to the world again after having been
cut off for a generation, is interesting. Even if you and I agree that the
three Baltic countries were under foreign occupation from 1940 until 1991
or even 1995, many perfectly rational people would deny this, just as
most Americans would deny that Hawaii was or is occupied. I don't know
abput you, but I am interested in finding how people are able to construct
such different historical narratives from what seems to be the same
empirical evidence. Nor, I have to say, am I comfortable with the idea of
countries that were themselves recently the objects of invasion,
externally forced regime change, invasion, and insurgency suddenly getting
themselves involved in such activities on the giving end. As I said in a
previous posting it is *not* OK when America does it, it is/was *not* Ok
when Russia/the Soviet Union does/did it, and it is damned repulsive for
the Baltic countries to have gotten themselves involved in such behavior.
Regards,
Eugene holman
J. Anderson
> Many of his viewpoints are indeed repulsive,
> but his raising the issue of the degree to which the word "occupation" is
> appropriate to the Baltic countries after the early 1950s, or, arguably,
> the mid-1960s, wen they were opened to the world again after having been
> cut off for a generation, is interesting.
Why do you constantly bring up the mid-60's and Kekkonen's Tartu visit as if
that would have terminated the occupation? What's more, as far as Latvia and
Lithuania were concerned, that 'window of liberty' was quickly closed again.
Do you really think that seeing drunken tourists in Tallinn somehow made
life easier for the Estonians?
Henry Alminas
"J. Anderson" <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:jm7Ek.73275$_03....@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
The Holmanian smoke generator seems
to be working overtime. Do you suppose
that he is preparing ground for yet another
russkie "blessing" for the Balts being
planned by his Kremlin bosses?
Best - - Henry
Dmitry
> >> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
>
>
> It's psychological, he can't help it. It goes back to his traumatic
> he hates the States as a sort of belated justification for his decision.
>
> at least sympathizing with its opponent, the Soviet Union.
He has left for Finland - not Soviet Union.
Dmitry
> On 28 Rugs, 22:07, martin <marti...@joymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 12:57 am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> > > I attended Oula Silvenoinen's doctoral defense of his book *Salaiset
> > > aseveljet* ['Secret comrades-in-arms'] yesterday and saw, but did not
>
> > > Silvennoinen, like Bäckman, is trying to construct a histrical narrative
> > > in which there are no heroes or villains, but rather people acting within
> > > the framwork of the bureaucratic structure, even if subsequently proven to
> > > be criminal, that was their employer and paid the salary that put food on
> > > the table.
>
> > > Like most members of this forum, I sympathize with the three Baltic
> > > nations and no difficulty accepting the Baltic version of what happened
> > > there between 1940 and 1991. I do, however, also accept that a different
> > > narrative, one that it is neither "lies" nor "Kremlin propaganda", can be
> > > constructed about the events.
>
> > > by many Americans as a reason to consider him to be not quite a real
> > > American?
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Eugene Holman
>
> > that the Baltics were occupied. Note that Barack Obama co-sponsoring
> > the recently passed US Senate resolution reaffirming the occupation:http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/21354/
>
> > Regards,
> > Martin
>
> True, Martin, true! If Baltic countries were occupied, why this
> "occupations' were not accepted at nineteen forties?
They were acnowledged, but not accepted because the only legality of
them was a dodgy agreement between two totalitarian stated in 1939.
> Why these
> 'occupations' were discowered only at ninteen eighties?
"They" were "discovered" by an average Soviet citizen because
Gorbachev allowed freedom of speech.
> It is a shit,
> what it is calling 'occupations'.
It was for many who were deported and for the families of those who
were murdered.
> Lets talk about the leaving of USSR
> by Baltics. Why were not given for people to decide through
> referendum?
There was referendum in Latvia. Majority of people voted Sovok out.
> A gang get to the power through USA support and announced
> a new order and new truth.
USA had no involvement in this. Gang? Gorbunovs was supported by the
majority of Latvian population. Rubiks wasn't.
>
> Regards,http://labaslietuva.blogpsot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dmitry
> Latvian voters voted for independence. have you been asleep for 20
> years?
You never know. The comrade may have been frozen in 1936 and recently
thawed by the scientists in Dublin. In that case his questions are
quite legitimate.
> >Regards,
J. Anderson
> On 28 Sep, 20:24, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>> tadas.bli...@lycos.es wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 5:57 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>>>> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
>>> Red herring. Why bring it up?
>> It's psychological, he can't help it. It goes back to his traumatic
>> experience in the 60's, when he felt forced to leave the US. After that
>> he hates the States as a sort of belated justification for his decision.
>>
>> Hating the United States in the 60's and 70's meant, if not loving then
>> at least sympathizing with its opponent, the Soviet Union.
>
> He has left for Finland - not Soviet Union.
Finland was a comfortable place to live almost behind the Iron Curtain.
J. Anderson
"Henry Alminas" <halm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-cOdnfqirp-wknzV...@comcast.com...
No, he's just regurgitating the same old stuff as usual. And he must have
forgotten that the Brezhnev period was a step back compared to Khrushchev's
times. The idea that the occupation suddenly turned into some kind of
non-occupation is not 'interesting', it's idiotic.
Dmitry
I doubt he came to Finland for comfort. Was it 40 years ago? If he,
African-American, moved to Sovok in 1968 he would have been made into
celebrity with the privileges that ordinary Soviet citizens couldn't
have dreamt of. I don't know if you heard of Angela Davies and how
her persona was exploited by Soviet propaganda.
MTRP™
> J. Anderson wrote:
> > Dmitry wrote:
> > > J. Anderson wrote:
> > >> tadas.bli...@lycos.es wrote:
> > >>> On Sep 28, 5:57 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > >>>> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
> > >>> Red herring. Why bring it up?
> > >> It's psychological, he can't help it. It goes back to his traumatic
> > >> experience in the 60's, when he felt forced to leave the US. After that
> > >> he hates the States as a sort of belated justification for his decision.
> > >> Hating the United States in the 60's and 70's meant, if not loving then
> > >> at least sympathizing with its opponent, the Soviet Union.
> > > He has left for Finland - not Soviet Union.
> > Finland was a comfortable place to live almost behind the Iron Curtain.
> I doubt he came to Finland for comfort. Was it 40 years ago? If he,
> African-American, moved to Sovok in 1968 he would have been made into
> celebrity with the privileges that ordinary Soviet citizens couldn't
> have dreamt of. I don't know if you heard of Angela Davies and how
> her persona was exploited by Soviet propaganda.
Frankly speaking you all gone mad. What Zhen'ka's personal moves in
space and time have to do with SCB culture and world news??? This crap
smells like old good Amerikkkunt racism and MacCartism. Let's better
ask all "domestic" US/Aussie/Canada based SCB russkie haters how come
their poppas and mommas could flee 3d Reich occupied Baltics without
collaborating with German Nazis? Or Soviet NKVD, if they fled SU
occupied Baltics, later? (Tertium non datur, so sez classical logic.)
Dmitry
> Dmitry wrote:
> > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > Dmitry wrote:
> > > > J. Anderson wrote:
> > > >> tadas.bli...@lycos.es wrote:
> > > >>> On Sep 28, 5:57 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > > >>>> How many Americans would regard Hawaii as being under foreign occupation?
> > > >>> Red herring. Why bring it up?
> > > >> It's psychological, he can't help it. It goes back to his traumatic
> > > >> experience in the 60's, when he felt forced to leave the US. After that
> > > >> he hates the States as a sort of belated justification for his decision.
> > > >> Hating the United States in the 60's and 70's meant, if not loving then
> > > >> at least sympathizing with its opponent, the Soviet Union.
> > > > He has left for Finland - not Soviet Union.
> > > Finland was a comfortable place to live almost behind the Iron Curtain.
> > I doubt he came to Finland for comfort. Was it 40 years ago? If he,
> > African-American, moved to Sovok in 1968 he would have been made into
> > celebrity with the privileges that ordinary Soviet citizens couldn't
> > have dreamt of. I don't know if you heard of Angela Davies and how
> > her persona was exploited by Soviet propaganda.
>
> Frankly speaking you all gone mad. What Zhen'ka's personal moves in
> space and time have to do with SCB culture and world news???
Holman has been scb's participant from its beginning.
MTRP™
So what? Why should he explain his personal motives of doing this or
that?
Maris
She wasn't just exploited. She was a through and through stalinist,
who criticised the dissidents in the Soviet communist system.
Maris
wrote:
>
>As for you Eugene - I lump you together with Andriushka to be honest.
>Lots of sloganeering. Lots of wordy rhetoric. A firm commitment to
>communist ideals.
>
Wrong, no commitment to communist ideals (which are lofty ideals after
all) but a commitment to great Russian chauvinistic imperialsim.
MTRP™
> darsiau wrote:
> > As for you Eugene - I lump you together with Andriushka to be honest.
> >Lots of sloganeering. Lots of wordy rhetoric. A firm commitment to
> >communist ideals.
> Wrong, no commitment to communist ideals (which are lofty ideals after
> all) but a commitment to great Russian chauvinistic imperialsim.
Crap³. As our putinist majesty discovered SCB Zhen'ka argued for
Russia's disintegration. VM and Medved can confirm.
darsi...@comcast.net
> In article
> <c8853a7d-28b5-46fc-a4ac-55e3a5090...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> darsiau...@comcast.net wrote:
> That is precisely my point. Most Americans know nothing about the manner
> in which the erstwhile Kingdom of Hawaii was co-opted, subverted, and
> eventually annexed, much against the will of its native population, by the
> United States during the 1890s in order to further the interests of
> American pineapple growers. They would be surprised and offended if
> someone claimed that Hawaii is actually foreign territory under American
> occupation, even though this can be easily verified. It is not something
> most Americans want to know about their history.
Why does any discussion critical of what Russia is doing to its
neighbors always result in your injecting US history - as if its
relevant ? Is your argument that Russia is simply using a 100+ year
old US imperial playbook ? In that respect your argument would be
goofy but relevant.
Can't Russia's actions against its sovereign neighbors be addressed on
their merits without shifting to US history ? The Injuns did the
Injuns ?
> Mr. Bäckman recently published a book in which he presented his
> understanding of why it is incorrect to claim that Estonia occupied by the
> Soviet Union. I disgree with him, but I certainly know that many people
> share his views, even if they are not able or willing to articulate them
> as clearly as he is. He certainly has the right to present his take on
> things in a country that has a free press and honors freedom of opinion.
> Indeed, a lack of the right to express dissenting views publicly was one
> of the primary complaints that the Baltic peoples had about living under
> Soviet rule. If Bäckman's views are unsustainable, he should not be shut
> up or banned from Estonia, as some peole have suggested here, they should
> be countered with better interpretations of the historical evidence.
And you feel that your continued reference of various US acts of
imperialism when discussions roll into historical evidence is a better
use of history ?
Why even venture back to 1890 ? The US has two wars of occupation
going on right now. But...Wars started for the purpose of solidifying
sphere of influence and access to strategic resources rings a
different bell than pineapples. What Bush did was idiotic on many
levels. One level being that it empowered Putin to do exactly the same
thing. You then add that since others have done X before then the
aggressor can consider the implied historical precedent as tacit
approval and it then simply becomes the US's fault. Nice !
Many here in the US are discussing the huge mistake the war in Iraq is
- and it's not even been five years ? Russia has had 2 decades to
consider its actions over the last 100 years and is completely
unwilling to address its history openly with Europe. Russia's response
is that their interpretation of history is all thats important. Your
mega ditto is that no one here CAN question Russia's action on its
merits until we have 100% historical saturation on how Hawaii became a
territory ? That's impossible - and thats precisely your point.
>
> > As for you Eugene - I lump you together with Andriushka to be honest.
> > Lots of sloganeering. Lots of wordy rhetoric. A firm commitment to
> > communist ideals.
>
> Communist ideals? How?
Because there's an ideological component to your arguments that you
always defer away from. Ideology affects one's outlook on conflicts -
certainly historical interpretation as well. You have an eastern big
power complex that isnt particularly democratic - certainly not
respecting of the democracies involved in SCB. I know that any number
of people can have a discussion on Russian aggression without tossing
in pineapples. But for you - it's about tossing in the pineapples. Or
the Ho-Chunk and Illini tribal lands I call home.
Fine. I'll give them my lands back as long as we can also return
Europe to its true borders - ala late 14th century.
Vidas
Eugene Holman
<aa15e37d-794e-4882...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
darsi...@comcast.net wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Why even venture back to 1890 ?
Because the parallel with Baltic history, with subversion, invasion,
occupation, quislings, forced regime change, arrest of rulers,
uncontrolled immigration, marginalization of the local culture and
language, annexation, and Russian denial of the facts with that of the
general American public not to know or think about the Hawaiian scenario
is so striking.
> The US has two wars of occupation
> going on right now. But...Wars started for the purpose of solidifying
> sphere of influence and access to strategic resources rings a
> different bell than pineapples. What Bush did was idiotic on many
> levels. One level being that it empowered Putin to do exactly the same
> thing. You then add that since others have done X before then the
> aggressor can consider the implied historical precedent as tacit
> approval and it then simply becomes the US's fault. Nice !
It bothers me that Bush is characterized as "idiotic", for "having made a
mistake", but Putin "barbaric", for "being a monster". The rhetoric shows
a double standard: my children vs. his brats; my girl-friend vs. his slut.
> Many here in the US are discussing the huge mistake the war in Iraq is
> - and it's not even been five years ? Russia has had 2 decades to
> consider its actions over the last 100 years and is completely
> unwilling to address its history openly with Europe. Russia's response
> is that their interpretation of history is all thats important.
When you are nuclearly armed, rich, and confident you an afford to do your
own thing and tell the rest of the world to stop you if it can. That's
what America has been doing since the end of WW II, but it has become
particularly arrogant since the inavsions of the two Asian countries.
> Your
> mega ditto is that no one here CAN question Russia's action on its
> merits until we have 100% historical saturation on how Hawaii became a
> territory ? That's impossible - and thats precisely your point.
I myself have condemned Russia's actions against Georgia more than once in
this very forum. There is no way that it can be accepted. However, I was
also one of the first participants in this forum to point out the point
that you raise above: Russia concluded that if the US can get away with
invading two countries that it perceives as threatening it, twice, Russia
can certainly get away with it at least once.
The reason for dragging Hawaii into this was quite different. This thread
is not about Russia, but rather about the view expressed in a recent book
by Finnish revisionist historian Johan Bäckman that the Baltic countries
were not occupied by the USSR after WW II. Although I disagree with
Bäckman, I made the point that for many Russians with a normal
understanding of Soviet and Russian history would also contest the issue
of Baltic occupation, just as many Baltic-Americans would contest that
Hawaii was or is occupied, and in precisely the same manner. Raising the
issue is not a red herring: how many Baltic-Americans do you know who
would regard Hawaii as really a country under foreign occupation or the
marginalization of the Hawaiian culture and language and Americanization
of the population as having any similarity to the twentieth centuray
history of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania?
> > > As for you Eugene - I lump you together with Andriushka to be honest.
> > > Lots of sloganeering. Lots of wordy rhetoric. A firm commitment to
> > > communist ideals.
> >
> > Communist ideals? How?
>
> Because there's an ideological component to your arguments that you
> always defer away from. Ideology affects one's outlook on conflicts -
> certainly historical interpretation as well. You have an eastern big
> power complex that isnt particularly democratic - certainly not
> respecting of the democracies involved in SCB.
You read me wrong. I am no friend of imperialism, American, Russian,
Soviet, or other. I detest the idea of large countries invading smaller
ones and effecting regime changes, particularly on manifestly false
pretenses. I also recognize the hypocrisy when the leader of a small
country that has recently suffered invasion, regime change, and occupation
complains about such behavior while soldiers of his own military are
participants in the invasion, regime change, and occupation of two small
countries led by a larger one.
> I know that any number
> of people can have a discussion on Russian aggression without tossing
> in pineapples. But for you - it's about tossing in the pineapples. Or
> the Ho-Chunk and Illini tribal lands I call home.
Russian aggression is part of a larger pattern of sociopathic behavior
that is, unfortunately, not a Russian monopoly. Emulation is the sincerest
form of flattery. Countries have not, unfortunately, ever become "great"
by assuming the role of Mr. Nice Guy.
> Fine. I'll give them my lands back as long as we can also return
> Europe to its true borders - ala late 14th century.
Good luck trying. I'll be one of the first people to visit one of the
Black Sea resorts in the restored Grand Duchy of Lithuania :-)
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Henry Alminas
Bullshit - Holman! I recall your triumphant post about
how the russkies had "kicked Baltic ass". Or - is your memory
growing dim?
As to the westernmost state - but of course the US
was even more murderous than the russkies in the
Baltics. I am certain that you can rewrite your
history any way you want - even as I am certain
that you will find some idiots to buy it.
As to your love for communism - hmm - I recall
someone reposting one of your posts to another
forum - all about the beauty of communism for
blacks. Remember?
Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-3009...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
<deletions>
>
> Bullshit - Holman! I recall your triumphant post about
> how the russkies had "kicked Baltic ass". Or - is your memory
> growing dim?
No, I don't. A search of the soc.culture.baltics archives reveals one
occurrence of the phrase "kicked Baltic ass", and that is *you*
misquorting me, as you have been wont to do.
Source: news:a656d98c.03012...@posting.google.com..
<quote>
<deletions>
This is a rather revealing post from Martin. Doing a Hitlerian
little dance he warbles " you guys are quaking in your boots"
relative to the Franco-Germanic power grab. Well Martin
this sounds very reminiscent of the Holmanian jubilation of
years past where he indicated that the "russkies kicked
Baltic ass" when the discussion swung to the russkie depredations
of the Baltics.
<deletions>
</quote>
> As to the westernmost state - but of course the US
> was even more murderous than the russkies in the
> Baltics. I am certain that you can rewrite your
> history any way you want - even as I am certain
> that you will find some idiots to buy it.
Just as I thought. Going into denial when the shoe is on the other foot.
The fact of the matter is that the Kingdom of Hawaii was an independent
country in 1890, but ten years later its government had been "regime
changed", its leader arrested by the Americans, and its territory made the
target of robust immigration not only from the Unirted States, but also
from China, Japan, and Philippines, much to the detriment of the local
population, language, and culture. You don't need to be an idiot to "buy"
this. Anyone familiar with the manner in which the Kingdom of Hawaii
became first the Territory of Hawaii and then the State of Hawaii knows
that it is not a pretty story.
>
> As to your love for communism - hmm - I recall
> someone reposting one of your posts to another
> forum - all about the beauty of communism for
> blacks. Remember?
No, I don't. Communism, at least in the form peracticed in the USSR and
its satellites, was a murderous system, bankrupt from the start. Nor do I
understand how a system of economic and politiical organization can be a
thing of "beauty" for one racial group but not for another.
You have a long record here of misquoting people or quoting them out of
context. I am not the only one in scb to have been victimized by you in
this manner.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
martin
>
> Just as I thought. Going into denial when the shoe is on the other foot.
> The fact of the matter is that the Kingdom of Hawaii was an independent
> country in 1890, but ten years later its government had been "regime
> changed", its leader arrested by the Americans, and its territory made the
> target of robust immigration not only from the Unirted States, but also
> from China, Japan, and Philippines, much to the detriment of the local
> population, language, and culture. You don't need to be an idiot to "buy"
> this. Anyone familiar with the manner in which the Kingdom of Hawaii
> became first the Territory of Hawaii and then the State of Hawaii knows
> that it is not a pretty story.
Why do you need to compare Russian 20th Century colonialism with
American 19th Century colonialism, when Russia has its own rich
history of 19th Century colonialism of its own to draw on.
That is the basic difference between Russia and the West, while both
practiced colonialism in the 19th Century, the West gave it up in the
20th Century, while Russia continues it into the 21st with its
annexation of Georgian territory.
Regards,
Martin
Eugene Holman
<7395c73b-69f5-4ea3...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
martin <mart...@joymail.com> wrote:
The Hawaiian episode tool place during the last decade of the 19th
century. Hawaii became an American territory in 1898, the Baltics became
Soviet republics in 1940. The time depth is a mere forty-two years-
And unlike the three Baltic countries, Hawaii remains under foreign
occupation, even if red-blooded, corn-fed non-Hawaiian Americans like
Henry object strenuously to framing the issue in these terms.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
martin
> In article
> <7395c73b-69f5-4ea3-a231-ec2c8531a...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Close your eyes and point to any region in Russia, chances are that
region was a colonial conquest in the 18-19th centuries. Same with the
USA. The difference is that the USA, as did the West, stopped colonial
conquests in the 20th Century, while Russia continues it in the 21st.
Are you saying that if Russia retook its former colonial possession of
Finland tomorrow, you would just shrug you shoulders and say "Fair
enough, the USA did it to Hawaii a century ago"?
Regards,
Martin
darsi...@comcast.net
>
> Because the parallel with Baltic history, with subversion, invasion,
> occupation, quislings, forced regime change, arrest of rulers,
> uncontrolled immigration, marginalization of the local culture and
> language, annexation, and Russian denial of the facts with that of the
> general American public not to know or think about the Hawaiian scenario
> is so striking.
So where is Russias "Apology Resolution" ? Isnt that basic to the
question at hand ? So where is it ?
Various articles on Russian public and official opinion regarding the
consequences of the soviet regime exist. Russias denial of the facts,
as you plainly state, are real and cannot be denied. Again, I refer
back to relevance. How is 110 year old American imperialism relevant
to Russias factual denial of the crimes it committed ? One can exist
without the other. Based on your parallels - is Russia as inept and
immature as you seem to want to imply ? Is it your argument - as I
asked before - that Russia's aggression against its neighbors is born
from US 19th century imperialism ?
If the US was able to offer an apology - why cant Russia ?
>
> It bothers me that Bush is characterized as "idiotic", for "having made a
> mistake", but Putin "barbaric", for "being a monster". The rhetoric shows
> a double standard: my children vs. his brats; my girl-friend vs. his slut.
Ok. Both are sluts. Happy ? Please tell me your argument is based on
something stronger than semantics and creative use of adjectives.
> When you are nuclearly armed, rich, and confident you an afford to do your
> own thing and tell the rest of the world to stop you if it can. That's
> what America has been doing since the end of WW II, but it has become
> particularly arrogant since the inavsions of the two Asian countries.
But wait a second. I'm hearing from Medvedev that Russia doesnt want a
new Cold War. That Russia doesnt want to be isolated. That Russia
feels the West is simply misinterpreting its actions in defense of its
interests.
So why is Russia unwilling to address the historical factors that make
all former eastern block nations nervous about their future relations
with Russia ? This isnt just a Baltic thing Eugene. It appears that
over time even you acknowledge that Moscow's attitude is fucked up.
The question distills down to which side is more willing to compromise
its history. Certainly Russia wont. So who stands to lose ? You know
very well who stands to lose Eugene. And your response is to toss in
the pineapples ??
> I myself have condemned Russia's actions against Georgia more than once in
> this very forum. There is no way that it can be accepted. However, I was
> also one of the first participants in this forum to point out the point
> that you raise above: Russia concluded that if the US can get away with
> invading two countries that it perceives as threatening it, twice, Russia
> can certainly get away with it at least once.
It can get away with it but was it right and justified in doing so.
I'll do my best to educate the US on the wrongs of the Pineapple
Invasion.
So 110 year later, in a society that is supposedly more enlightened -
how can Russias aggression be justified ? Is Putin as dumb as Bush and
Grover Cleveland ?
>
> The reason for dragging Hawaii into this was quite different. This thread
> is not about Russia, but rather about the view expressed in a recent book
> by Finnish revisionist historian Johan Bäckman that the Baltic countries
> were not occupied by the USSR after WW II. Although I disagree with
> Bäckman, I made the point that for many Russians with a normal
> understanding of Soviet and Russian history would also contest the issue
> of Baltic occupation, just as many Baltic-Americans would contest that
> Hawaii was or is occupied, and in precisely the same manner. Raising the
> issue is not a red herring: how many Baltic-Americans do you know who
> would regard Hawaii as really a country under foreign occupation or the
> marginalization of the Hawaiian culture and language and Americanization
> of the population as having any similarity to the twentieth centuray
> history of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania?
Again - so where is Russias "Apology Resolution" ?
> Russian aggression is part of a larger pattern of sociopathic behavior
> that is, unfortunately, not a Russian monopoly. Emulation is the sincerest
> form of flattery. Countries have not, unfortunately, ever become "great"
> by assuming the role of Mr. Nice Guy.
So why cant that behavior be discussed without your throwing in
pineapples ? I agree with your point on emulation but I cant agree
that your response to the discussion is relevant. Youre simply trying
to divert the discussion away from the facts behind the issue. Russia
does and will continue to reserve the right to defend its interests in
any way it deems fit based on whatever definition of interests it
finds convenient to apply at any given time.
Eugene, I'm far away from Russia - regardless what Johnah McPalin
says. You're on the front lines. You live in a city that has felt the
affects of Russian aggression. Maybe John or Vello can tell me if
theyre impressed with your use of pineapples ?
Vidas
Eugene Holman
<e09dd87a-dc4f-4315...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
martin <mart...@joymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:48 am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Close your eyes and point to any region in Russia, chances are that
> region was a colonial conquest in the 18-19th centuries.
That is the understatement of the millennium. The United States and Russia
both expanded from relatively small and compact countries in 1800 to
transcontinental giants by 1900, both using colonial conquests,
subversions, genocide, and other shady practices to grab land. Of course
they were not alone: Britain, France, Italy, and even Germany, Belgium,
Italy, and even Denmark were doing the same thing, perfecting the art that
Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Sweden had developed before them.
> Same with the
> USA. The difference is that the USA, as did the West, stopped colonial
> conquests in the 20th Century, while Russia continues it in the 21st.
The other difference is that Russia lost or gave up a tremendous amount of
what it had amassed in 1991 when it, in the guise of the Soviet Union,
collapsed, with fifteen countries emerging from it. Since then it has gone
to considerable efforts to retain Chechnya and has sponsored or at least
supported some shady business in Transdniestria and in and, in Moscow,
against Estonia last year as well, but its recent action in Georgia was
its first real attempt since then to regain at least a privileged position
in a former colonial conquest.
Hawaii, in contrast, remains under foreign occupation, foreign occupation
which is accompanied by a huge military facility
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Pearl+Harbor+Naval+Complex?OpenDocument).
If the West has stopped imperial conquests, what do you call the
operations in Afghanistan and, particularly, in Iraq? Afghanistan is being
blamed for having provided some of the facilities for training the
perpetrators, most of them Saudis, of the 9/11 attacks, even if it is
often convenietly forgotten that they got their flight training in the
United States with some financial support from the US taxpayer (Oooops!).
Iraq is being subjected to an exercise in colonialism as brutal as
anything that ever took place during the 20th century because it was
suspected bh the Bush adminisgtration of having weapons of mass
destruction, which, even today, close to 100,000 Iraqi deaths later
[http://www.iraqbodycount.org/], have never been found.
What do you call the western supported partition of Serbia, which resulted
in independence of Kosovo, and the establishment of a major American
military base, Camp Bondsteel
[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-bondsteel.htm]
there? Whereas I condemn Russia's actions in Georgia, I understand its
attitude: "If the Yanks, still number one but undegoing meltdown, can play
the imperialist game, so can we, particularly since we are entering the
past-American era and major power sttaus is up for grabs. Who's going to
stop us, with our nukes and all?" Or, to state it more elegantly: Quod
licebat Jovi, nunc licet bovique.
> Are you saying that if Russia retook its former colonial possession of
> Finland tomorrow, you would just shrug you shoulders and say "Fair
> enough, the USA did it to Hawaii a century ago"?
Of course not. I condemn Russian imperialism as robustly as I do American
imperialism, but I detest double standards. My point in bringing the
entire issue up was that certain of the same people who have expressed
astonishment at and disapproval of the fact that otherwise educated and
seemingly rational Russians (as well as one Finn, Johan Bäckman) could
question the historical factuality of occupation in the Baltics, regard as
totally preposterous to use Henry's words a rewriting of history that I
"will find some idiots to buy it" the idea that Hawaii wound up being in
the United States due to a quite similar scenario. They consider this view
of a particularly nasty episode in American history to be as aburd as the
idea that, from the standpoint of the native Hawaiians, their country,
like the three Baltic countries between 1940 and 1991 (or 1995, if you
want to be pedantic), has been and still is under foreign occupation since
1898.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
tadas....@lycos.es
> "If the Yanks, still number one but undegoing meltdown, can play
> the imperialist game, so can we, particularly since we are entering the
> stop us, with our nukes and all?" Or, to state it more elegantly: Quod
> licebat Jovi, nunc licet bovique.
Do you have a Latin verb conjugator program on your computer or did
you manage to dredge up the past imperfect tense infelctions out of
your grey matter?
> I condemn Russian imperialism as robustly as I do American
> imperialism, but I detest double standards.
Double standards, like other forms of hypocrisy, are a natural part of
life. Yes, the Yankees are imperialists, but they haven't tried to
annex the Baltic states, and this is soc.culture.baltics, so don't be
surprised that the focus is on who's a bad boy in nthis neighbourhood,
not who's the bad boy on another continent.
I don't know why you love and admire the Russians so much Eugene, but
maybe the time has come to admit that your love object is flawed. The
British lost an Empire too, but they dusted themselves down and put
on a stiff upper lip and got on with life. The Germans and Japanese
lost attempted empires, and got a thrashing into the bargain, having
to eat humble pie for at least three decades, but they pulled
themselves together and now are flourishing.
Meanwhile, Russia is run politically by the KGB and economically by
Kremlin-anointed mafioso warlords. If they had no nafta and gaz
they'd all be starving to death. They don't appear to be making any
realistic attempt at creating social justice. All the Medvedev &
Putin team can do is stand at the school gate like the friendless
bully, snarling and uttering threats.
Eugene Holman
<5b6e2b8d-7145-46cf...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
tadas....@lycos.es wrote:
> On 1 Spa, 07:40, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > "If the Yanks, still number one but undegoing meltdown, can play
> > the imperialist game, so can we, particularly since we are entering the
> > past-American era and major power status is up for grabs. Who's going to
> > stop us, with our nukes and all?" Or, to state it more elegantly: Quod
> > licebat Jovi, nunc licet bovique.
>
> Do you have a Latin verb conjugator program on your computer or did
> you manage to dredge up the past imperfect tense infelctions out of
> your grey matter?
Out of the grey matter. Our university had a rigorous Latin requirement
when I was studying, and having invested so much effort learning the
language, I keep it up: the Finnish radio broadcasts news in Latin, and
Finnish teletext also gives reams of neo-Latin, cf.
http://www.yleradio1.fi/nuntii/.
For example, here is a report on last week's tragic school shooting at
Kauhajoki:
Spurce: http://www.yleradio1.fi/nuntii/id17482.shtml
<quote>
Strages maxima in Kauhajoki
: Nuntii Latini
26.09.2008, klo 11.41
Die Martis (23.9.) ante meridiem in sede scholari oppidi Kauhajoki, quod
in Ostrobothnia Finniae Meridiana situm est, strages maxima edita est.
Grex studentium in parte subterranea scholae suae professionalis in
examine faciendo occupatus erat, cum vir quidam capite persona tecto in
classem ex improviso irruit ibique horribili modo furere coepit.
Lagoena incendiaria in medios discipulos coniecta et compluribus glandibus
e pistolio emissis effecit, ut decem homines statim vitam amitterent.
Quo facto sclopetator, postquam se ipsum gravissime vulneravit, moribundus
in nosocomium deportatus est, ubi eodem die sub vesperum animam efflavit.
</quote>
>
> > I condemn Russian imperialism as robustly as I do American
> > imperialism, but I detest double standards.
>
> Double standards, like other forms of hypocrisy, are a natural part of
> life. Yes, the Yankees are imperialists, but they haven't tried to
> annex the Baltic states, and this is soc.culture.baltics, so don't be
> surprised that the focus is on who's a bad boy in nthis neighbourhood,
> not who's the bad boy on another continent.
I'm not. But I *am* distressed to the point of revulsion that they have
*seduced* the Baltic countries into participating in their imperialist
adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. I almost blew lunch when Estonian
President Ilves, whom I otherwise greatly respect, spoke at the United
Nations recently about how unacceptable large countries invading and
occupying small ones unilaterally and in violation of international law is
in the 21st century while his military is part of the so-called Coalition
of the Willing.
> I don't know why you love and admire the Russians so much Eugene, but
> maybe the time has come to admit that your love object is flawed.
I neither love not admire them. I live next to them and try to understand
them. That is a totally different issue. I don't see them as irrational
barbarians, like some people do here, but rather as a country trying to
play the same games that other countries of its size and with its
resources do, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
> The
> British lost an Empire too, but they dusted themselves down and put
> on a stiff upper lip and got on with life.
But they are now "fighting terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan alng with
the Yanks. They also left a frightful mess behind when they insisted upon
partitioning the Raj into India and two Pakistans before leaving, kind of
like shitting on the threshold of the exit door.
> The Germans and Japanese
> lost attempted empires, and got a thrashing into the bargain, having
> to eat humble pie for at least three decades, but they pulled
> themselves together and now are flourishing.
>
> Meanwhile, Russia is run politically by the KGB and economically by
> Kremlin-anointed mafioso warlords.
Not as much as ten years ago. Most Russian decision makers have see the
limitations on running the country in that manner.
> If they had no nafta and gaz
> they'd all be starving to death. They don't appear to be making any
> realistic attempt at creating social justice. All the Medvedev &
> Putin team can do is stand at the school gate like the friendless
> bully, snarling and uttering threats.
I disagree with you on this. Putin, despite his KGB background - or
perhaps because of it certainly understands the importance of social
justice, and Medvedev, his handpicked protegé and a crack lawyer with no
KGB background, is committed to working to achieve it. They and most other
Russians in decision-making positions are smart enough to understand that
Russia will never be the modern, great, influential nation that they (and
many others) want it to be if they don't get their act together. Even if
there has been some backsliding on the democracy front recently, the
Russia of 1998 and the Russia of 2008 are totally different countries, for
better or worse... In this part of the world it is inspiring to see that
living standards in the parts of Russia adjacent to Finland and the Baltic
countries are at roughly the same level as that of the Baltic countries.
Moscow, as we all know, is presently the most expensive and hedonistic
city in Europe. That means normalization in many different ways.
My personal opinion is that the most significant development over the past
ten years in Russia has been computerization. Gone are the abacuses and
receiptless transactions. Large computer displays keep track of purchases,
value added tax, inventories, and the names of the people at various
levels of responsibility when money changes hands. The government is
finally getting the cut of the action that the tax code entitles it to.
Gone are the days when Russian workers were paid in brassieres, condoms,
or IOUs, or when the government was broke and had to default on its
obligations.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
David McDuff
Holman) wrote:
>My point in bringing the
>entire issue up was that certain of the same people who have expressed
>astonishment at and disapproval of the fact that otherwise educated and
>seemingly rational Russians (as well as one Finn, Johan Bäckman) could
>question the historical factuality of occupation in the Baltics, regard as
>totally preposterous to use Henry's words a rewriting of history that I
>"will find some idiots to buy it" the idea that Hawaii wound up being in
>the United States due to a quite similar scenario.
Actually, not one (the subject of this thread) but two Finns have
recently published controversial texts on the subject of occupation in
the Baltics:
Perhaps in the context of this newsgroup and the geographical/cultural
area it covers (not Hawaii) it might be more interesting to ask - why
do Finns have a tendency to question the historical factuality of
occupation in the Baltics? You live and work in Finland, so you may be
able to give an answer.
Regards,
DM
Anton
> Actually, not one (the subject of this thread) but two Finns have
> recently published controversial texts on the subject of occupation in
> the Baltics:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/48zrze
>
> Perhaps in the context of this newsgroup and the geographical/cultural
> area it covers (not Hawaii) it might be more interesting to ask - why
> do Finns have a tendency to question the historical factuality of
> occupation in the Baltics?
The question is absurd. We don't. The opinion of two Finns hardly
represent the rest of five million Finns.
--
Anton
David McDuff
wrote:
Yet it's the opinions of the two that one hears and reads about in
this newsgroup, and in the Finnish and international press - not the
opinions of the rest of the five million, whom you call "we".
There are more questions: how representative are the opinions of the
two Finns who have recently published books on the subject of the
Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic States? Are they really in a
minority of two, and why do such books appear in Finland, and not in
other countries of Europe?
DM
MTRP™
> Perhaps in the context of this newsgroup and the geographical/cultural
> area it covers (not Hawaii) it might be more interesting to ask - why
> do Finns have a tendency to question the historical factuality of
> occupation in the Baltics? You live and work in Finland, so you may be
> able to give an answer.
Well, so do the Russians, too. It's vodka, stupid! :-)
Note: I don't live and work in Finland, but I'm able to answer any
question.
vello
> In article
> <7395c73b-69f5-4ea3-a231-ec2c8531a...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
Eugene,
what is past is past. After ww2 West never take a square inch of
foreign territory to be "bigger and stronger" despite Germany was a
piece of cake to cut off. Russia instead occupies Est-Lat-Lit in full,
more, parts of Poland, finland, romania and chechoslovakia/hungary
were also occupied and incorporated. It may be, if to count by moders
scale, alexander the Great and Julius Caesar will appear as bloody
tyrants, bu there is no accuse to use their methods in 21 century.
David McDuff
wrote:
> It's vodka, stupid! :-)
Not a bad answer, perhaps, but it doesn't go nearly far enough.
>: I don't live and work in Finland, but I'm able to answer any
>question.
Neither do I, but when I'm in Finland I ask such questions and never
receive an answer.
Instead, I'm handed the publishers' catalogs with listings like:
Viron kylmä sota (Barrikadi-sarja) (WSOY)
Someone must buy these books and approve of them, if the publishers
are willing to print them.
DM
Erkki Aalto
: Yet it's the opinions of the two that one hears and reads about in
: this newsgroup, and in the Finnish and international press - not the
: opinions of the rest of the five million, whom you call "we".
: There are more questions: how representative are the opinions of the
: two Finns who have recently published books on the subject of the
: Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic States? Are they really in a
: minority of two, and why do such books appear in Finland, and not in
: other countries of Europe?
Not representative. They have some followers, e.g. Petri Krohn who was
banned from the English Wikipedia last year. Before this, Bäckman has
published a number of anti-Finnish books and newspaper articles in
Russia. On could mention 'Suomi ilman naamiota' reprint of a wartime propaganda
book by Otto-Ville Kuusinen, and 'Saatana saapuu Helsinkiin', a book
where Bäckman actually claims that Anna Politkovskaya committed suicide.
In addition, Bäckman has publicly accused Finnish Foreign Ministry of
being racist and anti-Russian, at the time the FM was the old leftist
Erkki Tuomioja. No, Bäckman is not very popular in Finland.
The phenomenon is, however, not exclusively Finnish. I just noticed
that Mark Almond from Oxford has very similar thoughts.
--
Erkki 'Örkki' Aalto "Life is divided up into
Internet: Erkki...@Helsinki.FI the horrible and the miserable"
Snail: Tietotekniikkaosasto, P.O. Box 64
FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
tadas....@lycos.es
Except who your father is, you Muy Trágico Producto de la
Prostitución / Promiscuidad.
tadas....@lycos.es
> Snail: Tietotekniikkaosasto, P.O. Box 64
> FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
Like I said, some of these guys suffer form PUM (permanent
undergraduate mentality) and just want to go on being outrgaeous.
David McDuff
wrote:
>David McDuff <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>: Yet it's the opinions of the two that one hears and reads about in
>: this newsgroup, and in the Finnish and international press - not the
>: opinions of the rest of the five million, whom you call "we".
>
>: There are more questions: how representative are the opinions of the
>: two Finns who have recently published books on the subject of the
>: Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic States? Are they really in a
>: minority of two, and why do such books appear in Finland, and not in
>: other countries of Europe?
>
>Not representative. They have some followers, e.g. Petri Krohn who was
>banned from the English Wikipedia last year. Before this, Bäckman has
>published a number of anti-Finnish books and newspaper articles in
>Russia. On could mention 'Suomi ilman naamiota' reprint of a wartime propaganda
>book by Otto-Ville Kuusinen, and 'Saatana saapuu Helsinkiin', a book
>where Bäckman actually claims that Anna Politkovskaya committed suicide.
>In addition, Bäckman has publicly accused Finnish Foreign Ministry of
>being racist and anti-Russian, at the time the FM was the old leftist
>Erkki Tuomioja. No, Bäckman is not very popular in Finland.
What's disturbing, however, is that at least one of these recent books
(Viron kylmä sota) is published by a mainstream Finnish publisher. The
WSOY late autumn catalog (Loppusyksy 2008) has a prominent feature
about Viron kylmä sota as its very first item - the introduction to
the "Barrikadi" series, on page 4. The publicity blurb says that the
author "kirjoittaa maan vahemmän tunnettusta puolesta. aiheesta josta
monien mielestä ei saisi edes puhua." WSOY must believe that they can
sell a fairly large number of copies of this book if they're prepared
to take the risk of publishing it. So there must be a willing
readership for it somewhere. Also, given WSOY's status as a publisher
with international connections, exhibiting at Frankfurt, for example,
the likelihood of the text being translated into English and published
abroad is quite high.
Edward Lucas has argued that it's best for Estonians - and, by
implication, everyone else as well - to ignore or remain silent about
such publications. In the Economist and on his blog he wrote, with
reference to Pronssisoturi: "But perhaps Estonia will be swept away
by a tsunami or colonised by giant spiders. Giving the book front-page
treatment, albeit highly critical, suggests that the editors privately
think its thesis is plausible." On his website, Bäckman uses Lucas's
argument to turn it on its head: "The Economist-lehdessä Bäckmanin
kirjaa kommentoinut Edward Lucas sanoo, että kirjan saama valtava
huomio Virossa kertoisi siitä, että virolaiset kuitenkin pitäisivät
kirjan johtopäätöksiä oikeina."
It's all very well to assert that the views advanced by the authors
concerned are those of a lunatic fringe. They are, however, views that
need to be publicly condemned, and not given currency by being
published in book form by otherwise respectable sources. These are not
newspaper articles or ephemeral polemics, but books which will be
stored in libraries for years to come.
Regards,
DM
Anton
>> David McDuff kirjoitti:
>>> why
>>> do Finns have a tendency to question the historical factuality of
>>> occupation in the Baltics?
>> The question is absurd. We don't. The opinion of two Finns hardly
>> represent the rest of five million Finns.
> Yet it's the opinions of the two that one hears and reads about in
> this newsgroup, and in the Finnish and international press - not the
> opinions of the rest of the five million, whom you call "we".
It is silly to generalize and draw conclusions from two authors'
opinions to suggest that they repesent Finns in general.
> There are more questions: how representative are the opinions of the
> two Finns who have recently published books on the subject of the
> Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic States?
Now that is a more relevant question. Except for some individuals of the
far left and attention craving sensationalists and other 'Quislings',
I'd say not very representative. The ordinary Finns sympathize with and,
living in a small country themselves next to Russia, can relate to the
Baltic countries. At least most of us hold a stance that is more leaning
towards their view than that of Russia. However we have a different
post-WWII history and naturally much less emotional relation to the big
neighbour out east.
> Are they really in a
> minority of two,
Hardly, but their views, at least not those of Bäckman's, hardly reflect
the view of most of the ordinary Finns nor the intelligentzia nor the
political establishment. The most 'radical' stance among the political
leaders as for these issues are those of president Halonen. At the other
end of the scale you have those of defence minister Häkämies. A
Vanhanen-Lipponen-Ahtisaari stance is probably closest to the average
medium of opinion.
> and why do such books appear in Finland, and not in
> other countries of Europe?
I think a few other posters already answered this question. Finland is a
truly free society and we have the Bäckmans and on the other end of the
scale the revanschists who post maps of the pre-1940 borders as the
'real' borders of Finland.
--
Anton
MTRP™
lol(ing)@chico_the_kangaroo. Muy Trágico Producto de la Prostitución /
Promiscuidad is your own phantom (gr.: Phantasma) . Ergo you, weirdo,
are his father. Enjoy! Question answered, case closed.
kge...@gmail.com
> On 1 Oct 2008 11:04:07 GMT, Erkki Aalto <aa...@punk.it.helsinki.fi>
> wrote:
> Edward Lucas has argued that it's best for Estonians - and, by
> implication, everyone else as well - to ignore or remain silent about
> such publications. In the Economist and on his blog he wrote, with
> reference to Pronssisoturi: "But perhaps Estonia will be swept away
> by a tsunami or colonised by giant spiders. Giving the book front-page
> treatment, albeit highly critical, suggests that the editors privately
> think its thesis is plausible." On his website, Bäckman uses Lucas's
> argument to turn it on its head: "The Economist-lehdessä Bäckmanin
> kirjaa kommentoinut Edward Lucas sanoo, että kirjan saama valtava
> huomio Virossa kertoisi siitä, että virolaiset kuitenkin pitäisivät
> kirjan johtopäätöksiä oikeina."
Mr. Lucas treats all this as inconsequential drivel. That is wrong,
because under the guise of “history” and "prophecies" there is
implicit and sometimes explicit threat of violence there. This threat
should not be dismissed even if it looks idle for the time being.
Whether or not respectable publications should give platform for
voicing these views is important question, but how the Baltic States
themselves react in practical terms is far more important. Baltic
States must arm themselves without delay and be ready for "bloodbaths"
the likes of Hietanen prophesy. Or else, by the time threats do not
look idle anymore, it will be too late to react to them.
J. Anderson
"David McDuff" <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mpk6e4p1tble64lnh...@4ax.com...
> Neither do I, but when I'm in Finland I ask such questions and never
> receive an answer.
>
> Instead, I'm handed the publishers' catalogs with listings like:
>
> Viron kylmä sota (Barrikadi-sarja) (WSOY)
Makes one wonder what kind of people you really meet here...
> Someone must buy these books and approve of them, if the publishers
> are willing to print them.
Like I said before, in the academic world Bäckman is persona non grata, or
rather persona ignorata. The woman, whatever her name was, is an
insignificant journalist that few people have ever heard of.
Publishers print even my books, which shows how low they are prepared to go
to earn a few bucks... And of course there are readers even for
controversial views -- this is not a monolithic society like certain others.
But for every 'critical' (in reality: propagandistic) book about the
Baltics, there are ten or twenty or fifty others that present the mainstream
truth, decorated, perhaps, with minor variations.
This is a nation that sent voluntary fighters to establish Estonia's first
independence, that gratefully received reciprocal aid from Estonia during
its own wars, that tried to make the Soviets slacken its reins in Estonia in
the 60's (Kekkonen's initiative), that established personal contacts with
the Estonians in the 70's and 80's, and that cursed its own president
(Koivisto) in the 90's for not bein more encouraging regarding the
restitution of an independent Estonia.
I can't see that there could be more sympathy for Estonia in any other
country. Besides, the Estonians are our only close relatives.
And considering all that, it's understandable that the Estonians react
strongly, should they once in a while hear some dissonant tones from the
Finnish side.
Henry Alminas
You are the one who seems to be terribly
preoccupied with this subject. I believe
that essentially all in the Baltics would
say: "So who cares"?
I am curious - just what is your connection
(if any) to the Baltics and why are you so
intent on roiling the waters? I mean, hell,
we have professionals (like Holman)
haunting this forum who are paid to do it.
What is your interest?
Best - - Henry
David McDuff
wrote:
>Makes one wonder what kind of people you really meet here...
Publishers and authors, for the most part.
See WSOY's glossy Kirjasanomat (Loppusyksy 2008), page 4, for a
prominent feature on their "Barrikadi" release of Viron kylmä sota -
it's the first item in the catalog.
I wrote about this in another post.
WSOY are a mainstream Finnish publisher with international
connections, and one might think that they would know better.
Regards,
DM
J. Anderson
They are also part of the Sanoma group that is publishing Helsingin Sanomat,
according to some 'the most Russophobe newspaper in Finland'.
Erkki Aalto
: They are also part of the Sanoma group that is publishing Helsingin Sanomat,
: according to some 'the most Russophobe newspaper in Finland'.
Not any more. B�ckman as already declared Helsingin sanomat the most
russophobe newspaper in the whole world.
--
Erkki '�rkki' Aalto "Life is divided up into
Internet: Erkki...@Helsinki.FI the horrible and the miserable"
David McDuff
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I am curious - just what is your connection
>(if any) to the Baltics and why are you so
>intent on roiling the waters? I mean, hell,
>we have professionals (like Holman)
>haunting this forum who are paid to do it.
>
>What is your interest?
I don't have any interest at all in "roiling the waters", but I do
care both about Estonia and about Finland, and am concerned about some
tendencies in the political and cultural life of contemporary Finland
- especially the recent Finnish government statements about Estonia,
and the appearance this year of the texts which are the subject of
this thread. I find these things particularly worrying in view of the
fact that they happened in the same year that federal Russian forces
invaded the republic of Georgia.
I've been reading Estonian literature and working with it in various
ways for many years (I'm now approaching my mid-60s), have visited
Estonia (for the first time in 1991, just after the restoration of the
country's independence), and have talked and corresponded with
Estonian writers and political figures. Tunne and Mari-Ann Kelam have
encouraged my interest in Estonia since the mid-1990s, and it's
largely thanks to them that I've been able to form a perspective on
the country and its history. Over a span of 25 years I've translated
books by Finland-Swedish and Finnish authors, both prose and poetry,
paying many visits to Finland, meeting wiith authors and publishers,
and at one time studying at the University of Helsinki. Among other
things, since the early 1980s I've worked as an English translator for
the Helsinki-based literary journal Books from Finland.
Some observers, including Edward Lucas, author of the book The New
Cold War, have argued that it is better to remain silent about the
recent flow of statements (including one by President Halonen) and
publications on Estonia that have originated in Finland, but my own
feeling is that it's preferable for them to be discussed openly, and
I've tried to make my own contribution to this discussion - also in
this newsgroup, which I've been reading and posting to for more than
12 years.
If you want to read about more about my background, it's available in
the archives of my blog, the Blogger version of which goes back to
2004:
http://halldor2.blogspot.com / http://halldor2.wordpress.com
This recent post
http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2008/09/neighbourhood-watch.html
has some autobiographical background on my experience of both Finland
and Estonia.
Maybe you would care to reciprocate by declaring your own interest in
the Baltic States? Mine there is primarily in Estonia, which is rather
different from the other two.
Regards,
David McDuff
Henry Alminas
> Maybe you would care to reciprocate by declaring your own interest in
> the Baltic States? Mine there is primarily in Estonia, which is rather
> different from the other two.
>
> Regards,
>
> David McDuff
I imagine that my surname might give some indication.
Yours seems to point to "ye olde sod".
No?
Best - - Henry
J. Anderson
"Erkki Aalto" <aa...@punk.it.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:gc0aj0$d2p$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> J. Anderson <ander...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> : They are also part of the Sanoma group that is publishing Helsingin
> Sanomat,
> : according to some 'the most Russophobe newspaper in Finland'.
>
> Not any more. B�ckman as already declared Helsingin sanomat the most
> russophobe newspaper in the whole world.
But despite that he and his 'findings' have received fair treatment in the
HS. Much fairer than they merit.
I wonder if I have spent too much time in this newsgroup, but this time I
really believe that both Dr B�ckman and Ms Hietanen have received some sort
of gratification from our eastern neighbours for promoting the Russian
cause.
The Russian cause being, as always, rather directed *against* something
(like e.g. truth) than *for* something.
David McDuff
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
Ireland? No, I've never been there.
Again, it would be interesting for me to read about your own
association with the Baltic States. I've told you something of mine,
as you asked.
Regards,
David
tadas....@lycos.es
missing.
Cago también en el Muy Trágico Producto de la Prostitución /
Promiscuidad (MTRP).
Dmitry
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:16:29 -0600, "Henry Alminas"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"David McDuff" <dmcd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> This recent post
>
> >>http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2008/09/neighbourhood-watch.html
>
> >> has some autobiographical background on my experience of both Finland
> >> and Estonia.
>
> >********************
> >> Maybe you would care to reciprocate by declaring your own interest in
> >> the Baltic States? Mine there is primarily in Estonia, which is rather
> >> different from the other two.
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> David McDuff
>
> >I imagine that my surname might give some indication.
> >Yours seems to point to "ye olde sod".
> >No?
>
> Ireland?
-))
> No, I've never been there.
>
> Again, it would be interesting for me to read about your own
> association with the Baltic States. I've told you something of mine,
> as you asked.
It is not as "sophisticated" as yours, which I found interesting to
read (thanks for sharing). Henry's parents came to United States from
Lithuania escaping Soviet re-occupation.
>
> Regards,
>
> David- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eugene Holman
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "David McDuff" <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8si6e4tosk386hnaf...@4ax.com...
<deletions>
> You are the one who seems to be terribly
> preoccupied with this subject. I believe
> that essentially all in the Baltics would
> say: "So who cares"?
Everyone interested in the development of free speech, the treatment of
dissidents, and reactions to revisionist accounts of national history in
post-Soviet society cares.
> I am curious - just what is your connection
> (if any) to the Baltics and why are you so
> intent on roiling the waters?
Mr. McDuff is, inter-alia, a well-known translator from Finnish, Estonian,
and Russian.
> I mean, hell,
> we have professionals (like Holman)
> haunting this forum who are paid to do it.
Professional, yes, but not paid. My "haunting" of this forum is a labor of love.
> What is your interest?
The three Baltic societies are intrinsically interesting, both
individually and comparatively.
Best,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
<3c2db40d-8d8b-44dd...@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, vello
<vell...@hot.ee> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 3:48=A0am, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > In article
<deletions>
>
> Eugene,
> what is past is past.
With that attitude the three Baltic states would never have regained their
independence. As you will see from this posting, the issue of the possible
restoration of Hawaiian independence was acknowledged, but never seriously
considered, in 1959, during the process that led to Hawaiian statehood.
> After ww2 West never take a square inch of
> foreign territory to be "bigger and stronger" despite Germany was a
> piece of cake to cut off.
The establishment of Israel in 1948 on territory that already had a
population, resulting in Western-supported expulsions and confiscation of
property can be regarded as a flagrant example of post-war Western
expansion into foreign territory to be bigger and stronger, even if it is
not a classic exercise in colonialism � except, of course, from hat
standpoint of the victims.
Otherwise the West did not attempt to take over more territory, but
Western colonial powers certainly struggled to retain their colonies (the
Netherlands in Indonesia, Belgium in the Belgian Congo, France in Algeria,
the UK in India (+ Pakistan), Kenya and Rhodesia, Portugal in Angola and
Mozambique, France and then the United States in Vietnam and generally in
Indo-China...) and they toppled regimes that were perceived as a threat
(Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatamala, Juan Bosch in the
Domincan Republic, Salvador Allende in Chile, Maurice Bishop in Grenada,
Daniel Ortega, who has since, humbled, returned to power, in Nicaragua;
many unsuccessful attempts to oust Fidel Castro in Cuba, Saddam Hussein in
Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan...
Unlike the USSR/Russia, the West is not as interested nowadays in annexing
land and having to feed and care for the populations living there as it is
in gaining access to the raw materials on said land and, in many cases,
excluding the populations of the countries thus exploited from the
possibility of having access to the West and the lifetyle sustained by the
raw materials that their countries supply.
> Russia instead occupies Est-Lat-Lit in full,
> more, parts of Poland, finland, romania and chechoslovakia/hungary
> were also occupied and incorporated. It may be, if to count by moders
> scale, alexander the Great and Julius Caesar will appear as bloody
> tyrants, bu there is no accuse to use their methods in 21 century.
The fact remains that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were subverted by the
USSR, with their leaders being arrested and killed, and three countries
annexed into the USSR in 1940, invaded and occupied by the Nazies the
following year, re-invaded and re-occupied by the Soviets in 1944,
subjected to massive deportations and uncontrolled migration, with the
system eventually normalizing to the extent that all three countries were
able to gain and retain their independence with no more than a few dozen
lives being lost (none in Estonia) in 1991, despite the presence of
hostile Soviet/Russian troops on their soil until 1995.
The Kingdom Hawaii, in turn was subverted by American plamtation growers
in a process that began in 1893 and resulted in the proclamation of a
Republic of Hawaii led by Americans the following year. The Hawaiian
leader, Queen Liliuokalani, was arrested and the leaders of the new
republic requested to have the country annexed by the United States in
1898. The territory was opened to massive immigration from China, Japan,
the Philippines, and the American mainland, and the local population,
culture, and langauge were marginalized. Hawaii eventually became the site
of an important American military complex, Pearl Harbor. During WW II its
population suffered from a massive Jaoanese military attack as a
consequence of policies made in Washington D.C. In 1959 the population of
Hawaii was given the chance to vote to become a state or to remain a
territory. The issue of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii
sixty years previously was acknowledged, but not addressed in the
statehood process. For details, see
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e1cfcf02-afc2-4aa8-b0cb-3514c3b81da4.
Summa summarum. The Baltic peoples and the West retained the position that
the Baltic countries were occupied and illegally annexed by the Soviet
Union and had both legal continuity and the right to re-establish control
over their territory when the occupying country, the USSR collapsed.
Russia, the orimary successor state to the USSR, acknowledged the right
but sought and received a four-year transition period to withdraw its
troops and dismantle the Soviet military infrastructure. The Hawaiians
have also retained the position that their country was occupied and
illegally annexed, the United States being the guilty party. This position
was made clear during hearings pertaining to statehood, but because it
failed to find sufficient support, it was acknowledged but never acted
upon. The native Hawaiians were never given the possibility to
re-establish control over their former country.
Source:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e1cfcf02-afc2-4aa8-b0cb-3514c3b81da4
<quote>
<deletions>
The United States, in enacting Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution,
has already recognized the fact that Native Hawaiians have never given up
their inherent sovereignty. Despite the fact that Hawaii was admitted as
the 50th State of the Union, Native Hawaiians neither by the government or
through a plebiscite or referendum gave up their rights to inherent
sovereignty. The June 27, 1959, statehood plebiscite in Hawaii only asked
"Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted to the Union as a State?" Although
the statehood plebiscite did not provide other options for independence or
free association, it did not dissolve an inherent right to sovereignty by
the indigenous people of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians.
<deletions>
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
> "David McDuff" <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8si6e4tosk386hnaf...@4ax.com...
<deletions>
> You are the one who seems to be terribly
> preoccupied with this subject. I believe
> that essentially all in the Baltics would
> say: "So who cares"?
Everyone interested in the development of free speech, the treatment of
dissidents, and reactions to revisionist accounts of national history in
post-Soviet societies cares. The Estonian press has had quite a lot to say
about them man:
http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/442842, "Helsingi �likool keeldus B�ckmani
kritiseerimast", which elicited 259 reader comments.
http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/442839, "B�ckman lubab avaliku kirja autorid
kohtusse kaevata", with 20 reader comments.
http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/442724, "�hiskonnategelased esitasid Helsingi
�likoolile B�ckmani kohta arup�rimise", with 146 reader comments.
And this from just one newspaper. So much for your beliefs.
> I am curious - just what is your connection
> (if any) to the Baltics and why are you so
> intent on roiling the waters?
Mr. McDuff is, inter-alia, a well-known translator from Finnish, Swedish,
Estonian, and Russian.
> I mean, hell,
> we have professionals (like Holman)
> haunting this forum who are paid to do it.
Professional, yes, but not paid. My "haunting" of this forum is a labor of
love. After all, somebody has to keep you honest.
> What is your interest?
The three Baltic societies are intrinsically interesting, both
individually and comparatively. For he time being, Estonia is probably the
most accessible Baltic society since far more people visit Estonia and
learn Estonian than is presently the case for Latvia and Luthuania.
Best,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
> "David McDuff" <dmc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8si6e4tosk386hnaf...@4ax.com...
<deletions>
> You are the one who seems to be terribly
> preoccupied with this subject. I believe
> that essentially all in the Baltics would
> say: "So who cares"?
Everyone interested in the development of free speech, the treatment of
dissidents, and reactions to revisionist accounts of national history in
post-Soviet societies cares. The Estonian press has had quite a lot to say
about the man:
http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/442842, "Helsingi �likool keeldus B�ckmani
kritiseerimast", which elicited 259 reader comments.
http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/442839, "B�ckman lubab avaliku kirja autorid
kohtusse kaevata", with 20 reader comments.
http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/442724, "�hiskonnategelased esitasid Helsingi
�likoolile B�ckmani kohta arup�rimise", with 146 reader comments.
And this from just one newspaper. So much for your beliefs.
> I am curious - just what is your connection
> (if any) to the Baltics and why are you so
> intent on roiling the waters?
Mr. McDuff is, inter-alia, a well-known translator from Finnish, Swedish,
Estonian, and Russian. Neither does he "rail the waters". Then three Balic
societies, although small, are also dhynamic, with issues, controversies,
and sharply differing narratives constructed from what seem to be the same
facts. You reveal a lot about your limited horizons when you state your
belief that nobody in the Baltics cares about the antics and opinions of
Mr. Johan B�ckman. Hundreds of people in Estonia have responded to
newspaper articles about him, and thousands more have discussed it in one
way or another.
> I mean, hell,
> we have professionals (like Holman)
> haunting this forum who are paid to do it.
Professional, yes, but not paid. My "haunting" of this forum is a labor of
love. After all, somebody has to keep you honest.
> What is your interest?
The three Baltic societies are intrinsically interesting, both
individually and comparatively. For the time being, Estonia is probably the
most accessible Baltic society since far more people visit Estonia and
learn Estonian than is presently the case for Latvia and Lithuania.
This name of this forum is soc-culture.baltics. Mr. McDuff has made and
continues to make the culture of the northern part of the Baltic region
better known to the world community. You, on the other hand, seem to have
no other connection to Baltic culture than the tenuous connection of
ethnicity: being Lithuanian born or having Lithuanian ancestry does not
automatically qualify a person as an aficienado of Baltic culture. That is
why you remain convinced that a person demonstrating a genuine interest in
the Baltic countries, their history, their accomplishments, their
problems, and their future, has to be paid to do so.
Best,
Eugene Holman
tadas....@lycos.es
> This name of this forum is soc-culture.baltics. Mr. McDuff has made and
> continues to make the culture of the northern part of the Baltic region
> better known to the world community.
> automatically qualify a person as an aficienado of Baltic culture.
"Aficienado"? Shame! :-)
P.S. No obstante que todo el mundo va cambiando el título de esta
discusión, prefiero
« Cago en Johan Bäckman ».
vello
> "Erkki Aalto" <aa...@punk.it.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>
> news:gc0aj0$d2p$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>
>
> > : They are also part of the Sanoma group that is publishing Helsingin
> > Sanomat,
> > : according to some 'the most Russophobe newspaper in Finland'.
>
> > Not any more. B ckman as already declared Helsingin sanomat the most
> > russophobe newspaper in the whole world.
>
> But despite that he and his 'findings' have received fair treatment in the
> HS. Much fairer than they merit.
>
> I wonder if I have spent too much time in this newsgroup, but this time I
> really believe that both Dr B ckman and Ms Hietanen have received some sort
> of gratification from our eastern neighbours for promoting the Russian
> cause.
>
> The Russian cause being, as always, rather directed *against* something
> (like e.g. truth) than *for* something.
Hardly Putin, after success story with Schroeder, will abandon such
way to promote his message. Backman was interwiewed in one Estonian TV-
channel and he was really in trouble. At last he says his method is
exaggregating for purpose to make his message more sound.
Henry Alminas
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-0210...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
Waal, thar goes Helsinki-Duranty again...
Believe it or not the "Baltics", in the broad sense,
consist of more than just Estonia. The point is
that the Baltics (and most of Europe) are so
inundated with Kremlin-sponsored propaganda
(as you should well know since you are part
of that effort) that the ideas espoused by one
or two crazed Finns contribute very little one
way or the other. What is one more cupful
of sewage when the Kremlin floodgates
are open?
Now you had better get back to shoveling
out the russkie shit or the next Kremlin
pay check might not come. There is the
matter of falling oil prices ya know.
And, oh yes, just what the hell would you
know about ethnicity? You, after all, are
the great proponent of the homo-sovieticus
model or the post-soviet equivalent thereof.
At any rate don't talk about something that
you have never experienced - nor ever will.
Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Waal, thar goes Helsinki-Duranty again...
>
> Believe it or not the "Baltics", in the broad sense,
> consist of more than just Estonia.
We know that. You and Vidas do the Lithuanian part, Petris, Dmitry, and
Lorad will do Latvia, Vello, McDuff, and yours truly will do Estonia.
> The point is
> that the Baltics (and most of Europe) are so
> inundated with Kremlin-sponsored propaganda
> (as you should well know since you are part
> of that effort)
I'm beginning to get sick and tired of your unjustified, unsubstantiated,
and mendacious innuendo. I am my own agent and do not receive or accept
money from anyone other than my employer, the Republic of Finland.
> that the ideas espoused by one
> or two crazed Finns contribute very little one
> way or the other.
They are not crazed. They are trying to provoke people into reconsidering
some aspects of recent history.
> What is one more cupful
> of sewage when the Kremlin floodgates
> are open?
TheKremlin has its own interpretation of events. If you are going to
combat them, it is a good idea to prepare for the battle by trying to
understand them first. Know your enemy, as they say.
> Now you had better get back to shoveling
> out the russkie shit or the next Kremlin
> pay check might not come. There is the
> matter of falling oil prices ya know.
Being dependent only on the value of the euro, I could care less.
> And, oh yes, just what the hell would you
> know about ethnicity? You, after all, are
> the great proponent of the homo-sovieticus
> model or the post-soviet equivalent thereof.
Am I, now? I am a proponent of people living together in the same
political entity getting to know and live in peace with each other.
> At any rate don't talk about something that
> you have never experienced - nor ever will.
I have studied the phenomenon carefully, thank you very much.
Best,
Eugene Holman
Windy
> > > I am *not* making excuses for them. Russia and the United States both hav
> > e
> > > a history of imperialism. What I am objecting to is that some of the same
> > > people expressing amazement that Russians can deny the fact of the Baltic
> > > countries having been occupied, but denying that Hawaii came to be a part
> > > of the United States according to precisely the same scenario, but, unlik=
> > e
> > > the three Baltic countries, is still under foreignoccupation. It ain't
> > > OK, and I do not make excuses for either.
>
> > Well, as I said to Macbeth's friend (McDuff), it doesn't go over well
> > telling us Balts that you find a creep like the nats-bol B=E4ckman's
> > left-wing revisionist theories "interesting" when you should be
> > finding them repulsive, just as you would find theories of left-wing
> > neo-nazi revisionist repulsive.
>
> I do not agree with him, but I disagree even more with people who would
> silence, censor, or ban him. Many of his viewpoints are indeed repulsive,
> but his raising the issue of the degree to which the word "occupation" is
> appropriate to the Baltic countries after the early 1950s, or, arguably,
> the mid-1960s, wen they were opened to the world again after having been
> cut off for a generation, is interesting. Even if you and I agree that the
> three Baltic countries were under foreignoccupationfrom 1940 until 1991
> or even 1995, many perfectly rational people would deny this, just as
> most Americans would deny that Hawaii was or is occupied.
Do these people also deny the period of US occupation of Okinawa after
WWII? Or the Philippines from 1898 to 1912? I wouldn't call them
"perfectly rational" then.
The problem seems to be that you are equivocating between the present
situation in Hawaii and the situation during the annexation of Hawaii
and the Baltic countries. The question of Soviet occupation in the
Baltics is about *military* occupation, which means, if I'm not
mistaken, that a territory is under the formal control of a foreign
armed force. Of course, in that sense it is wrong to style modern
Hawaii an "occupied territory". However, Bäckman denies that there was
a Soviet occupation *ever*, even in 1940.
(I don't know where you got the "after the early 1950s or arguably the
mid-1960s" part, but on his blog Bäckman clearly states that there
never was an occupation, it is a "lie")
Understandably Balts and some Hawaiians like to style the whole period
of non-independence an "occupation". However the question here is not
whether this is inaccurate, but whether there was a hostile occupation
in the first place.
> I don't know
> abput you, but I am interested in finding how people are able to construct
> such different historical narratives from what seems to be the same
> empirical evidence. Nor, I have to say, am I comfortable with the idea of
> countries that were themselves recently the objects of invasion,
> externally forced regime change, invasion, and insurgency suddenly getting
> themselves involved in such activities on the giving end. As I said in a
> previous posting it is *not* OK when America does it, it is/was *not* Ok
> when Russia/the Soviet Union does/did it, and it is damned repulsive for
> the Baltic countries to have gotten themselves involved in such behavior.
The refusal of large nations to come clean on their past only serves
to promote such behavior.
PS. This Bäckman guy is hilarious!
"Vähentyisikö työttömyys, jos Suomi liittyisi Venäjän Federaatioon?"
:D :D
-- w.