Have a good New Year.
henry alminas
It is time for me to wish the year "2004" goodbye.
It will be evaluated in various ways around the globe.
From my perspective - it was a mixed bag.
The lives of many - tragically many - ended just before
the old year did. A multitude of families will be grieving
rather than celebrating during the start of "2005". Many
will be concentrating on simply staying alive - before
they can even think about rebuilding their lives. I
have seen a number of articles pointing to some or
other "lesson" that this natural catastrophe supposedly
taught us. Frankly I see none. We have known that
natural catastrophes occur - they have done so
throughout recorded history (and, of course, long
before). Beyond that, just as surely as God made
little green apples, they will occur again and again.
Where? When? What? That is beyond our knowing.
The earth is a dynamic system. It is constantly
changing and readjusting - it is but the fruit-fly like
length (in comparison) of individual human lives
that permits us to forget this fact.
I wish you all (waal, almost all) a good new year
and I especially extend these wishes to the
three Baltic countries.
Best - - Henry
lora...@cs.com
henry alminas wrote:
> It is time for me to wish the year "2004" goodbye.
> It will be evaluated in various ways around the globe.
> From my perspective - it was a mixed bag.
>
> I wish you all (waal, almost all) a good new year
> and I especially extend these wishes to the
> three Baltic countries.
>
> Best - - Henry
Joining in Henry's thread to wish a Happy and Fortuitous New Year to
all good people everywhere.. and especially the 'pillars' of SCB. And
the reverse to the rest.
Uno Hu
Peteris Cedrins
«Pas de deux»
news:1104572400.04f423766492c872de7d38f1e1e2fcc9@teranews...
> Happy New Year to all.
>
> /P
Ditto.
Now, I am pleased to make my first post of 2005 something about Ukraine.
Let's hope Belarus experiences a similar miracle in the not too distant
future.
GK
Premier in Ukraine Quits, Giving Way to Opposition Rule
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: January 1, 2005
OSCOW, Dec. 31 - Viktor F. Yanukovich resigned as Ukraine's prime
minister on Friday, signaling the end of a tumultuous political drama
that nearly propelled him to the presidency but resulted in his defeat
after a popular uprising against state-sponsored electoral fraud.
Mr. Yanukovich, who was prime minister for two years under President
Leonid D. Kuchma, said he would continue his legal challenges against
the repeat presidential election last Sunday, in which the opposition
candidate, Viktor A. Yushchenko, appeared to hold a commanding, if
unofficial, lead.
But increasingly isolated, abandoned even by some of his closest
advisers and by all appearances deeply embittered, Mr. Yanukovich held
out little hope that the challenges would succeed in overturning the
results.
"As far as the election results, we are keeping up the fight but I don't
have much hope for a just decision from the Central Election Commission
and the Supreme Court," he said, according to The Associated Press,
referring to his last-ditch appeals against what seems to be Mr.
Yushchenko's victory.
Mr. Yanukovich's resignation capped an excruciating chapter in Ukraine's
recent political history, beginning when his seeming victory in a runoff
against Mr. Yushchenko on Nov. 21 was immediately called into question
by reports of widespread fraud and intimidation.
After 17 days of huge street protests by Yushchenko supporters in Kiev,
and a bitter political struggle in which the heavily pro-Yanukovich
eastern part of the country briefly threatened to secede, the Supreme
Court nullified the vote. Observers of the new election declared it
relatively free of the type of bare-knuckled fraud that doomed the
original.
On Friday, speaking in a televised New Year's Eve address to the nation,
Mr. Yanukovich said, bitingly, that he could not continue serving as
prime minister under the country's new leadership, a reference to Mr.
Yushchenko's approaching presidency. "I believe it is impossible to have
any position in a state that is ruled by such officials," he said.
He defended his term as prime minister, citing economic growth and
political and social stability - all central themes of his campaigns. He
also vowed that he would remain in politics, though, it is becoming
clearer, in the opposition.
If his appeals are rejected, as expected, his next avenue to re-enter
the fray could come in the parliamentary elections scheduled for the
spring of 2006. His prospects for success appear strong, given his
winning nearly 48 percent of the vote in the new election and his
support base in the eastern part of the country.
His resignation had appeared inevitable after Mr. Yushchenko won the
vote count in the election on Sunday. He had already taken a leave from
office for what amounted to a third campaign after the Nov. 21 runoff
was overturned.
Earlier this week, he vowed to resume work, only to have Mr.
Yushchenko's supporters mass again around the government's headquarters
in Kiev, preventing a meeting of Mr. Yanukovich's cabinet from taking
place there. The cabinet met elsewhere without him.
Mr. Yanukovich remained defiant, insisting he was the rightful victor in
the elections. He charged that tens of thousands of Ukrainians had been
prevented from voting in the new runoff because of changes in election
laws adopted by Parliament after the demonstrations in Kiev and other
cities.
International election observers, however, noted no widespread
violations like those that marred the first and second rounds of the
elections. And on Thursday, the Central Election Commission, with newly
appointed members, rejected his preliminary appeals, saying there was no
basis to his accusations.
Mr. Yanukovich's appeals have nevertheless delayed an official
declaration of the winner, though Mr. Yushchenko has been acting with
increasing confidence as the country's president-elect.
Late Friday, Mr. Yushchenko appeared before a crowd estimated at more
than 200,000 people gathered for a New Year's celebration in
Independence Square, the site of the protests that took him to the edge
of the presidency.
"I would like to wish well-being and happiness to every Ukrainian
household," Reuters quoted him as saying. "We are living in a different
country already, thanks to you."
With him was the president of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, whose
election victory after a wave of popular protest against electoral fraud
inspired activists in Ukraine.
"We held our breath watching you," Reuters quoted Mr. Saakashvili as
saying. "We admired your courage. The future destiny of Europe was being
decided in this square."
Eugene Holman
Cedrins <peteris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<deletions
>
> Happy New Year to all.
Happy New Year to all veteran and new SCB-participants.
I've just spent the past ten days in Tornio/Haparanda astride the
Finnish/Swedish border lose to the Arctic Circle, originally intending to
enjoy a holiday with friends, but finding everyone overwhelmed by the
tragic news from the Indian Ocean sphere. There are not yet any proven
Baltic victims, although a few people with Finnish-type names and Estonian
addresses [according to *Eesti Päevaleht* the families of an
Estonia-resident Finnair airline pilot and of the director of the Viru
Hotell] are among the missing, as are a handful of Baltic tourists known
to have been visiting the afflicted areas.
Finland is coping with approximately 200 of its tourists to the stricken
area unaccounted for, the Swedish toll is approximately 3,000, this
evidently being the worst tragedy to have hit Sweden since the Napoleanic
wars. One of the recent news items is that the Swedish government has
chartered a Russian Antonov-124 transport, the most capacious cargo
aircraft in the world, to ferry the dry-iced remains of Scandinavian
tourists to Sweden for forensic identification (for details, see
http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=050102121559.p0567be9.xml).
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Peteris Cedrins
crimes in this story, _The Seattle Times_ reports [quoted for educational
purposes only]:
New Year's greetings from Putin to killer
Russian President Vladimir Putin issued New Year's greetings yesterday to a
Russian convicted in Latvia of killing civilians during World War II.
Vassily Kononov, 80, was convicted last year of war crimes for ordering the
killing of nine civilians, including a pregnant woman, in 1944 when Latvia
was occupied by Nazi troops. He was a leader of a small band of pro-Soviet
partisans fighting the Nazis.
Kononov was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment, but was freed because he
had served that much time in pretrial detention.
"You have defended not only your honest name, but historical justice and
the honor of your fighting comrades," Putin said in the greetings statement
released by the Kremlin. "From my soul I greet you and your loved ones on
the coming New Year."
Many Russians consider Kononov a legitimate war hero and Moscow criticized
the trial as a witch hunt targeting an ailing, elderly man.
Russian-Latvian relations have been tense since the 1991 collapse of the
Soviet Union, with Russia expressing strong resentment of Latvia's efforts
to spread use of the Latvian language and limit Russian, the mother tongue
of about a third of Latvia's people.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
«Pas de deux»
leader of a small band of pro-Soviet partisans fighting the Nazis.»
should have ended after the word 'partisans', thus: «He was a leader of
a small band of pro-Soviet partisans.»
The way it is put now implies that the people he killed may have been
Nazi sympathisers. It also wrongfully suggests that «fighting the
Nazis» was the main purpose of the «pro-Soviet partisans», whereas, of
course, their main purpose was a lot more sordid: to restore the Soviet
régime and with it their jobs as lickspittle lackeys and mankurts of the
Soviet system.
Gintautas Kaminskas
Montréal
"Peteris Cedrins" <peteris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104759541.7817a83997eb590547a745a790425926@teranews...
Eugene Holman
<kamou...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Not bad, Seattle Times. Only one distrtion. The sentence «He was a
> leader of a small band of pro-Soviet partisans fighting the Nazis.»
> should have ended after the word 'partisans', thus: «He was a leader of
> a small band of pro-Soviet partisans.»
>
> The way it is put now implies that the people he killed may have been
> Nazi sympathisers. It also wrongfully suggests that «fighting the
> Nazis» was the main purpose of the «pro-Soviet partisans», whereas, of
> course, their main purpose was a lot more sordid: to restore the Soviet
> régime and with it their jobs as lickspittle lackeys and mankurts of the
> Soviet system.
DISCLAIMER: I hesitated before deciding to get involved in discussion of
this delicate and highly provocative issue, and my contribution is in no
way to be regarded as support for Presdient Putin's tasteless commendation
of Kononov's actions or as an excuse for Vassily Kononov's involvement in
war crimes. Nevertheless, even a proven mass murderer has the right to
have someone argue his case.
Sixty years ago Vassily Kononov, now 80, was a mere stripling, a youth of
about 20 years old fighting in the Soviet Army against an enemy who had
invaded what he and his commanders regarded as their country and committed
untold atrocities.
His responsibility as a soldier was to follow the orders issued by those
above him in the chain of command unquestioningly. From his and
particularly their standpoint Latvia, like Lithuania and Estonia, were
recently acquired Soviet territory which had been invaded and occupied by
the Nazis and which it was their patriotic duty to recapture, expell or
terminate the occupants, and punish "insurgents".
The sentence "He was a leader of a small band of pro-Soviet partisans
fighting the Nazis." is not a distortion, but a statement of fact from the
standpoint of the mainstream interpretation of events that were taking
place in that part of the world at that time. Kononov was recently
convicted of war crimes for ordering the killing of nine Latvian
civilians, including a pregnant woman, in 1944 when Latvia, an independent
country up until the summer of 1940 but a constituent republic of the USSR
when the country was invaded by Nazi Germany in June, 1941, was, from the
standpoint of the major powers involved in the struggle, Soviet territory
under Nazi occupation.
Let us work on the assumption that the facts concerning the crimes
committed by Kononov's unit are true, and that the sentence was justified.
Kononov is no hero and it is right that the atrocities in which he
participated should be remembered, and that he should be punished for them
insofar as a case can be made that they were war crimes and acts of
retribution rather than normal acts of war. I find nothing inherently
wrong with war criminals being brought to justice, but I do ask: why only
Kononov? What about the atrocities war crimes committed by the other side
in the name of "cleansing" Latvia of "undesriable elements" or preventing
the Soviets from returning to power? Was Kononov the only war criminal? Of
course not. Was he the only one to have been involved in the killing of
pregnant women and children? Cetainly not. Were his actions, committed
when the situation in Latvia was rapidly changing, and paths and swaths of
the country were controlled by one side by day, and by the other at night,
somehow worse than those atrocities committed when the country was firmly
in the hands of one side or the other? Are they morally more reprehensible
than those committed by representatives of the Latvian police who rounded
up and participated in the shooting of women and children at Rumbula and
Liepaja, or worked as guards at the notorious Salaspils concentration
camp? They were older and, presumably, with a more finely honed
professional ability to distinguish between right from wrong than the
20-year old Soviet conscript Vassily Kononov.
Vassily Kononov was proven to be a criminal, and the only thing that he
deserves our empathy for is having been a young man caught up in a chain
events and situation no person of that tender age should ever have to be
confronted with. He should not, however, be singled out as a singularly
odious example of criminality. The Baltics were some of the worst places
to be during WW II, and people fighting on both sides, some under orders,
others out of a misguided feeling of patriotism, some because they were
criminal scum, committed acts that by any criterion were war crimes or
crimes against humanity. Vassily Kononov, a young man forced to fight in a
war, the details of which he could scarcely have comprehended, did not
make the type of deliberate decision to kill people that mass murderers by
choice such as Viktors Arâjs and Herberts Cukors did.
Source: http://www.liepajajews.org/LGhetto.htm
<deletions>
<quote>
The killings reached a climax in December 1941. SS-and Police General
Friedrich Jeckeln, who organized the mass shooting of more than 30,000
Jews from Kiev at Babi Yar in September, took over the position of Higher
SS- and Police Chief Ostland in mid-November. He had orders to drastically
reduce the number of Jews. After organizing the murder of 24,000 Latvian
and 1,000 German Jews at Rumbula on November 30 and December 8, he ordered
a similar massacre for Liepaja, where 3890 Jews still remained in November
1941. No ghetto had yet been established in Liepaja, but Dietrich ordered
a 2-day curfew for Jews. Thus confined to their apartments, they were
methodically rounded up by Latvian police and taken to the Women¹s Prison.
From there they were marched to the Skede execution site, ordered to
undress, and were shot in groups of 10 by three firing squads, two Latvian
and one German. All together, 2,749 Jews were shot on December 15‹17. They
were mainly women and children, who had been largely spared until now.
Kügler¹s deputy, SS-Scharführer Carl Emil Strott, photographed the
executions. An audacious Jew working at the Security Police, David Zivcon,
got hold of a 12-exposure film long enough to make copies, which have been
widely reproduced and exhibited after the war.
</quote>
<deletion>
The Nazi occupants ordered the massacre at Liepaja, but Latvians were
deeply involved in its actual organization and actual implementation. Why
is no fuss being made about this and similar issues, while Kononov, whose
crimes were committed under actual battlefield conditions, is damned to
the deepest level of hell?
I would like to end by reminding readers of the wise words included in the
report of the Estonian commission investigated similar complex issues of
guilt and victimhood in Estonia during the periods of Soviet and nazi
occupation:
Source: http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/conclusions_frame.htm
<deletions>
<quote>
The Commission believes being a victim does not preclude acts of
perpetration. A people which respects the rule of law should recognize
crimes when they have been committed, and condemn them and those who
committed them.
It is unjust that an entire nation should be criminalized because of the
actions of some of its citizens; but it is equally unjust that its
criminals should be able to shelter behind a cloak of victimhood.
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Martin
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-0301...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> In article <89dCd.3778$7n1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "«Pas de deux»"
> <kamou...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Not bad, Seattle Times. Only one distrtion. The sentence «He was a
> > leader of a small band of pro-Soviet partisans fighting the Nazis.»
> > should have ended after the word 'partisans', thus: «He was a leader of
> > a small band of pro-Soviet partisans.»
> >
> > The way it is put now implies that the people he killed may have been
> > Nazi sympathisers. It also wrongfully suggests that «fighting the
> > Nazis» was the main purpose of the «pro-Soviet partisans», whereas, of
> > course, their main purpose was a lot more sordid: to restore the Soviet
> > régime and with it their jobs as lickspittle lackeys and mankurts of the
> > Soviet system.
>
> DISCLAIMER: I hesitated before deciding to get involved in discussion of
> this delicate and highly provocative issue, and my contribution is in no
> way to be regarded as support for Presdient Putin's tasteless commendation
> of Kononov's actions or as an excuse for Vassily Kononov's involvement in
> war crimes. Nevertheless, even a proven mass murderer has the right to
> have someone argue his case.
Eugene's main argument in support of Kononov's murder of pregnant women is
that Kononov was unjustly singled out in the face of far worse crimes
committed by the Nazis. The flaw in Eugene's argument is that he fails to
acknowledge that many Nazi war criminals were in fact tried and convicted in
the post-war period, whereas not one single communist war criminal was
brought to justice in the same period under soviet rule. Being a communist
is not a defence for killing pregnant women.
Regards,
Martin
anita
Peteris Cedrins wrote:
> lora...@cs.com wrote in
> news:1104562399.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > henry alminas wrote:
> >> It is time for me to wish the year "2004" goodbye.
> >> It will be evaluated in various ways around the globe.
> >> From my perspective - it was a mixed bag.
> >>
> > [cut]
> >
> >> I wish you all (waal, almost all) a good new year
> >> and I especially extend these wishes to the
> >> three Baltic countries.
> >>
> >> Best - - Henry
Anita
henry alminas
"Martin" <mart...@joymail.com> wrote in message
news:2yhCd.102260$K7.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Oh - come now Martin. The Holmanian line is the same
as the *general* russkie line. The Balts *needed* killing
they were (in 1939) "anticipatorialy" guilty. If you read *any*
of the English-language russkie forums - the terms "Balt"
and "Nazi" are synomimous. It is that simple. The only
thing that the russkies regret, at this stage, is that they
did not kill every Baltic man, woman and child.
A harsh judgement perhaps - but, very real. Read their
posts!
Read some of their WWII stuff: "Rape every female
and if she is pregnant shoot her in the stomach - you
will get two for one". That mentality is, sadly, still
there.
Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
<mart...@joymail.com> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Eugene's main argument in support of Kononov's murder of pregnant women is
> that Kononov was unjustly singled out in the face of far worse crimes
> committed by the Nazis.
I do *not* support Kononov's crimes, something that I made quite clear in
my initial disclaimer. My point was that it is unfair to single Kononov
out, given his age and situation at the time the crimes were committed and
the fact that atrocities were committed by both sides.
> The flaw in Eugene's argument is that he fails to
> acknowledge that many Nazi war criminals were in fact tried and convicted in
> the post-war period, whereas not one single communist war criminal was
> brought to justice in the same period under soviet rule.
Nazis, yes. The issue of Balts who collaborated with the Nazis is not so
clear, given that the issue itself is so complex. Friedrich Jeckeln, one
of the main Nazi butchers in the Baltics, was deservedly hanged in Riga;
Kalejs, Linnas, and Mikson, also Baltic butchers, were given more than the
benefit of the doubt.
> Being a communist
> is not a defence for killing pregnant women.
The communists had no monopoly on killing Baltic women, pregnant or otherwise.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
<halm...@comcast.net> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Oh - come now Martin. The Holmanian line is the same
> as the *general* russkie line. The Balts *needed* killing
> they were (in 1939) "anticipatorialy" guilty.
CRAP!
> If you read *any*
> of the English-language russkie forums - the terms "Balt"
> and "Nazi" are synomimous. It is that simple. The only
> thing that the russkies regret, at this stage, is that they
> did not kill every Baltic man, woman and child.
DOUBLE CRAP!. The Baltic countries were the arena for horrific atrocities
during WW II. In addition to legitimate warfare, the Soviets, the Nazis, and
the Balts all committed atrocities, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity there.
Most of us of us here in SCB understand and have no difficulty
understanding that the Soviets committed atrocities in the Baltics during
WW II.
Most of us of us here in SCB understand and have no difficulty
understanding that the Nazis committed atrocities in the Baltics during
WW II.
Many of us here in SCB have *major* difficulties understanding that
Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians also committed atrocities, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity in the Baltics during WW II.
> A harsh judgement perhaps - but, very real. Read their
> posts!
>
> Read some of their WWII stuff: "Rape every female
> and if she is pregnant shoot her in the stomach - you
> will get two for one". That mentality is, sadly, still
> there.
Irrelevant.
The Nazis wanted to exterminate most Balts so that the territory that they
inhabited could be used as *Lebensraum*.
The Soviets wanted to regain Baltic territory and inhabitants in order to
further the cause and territory of communism.
The Balts wanted to be independent of both Nazis and Soviet communists,
but, being small and militarilly weak countries with no allies of
substance, their only choice was to play one against the other.
Thus, certain Balts committed crimes every bit as odious as those
committed by Kononov, often with far better prerequisites for understanding
that what they were doing was morally reprehensible. Somehow, I am better
able to understand - not the same as approving of the atrocities
committed by a 20-year-old conscript obeying orders to retake
Nazi-occupied areas of what he and his commanders regarded as his
fatherland than I am able to understand the participation in a mass
shooting operation of mostly local women and children committed by Latvian
policemen and sharpshooters, as happened at Liepāja in mid December, 1941.
Source: http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/conclusions_frame.htm
<deletions>
<quote>
The Commission believes being a victim does not preclude acts of
perpetration. A people which respects the rule of law should recognize
crimes when they have been committed, and condemn them and those who
committed them.
It is unjust that an entire nation should be criminalized because of the
actions of some of its citizens; but it is equally unjust that its
criminals should be able to shelter behind a cloak of victimhood.
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
P.S. War is hell.
American and Baltic taxpayers are presently supporting actions taken by
their nationals against "insurgents" in Iraq that do not differ in any
significant manner from the actions taken by the then 20-year-old Vassily
Kononov to rid what he and the military structures issuing him commands
regarded as his homeland of insurgents more than 60 years ago.
Martin
>
> American and Baltic taxpayers are presently supporting actions taken by
> their nationals against "insurgents" in Iraq that do not differ in any
Care to post evidence that US or Baltic nationals have executed pregnant
women in Iraq? The US government has prosecuted its soldiers for crimes
commited, unlike Putin who supports Kononov in killing pregnant women in
order to defend "historical justice and the honor of your fighting
comrades".
> significant manner from the actions taken by the then 20-year-old Vassily
> Kononov to rid what he and the military structures issuing him commands
> regarded as his homeland of insurgents more than 60 years ago.
Even a young 20-year-old would understand that killing a pregnant woman is a
war crime.
Regards,
Martin
lora...@cs.com
A very appropriate correction of the weaseling peetey.
Else we would be left wondering how a village of Latvian women and
children - citizens of a neutral and thrice occupied country - might be
categorized as "nazis".
Uno Hu
lora...@cs.com
was a
> > leader of a small band of pro-Soviet partisans fighting the
Nazis.»
> > should have ended after the word 'partisans', thus: «He was a
leader of
> > a small band of pro-Soviet partisans.»
Or in other words a murderer of innocent women and children on behalf
of russia.
> DISCLAIMER: I hesitated before deciding to get involved in discussion
of
> this delicate and highly provocative issue, and my contribution is in
no
> way to be regarded as support for Presdient Putin's tasteless
commendation
> of Kononov's actions or as an excuse for Vassily Kononov's
involvement in
> war crimes. Nevertheless, even a proven mass murderer has the right
to
> have someone argue his case.
Ha ha.. So, you believe that your little 'disclaimer' might shield you
from charges of being a rabid balthophobic propagandist? Obviously not,
hole-man.
Well, weep no more for the unrepentant murderer, kononov, and know that
we was represented adequately in court by another russian - his lawyer.
> Sixty years ago Vassily Kononov, now 80, was a mere stripling, a
youth of
> about 20 years old fighting in the Soviet Army against an enemy who
had
> invaded what he and his commanders regarded as their country and
committed
> untold atrocities.
No, you freakish liar. The convicted murderer, kononov, was not any
sort of 'stripling', he was the commander of a group of russian
murderers stalking and killing his *neighbors*. This kononov miscreant
- who had been given residency in free Latvia - turned on his Latvian
neighbors killing them.
It is impossible to say what motivated this murderer most - communism
or sociopathy - even though he obviously was both a communist and a
sociopath.
> His responsibility as a soldier was to follow the orders issued by
those
> above him in the chain of command unquestioningly.
False on two counts (at least):
1) Kononov commanded his assassin squad of russian murderers.
2) 'Following orders' is not a valid defence in war crime courts.
> From his and
> particularly their standpoint Latvia, like Lithuania and Estonia,
were
> recently acquired Soviet territory which had been invaded and
occupied by
> the Nazis and which it was their patriotic duty to recapture, expell
or
> terminate the occupants, and punish "insurgents".
Women and children who are peacefully living in their homes in their
native land cannot be construed to be 'insurgents' except by
baltophobic russian butt-lickers like you. You also appear to be a
racist.
> The sentence "He was a leader of a small band of pro-Soviet
partisans
> fighting the Nazis." is not a distortion, but a statement of fact
from the
> standpoint of the mainstream interpretation of events that were
taking
> place in that part of the world at that time.
That's right russkie butt-kisser. He wasn't any sort of 'stripling'
(whatever that was meant to invoke), but rather the leader of a russian
genocide squad.
> Kononov was recently
> convicted of war crimes for ordering the killing of nine Latvian
> civilians, including a pregnant woman, in 1944 when Latvia, an
independent
> country up until the summer of 1940 but a constituent republic of the
USSR
No, you freaking russkian butt-kisser.
Latvia, as most of eastern europe, was occupied by russia - and not any
sort of constituent anything. Constituent your ass.
> when the country was invaded by Nazi Germany in June, 1941, was, from
the
> standpoint of the major powers involved in the struggle, Soviet
territory
> under Nazi occupation.
No you creepy liar. The Baltics were never recognized as being part of
the decrepit russian bardak.
> Let us work on the assumption that the facts concerning the crimes
> committed by Kononov's unit are true, and that the sentence was
justified.
The sentence was not justified. For it to have been justified, the
kononov genocider should have been hanged.
> Kononov is no hero and it is right that the atrocities in which he
> participated should be remembered, and that he should be punished for
them
> insofar as a case can be made that they were war crimes and acts of
> retribution rather than normal acts of war. I find nothing inherently
> wrong with war criminals being brought to justice, but I do ask: why
only
> Kononov?
Me too. As I see it there are about 20,000 russian chekists who the EU
forced the Latvian people to accept into their midst. These 20,000
russian militarist chekists should all be investigated, and if
necessary, prosecuted for war crimes.
Uno Hu
lora...@cs.com
Eugene Holman wrote:
> I do *not* support Kononov's crimes, something that I made quite
clear in
> my initial disclaimer.
Your 'siclaimer' is thinly veiled racism allowing you (you think) the
cover to promote russian directed genocide.
> My point was that it is unfair to single Kononov
> out, given his age and situation at the time the crimes were
committed and
> the fact that atrocities were committed by both sides.
Lieing dog!
Latvia committed NO war crimes. NONE.
Your over licked russkia STILL commits war crimes TODAY!
> Nazis, yes. The issue of Balts who collaborated with the Nazis is not
so
> clear, given that the issue itself is so complex. Friedrich Jeckeln,
one
> of the main Nazi butchers in the Baltics, was deservedly hanged in
Riga;
> Kalejs, Linnas, and Mikson, also Baltic butchers, were given more
than the
> benefit of the doubt.
LIAR! If you can find a war criminal then go prosecute him (unless he
is shielded in russia or someplace in the Mideast). But do not lie by
making unsubstantiated accusations - even as you shield russian war
criminals such as the putrid kononov.
> > Being a communist
> > is not a defence for killing pregnant women.
>
> The communists had no monopoly on killing Baltic women, pregnant or
otherwise.
Just most of them.
We will always remember,
Uno Hu
lora...@cs.com
Martin wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-0401...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> >
> > American and Baltic taxpayers are presently supporting actions
taken by
> > their nationals against "insurgents" in Iraq that do not differ in
any
>
> Care to post evidence that US or Baltic nationals have executed
pregnant
> women in Iraq? The US government has prosecuted its soldiers for
crimes
> commited, unlike Putin who supports Kononov in killing pregnant women
in
> order to defend "historical justice and the honor of your fighting
> comrades".
Putin honors the murdering russian chekist, kononov, because Putin is a
murdering russian chekist himself.
Uno Hu
Eugene Holman
lora...@cs.com wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > I do *not* support Kononov's crimes, something that I made quite
> > clear in my initial disclaimer.
>
> Your 'siclaimer' is thinly veiled racism allowing you (you think) the
> cover to promote russian directed genocide.
I wrote 'disclaimer', not 'siclaimer', analfabets nejęga
The men who committed the acts in question were wearing the uniform of the
Soviet Union, not Russia. I am most certainly not promoting genocide,
whether committed by Russians, Soviets, Latvians, or anybody else. I am
protesting against your outrageous use of double standards.
> > My point was that it is unfair to single Kononov
> > out, given his age and situation at the time the crimes were
> committed and
> > the fact that atrocities were committed by both sides.
>
> Lieing dog!
Bow wow!
> Latvia committed NO war crimes. NONE.
Latvians like Viktors Arâjs and his blue bus full of commandos
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/618980.stm], the frenzied Latvian
street crowd that torched the Gogol St. Great Choral Synagogue in Riga
with more than 100 refugees in the cellar, on July 4, 1941
[http://www.rumbula.org/riga_choral_synagogue.htm], and the Latvian police
officers who participated as organizers and executioners in the massacre
of Liepâja Jews on December 15-17, 1941
[http://www.liepajajews.org/LGhetto.htm], committed war crimes.
> Your over licked russkia STILL commits war crimes TODAY!
I have never denied or belittled the fact that Russia is committing war
crimes in Chechnya today. Or, for that matter, that people claiming to
represent the cause of Chechnyan independence have committed similar
atrocities in Russia. But Russia is not the same thing as the Soviet
Union, something your addled brain seems to be incapable of understanding.
> > Nazis, yes. The issue of Balts who collaborated with the Nazis is not
> so
> > clear, given that the issue itself is so complex. Friedrich Jeckeln,
> one
> > of the main Nazi butchers in the Baltics, was deservedly hanged in
> Riga;
> > Kalejs, Linnas, and Mikson, also Baltic butchers, were given more
> than the
> > benefit of the doubt.
>
> LIAR! If you can find a war criminal then go prosecute him (unless he
> is shielded in russia or someplace in the Mideast). But do not lie by
> making unsubstantiated accusations - even as you shield russian war
> criminals such as the putrid kononov.
The Latvian war criminal Viktors Arâjs was tried in the German Federal
Republic and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1979:
"The crime of the accused was illegal and punishable. Although he acted on
orders from Dr. Lange...these orders were criminal and could neither
justify nor excuse the actions of the accused... Moreover, the lawyer
Victor Arâjs knew that his actions were illegal"
- Judge Dr. Wagner, Hamburg Landgericht, 1979
Quoted in: Andrew Ezergailis, 1996, *The Holocaust in Latvia: 1941
1944*, Riga and Washington D. C., pg. 173.
The Soviet war criminal Vassily Kononov was tried and sentenced in Latvia
[http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=401&issue_id=2940&article_id=236643],
so your allegation that he is being shielded is as false as it is absurd.
> > > Being a communist
> > > is not a defence for killing pregnant women.
> >
> > The communists had no monopoly on killing Baltic women, pregnant or
> otherwise.
>
> Just most of them.
>
> We will always remember,
> Uno Hu
Source: http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/conclusions_frame.htm
<deletions>
<quote>
The [Estonian History/EH] Commission believes being a victim does not
preclude acts of perpetration. A people which respects the rule of law
should recognize crimes when they have been committed, and condemn them
and those who committed them.
It is unjust that an entire nation should be criminalized because of the
actions of some of its citizens; but it is equally unjust that its
criminals should be able to shelter behind a cloak of victimhood.
</quote>
/Eugene Holman
Peteris Cedrins
First, a brief précis of Kononov's crimes. He was the commander and
organizer of a group of eighteen Red Partisans in a brigade called the
"Little Boat" in the territory of occupied Latvia and Belarus. He organized
and planned a mission of revenge at Mazo Batu sādža (hamlet) near Ludza in
May 1944, in response to a German military unit's destruction of a Red
Partisan group commanded by Chugunov in February. Dressed in German
uniforms, Kononov's group entered the hamlet on 27 May, when its
inhabitants were preparing to celebrating the Pentecost. They divided into
smaller groups and broke into the houses. One Modest Krupnikov begged them
not to shoot him in front of his young son. They ordered Krupnikov to run
into the woods and shot him there, gravely wounding him and leaving him to
bleed to death. His cries for help were heard into the night, but the
inhabitants were too afraid to give him aid. Another group broke into the
home of Meikul Krupnik. Krupnik was in the sauna. They dragged him and
another man from the sauna to the house, stole weapons, and shot the men
and Krupnik's mother, then torched the house. Krupnik's pregnant wife
attempted to flee. They threw her into the burning house, where she was
burned to death together with the two men and Krupnik's mother. They
visited two other houses, robbing and killing. In total, they murdered nine
civilians, burning six of them (including three women, one of whom was
pregnant).
The information in the above summary is from the rejection of the appeal by
the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia, 28 September
2004.
http://www.at.gov.lv/fails.php?id=179
The decision includes extensive documentation of how the above actions
violate international law, since Kononov's attorney Ogurtsov based his
appeal on... guess what? Basically, on Latvia not having been occupied;
instead it was Holman's "constituent republic of the USSR." This is where
Holman obfuscates the most - "when the country was invaded by Nazi Germany
in June, 1941, [Latvia] was, from the standpoint of the major powers
involved in the struggle, Soviet territory under Nazi occupation." Excuse
me, but even you must realize that most powers did _not_ recognize, de jure
or often even de facto, Latvia's incorporation into the USSR, Eugene. The
Court uses the term "double occupation."
I completely agree with Martin - Holman's apologia disregards the fact that
most of those who could be punished for crimes on behalf of the Nazis were
punished (not to mention the fact that many innocent of such crimes were
punished, too). The idea that Kononov is being picked on because he's
Russian is pure whitewash -- just as Eugene's hints that we're not willing
to look at Baltic participation in atrocities is utter bull. Our president,
Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, talks about needing to examine Latvian collaboration
even on 14 June, the primary day of rememberance for those deported by the
Soviets. Since sovereignty was restored, Latvia has pursued ethnically
Latvian war criminals, too -- ethnicity really does not matter (note that
Kononov's victims don't sound like ethnic Latvians, either -- my guess is
that "Modest" would be an Old Believer?). It does not matter if Kononov or
his superiors -- who don't seem to have had any involvement in this
escapade -- believed Latvia to be an integral part of the USSR. Believing
something doesn't make it so; I doubt very much if anybody will argue that
the Reich Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was an integral part of
Germany, not occupied Czechoslovakia.
I also agree with Henry's observation about "Balt" and "Nazi" being
synonomous to many if not most Russians (just as we're being treated to a
display of how all Western Ukrainians fall under that label, too). I myself
have had many an adventure of being declared a "fascist" simply for
speaking Latvian. One of my uncles, who was deported for being in the Boy
Scouts ("a counter-revolutionary organization"), recalls the train stopping
in various towns on the way to Krasnoyarsk, townspeople swarming the cattle
cars to spit and scream, "fashisti!"
I am sure that these townspeople were "innocent," in Holmanesque terms,
having been brainwashed by Stalinist propaganda -- but the trouble is that
these views have barely changed; the Soviet mask has fallen to reveal the
fine old Russian imperialism that "Communism" merely masked. It is in
Russia and in the Russian diaspora (e.g., the Donbass or... Latvia, where
Zyuganov got more votes among Russian citizens than anywhere in Russia)
that one finds the most nostalgia for the USSR -- "it is that simple," as
Henry put it.
The trouble is that they'll continue to be brainwashed -- by Lt. Col. Putin
and his press. As I pointed out when I brought this up, the Russian media
isn't discussing the crimes -- what it's discussing is the nasty Latvian
fascist regime going after the heroic Russkies who liberated it, and the
esteemed Vova being a real man and sending his New Year's greetings to the
railroaded anti-Nazi Kononov. I'll have you know that Kononov spent his
entire life as a "hero," being trotted out to speak to schoolchildren about
his glorious career as a partisan. He still thinks he's a hero, beaming for
the cameras when he's handed his Russian passport by the Russian ambassador
-- "Russian citizenship -- you know its power," the ambassador said -- and
bouquets of carnations from the babushki who gather at the "Victory
Monument" every year.
It is Putin who doesn't want to consider the crimes. It is Putin who is the
ethnocentric fascist, suggesting that since Rīga is "60% Russian" the
government should be 60% Russian.
Latvians are very well aware of the complexities of the war and occupation,
Holman. They're also aware of the simplicity -- Latvia was under Russo-
Soviet occupation. Russia is the heir to the USSR, and in fact does not
recognize the occupation at all. No one doubts that the Russians suffered
under the Soviets -- they certainly did. The Germans suffered under the
Nazis, too -- not too many people can muster too many tears for them,
though... nor should they.
Visu labu,
/P
henry alminas
Whacking away at Balts is, of course, an old
and honored Kremlin tradition. And yet -
the question in my mind is: Why now and
why with a case such as this? I can't quite
believe that this was brought on by that
famous or infamous "Russian soul" overwhelming
Putin's better judgement.
Does anyone have a suggestion?
Best - - Henry
Peteris Cedrins
news:bmyCd.22556$3m6.4480@attbi_s51:
> Does anyone have a suggestion?
Sure. It's the latest, kinkiest "Westernized" twist on an old offensive
-- the Baltic presidents are to appear in Moscow in May to celebrate our
liberation by the Russians (oh, sorry; they're so very different from
the Soviets...). If they don't go or don't jump up and down like
grateful puppies -- we must all be Nazis.
/P
Eugene Holman
Cedrins <peteris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<deletions>
Thank you for the summary. The information given therein makes it
abundantly clear that Kononov and his group committed war crimes,
something that nobody participating in this exchange has denied or
questioned.
>
> http://www.at.gov.lv/fails.php?id=179
>
> The decision includes extensive documentation of how the above actions
> violate international law, since Kononov's attorney Ogurtsov based his
> appeal on... guess what? Basically, on Latvia not having been occupied;
> instead it was Holman's "constituent republic of the USSR." This is where
> Holman obfuscates the most - "when the country was invaded by Nazi Germany
> in June, 1941, [Latvia] was, from the standpoint of the major powers
> involved in the struggle, Soviet territory under Nazi occupation." Excuse
> me, but even you must realize that most powers did _not_ recognize, de jure
> or often even de facto, Latvia's incorporation into the USSR, Eugene.
I am not trying to obfuscate, but I recognize that the status of the
Baltics, *de facto* and *de jure* was not clear internationally when the
events in question took place. When Nazi Germany sent its
troops over the border of Lithuania on June 22, 1941, the international
community regarded this as an invasion of the USSR, not as an invasion of
Soviet-occupied Lithuania. When Nazi troops were eventually expelled from
the Baltics during the summer and fall of 1944, once again the
international community, for easily understandable reasons, regarded this
as a Soviet victory over forces that had invaded and occupied its
territory. Other than provide refuge for escaping Balts, neighboring
countries did virtually nothing to help recreate the pre-war Baltic
states; *de facto*, if not *de jure*, they accepted the re-establishment
of Soviet power in the Baltics as legitimate.
> The Court uses the term "double occupation."
The Court has the luxury of 60 years of distance from the events in
question. During the fateful autumn of 1944 the international community
was primarily concerned with defeating Nazi Germany and it had no desire
to provoke the USSR with issues such as having it give up some recently
and questionably acquired territory where both sides had committed
atrocities and decisive battles had taken place.
> I completely agree with Martin - Holman's apologia disregards the fact that
> most of those who could be punished for crimes on behalf of the Nazis were
> punished (not to mention the fact that many innocent of such crimes were
> punished, too).
My posting was not apologia. I stated in no uncertain terms that Kononov
was a war criminal and was punished accordingly. The only mitigating
circumstances are his young age at the time and the fact that the crimes
were committed in the heat of battle as a reprisal for actions taken
against his unit. The case appears to be a miniature version of My Lai,
where American troops committed similar crimes on a far larger scale after
losing control of themselves in the heat of battle
[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/mylai.htm]
consequent to sustaining heavy losses at the hands of "insurgents" [=
people defending their homes and lives against invaders]. In Kononov's
case the situation is different, but not lacking in similarities: he was
part of an army that was convinced that it was retaking its own territory
and "pacifying" [= killing] insurgents. You can't blame him, a soldier in
the advancing Red Army with orders to retake Nazi-occupied territory, for
thinking that way.
> The idea that Kononov is being picked on because he's
> Russian is pure whitewash -- just as Eugene's hints that we're not willing
> to look at Baltic participation in atrocities is utter bull.
That is not what I am claiming, Peteris. First of all, I stated nothing at
all about Kononov being Russian. Indeed, I emphasized that I regard this
as a crime committed by a *Soviet* unit trying to restore the territorial
integrity of the USSR, rid it of an invading army, and pacify locals who
were thought to be collaborating with it. Secondly, I stressed that it is
unfair to apply a double standard. Kononov committed war crimes and was
eventually punished for them. Latvian collaborators also committed war
crimes every bit as heinous, and many of them were punished as well,
despite Uno Hui's easily refuted claim that "Latvia committed NO war
crimes. NONE." [Source: Message-ID:
<1104818225.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>].
> Our president,
> Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, talks about needing to examine Latvian collaboration
> even on 14 June, the primary day of rememberance for those deported by the
> Soviets. Since sovereignty was restored, Latvia has pursued ethnically
> Latvian war criminals, too -- ethnicity really does not matter (note that
> Kononov's victims don't sound like ethnic Latvians, either -- my guess is
> that "Modest" would be an Old Believer?). It does not matter if Kononov or
> his superiors -- who don't seem to have had any involvement in this
> escapade -- believed Latvia to be an integral part of the USSR. Believing
> something doesn't make it so; I doubt very much if anybody will argue that
> the Reich Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was an integral part of
> Germany, not occupied Czechoslovakia.
The issue is more complex. Bohemia and Moravia were administered as a
protectorate of the Reich, unlike, Austria, Danzig, and the Wartheland,
which were actually incorporated into it. My understanding is that the
Soviet-installed bogus governments of the three Baltic countries submitted
"applications" to Moscow for their countries to be admitted to the USSR as
constituent republics, and that these "applications" were approved by the
Supreme Soviet in late August, 1941, after which all international borders
were removed, the ruble was introduced, and all former national symbols
were abolished. From a strictly legal standpoint, the annexations were a
criminal act, but from a practical standpoint the citizens of the three
Baltic countries
were as much citizens of the USSR after September 1940 as citizens of
former Austria were citizens of the Reich after the 1938 Anschluß.
From conversations I had with the Latvian late father-in-law of my
Estonian colleague, I know that the issue of who would have control over
the Baltic countries was hotly debated by the young men of draft age
during the summer and fall of 1944. Many wanted to join resistance
movements and try to prevent Soviet power from being re-established. Many
others understood that their war-torn countries did not have the resources
to resist the Red Army, and that such resistance would be regarded as
treason by the Soviet authorities. Thus, many Latvian men, in order to
save would could be saved, voluntarily donned Soviet uniforms and fought
in the Soviet Army during the last weeks of the war. Many of those who
were not pragmatic enough to make such a decision found themselves in the
wrong uniform when the war eneded, and were treated accordingly by the
Soviet authorities in the reconstituted Soviet Baltic republics. Claiming
that the Soviet Union had no right to be in the Baltic countries was not a
defense strategy that could save a young man from a sentence to Siberia
or worse - for treason in the immediate post-war environment.
There is no reason to regard this account of things as any kind of an
apology. The Baltic countries were in a hopeless situation. The Soviet
Union, the only power in the area with the ability to assert its will in
the Baltic countries, regarded them as occupied parts of its own
territory, as did Kononov, on the one hand, and the Baltic men who made
the difficult decision to fight in the Red Army rather than risk being
accused of treason to the Soviet state, on the other.
> I also agree with Henry's observation about "Balt" and "Nazi" being
> synonomous to many if not most Russians (just as we're being treated to a
> display of how all Western Ukrainians fall under that label, too). I myself
> have had many an adventure of being declared a "fascist" simply for
> speaking Latvian. One of my uncles, who was deported for being in the Boy
> Scouts ("a counter-revolutionary organization"), recalls the train stopping
> in various towns on the way to Krasnoyarsk, townspeople swarming the cattle
> cars to spit and scream, "fashisti!"
>
> I am sure that these townspeople were "innocent," in Holmanesque terms,
> having been brainwashed by Stalinist propaganda -- but the trouble is that
> these views have barely changed;
Once again, you are simplifying complex issues. The term "fashisti" became
an overall cover term for people who demonstrated any forms of nationalism
in the Stalinist USSR, and this tradition has been retained among the more
unlettered strata of the Russian population. It is ironic, given that the
Soviet state itself had many of the attributes of fascism as understood by
political scientists, but hardly surprising.
> the Soviet mask has fallen to reveal the
> fine old Russian imperialism that "Communism" merely masked. It is in
> Russia and in the Russian diaspora (e.g., the Donbass or... Latvia, where
> Zyuganov got more votes among Russian citizens than anywhere in Russia)
> that one finds the most nostalgia for the USSR -- "it is that simple," as
> Henry put it.
While I willingly admit that Soviet Communism and Russian imperialism
eventually reached a symbiotic accommodation, this development took more
than a generation, millions of deaths, and the invasion of the USSR by
Nazi Germany before assuming a recognizable form. As originally conceived,
communism was supposed to be a post-imperialistic, post-nationalistic
ideology which, like market capitalism today, would be a panacea for all
the world's problems once implemented on a world-wide scale by competent
revolutionaries and social engineers. I'm sorry, but I remain unable to
dismiss ideologically committed communists, some of the most fanatic of
which were people such as the Latvian Arvids Pelshe, the Finn Otto
Kuusinen, the Chinese Mao Zedong, the Argentinian Che Guevara, or even the
Russian teacher of scientific communism Raisa Gorbacheva, as mere Russian
imperialists in ideological drag.
> The trouble is that they'll continue to be brainwashed -- by Lt. Col. Putin
> and his press. As I pointed out when I brought this up, the Russian media
> isn't discussing the crimes -- what it's discussing is the nasty Latvian
> fascist regime going after the heroic Russkies who liberated it, and the
> esteemed Vova being a real man and sending his New Year's greetings to the
> railroaded anti-Nazi Kononov.
Here I agree with you completely. It was a tasteless and provocative
action on the part of Putin, and it did absolutely nothing to improve
already strained Latvian-Russian relations. Once again, though, things
have to be put into perspective. I don't know if you remember the
atmosphere that prevailed during the trial of Lt. William Calley over the
My Lai massacre. A considerable segment of the American public regarded
his actions at My Lai as "heroic", and President Nixon regarded it as
politically expedient to propose that his sentence be commuted. Uno Hui
will ejaculate that the Kononov case has nothing at all to do with My Lai,
but I will counter by saying that at the grassroots level the public
generally supports its men in uniform, no matter what they do, and a
competent politician is not going to get himself involved in philosophical
debates about morality and individual responsibility when these issues
crop up. This was recently made abundantly clear in the US with the
overwhelming victory for George Bush who, according to the principles of
international law and all logic, is a war criminal who has invaded,
occupied, and regime-changed a sovereign country half way around the
globe.
Putin's commendation of Kononov turns out to be nothing more than an
awkward instantiation of a populist pathology that is all too common in
the world.
Source: http://www.courttv.com/archive/greatesttrials/mylai/hammer.html
<quote>
<deletions>
The defense strategy, if there was any strategy, boggles my mind. On the
one level was Calley's testimony. On another was that he was just
following orders. On another level it was that he was suffering from
combat fatigue. Where was it going, what was it, I couldn't figure it
out.
Daniel had the last word and it was one of the more emotional things that
I have heard in a courtroom: Yes others are to blame, but who killed
more? Yes, others are to blame, but isn't every man responsible for his
own acts? You men on the jury have to decide, you have to decided upon
the basis of the evidence, you have to do your duty as he didn't do his
duty.
At the end of the court martial, I had a very strange feeling . Calley
had become a hero to a lot of people. I remember outside the courthouse,
people standing with signs: "We are with you, Rusty," "You should get a
medal." What about the guys who didn't do anything? What about all of
the soldiers in Vietnam who didn't do anything? What about the fine 6 men
who were on the military jury who found him guilty who did their duty? A
hero was made out of a guy who committed a heinous crime, whether he was
acting under orders or not, and there certainly are some questions as to
whether he was acting under orders or not. There is the reasonable man
argument. A reasonable man knows that he does not kill children, but he
did. Yet he became the hero and the villains were Aubrey Daniel who
prosecuted the case, Judge Kennedy, the members of the jury, the guys who
testified, I could not believe it. President Nixon intervened to commute
his sentence, he shouldn't go to Ft. Leavenworth, he should be under
house arrest and then his sentence was ended, he was free. What about the
people who acted like human beings? To me, I still do not find it
understandable. The victim is his own murderer, the victim is to blame.
</quote>
> I'll have you know that Kononov spent his
> entire life as a "hero," being trotted out to speak to schoolchildren about
> his glorious career as a partisan. He still thinks he's a hero, beaming for
> the cameras when he's handed his Russian passport by the Russian ambassador
> -- "Russian citizenship -- you know its power," the ambassador said -- and
> bouquets of carnations from the babushki who gather at the "Victory
> Monument" every year.
I know this and am saddened by it. But, once again, Russia has no monopoly
on this. The German media initially applauded the total destruction of the
Czech village Lidice and the murder of most of its inhabitants as
justified and appropriate retribution for the assassination of Reinhard
Heydrich [http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/lidice.html]. Paul
Tibbets, commander of the airplane that dropped the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima, and Arthur "Bomber" Harris, architect of the bombing of
Dresden, both of whom were fźted as heroes after the war, killed far more
pregnant women, babies, and children than Kononov and his unit could even
have dreamed of.
In a country such as Russia, one of the few bright lights in the recent
history of which is the decisive contribution made by the Soviet Union to
the defeat of Nazi Germany, this type of hero worship, while regrettable,
is understandable. As time goes by and versions of
history written in shades of gray rather than in stark black and white
appear, attitudes will inevitably change. The evil perpetuated by
Kononov and his unit pales in comparison to the pogrom that resulted in
tyhe destruction of the Great Choral Synagogue in Riga, the massacres at
Rumbula, Liepāja, and elsewhere in Latvian cities, the predations of the
Arājs Commando in the Latvian countryside, or the treatment of Latvians by
other Latvians at Salaspils, Mez^aparks, and other concentration camps.
> It is Putin who doesn't want to consider the crimes. It is Putin who is the
> ethnocentric fascist, suggesting that since Rīga is "60% Russian" the
> government should be 60% Russian.
Putin is evidently an intelligent man, but he sometimes says incredibly
stupid things. In this he differes from George W. Bush, evidently not an
intelligent man, who sometimes says incredibly stupid things.
> Latvians are very well aware of the complexities of the war and occupation,
> Holman.
I am also aware of this, as I am sure you know.
> They're also aware of the simplicity -- Latvia was under Russo-
> Soviet occupation. Russia is the heir to the USSR, and in fact does not
> recognize the occupation at all. No one doubts that the Russians suffered
> under the Soviets -- they certainly did. The Germans suffered under the
> Nazis, too -- not too many people can muster too many tears for them,
> though... nor should they.
War is hell and everyone suffers. But in every war and on every side you
have heroes as well as villains. Since the mainstream history of wars is
usually written from the victors' perspective, Kononov was a hero from
1945 until his case began to be investigated in independent Latvia, an
eventuality nobody could have foreseen until 1991. Similarly, not everyone
who participated in the Arājs Commando was an executioner, even if that is
the image that mainstream history presents us with. Fifty years from now
Jessica Lynch might not be regarded as the heroine and role model she is
regarded by some as being now, while Lynndie England might be regarded as
a victim rather than as the war criminal she is seen as being now.
While I keep track of what has been done in the Baltic countries to give a
fair account of what happened there between 1940 and 1991, the work of the
Estonian History Commission being particularly commendable in this
respect, Latvia in particular has been receiving a bad press
internationally for footdragging and obfuscation. I am not in a position
to determine how justified this criticism is, but it is obviously grist
for Putin's propaganda mill.
I base my claim on articles in the mainstream media such as the following:
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/618980.stm
<quote>
BBC News Online: World: Europe
Wednesday, 26 January, 2000, 00:56 GMT
Latvia killers rehabilitated
By Jon Silverman in Riga
In a forest just outside Latvia's capital, Riga, a massive slaughter took
place in the winter of 1941.
At Rumbula, 30,000 Jews were herded to their deaths in freezing temperatures.
Archive pictures show the victims' last moments, as they were escorted to
the killing pits by the local security police, the Arajs Kommando.
Now the BBC has learned that some of the murderers have been quietly
rehabilitated, given extra pensions and welfare benefits.
The information has been obtained by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which
tracks suspected Nazis. The documents tell a revealing story.
The centre's Efraim Zuroff says: "We can give you the dates when they got
the rehabilitation. Some people applied several times and only got it
recently.
"But the evidence is absolutely unequivocal, it's clear-cut. We have over
40 names of people convicted of terrible crimes who, during the past few
years, were granted rehabilitation by the Latvian authorities."
Archives
The evidence was found in the Latvian state archives, where thousands of
files were opened by the former Soviet secret police, the KGB, over a
period of decades.
We were not allowed to see the file on Konrad Kalejs, the former commando
officer who left the UK and returned to Australia in a blaze of publicity
earlier in January.
But state prosecutor Janis Osis, who is in charge of the Kalejs case, says
it is too easy to generalise about war criminals.
"The Arajs Kommando didn't only consist of executioners but also
soldiers who fought against Soviet Red Army partisans. They didn't commit
any war crimes," says Mr Osis.
Terrible things
But the evidence in the Jewish Documentation Museum paints a different
picture.
It is a matter of historical record that the group's leader, Viktors
Arajs, was jailed for war crimes in the 1970s.
Arnis Upmolis was also convicted of war crimes and spent 10 years in
Soviet labour camps.
He joined the Arajs Kommando voluntarily in 1942.
"I was one of the guards when the Jews were shot," says Mr Upmolis. "My
job was just to stop trespassers."
But although he says he was not directly involved, he admits that terrible
things were done. "There was a special execution unit, and yes, it was a
crime against humanity."
Respects
A bleak stretch of land outside Riga is the site of a former concentration
camp, where inmates died of cold, of hunger, and random killings by the
guards.
Those guards were part of the Arajs Kommando.
Now, with rehabilitation, it seems they are no longer counted as criminals.
Jewish survivors come here to pay their respects, but their number
dwindles by the year.
The survivors say that if education about the Holocaust dies with them,
their suffering will have been in vain.
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
Cedrins <peteris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "henry alminas" <halm...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:bmyCd.22556$3m6.4480@attbi_s51:
>
> > Does anyone have a suggestion?
>
> Sure. It's the latest, kinkiest "Westernized" twist on an old offensive
> -- the Baltic presidents are to appear in Moscow in May to celebrate our
> liberation by the Russians (oh, sorry; they're so very different from
> the Soviets...).
Given that tens of thousands of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians were
fighting in the Red Army, and not because they wanted to, during the last
months of the war, the distinctions between being liberated from Nazism
as opposed to just being liberated and this by the Soviets and not just
by the Russians, are valid ones.
> If they don't go or don't jump up and down like
> grateful puppies -- we must all be Nazis.
If the points are stressed that liberation from Nazism and liberation from
Soviet rule are different things, and that the events of 1945 were not
just the result of sacrifices made by the Russians, then any expectations
of puppy-like behavior can be dismissed.
The events of May 1945 meant both a major military victory and world power
status for the USSR, for which reason the feelings of people who
participated in them or still retain strong pro-Soviet sympathies have for
them are understandable and justified. For the people in the Baltic
countries, May 1945 meant the end of one nightmare and the beginning of
another one. The only genuine reason that they have to celebrate them is
that it meant the restoration of peace to an area that had suffered
inordinately as a battleground during the previous four years.
I don't see any reason for the Baltic presidents *not* to participate; but
I expect them to have - and show - more ambivalent feelings about the
events being commemorated than their counterparts from other countries.
Two Baltic presidents were forced to spend most of their adult lives in
exile due to the aftermath of the Nazi occupation.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Leonard Tamulonis
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-0401...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> <mart...@joymail.com> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
> out, given his age and situation at the time the crimes were committed
What would be the cutoff age to forgive crimes and could we apply this to
ANY crimes at ANY time??
and
> the fact that atrocities were committed by both sides.
Does this mean we can go back to tribal justice and, for instance, forgive
revenge killings at any time, anywhere?
Or should we trust in the law?
Martin
The solution to this is the Baltics ought to send their prime ministers
instead of their presidents. We all want to celebrate the defeat of Nazism
but we don't want to legitimise the Soviet's re-occupation of the Baltics by
the presence of the Baltic presidents at Moscow's May 9th parade.
Regards,
Martin
Regards,
Martin
Martin
> In article <1104843944.d5583502be0f070bc27308f5e13eb406@teranews>, Peteris
> Cedrins <peteris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
>
> Thank you for the summary. The information given therein makes it
> abundantly clear that Kononov and his group committed war crimes,
> something that nobody participating in this exchange has denied or
> questioned.
>
> >
> > http://www.at.gov.lv/fails.php?id=179
> >
> > The decision includes extensive documentation of how the above actions
> > violate international law, since Kononov's attorney Ogurtsov based his
> > appeal on... guess what? Basically, on Latvia not having been occupied;
> > instead it was Holman's "constituent republic of the USSR." This is
where
> > Holman obfuscates the most - "when the country was invaded by Nazi
Germany
> > in June, 1941, [Latvia] was, from the standpoint of the major powers
> > involved in the struggle, Soviet territory under Nazi occupation."
Excuse
> > me, but even you must realize that most powers did _not_ recognize, de
jure
> > or often even de facto, Latvia's incorporation into the USSR, Eugene.
>
> I am not trying to obfuscate, but
But Eugene will anyway.
> I recognize that the status of the
> Baltics, *de facto* and *de jure* was not clear internationally when the
> events in question took place. When Nazi Germany sent its
> troops over the border of Lithuania on June 22, 1941, the international
> community regarded this as an invasion of the USSR, not as an invasion of
> Soviet-occupied Lithuania.
Who is this mythical "the international community" you speak of Eugene?
Members of Comintern?
> When Nazi troops were eventually expelled from
> the Baltics during the summer and fall of 1944, once again the
> international community, for easily understandable reasons, regarded this
> as a Soviet victory over forces that had invaded and occupied its
> territory. Other than provide refuge for escaping Balts, neighboring
> countries did virtually nothing to help recreate the pre-war Baltic
> states; *de facto*, if not *de jure*, they accepted the re-establishment
> of Soviet power in the Baltics as legitimate.
??
If its not *de jure*, then its not legitimate. De jure is a latin term
meaning "by law". If it is not "by law", it can not be "legitimate", Eugene.
Regards,
Martin
Peteris Cedrins
To resort to allegory - so I live in this house. It is between a couple of
apartment buildings, a Red one and a Black one, among a smattering of
houses both Black and Red resent and dump on. Once it belonged to the Black
One, a phantom of its former self, then to the Red one, laid waste, the
Swedes and Poles and so on in between - but at the time we are talking
about it is a house and a plot of land to which I have title. Undisputed
title. Black and Red both acknowledge this. Red and Black said it's mine
forever; Lenin signed and gushed. Red, run by a Georgian, is at odds with
Black, run by an Austrian, etc. Both wanna take over all of the apartment
houses from here to Antarctica, the one through revolution of the
proletariat and the other through the new world order and master race.
Who really cares, later - except that Red "won," meaning that Black went
bonkers and lost the bid for world domination, and the nice, big apartment
buildings to the west, now deliciously democratic, still appreciate the
help of Red in snuffing, er, reforming Black. Black is thoroughly reformed
and re-educated, to the point where Kindergarten teachers have difficulty
getting kids to stand in line (too "authoritarian") - Red goes on to rot.
Finally the Red splits into condos -- is dismembered, in effect. I get my
house back. The house is, of course, full of Red kids - but hey, I'm a
liberal. The thing is that you don't have a single document showing that
Red ever owned my house - because my house was always my house. Out of the
goodness of my heart, and in the interests of peace in Utopia, I am quite
willing to let sleeping dogs lie and look to the future of my - our -
property.
Terrible things have happened, though. My house was never perfect, but in
1940 it turned Red. Granted, not a few in my family were rather ruddy back
in the days when the Black building had enslaved us - some in the Red
house, oscillating between hatred for the West and internal enemies and
whatever the latest rage is over there, even blame our humble home for
infecting it with redness, which is funny if you compare the size of our
properties - but the fact is that in 1940 they came from the Red building
in tanks and raped my family. A year later, guys from the Black building
drove them out and raped my family again. Then the Reds came back and raped
my family for almost fifty years.
As Holman says - "shit happens," "war is hell," etc. Let us concentrate
upon my little brother, who raped my niece in the midst of this gory orgy -
no point in looking at the big picture, which is institutional rape by Red
and Black and tolerance, peace and love over at my house. Rape runs in our
blood, it seems, to some - there was no rapin' going on when it was our
house, interestingly enough, but obviously we were just waiting with bated
breath for the Black and the Red to get here so we could indulge my little
brother and Holman could lean back and pontificate on man's inhumanity to
man. It is all so complex and confusing! We need Ephraim Zuroff to explain
(we probably require one of the "explanations" he gives to the Russian
press; whenever Latvians ask poor Ephraim anything, he says everything is
hunky-dory and doesn't reveal diddly-squat...).
I don't see the point in most of what you are writing, Eugene.
> In a country such as Russia, one of the few bright lights in the recent
> history of which is the decisive contribution made by the Soviet Union to
> the defeat of Nazi Germany, this type of hero worship, while regrettable,
> is understandable. As time goes by and versions of
> history written in shades of gray rather than in stark black and white
> appear, attitudes will inevitably change.
Whose time, how? What time is it in Russia (here in Daugavpils, the
Russians celebrate the New Year an hour early). Of course it's
understandable -- but what's changing? The myth is simply being compounded.
That's the root of the issue as I presented it -- I wasn't talking about
Kononov in the winds of war; I noted Putin's New Year's greetings to a
murderer in a thread devoted to the New Year. Henry is much closer to the
truth than you are -- Balts bad, Balts Nazis, the only bad thing the
Soviets did in the War was not kill enough Balts. Why do you feel the need
to make it seem so very "understandable"? Of course -- "the Balts did the
Balts."
When was the last time any Baltic government said anything sick, absurd,
and threatening to the Kremlin, Eugene? Oh, I know -- we can't; we're too
little. But do you count the sick things coming from Moscow? Any of them? I
mean, for instance -- the Russian Minister of Defense in London explaining
that Latvia is a threat to Europe because it's anti-democratic and
disregards human rights? Ukraine, to you, was not a watershed -- nah, it's
okay for Russia and its supporters to blatantly forge election results and
poison people... I'm sure you can think of various CIA plots to "balance"
this with, and Russia is only doing some good old-fashioned nation-
building; no need for double standards, etc. You really do sound like a
Kremlin mouthpiece when you talk this way, Eugene -- sorry.
Shades of gray, Eugene, appear at a distance if you stare at reams of
printed matter. Jingojonny can claim that Latvians never killed anybody --
I never claimed any such thing, and neither did anyone else. Some did kill,
and some did much more killing than Kononov ever dreamed of, to be sure --
but your argument sounds suspiciously like, "yeah, he stabbed his wife, but
Hannibal Lecter, look at him..." Then you bring Kalējs into it. I am not
going to defend Kalējs. But Canada and Australia couldn't find enough
evidence to convict the man -- with all the resources and prejudices at
their disposal. You can't just go about punishing people for being pawns --
it's just not done. It's not a crime to be the guard at a nasty prison
camp, or to be part of a unit that commits atrocities in war -- if it were,
I am sure Latvia would be trying a lot of people, and you would be
protesting about their youthful confusion.
Shades of gray do not provide shadow for the harsh reality of the time,
though. You constantly want to play "the Soviet Union is not Russia" -- but
all this leads to is an apology for the Russians who cannot look the Soviet
Union in the eyes. Vovochka himself has said that the collapse of the USSR
was a "national tragedy." No, he's not stupid -- it certainly was a tragedy
for the sort of nation he represents.
Visu labu,
/P